Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on rapper Lil Nas X:

While most people probably missed the BET Awards on June 27 (they only average about 3 million viewers) that did not stop the rapper Lil Nas X from displaying his hatred for the Catholic Church.

On the red carpet, Nas, a gay black man, wore a flamboyant dress from Andrea Grossi’s debuted fashion line, “Welcome to DeusLand.” Grossi claims the inspiration for this apparel is to highlight the wrongs of the 21st century.

In the dress worn by Nas, Grossi attempts to draw parallels between the Nazis and the Catholic Church claiming that both “ideologies… have led the populations for a long time in wrong ways.”

Naturally, Nas jumped at the opportunity to display his vitriol for the Church by donning the dress for his red carpet appearance.

Nas claims his experience as a gay black man has caused him to suffer terrible oppression at the hands of the Church. Of course he has yet to provide any evidence of this, but this has become the inspiration for his “music,” which engages in activism designed to mock and belittle the Church.

In his music video titled “Montero (Call Me By Your Name),” Nas graphically displays his animosity for Catholicism. In the video, Nas spites the Church for its teachings on sexuality by venturing to hell and engaging in sexual acts with Satan. Nas then proceeds to kill the devil crowning himself as the new king of hell.

However, this did not go far enough for Nas. He intended to coincide the release of this music video with his launch of a limited edition of satanic-themed shoes, which according to some reports contained a drop of human blood. In keeping with the theme, he intended to sell only 666 of pairs. This venture came to a screeching halt when Nike threatened to sue Nas for using Nike shoes unauthorized by the company.

From dresses to music videos to shoes, Nas has taken many opportunities to bash Catholicism. He is a troubled man in need of serious counseling.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an Italian bill that the Holy See is fighting:

The Holy See is fighting an LGBTQ-inspired bill in Italy that would encroach on the free speech rights of the Catholic Church. The bill, which is the work of Alessandro Zen, a homosexual lawmaker, is being promoted by his followers as a necessary step to combat violence and hate speech. It is the latter issue that concerns the Holy See.

Italy already has laws that condemn homophobia, so Zen’s bill calls into question whether this proposed law is necessary. Catholics are rightly concerned that its real target is to muzzle their free speech rights. A more technical area of concern is whether the bill violates the 1929 Lateran pacts, which established Vatican City as a sovereign state.

Zen and his supporters say the Holy See has nothing to worry about as the bill does not seek to deny freedom of expression. But this is hardly reassuring: Such initiatives have been interpreted in many democratic countries in very expansive ways. What makes this such a serious matter is that those found guilty of hate crimes can face up to four years in prison.

Cesare Mirabelli, a former president of Italy’s constitutional court, said the bill would “put at risk” freedom of thought and speech. Others have argued that it could require Catholic schools to adopt state-mandated programs that work to undermine Catholic teachings on marriage and sexuality.

Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, said that discrimination is defined in broad terms and could be a real problem. “The need for definition is particularly important because the legislation moves in an area of criminal relevance where, as is well noted, what is allowed and what is forbidden must be well determined.”

The Holy See’s fears are real. It is a sad fact that LGBTQ policies, programs and laws are being used in Europe and North America to punish those who disagree with their agenda.

Journalists have been investigated by the police in England for using “the wrong pronoun” when discussing transgender persons. In other words, it is not acceptable for a reporter to call a man who transitions to a female “he” or “him.” England has also censored the speech of professors who are critics of the LGBT agenda. The same is true in Scotland.

This is nothing when compared to what is going on in Canada. A few months ago, a judge issued a warrant for the arrest of a father after he called his daughter “daughter” and used pronouns such as “she” and “her.” Because his daughter now identifies as a boy, her father was found to be in contempt of court. The father was sent to prison.

In California, they instituted a law aimed at those who work in long-term care facilities. The law authorizes jail time for anyone who “willfully and repeatedly” fails to use “a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.”

Jack Philips made headline news when the Colorado baker won in the U.S. Supreme Court when he refused to create a cake celebrating the “marriage” of two men. However, LGBTQ radicals will not give up in their quest to punish him. He recently lost in a Denver district court when he said he would not make a cake to celebrate a sex transition. Similar cases involving bakers and florists are before the courts.

Big business and education are also hot beds of radicalism. For example, Amazon is a proponent of book banning: It will not allow books to be advertised that criticize the transgender movement. A Virginia school suspended an elementary school teacher for not using the “proper pronouns” to describe a transgender student.

LGBTQ activists are not well represented in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Russia, China or Japan. They tend to flourish wherever well-educated, totally amoral, white people live.

The Holy See has every right as a sovereign state to fight this menace. It is not the Catholic Church that is intolerant; rather, it is the zealots involved in this crazed movement.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attacks by the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Church:

It is no secret that the globalists at the U.N. hate the Catholic Church. Since 1994, the Catholic League has lodged multiple complaints against these Catholic-bashers. This June, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has been rather active, targeting the Church twice.

Starting on June 4, so-called experts from OHCHR put out a statement condemning the Church for the mistreatment of indigenous children at residential schools in Canada. But this is not exclusively a Catholic problem. It is most especially a Canadian problem, and these tragedies are not unique to Catholic run residential schools. Virtually every faith and institution in Canada is culpable. Yet, true to globalist Catholic-bashing form OHCHR chooses to single out the Church.

Hot on the heels of this attack, on June 21, some of these same savants wasted no time to express further animosity toward the Church. In this instance, they called on the Holy See to act against sexual abuse and provide reparations.

While it is bad enough to paint sexual abuse as a problem that the Church has failed to address, what makes OHCHR attack even more egregious is that one of the largest offenders of sexual abuse in the world is the U.N.

In December of 2019, a report was issued condemning U.N. employees for the rape of impoverished women in Haiti and fathering hundreds of children. Since then it appears the U.N. has done little to combat these atrocities.

In February of this year, a study by the University of Nairobi found that “sexual exploitation and abuse…continues to undermine U.N. operations” in Africa. The study notes that while the U.N. has a zero tolerance policy for these kinds of offenses they hesitate to implement them for fear that countries will withdraw their peacekeeping forces if their soldiers are investigated for sex crimes.

Far from having a perfect record, in fact they have one of the worst records on sexual abuse, the U.N. tries with a fraudulent air of moral superiority to cast aspersions on the Church while ignoring their own horrendous record. Their hypocrisy is galling.

Further, only Israel and Burma (Myanmar) have been targeted more than the Vatican by OHCHR this month, and no other faith has been singled out.

Without a doubt, OHCHR loves picking on the Church. Maybe if the U.N. spent less time bashing Catholics and more time getting their own house in order, the world might be a better place.

Contact OHCHR: InfoDesk@ohchr.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a threat to the Catholic Church’s tax-exempt status:

Rep. Jared Huffman is a Democrat from California, an atheist, and an anti-Catholic bigot. He showed his real colors when he recently tweeted the following: “If they’re [the Catholic bishops] going to politically weaponize religion by ‘rebuking’ Democrats who support women’s reproductive choice, then a ‘rebuke’ of their tax-exempt status may be in order.”

Huffman obviously objects to the First Amendment’s provisions on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Accordingly, he should resign from the Congress of the United States. There are plenty of other countries where he would fit in just fine, ranging from Iran to North Korea.

In 2018, Huffman co-founded an atheist congressional group. He is so much in love with abortion and gay rights that he has received a 100% voting record from NARAL and the Human Rights Campaign. Not surprisingly, he was a co-sponsor of the Equality Act, the most anti-religious liberty congressional bill ever introduced.

It is important for the Catholic League to know how many other Democrats believe that the Catholic Church should lose its tax-exempt status. Hopefully, they will now come out of the shadows and let us know.

Contact Huffman’s chief of staff: Jennifer.goedke@mail.house.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remarks recently made by CNN’s Don Lemon on the issue of race:

CNN’s Don Lemon recently said, “We’re living in two different realities as black and white people.” But it is not race that divides us as much as it is ideology.

If blacks and whites really lived in different realities it would make it difficult for them to get along. However, Lemon, who is black, is positive proof that this is not the case. In his Washington Post interview, it was noted that he has “a bit of a lovefest” going on with CNN’s Chris Cuomo. Indeed, Cuomo, who is white, likes to say during the handoff, “I love you.” This suggests that Cuomo and Lemon share the same reality.

If Lemon really believed that the races live in two different realities, why did he choose to live in a town where 90% of the people are white, and rich ones at that? His home in Sag Harbor, New York is only 4.62% black, and it has not one Native American or Pacific Islander living there. Also, why, if whites and blacks live in two different realities is his “spouse” a white man? Seems they get along just fine.

Rep. Byron Donalds is a black Republican congressman. He recently sought to join the Congressional Black Caucus, but he was denied. He was not denied because he is black but because he is a Republican.

Whatever happened to being inclusive? Why did black congressional Democrats exclude Donalds? They proved that it is ideology, not race, that divides us.

Why is it that liberal black politicians and activists tend to support proposals to defund the police, while the average black person is opposed to this policy? It is not race that is dividing these two clusters of African Americans, it’s ideology.

The U.S. bishops recently completed one of their two biannual meetings. All share the same religion, all are (approximately) of the same rank, all are men, and most are white. Their demographic profile suggests they live in the same reality. Yet they cannot agree on what to do about offering Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Once again it is ideology that matters.

There is also plenty of division in many American families. This is most evident during the holidays every year. Yet family members, being of the same race, share the same reality, at least according to Lemon. However, what divides them are their ideological predilections, not their race.

The Left has race on the brain. They see every issue through the prism of race, looking desperately for evidence that divides us. Indeed, racial division is what they live for, which explains their embrace of critical race theory. They don’t fight racism—they promote it.

Don Lemon is not an anomaly. He is a prototypical liberal, one whose ideology, not his race, determines his perception of reality.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a letter by Catholic Democrats directed at the bishops:

Seems like everyone is lecturing the bishops these days.

The latest to do so are 59 Democrats who identify as Catholics. Leading the charge is Rep. Rosa DeLauro. On June 18, she issued a “Statement of Principles” that chastises the bishops for addressing the issue of Catholic public figures who reject core Catholic moral teachings; 73% of the bishops voted to consider a document on the suitability of these self-identified Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

DeLauro has a long history of telling the bishops what to do.

In 2006, she issued a “Statement of Principles,” signed by 55 self-identified Catholic Democrats, saying that one can be a Catholic in good standing and promote abortion rights. In 2007, she was one of 18 self-professed Catholic Democrats to criticize Pope Benedict XVI on this subject. In 2015, she led a contingent of 93 self-identified Catholic Democrats telling Pope Francis what issues he needs to address when he comes to the United States: the right to life was not among them, but climate change made the cut.

In the latest “Statement of Principles,” DeLauro and company say they are proud to be part of the Catholic tradition that “expresses a consistent moral framework for life,” adding that they “agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life.” Yet virtually all the signatories have a pro-abortion voting record.

DeLauro has voted for human embryonic stem cell research, a process that involves the killing of nascent human life. She opposes making human cloning for reproduction against the law. She has consistently voted against bans on partial-birth abortions, and has a 100% rating from NARAL on pro-abortion legislation.

The “Statement of Principles” expresses dismay over poverty, saying what is needed is greater “access to education for all.” Yet DeLauro has voted against requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work. In other words, she wants to keep the poor on the dole instead of enabling them to work themselves out of poverty.

She has also voted against every school choice bill ever proposed, making it risible for her to suggest that she wants “access to education for all.” In fact, she voted against reauthorizing the Washington D.C. opportunity scholarship program, the initiative that has worked so well for poor African Americans.

DeLauro and her self-identified Catholic Democrats have made their biggest media splash saying how hypocritical it is of the bishops to focus on abortion and not the death penalty, both of which the Catholic Church opposes. Perhaps that is because they are not equal.

It is estimated that between 1973 and 2019, 61,628,584 innocent children were killed in their mother’s womb. The number of convicted criminals who were executed during that time was 1,512.

Curiously, the “Statement of Principles” encourages “alternatives to abortion.”

But why are alternatives needed if abortion does not kill? Is there something lurking inside these pro-abortion self-identified Catholic Democrats that is giving them pause? We need to know what it is, because if they do, in fact, understand that abortion kills innocent human life, they would be getting off easy if the bishops simply denied them Communion.

Contact DeLauro’s chief of staff, Liz Albertine: elizabeth.albertine@mail.house.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on New York City’s mayoralty race:

The New York Post has published the results of a survey of likely Democratic voters in New York City; it was conducted by the esteemed polling firm McLaughlin & Associates. Early voting for the new mayor has begun and the primary voting date is June 22.

There are eight Democrats running for the job, and all of them are liberals; Eric Adams is the most conservative-leaning candidate but he is no conservative. In second place is Maya Wiley, an extreme left-wing activist who says she may disarm the police.

The two Republican candidates are both conservatives, which is why they will lose. New Yorkers like liberals, even though the current mayor, who is a Marxist, has ruined the city.

It is not blacks who are leading the liberal charge, it’s whites. Manhattan is the most wealthy and white of the five boroughs, and their favorite candidate is Kathryn Garcia. She was basically unknown until the white liberal’s newspaper of choice, the New York Times, endorsed her. She is almost tied with Wiley.

Adams is perceived to be the toughest on crime, and this explains why blacks, who are the most likely to be a crime victim, choose him as their favorite. As the poll also discloses, blacks are less likely to support defunding the police than whites are. Similarly, New Yorkers with the highest income do not like Adams—he comes in next to last. That’s because white liberals do not have to live with the consequences of their ideas—they live in low-crime areas with doormen, and some have private security.

It is a shame that the New York Post has given very little coverage to Curtis Sliwa and Fernando Mateo, the two conservative Republican candidates for mayor. Instead, it continues to push the false narrative that Eric Adams is some kind of conservative. He may be the least liberal of the Democrats running for mayor, but he is clearly to the left of Sliwa and Mateo.

It is encouraging to note that 61% of New Yorkers approve of more charter schools, and they are not supportive of doing away with elite public schools. Though the poll offers no breakdown on these issues, it is likely that non-whites want more charter schools, and whites and Asians want to keep the elite ones. But on other issues, it is clear that New York Democrats still lean left.

When asked whether New York City should remain a sanctuary city, welcoming illegal aliens, 78% agree. Nearly two-thirds support the racist agenda promoted by critical race theory; they want it taught in the public schools. And even though the record shows that the new “no cash” bail policy for many crimes is partly responsible for a dramatic surge in crime, 55% want to keep it.

The New York Post is ecstatic about New Yorkers allegedly turning against Mayor Bill de Blasio. “A whopping 72 percent of the 1,000 likely Democratic primary voters surveyed in a new Post poll rated Hizzoner’s [the mayor] performance as ‘fair’ or ‘poor,’ while just 26 percent said he was doing a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job.”

The newspaper concludes that “Disliking de Blasio Unites Us.” This is simply wrong. The fact is that 66% rate him either “excellent,” “good,” or “fair,” and just 32% say he has done a poor job. This is amazing given what de Blasio has done to the city. As New York journalist Seth Barron details in his new book on the mayor, “The Last Days of New York,” de Blasio has wrecked the city in many ways.

Are New York Democrats hopelessly stupid? It appears to be that way.

If there is to be a movement away from liberalism, it will be lead by African Americans, Hispanics and Asians. Forget about white people, especially those with the big bucks.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on today’s ruling by the Supreme Court on a seminal religious liberty case:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Catholic foster care agencies can reject gay couples from adopting children. This is a huge victory for religious liberty and a resounding defeat for LGBTQ activists.

It was these activists who launched a contrived assault on the rights of Catholic social service agencies—no gay or transgender couple had ever complained that they were discriminated against by these Catholic entities—and now their effort to impose their secular beliefs on Catholics has been rejected.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the six members who joined his majority opinion (others offered their own opinions), noted that the Catholic agency named in the lawsuit only sought “an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else (my italics).”

The First Amendment guarantees religious liberty, and that provision means little if it only means the right to worship. The right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs in the public square is central to religious liberty, and while that right—like all other constitutional rights—is not absolute, it must be seen as presumptively constitutional.

This decision makes it more difficult for LGBTQ activists to argue that sexual orientation and sexual identity are analogous to race. They are not. Race is an ascribed characteristic, and as such it is an amoral attribute. Sexual orientation (at least when it is behaviorally operative) and sexual identity are achieved, and to that extent they are normative, thereby making them legitimate categories for moral judgment.

We await all the anti-Catholic bigots who will maintain that we have too many Catholics on the Supreme Court. Hope they notice that two Jews and one Protestant were on the same side as the Catholic justices.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the results of a new Gallup poll:

Gallup has been tracking values and beliefs for many years, and its latest survey reveals that Americans continue to be dismayed with the state of moral values. Indeed, more than 84% call them “only fair” or “poor,” and two-thirds believe conditions are getting worse. Interestingly, the way Republicans and Democrats see things are demonstrably different, the former being much more critical than the latter.

A record-high 66% of Republicans say our moral values are “poor” and 92% believe matters are getting worse. Yet only 30% of Democrats think our moral values are “poor” and just 49% say conditions are worsening.

In previous surveys of this nature, such as the one Gallup did in 2007, it asked about specific moral concerns. For example, it asked respondents if they morally approved of such issues as the death penalty, gambling, buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur, doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, homosexual relations, and so on. The latest poll takes a more macro approach, thus making it somewhat more difficult to analyze.

The poll’s results suggest that both Republicans and Democrats are at least somewhat guided in their response by who the White House occupant is. Thus, under Trump Republicans were not as pessimistic as they are now under Biden; the reverse is true for Democrats. However, there may be more in play than just this factor.

It is plausible to assume that among the reasons why Republicans are less happy about the state of our moral values are such issues as crime, race and sexuality. Homicides have risen sharply across the nation, and in some cities they are at record levels; urban riots have also plagued the nation. Critical race theory in the schools, along with the transgender agenda, have generated even more concerns.

To be sure, Democrats are not happy with surging crime rates as well, though it must be said that it is in cities run by left-wing members of their party where the situation is most out of hand. Moreover, critical race theory and the transgender movement are viewed in a mostly positive light.

No doubt there are issues where both sides could come together. Road rage, texting while driving, rudeness, belligerence, self-centeredness—these are just some moral issues where a partisan split is unlikely.

President Biden was elected, in part, because he said unity was his goal. But it is hard to see how this can be achieved when those fomenting division remain largely unaccountable. Perhaps the real question is how much unity really matters.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Biden’s stance on the death penalty:

In 1994, Sen. Joe Biden signed a crime bill that added dozens of additional offenses to the list of crimes punishable by death. Two years ago, while campaigning for president in New Hampshire, he complemented its citizens, saying, “By the way, congratulations to ya’ll ending the death penalty here.”

This past March, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the president “has grave concerns about whether capital punishment, as currently implemented, is consistent with the values that are fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness.” Inexplicably, on June 14 the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the death penalty against the Boston Marathon bomber (which happens to be the same position taken by President Trump).

It is obvious that the death penalty is bedeviling Biden. But why?

In 2018, the Catholic Church, which had previously said that the death penalty was permissible in certain circumstances, revised its teaching by saying it was always impermissible. Biden could have said, of course, that his switch—from being pro-death penalty to anti-death penalty—reflected the change in the teachings of the Catholic Church. But he did not. He didn’t because that would have begged the question: Why are you still opposed to the Church’s teaching on abortion?

Biden has created this jam, not the Catholic Church. Even more bizarre, now his opposition to the death penalty is being ignored by his own DOJ.

A Pew Research poll released this month showed that the majority of Americans (60%) favor the death penalty. An even newer poll, taken by CRC Research, found that 83% of Catholics who regularly attend Mass say that public figures who disagree with policy positions held by the Catholic Church “create confusion” among the rank-and-file. Three of four (74%) of these Catholics say that these officials should not present themselves for Communion.

Biden is out of sync with the Church on the issue of the beginning of life—he is totally opposed to acknowledging any human rights for innocent unborn babies—but he is in sync with the Church when it comes to capital punishment. Why are Biden’s “values that are fundamental to [his] sense of justice and fairness” only applicable to convicted murderers but not innocent babies?

If Biden is bedeviled by the death penalty, it is fair to say that he is plagued by abortion. It is a subject that will not go away, and his inability to adopt a consistent ethic of life is making the “devout Catholic” look like a rank hypocrite, if not worse.

Contact: jennifer.r.psaki@who.eop.gov