Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on “Sex Week”:

Most couples will celebrate Valentine’s Day with a dinner or some other engagement. On many colleges campuses, however, students will be learning the joy of beating each other up.

Valentine’s Day begins “Sex Week.” Students will be treated to an array of panel discussion groups, speakers, and assorted activities, the kind of fare that would bring cheers from the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey  Toobin, Bill Cosby and the Cuomo brothers.

The idea of “Sex Week” started, appropriately, with the Ivy League. Yale was the first to start this event in 2002, and it has been such a success that it has been adopted nationwide. It started with a rather banal litany of programs, focusing on sex safety and health. Now it features kink.

Princeton University got a jump on things when it held a “latex art contest” on January 31. Students were asked to make art out of “expired latex condoms.” That appears to be a smarter choice than using them.

According to the sexperts at the National Coalition for Sexual Health, checking the expiration date on condoms is critical. Users need to check for holes or tears, as well. “Once you open the condom, if it feels dry, has a foul odor or you see any holes,” advises Dr. Nerys Banfield, “you should throw it away and get a new one.” If you strike out, she says, there is always “mutual masturbation.”

By the way, it costs over $74,000 a year to go to Princeton.

If there is one school that holds the most celebrated “Sex Weeks” events, it is Ohio State University. It starts on Sunday, on the eve of Valentine’s Day. Students will learn that abstinence-only sex education has “a detrimental effect on youth.”

Does that mean that promiscuity is the answer? That’s too tame for these folks. On Valentine’s Day, Ohio State will feature a clinic on bondage, domination, sadism and masochism. They did not say whether this is a “bring your own whip” event.

“Trans affirming surgery” is the topic of discussion for February 15. The next day students will learn how to perfect their masturbatory skills. If that is too pedestrian, students can attend a session titled, “Explore the dangerous, yet fun side of sex called ‘Kink.'”

To show how progressive they are at Ohio State, on two days next week—Wednesday and Friday—they will hold an event, “Valentine’s for Abortion Providers.” This will give administrators, faculty and students an opportunity to thank doctors who kill unborn children for a living for their yeoman service.

It appears that those who are orchestrating these bloody events at Ohio State are not connecting the dots.

Last month, there were seven instances of rape or sexual assault reported on campus (no one knows how many went unreported). Five of these incidents took place in January; the other two occurred last year. Whether whips or chains were used they did not say.

A reporter from Newsweek wrote, “This brings the total number of reported sexual assaults at OSU to 77 in 2021, according to statistics from university police.”

Looks like the offenders, and some of their victims, would have benefited from one of those dreadful abstinence-only courses. Such is the state of morality these days on our college campuses.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue defends the decision by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI not to apologize for decisions he made before he was elected pope:

People who apologize for offenses they never committed—such as white people who apologize for being white—are either phonies or psychotic.

That is why it is so refreshing to learn that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is not apologizing for offenses he never committed while serving as archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977 to 1982.

In a letter Benedict released today, he offered his “deepest sympathy” to the victims of clergy sexual abuse, saying he feels “great sorrow for each individual case.” But he did not offer a personal apology, and that is because none was warranted.

In an appendix to his letter, Benedict did, however, provide a much-needed rebuttal to accusations made against him by a Munich law firm; it had been commissioned by the archdiocese to examine accusations of sexual abuse that occurred between 1945 and 2019. He was assisted in this endeavor by some of his supporters.

Benedict takes issue with three outstanding accusations; they form the basis of the charges against him.

The first issue deals with Priest X (Peter Hullermann).

Two weeks ago, in his preliminary response, Benedict admitted that he erred when he claimed in his memorandum, drafted in response to the law firm, that he was not present at a meeting on January 15, 1980 in which this priest was discussed. He offers a lengthy, and pointed, commentary explaining how his collaborators made an honest mistake.

One of them, Dr. Stefan Korta, inadvertently made a transcription error noting that Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) was not present at the meeting. He clearly was. In fact, the minutes show that he spoke at the meeting. But to call this a “lie” is malicious.

More important is what transpired at the meeting. The records show that the discussion did not revolve around sexual misconduct committed by the young priest. It focused on a request for therapy, which was granted. That is the sum of it. It is therefore scurrilous to charge that Benedict lied about the meeting.

The second issue is based on charges that Benedict did not act properly in handling the other three cases. The charges are false. Not only does Benedict dispute accusations that he knew of sexual abuse committed by these priests, the law firm report “provides no evidence to the contrary.”

Benedict is unequivocal in his response. “The expert report contains no evidence for an allegation of misconduct or conspiracy in any cover up.” Indeed, if the law firm had proof, it would have provided it. It does not.

The third issue claims that Benedict minimized acts of exhibitionism. In fact, this is patently false. In his memoir, Benedict notes that abuse, including exhibitionism, are “terrible,” “sinful,” “morally reprehensible” and “irreparable.” In other words, he clearly condemned such behavior.

I need to clarify something. In my news release of January 25 on this subject, I accepted the accusation that Benedict downplayed exhibitionism, saying, “he did not treat him [the priest in question] the way he should have. He should have seen this as a red flag—normal men don’t act that way.”

I was wrong to accept this accusation at face value—Benedict never sought to make light of exhibitionism. I apologize for doing so.

There are fair-minded critics of Benedict, but there are also many who are ruthless. They have hated him ever since he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful, enforcing the Church’s moral strictures.

Consider the reaction to a homily he gave on April 18, 2005. In an address before the College of Cardinals, who had assembled to elect a new pope, he spoke forcefully about the “dictatorship of relativism” that had engulfed the West.

Georgetown professor E.J. Dionne condemned Cardinal Ratzinger for using “fighting words.” Fr. Richard McBrien from Notre Dame said, “I think this homily shows he realizes he’s not going to be elected.” New York Times reporter Peter Steinfels announced, “Oh well, that gets rid of him.”

The next day he was elected pope.

As I said in my new book, The Truth About Clergy Sexual Abuse, “No one has understood why the clergy sexual abuse scandal took place better than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.” That is largely because he correctly noted the effect of the sexual revolution on the Church, and the huge role played by homosexual priests.

I also said that he “does not get the credit he deserves for the actions he took. Quite frankly, no pope in the modern era worked to punish predator priests more than Benedict.” For example, when he was a cardinal, he pressed for a “more rapid and simplified penal process” in dealing with abusive priests.

More important, he defrocked a record number of molesting priests. Indeed, he not only removed the unrepentant serial predator, Fr. Maciel, from ministry, he did not hesitate to accept the resignation of former cardinal Theodore McCarrick when he turned seventy-five, the earliest possible date for him to do so.

Pope Benedict has nothing to apologize for. If anything, it is his vicious critics who owe him an apology.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest CDC report on COVID:

The February 4 edition of the CDC’s “Morbidity and Mortality Report”  found that “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illnesses because of a higher prevalence of comorbidities.” This accounts for their higher hospitalization rate and mortality rate.

It also found that those who were diagnosed with HIV in New York State had lower COVID-19 vaccination rates than the New York adult population.

Why would LGBT people, who are at risk of contracting COVID, be less likely to get vaccinated than the rest of us? And what does the CDC say we should do about this problem?

The CDC says that “these persons historically experience challenges accessing, trusting, and receiving health care services.”

Nowhere do the multiple authors of this study suggest that it is the behavioral choices made by those who engage in risky sexual activities that accounts not only for their HIV status, but for the prevalence of their comorbidities.

Just as contentious is the recommendation that we need to develop a “better-informed public health strategy to achieve health equity for the LGBT population.”

Does the CDC really believe that the problem is lack of information?

Nowhere do the authors suggest that it is the irresponsible behavior that marks a disproportionate segment of the LGBT community that accounts for the health disparity.

The CDC has not hesitated to recommend draconian lockdowns to combat COVID, and it certainly hasn’t hesitated to recommend restrictions on houses of worship. Why, then, does it not exercise the same aggressive policy recommendations when it comes to LGBT people?

Once again, the CDC is showing that politics counts more than science in driving its conclusions. It also shows that the ruling class has a problem treating sexual minorities as equals, the same way it has a problem treating racial minorities as equals.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Biden’s remarks today at the National Prayer Breakfast:

It’s a good thing that Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t speak first at the National Prayer Breakfast. She would have made President Biden look bad.

She gave a very good speech, ending with a prayer. He personalized his address, offering a mumbling account of his interactions with congressional colleagues, past and present.

Instead of rehashing old war stories, and making silly comments on how “the world is changing,” Biden could have taken the opportunity to address one of our most pressing social problems—the war on the police. He said not a word about the cop-killing spree that has become a national embarrassment. Oh, yes, he mentioned gun violence, but not in reference  to police being shot.

This is particularly troubling given that Biden’s next stop today is to meet in New York City with its mayor, Eric Adams. The reason for the meeting is not climate control—it’s the wave of violence that has gripped New York (and other big cities). Among the dead are those who gave their lives to protect New Yorkers.

In the last week alone, St. Patrick’s Cathedral has been the site of two funerals for police officers killed in the line of duty. Cop killing is soaring in many cities, crying out for a response from elected officials. Yet the best Biden can do is talk about gun control.

Guns are not responsible for mentally ill ex-cons throwing people into oncoming subway trains, or for “smash and grab” thugs who steal from department stores. They also have nothing to do with violent felons who are back on the street before the police complete their paper work.

The real reason crime is increasing at an alarming rate has everything to do with the leaders of Biden’s party. Democrat-run cities, with George Soros-funded D.A.’s, have sent criminals and cops a message: social justice means less penalties for violent criminals and less interest in the welfare of the police.

Biden blew it. He had a chance to make substantive remarks about real-life issues that the public is facing. Instead, he sounded more like an old man reminiscing about days gone by.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Amnesty International’s attack on Israel:

Amnesty International has effectively declared war on Israel.

The 280-page report, released February 1, “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity,” is a full-throated denunciation of the internationally recognized state of Israel. Over and over again, it indicts Israel’s 1948 origins, coming ever so close to calling into question its sovereignty.

Interestingly, the only time the words “right to exist” appears in the entire document is on p. 89, and it is in reference to a Jordanian citizen who had a residency dispute with Israel (he said his “right to exist in peace” was not being observed). That the authors of this report couldn’t summon the courage to insist on Israel’s right to exist is telling.

Being that it was the Holocaust that inspired the founding of Israel, one would expect that the report would have something pithy to say about it. But the word “Holocaust” appears only twice, once on pp. 14-15 and once on p. 63, and in a perfunctory way. To top things off, it’s the exact same sentence that appears on these pages, a reference to Israel’s founding “in the wake of the Holocaust.” Nowhere in the report is Hitler mentioned; the Nazis are cited once, in a footnote. Mention of the Second World War merits one footnote.

This is the kind of ahistoricity we would expect from those out to delegitimize Israel. Why bring up inconvenient historical facts?

Catholics have long been unimpressed with Amnesty International’s human rights record. When it was founded in 1961, it took no position on abortion. That changed in 2007 when it took a decidedly pro-abortion stance. So much for its mission statement which endorses unqualified human rights.

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, said at the time that the organization “has betrayed its mission,” and said that if it “persists in this course of action,” Catholics should withdraw their support. He was right. In 2014, Amnesty International started a new campaign, “My Body My Rights,” demanding the legalization of abortion-on-demand everywhere in the world.

It is the left that wants to sunder Israel, and it is now at a fever pitch. Last year, Human Rights Watch, another left-wing “human rights” organization—it also refuses to acknowledge the human rights of unborn children—labeled Israel an “apartheid” state.

Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are generously funded by George Soros. In fact, it was his seed money that launched Human Rights Watch (initially called Helsinki Watch), selecting Aryeh Neier, who had just left his post as executive director of the ACLU, to run it. Soros has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on these two Israel-hating entities.

No sooner had the Amnesty International report been issued when the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) gave it a High Five. “We welcome this exhaustive, landmark report as further recognition of what has been blazingly obvious: the Israeli government has been engaged in the systematic imposition of apartheid on the Palestinian people.”

On the eve of the report’s release (advanced copies were obtained by some parties in the last few days), Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who last September said, “Israel is an apartheid state. Period,” tweeted, “U.S. foreign aid shouldn’t go to apartheid governments, period.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another left-wing extremist, last year branded Israel “an apartheid state.” Rep. Cori Bush, who is cut from the same cloth, tweeted on January 20, 2022 that Israel was guilty of “apartheid.” In December, CAIR honored Rep. Ilhan Omar, a few months after she called Israel an “apartheid state.”

Condemning Israel is sport among left-wing commentators and celebrities.

Last year, Eric Alterman, writing for the Stalinist media outlet, the Nation, wrote a piece titled, “Yes, Israel Is Obviously an Apartheid State.” In November, more than 100 Hollywood celebrities signed a statement of support for Palestinian organizations that were designated by Israel as terrorist groups. Among them were Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Mark Ruffalo and Peter Gabriel.

Regrettably, more than a few Jewish Americans hate Israel. A survey released last year that was commissioned by the Jewish Electoral Institute, found that 25 percent of the Jewish electorate agreed that “Israel is an apartheid state,” and 22 percent agreed that “Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians.” The numbers were higher for younger voters, those under 40.

We at the Catholic League are well acquainted with self-hating Catholics, so we sympathize with our Jewish friends who have to deal with self-hating Jews, led, of course, by Soros.

It is important for the leaders of every faith community to speak up  about Amnesty International’s unbridled attack on Israel. Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups should be the object of condemnation, not Israelis who are constantly threatened by them.

If Human Rights Watch, and now Amnesty International, get away with their pernicious campaign, it is only a matter of time before the United Nations carries the ball for them. Make no mistake about it, these same people who hate Israel, hate the United States, raising the stakes for all of us.