Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Jon Stewart’s remarks about racism on his Apple TV + show:

It seems everything about Jon Stewart is phony. His real name is Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz. He rails against “white privilege” yet he enjoys a net worth of at least $25 million. He hates white people who make racist comments about black people yet he is known to make racist cracks about blacks. He proclaims tolerance for everyone yet his serial hate speech directed at Catholics proves otherwise. Now he is libeling Andrew Sullivan, suggesting that the writer is a white racist.

In a recent episode of “The Problem With Jon Stewart,” the host featured a panel discussion on white racism, one of the most popular topics these days for white people who feel guilty about being white. Two of his guests, both white, agreed with him that America is irredeemably racist, but Andrew Sullivan, the Irish immigrant writer, disagreed.

Sullivan is a lot brighter than Stewart, so it was not hard for him to make the host look like a fool.

“America in 2022 is the most multiracial, multicultural, tolerant, diverse, melting pot that has ever existed on planet Earth, and there is no other place on Earth even like it. That’s why 86 percent of our immigrants are non-white. Do you think they want to come to a white supremacist country?”

Stewart was tongue-tied. He couldn’t offer a riposte so he settled on making a throw-away comment about blacks being brought here as slaves. He couldn’t even get that right. No, blacks were not “kidnapped”—the whites bought slaves from their African slavemasters. More important, Stewart depicted Sullivan as a white racist.

Stewart is no virgin. In 2008, before he came on stage for his “Daily Show,” a comedian warmed up the crowd. He picked on a black couple in the audience, making racist remarks about their sex life. Alison Kinney, an Asian writer, was there, and in 2014 she wrote about what happened.

Stewart had a few exchanges with the audience before the show started. Kinney asked, “Why does your warm-up comedian use ethnic humor?” Here is how she characterized Stewart’s response. “Stewart’s face creased with annoyance. He said, shortly, loudly, glaring at me, ‘BECAUSE IT’S F***ING FUNNY.‘”

“Meanwhile, he stared at me with palpable hostility.” She added, “People sitting around me stared at me and whispered.”

In 2015, a black former writer for Stewart, Wyatt Cenac, was upset about  a racist voice impression that Stewart did of presidential candidate Herman Cain. According to the Hollywood Reporter, when Cenac complained, “Stewart blew up at him in front of the entire Daily Show staff.” Cenac said he was the only black person in the room and it made him feel uneasy.

Then Cenac brought the issue up again at a writer’s meeting. He recalled that “Stewart got riled up,” becoming “incredibly defensive.” Stewart stood up screaming “F—off. I’m done with you.” He then “stormed out.”

This incident caused Cenac to have an emotional breakdown.

According to Stewart’s position today, it was his white racist tirade that led to this black man’s collapse. Is he going to make reparations? Maybe by ridding himself of some of his stash he can shed some of his white guilt.

Stewart’s visceral hatred of Catholics requires him to do much more than make reparations. Here’s a sample of his hate speech.

• In 1999, he mocked the pope when the Holy Father visited the U.S.
• In 2001, he compared the pope to the Grand Wizard of the KKK
• In 2002, he questioned whether Mary and Joseph had oral sex
• In 2007, he made a gay joke about a bishop
• In 2008, he made a gay joke about the Holy Family
• In 2008, he ridiculed priestly celibacy
• In 2011, he mocked the Body and Blood of Jesus
• In 2011, he claimed that a Norwegian madman was acting like a Christian
• In 2012, he said Our Blessed Mother was “knocked up”

None of these cruel statements can compare with what Stewart did on his April 16, 2012 show. It was so obscene that I wrote an ad about it titled, “Jon Stewart’s Legacy.” Here is the first paragraph from the May 21, 2012 ad in the New York Times.

“Five weeks ago today, Jon Stewart did something that will forever stain his legacy. After making fun of Fox News for not addressing the ‘war on women,’ Stewart said, ‘Maybe women could protect their reproductive organs from unwanted medical intrusions with vagina mangers.’ On the screen behind him was the picture of a naked women with her legs spread and a nativity scene ornament in between. How ironic that in the name of defending women, he grossly degraded them, while also insulting Christian sensibilities.”

Jon Stewart has no moral authority to lecture Andrew Sullivan, or anyone else, about their alleged bigotry. He has proven to be the Master of Bigotry, many times over.

Contact Stewart’s agent, Steve Levine: slevine@icmtalent.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an historic ruling on religious liberty in Finland:

Most Americans pay no attention to events in Finland, but what happened today merits their attention. A Helsinki court dropped all charges against two notable Christians for their alleged crime of voicing Christian beliefs.

Thus did Finland elude charges that it has become a fascist nation. No matter, the fact that charges were brought against Christians for being Christian is evidence of the war on Christianity in the West.

This ordeal started in June 2019 when Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhuna Pohjola were investigated for making Christian statements about marriage and sexuality that may have violated the law.

What triggered this case was an address that Räsänen made on Twitter questioning why the Lutheran Church leadership decided to be an official sponsor of the LGBT “Pride 2019” event.

An investigation followed and found that she had committed an earlier offense. In 2004, she wrote a pamphlet about marriage titled, “Male and Female He Created Them.” The bishop was charged with publishing the booklet. A third charge against her was made after she appeared on a humorous radio talk show in 2019 and said, “What would Jesus think about homosexuals.”

Räsänen was charged with three counts of “ethnic agitation” under a hate speech law; it prohibits threatening, defaming and insulting a certain group of people. Her crime? Articulating a Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality.

The prosecutor said the Bible was not on trial. He lied—it most certainly was. Even the judicial ruling said that “it is not for the district court to interpret biblical concepts.”

The prosecutor never cited a single comment she made that could in any way be deemed hate speech. There were no slurs made against homosexuals, nor were there untoward remarks of any kind. His outrage was based solely on her willingness to offer a Biblical account of marriage and sexuality.

The prosecutor even admitted that Räsänen did not use “rude” language. But, he said, “she uses terms that are discriminatory and offensive. She portrays homosexuals as immoral and psychosexual broken.”

What really irked the prosecutor were Biblical declarations citing homosexual acts as sinful. Here is how a reporter characterized comments made by the prosecutor in a court proceeding.

“According to the prosecutor, it is not innocent to say that homosexuality is a sin. On the contrary, it could be more serious saying that it is a sin than a crime (my italics).”

Perhaps the most morally offensive gambit tried by the prosecutor was the attempt to privatize freedom of religion. “Everybody has the freedom of religion and belief. Everybody may believe and think what he wants,” he said. “But expressing all this has boundaries.”

Similarly, “The court does not address the religious views of the Bible and homosexuality. It is addressing expression of these views.”

So gracious of the prosecutor to say that everyone is free to “believe and think what he wants,” something he is powerless to stop anyway. Moreover, to say someone can “believe and think what he wants” about the Bible, but is not free to express it, is a flagrant violation of freedom of speech and religion. Indeed, this is the mark of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.

“When one judges deeds,” the prosecutor said, “the whole person is judged. Actions cannot be separated from identity because actions are part of identity. Understanding deeds as sin is derogatory.”

This would mean that those who condemn adultery are making derogatory comments and could therefore be prosecuted under the hate crimes law.

The media cheered this attack on freedom of speech and religion.

Helsingin Sanomat is the largest newspaper in Finland. It showed its fascist colors last year: it weighed in against the defendants. In an editorial, it said the real issue was not “an individual personal opinion,” rather it was “society’s long lasting cruel position against sexual minorities.” It noted that “just a little time ago such opinions represented the mainline view in society.”

So how have things worked out in Finland, now that it is proudly free of its Christian heritage? Are people still getting married at the same rate as before? Not at all. There were 30,557 marriages in 2010; in 2020 the figure was 22,082.

What about sexually transmitted diseases in libertine Finland? “In 2019,” a report revealed, “the number of sexually transmitted diseases increased significantly.” Small wonder why. According to the website Queer in the World, Finland is “one of the most progressive and gay-friendly countries in the world.”

But there are problems nonetheless. Gay travelers who like to prey on men in saunas should know that “there is only one explicitly gay sauna in Helsinki and overtures in traditional saunas will not go down well.”

This is what happens when Christianity collapses: radical individualism reigns supreme, and with it come assaults on religion and the creation of a morally debased society.

The International Lutheran Church called the decision to prosecute Räsänen and Pohjola “egregious.” Too bad it didn’t say the same about the decision of the Finnish Lutheran Church to herald “Gay Pride” events, the proximate cause of this unseemly episode in the first place.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on reaction to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his support for parental rights:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis earned the admiration of fathers and mothers when he signed the Parental Rights in Education bill. Their rights have been slipping away, not only in Florida but throughout the nation, as sex-crazed activists, school administrators and teachers have sought to supplant them, making unauthorized and damaging decisions affecting their children.

Most people have never read the bill. If they listened to those branding it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, they would think it is a hate speech bill. This is a total lie.

To begin with, the following terms never appear in the legislation: heterosexual, homosexual, straight, gay, bisexual, intersex, non-binary and transgender (the last three categories are a fiction—they don’t exist in real life). The bill is about parental rights. It is also about protecting children from sexual engineers, namely those who treat kids as though they were a toy that they can play with to further their own agenda.

Here are some of the highlights of the bill:

• School district school boards must “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children in a specified manner.”
• School district personnel are prohibited from “discouraging or prohibiting parental notification and involvement in critical decisions affecting a student’s mental, emotional, or physical well-being.”
• School district personnel are prohibited from “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in specified manner.”
• “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

Who could possibly object to these standards of common sense and common decency? (Most of the following comments were made prior to the bill’s passage.)

President Biden called the bill “hateful.” Disney said it “should never have passed and should never have been signed into law.” Oscar hosts slammed it, jumping and screaming, “gay, gay, gay.”

Ana Navarro whined that “the message it sends is a very chilling one for LGBTQ families.” Whoopi Goldberg said the bill is “shaming” queers and “punishing” teachers. Andy Cohen labeled it “one big dog whistle” that is “scaring people into spewing hate and discrimination at the LGBTQ community.”

Gay rights groups are just as irresponsible.

The Human Rights Campaign complained that “LGBTQ+ students may wonder if they’re allowed to even acknowledge their own sexuality or gender identity.” Nadine Smith from Equality Florida charged that DeSantis “attacked parents and children in our state by invoking hateful anti-LGBTQ stereotypes.”

Lambda Legal blasted the bill for giving “the ‘green light’ to teach intolerance, allow harassment, and fail to confront violence against LGBTQ+ youth and their families.”

An editorial in the Washington Post said proponents of the bill “invoke the bogeyman of school systems infringing on ‘parental rights,’ arguing that such conversations should be led by parents and families.”

Kara Swisher, a New York Times opinion writer, said, “Let’s call it what it is, trans- and homophobia.”

Robin Maril at Slate blamed insecure politicians who “rely on religiously based divisive messaging because it works. The theology of autocracy, meanwhile, uses the mantel of the church to promote nationalistic conformity while also channeling fear and anger toward communities that can’t or won’t conform.”

This is the kind of hysteria we have come to expect from left-wing sources.

There is nothing “hateful” about the bill. It does not “shame” queers or “punish” teachers. Nor are LGBT parents and children in any way “attacked” by the legislation. The curriculum does not teach intolerance, never mind “fail to confront violence” against anyone. Nor is there anything “phobic” about the bill. And it certainly has nothing to do with promoting the “theology of autocracy,” whatever that is.

Best of all is the Washington Post’s mention of “parental rights.” News Flash: There is nothing so-called about the rights of parents—they exist—and there is nothing debatable about contemporary assaults on them.

Kudos to Gov. DeSantis. He speaks for Americans way beyond Florida, including most practicing Catholics.

The highly politicized response by the World Health Organization (WHO) to Covid-19 did much to discredit itself, but its latest move is even worse. It recently issued the “Abortion Care Guideline,” a document that attacks religious liberty and flouts international law.

To read Bill Donohue’s letter to WHO, click here.

Contact Craig Lissner, the key WHO official: srhhrp@who.int

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Citigroup’s pro-abortion policy:

Abortion is a contentious subject, one that doesn’t need to be further polarized, and certainly not by the business community. It doesn’t make any difference if a corporation wants to dive into this on the pro-life side or the pro-abortion side—it is none of their business. Yet some members of the ruling class can’t resist doing so. Not surprisingly, they are on the pro-abortion side.

After some states recently passed restrictive abortion laws, most notably in Texas, Citigroup (Citi for short) decided to finance abortions for women seeking to abort their child out-of-state. It told its shareholders this month, who will meet April 26, what the new policy entails. “In response to changes in reproductive healthcare laws in certain states in the U.S., beginning in 2022 we provide travel benefits to facilitate access to adequate resources.”

To be specific, Citi has agreed to pay the airfare and hotel expenses for women seeking an abortion; it can be done at any time of gestation and for any reason whatsoever. It did not say whether it would pay for their restaurant bills or their take-out orders.

Citi is a multinational investment bank that has a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders. This new abortion policy obviously violates that trust: investors buy stocks so they can maximize their returns, not to subsidize the political preferences of the corporate elite.

What if the woman contemplating an abortion were to change her mind at the last minute? Does she have to reimburse Citi for the expenses she incurred? Will Citi leave her stranded out-of-state if she balks?

The time has come for Citi employees who oppose this policy to  sabotage it. Here’s the game plan.

Citi already pays the medical bills for men and women who think they can “transition” to the other sex. The time has come for one of the male employees in Texas—Citi has 8,500 employees in the Lone Star State—to claim he is pregnant and wants to abort his child out-of-state. If Citi won’t pick up the tab, he should sue for discrimination.

The madness of transgenderism continues to mount. That it is being underwritten by the ruling class makes it all the more invidious.

Contact Citi’s CEO: jane.fraser@citi.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Polish American reaction to a wholly unjust portrayal of Poles during the Holocaust:

Over 200 leaders of Polish American organizations have signed a letter to members of Congress asking that a book which offers a vile depiction of Poles during the Holocaust be discontinued in the schools.

The letter has been distributed to members of the House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. It follows a decision by a Tennessee school district to drop the book from its curriculum.

The best-selling graphic novel, MAUS, by Art Spiegelman, which is targeted at children, features illustrations that are outrageous and needlessly offensive. But it is the lies, and the vicious insults hurled at Poles, that merit the most serious condemnation.

The letter by the Polish American coalition, led by Edward Wojciech Jeśman, president of the Polish American Strategic Initiative, lists several reasons why Maus does not belong as an assigned or recommended book in the schools.

• The book offers a flagrantly inaccurate account of the Polish experience during the Holocaust. Poles are portrayed as Nazi sympathizers, which is a lie—they were the victims of Hitler’s genocidal agenda. Polish deaths were proportionately the greatest of any nation in World War II, which is why the deaths of Poles and Polish Jews constitutes a double Holocaust. Moreover, many Poles, drawing on their Catholic upbringing, risked their lives to save Jews.
• Poles are depicted as pigs. “Pigs in popular culture are viewed as disgusting, filthy animals,” the letter notes, “while in Jewish culture, pigs and pork are unclean in a way other animals are not. MAUS employs the same imagery of Poles found in Nazi propaganda, where they are routinely referred to as ‘Polish pigs.'”
• The takeaway for Polish schoolchildren who are required to read this book is that their people are morally debased and that their heritage is evil. No child deserves to be psychologically raped by educators.

Removing books from a school’s curriculum should never be taken lightly, but when the book in question (a) maligns an entire ethnic group (b) is historically indefensible and (c) is aimed at innocent, unsuspecting children, then to make it available in the schools is nothing short of  educational malpractice.

Those who defend assigning MAUS would not assign a book which characterized blacks as pit bulls or American Indians as piranhas, never mind distort their historical heritage by depicting them as savages.

Many thanks to Ronald Rychlak, Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi, for bringing this issue to my attention. He is a member of the Catholic League’s board of advisors. I would also like to note that one of the signatories, Richard Walawender, serves on our board of directors.

Rep. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan is the key committee member. Contact his chief of staff: bob.schwalbach@mail.house.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how child and parental rights are being violated by an educational association:

Three weeks ago today, I sent a letter to Donna Orem, president of the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), asking her to validate a story about the organization that was published by Breitbart, an internet media outlet; copies were sent to members of the board of trustees. She has not replied, thus I am going public with my concerns.

NAIS is the national accreditation association for private schools across the country. In my letter I refer to its “queer-inclusive curriculum,” one which constitutes manipulative and highly objectionable fare. Moreover, it does so in secrecy, intentionally shielding parents from its contents. Many Catholic parents who send their children to a private non-sectarian school would be horrified to learn what the curriculum entails, as would non-Catholic parents.

At a NAIS conference in 2020, a staff member explained to teachers in a  training session what children will be taught.

“Starting in Pre-K we talk about their bodies, the parts that they were born with, about penises and vaginas and whether they make somebody a boy or a girl. But also their feelings, what do they feel like inside, do they feel like a boy or a girl? What does their head say? Do their heart and their body match up?” Vocabulary lessons include words such as “the vulva and the labia.”

After leading these children to question their status as a boy or a girl, the schools will then proceed to encourage those who are in rebellion against their nature. “Students ready to socially transition may initiate a process to change their name, pronoun, attire, and access to preferred activities and facilities,” the latter meaning locker rooms and bathrooms.

Books that students can access in their library may include Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. It includes illustrations of boys performing oral sex.

All of this is to be done behind the back of parents. Worse, their children may be expelled from school if parents voice “strong disagreement” with the curriculum. To top things off, teachers are being instructed how to deal with “puritan” parents who object. The condescending attitude is typical of educational elites.

“Puritan Speak” includes phrases such as “That’s my job.” “They’re just not ready.” “They’re too young to know that.” “Won’t they lose their innocence?” “But, what if my child is not ready?” “You’re just trying to put ideas in their heads.” There is nothing “puritan” about these concerns—they are merely expressions of responsible parents.

What these educators are doing to children is child abuse. What they are doing to parents is parental abuse. This is not sex education: it is sexual engineering, and it is violative of the rights of mothers and fathers.

If there is one good thing that the pandemic yielded, it is the extent to which unsuspecting parents have learned just how morally debased some teachers and administrators have become. The pushback must continue.

Contact Donna Orem: orem@nais.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on proponents of affirmative action:

When I was a professor, I told my colleagues how phony they were in supporting affirmative action. None of them were in favor of it when they had a friend or lover who was interested in a faculty opening—it was only when they didn’t have someone to plug that they played the game. They didn’t disagree.

Nothing has changed since, only today we have the specter of high-ranking white men insisting that more women and minorities be hired. It becomes even more hypocritical when this pitch is made on the eve of their retirement.

The latest phony is David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States. On March 14, he urged the Biden administration not to hire a white guy to replace him. “That’s advice I’ve given to the White House already: that you better not hire another white male…We’ve had ten white males.”

Ferriero will retire in mid-April. If he had any integrity he would never have taken the job in 2009. He knew then that all the previous U.S. National Archivists were white guys, so he should have dropped out in favor of someone who did not share his anatomy or race.

He had another chance to quit on January 13, 2022, the day he announced his retirement. But he didn’t. To make amends, he should now declare that he will not take a dime from his pension fund, and should instead redistribute his earnings to those women and minorities whom he deliberately passed over for employment. There are quite a few of them.

Dannielle Blumenthal worked at the National Archives for several years while Ferriero was the head honcho. She claims the workplace is “a very structurally racist place (her emphasis).” She ridicules him for his latest virtue-signaling scheme, namely his decision to launch The Archivists’ Task Force on Racism. The “Report to the Archivist,” released April 20, 2021, is chock-a-block full of all the right code words, “diversity” and “inclusion.” Truth to tell, it amounts to nothing but a hill of beans.

As to be expected, the report begins by paying homage to George Floyd, the ex-con drug addict who died following an altercation with a Minneapolis cop after resisting arrest. Then it gets serious, noting a “preponderance” of blacks and other minorities in “lower-status jobs.” It also notes “the preponderance of White people in higher-paying, higher-status jobs.”

This kind of systemic racism happened on Ferriero’s watch, and indeed he must bear at least some of the blame for it. Why didn’t he do anything about it? According to Blumenthal, under Ferriero, “racism was built in to the leadership structure. Everyone (or most people) in power were Caucasian.”

Ferriero is hardly a freak. We recently published an analysis of ten major corporations, ranging from Goldman Sachs to Walmart, assessing their commitment to diversity and comparing it to their actual track record of hiring minorities. All ten have a lousy history of making good on their much-vaunted interest in hiring blacks, Hispanics and Asians. The ruling class is a white boys’ paradise.

When I taught sociology at La Roche College in Pittsburgh (now a university), a left-wing professor of English, who was recently hired, cornered me in the parking lot on a Friday afternoon. He said one of his students was making the case against affirmative action, prompting him to ask if she had been taking my classes. Sure enough she was.

He smiled, self-assuredly, and walked away. I stopped him. “You have a moral obligation to resign immediately,” I said. But why, he asked. “Because you took a job from a black person,” I responded. His retort was priceless. “I thought I got the job because I was the best person who applied.” To which I said, “That’s my position—not yours.”

The problem with liberals is that they are quick to offer an ethical checklist for others, but always find a way not to apply it to themselves. For example, they love to write about climate change while preparing a speech aboard their private jet. They love to give talks about gun control while their armed bodyguards stand nearby. They love to condemn the construction of a wall on our southern border while living securely in their gated community.

The David Ferrieros of this world pat themselves on the back for establishing blue-ribbon committees on racial equality, and then doing  nothing about it. They hope no one notices. We do. Now you do as well.

Contact: david.ferriero@nara.gov

Bill Donohue

[Note: We run this article each year on March 17]

The heroics of St. Patrick are not appreciated as much as they should be. He is the first person in history to publicly condemn slavery, and one of the first leaders to champion the cause of equal rights.

There is much to celebrate on March 17. Fortunately, his writings, though slim, are eye-opening accounts of his life: Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus and Confession reveal much about the man. Along with other sources, they paint a picture of his saintliness.

Patrick was born in Britain in the 4th century to wealthy parents. It is likely that he was baptized, though growing up he did not share his family’s faith. He was an atheist.

When he was 15, he committed what he said was a grave sin, never saying exactly what it was; it appears it was a sexual encounter with a young girl. No matter, it would haunt him throughout his life.

At age 15 or 16 (the accounts vary), Patrick was kidnapped and enslaved by Irish barbarians. They had come to plunder his family’s estate, and took him away in chains to Ireland. While a slave, he converted to Christianity, praying incessantly at all hours of the day. After six years, he escaped, and made his way back home.

His family thought he was dead, and with good reason: no one taken by Irish raiders had managed to escape and return. St. Patrick biographer Philip Freeman describes how his family received him, stating “it was as if a ghost had returned from the dead.”

After he returned home, he had a vision while sleeping. He felt called to return to Ireland. This seemed bizarre: this is where he was brutalized as a slave. But he knew what Jesus had commanded us to do, “Love thy enemy.” He was convinced that God was calling him to become a missionary to Ireland. So he acted on it, despite the reservations of family and friends.

Patrick became a priest, practiced celibacy, and was eventually named a bishop. Contrary to what many believe, he did not introduce Christianity to Ireland, nor was he Ireland’s first bishop. But he did more to bring the Gospel to Ireland than anyone, converting legions of pagans, especially in the northern parts of the island.

His missionary work in Ireland has been duly noted, but his strong defense of human rights has not been given its due.

No public person before him had denounced slavery, widespread though it was. Jesus was silent on the subject, Aristotle thought it was a natural way of life, and neither master nor slave saw anything fundamentally wrong with it. Patrick did.

Though he did not invoke natural law specifically, he was instinctively drawn to it. He taught that all men were created equal in the eyes of God, and that the inherent dignity of everyone must be respected.

Patrick did more than preach—he lashed out at the British dictator, Coroticus, harshly rebuking him for his mistreatment of the Irish. In fact, Patrick found his Irish converts to be more civilized than Coroticus and his band of thugs.

Patrick was way ahead of his time in the pursuit of human rights. Not only were men of every social status entitled to equal rights, so were women. In his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, he scolds “the tyrant Coroticus—a man who has no respect for God or his priests.” More important, he made a startling plea: “They must also free Christian women and captives.” His reasoning showed the power of his faith when he said, “Remember, Christ died and was crucified for these people.”

He did not mince words. “So, Coroticus, you and your wicked servants, where do you think you will end up? You have treated baptized Christian women like prizes to be handed out, all for the sake of the here and now—this brief, fleeting world.”

What makes this all the more dramatic is the way the pagan world thought about women: the idea that women were equal to men was totally foreign to them. But the women understood what Patrick was saying, and gravitated to him in large numbers. The Christian tenet that all humans possess equal dignity had taken root.

Did the Irish save civilization, as Thomas Cahill maintains? Freeman thinks not—”it had never been lost.” But everyone agrees that had it not been for St. Patrick, and the monasteries that followed, much of what we know about the ancient world would not exist.

Indeed, it is difficult to fathom how classical Greek and Roman literature would have survived had it not been for the Irish monks who attracted students from many parts of Europe. They are responsible for preserving the great works of antiquity. And all of them are indebted to St. Patrick.

It is believed that he died on March 17, sometime during the second half of the fifth century. That is his feast day, the source of many celebrations in his honor. His impact extends beyond the Irish and the Catholic Church—human rights are a global issue—making him a very special person in world history.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue shares some good news:

On March 5th, Fr. Gordon MacRae, who is unjustly sitting in a New Hampshire prison for a crime he didn’t commit, had his Facebook account disabled. Apparently, the censors who work there didn’t like one of his essays. Like his other articles, it was one that no rational human being would find objectionable.

That did not stop us from helping our friend. On March 9, we emailed his “objectionable” article to our list of email subscribers, which is big and growing. We have now learned that Facebook has apologized and has restored his account.

Thanks to everyone for your support.