After being pummeled by the Catholic League, Senator John McCain made a straight-forward denunciation of anti-Catholicism on March 7, explicitly citing Rev. John Hagee’s role. He thus put an end to this issue.

The issue blew up on February 27 when the Republican nominee for president solicited and accepted the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee. Hagee, who is pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, has a long record of Catholic bashing. We posted a video of him on our website where he calls Catholicism “The Great Whore,” a “false cult system,” the “anti-Christ” and an “apostate church.”

Hagee is a Christian Zionist who has given millions of dollars to Israel and to Jews seeking to return to Israel. He has also made a living out of demonizing Catholicism, wildly distorting the Catholic Church’s relations with Jews. He does this intentionally so as to contrast himself favorably with the Jewish community. Hagee tried to say he wasn’t anti-Catholic, but few believed him.

We hit McCain with ten critical news releases before issuing our eleventh one commending him for doing the right thing. Prior to our last news release, McCain had simply said that he doesn’t necessarily agree with the views of everyone who endorses him. We labeled this response “pedestrian” and implored him to specifically cite Hagee in repudiating anti-Catholicism. He did just that, but not after some rumbling within his campaign on what to do about this matter.

The McCain campaign sought to arrange an “on-the-record” conference call between McCain, his advisors and Bill Donohue. Donohue said no. He said he would only agree to such a call after he found satisfactory a statement by McCain denouncing anti-Catholic bigotry, citing Hagee’s role.

Donohue did several radio and TV interviews, appearing on “CBS Evening News,” CNN and “The Colbert Report.” We kept hammering away, as it is our style, until we got what we wanted. McCain wrapped the issue up when he said, “I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.” Donohue then said, “Sen. McCain has done the right thing and we salute him for doing so. As far as the Catholic League is concerned, this case is closed.”

We never doubted that McCain was a good friend to Catholics. What we wanted was for his campaign to come together in distancing themselves from Hagee

Pope Benedict XVI recently welcomed Mary Ann Glendon as the new U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. Glendon is a Harvard law professor and member of the Catholic League’s board of advisors; she had to suspend her association with the league, along with all other organizations she is affiliated with, before assuming her new position.

Glendon has a long record of service to the Catholic Church. She has been a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences since 1994, serving as president of the group for four years. She has also played leading roles in some very important international conferences, especially on women’s issues.

The pope praised her by saying, “I am confident that the knowledge and experience born of your distinguished association with the work of the Holy See will prove beneficial in the fulfillment of your duties.”

Glendon returned the favor by telling the pope that he “will be among friends” when he visits the U.S. in mid-April. “On your first visit to the U.S. as pontiff, you will find a warm welcome from a nation that understands the important contribution offered by people of faith in our society.”

Bill Donohue says that Glendon is one of the most brilliant Catholic scholars in the nation, noting that her work on the family and abortion is unparalleled. Her writings on civil liberties has also gained her much deserved admiration.

The Catholic League salutes Mary Ann Glendon.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” Motive Entertainment. Opens nationwide on April 18.

A new documentary hosted by Ben Stein, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” examines whether academic freedom and freedom of speech are being suppressed at our nation’s universities and bastions of “big science.” The film argues that those who broach the subject of intelligent design often invoke the wrath of their colleagues and superiors. In many cases, they are silenced or even drummed out of their positions.

Such strong reactions on the part of evolutionists to the suggestion that mankind is the work of a Creator is not unexpected. Many also responded harshly on July 7, 2005 when Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna and member of the Congregation for Catholic Education, published an op-ed piece in the New York Times. His aim was to clear up lingering confusion about Pope John Paul II’s stance on evolution. The late pontiff was, and still is, widely quoted as calling evolution “more than just a hypothesis.” Schonborn acknowledged this statement, but also reminded readers that His Holiness also said, “All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

This essay came shortly after newly installed Pope Benedict XVI declared, “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God.” No one with any familiarity with Catholic teaching should have been surprised by the idea that the Church teaches God is the source of all life. As the cardinal also pointed out, the Catechism explicitly states, “We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.” The International Theological Commission was even more straightforward in 2004 (under the leadership of then-Cardinal Ratzinger), when it released a statement reading: “An unguided evolutionary process—one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence—simply cannot exist.”

Yet the cardinal’s piece provoked quite a troubling reaction. What was troubling were the almost hysterical cries from those—both inside and outside of Catholic circles—who labeled the cardinal’s take as backward or even anti-science. Georgetown University theologian John F. Haught, writing in Commonweal, declared Schonborn’s essay to be “a setback in the dialogue of religion and science.” British astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, looked for the academy to distance itself from the cardinal’s piece. Liberal critic Andrew Sullivan charged, “And so we return to the 19th century.” Additionally, several leading Catholic scientists appealed to the pope to clarify the cardinal’s words.

Cardinal Schonborn clarified his own (rather clear) words a few months later, saying. “I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained.” This seemed to quell some of the loudest protestors, but the question remained: Why did His Eminence’s article cause such a fuss? Why were his words met with such strong resistance, and in some cases, loathing?

The producers of “Expelled” wouldn’t be surprised at the uproar over Cardinal Schonborn’s essay. The film presents viewers with a number of well-credentialed scholars and scientists who were driven out of their offices or universities for similarly expressing hesitation about the atheistic neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that is so prevalent in education.

Host Ben Stein is a man of many talents—he’s known as much for comedic roles in films as for his days as a White House lawyer and speechwriter. Stein sets the tone for the project: entertaining, but with a strong foundation of scholarship. The film kicks off with an address by Stein to an audience of students. Speaking of the importance of freedom, Stein says he was disturbed to learn that academic freedom is far from guaranteed at many of our nation’s most prestigious campuses. As he continues that it is frightening how worthy professors have been silenced by those Darwinian advocates who want to suppress other ideas, viewers may find the interspersed images of West Germany and the Berlin Wall more than excessive. However, as the filmmakers unleash tale after tale of woe met by earnest men and woman who have dared to question the status quo, it becomes clear that the metaphor—while heavy handed—is apt.

Many of those interviewed in the film have histories of being drummed out of their careers after making even the slightest suggestion that the theory of intelligent design should be taken seriously. The case of Richard Sternberg, who was interviewed for the film, may be the most widely known due to media coverage that surrounded his story. Sternberg, a prominent researcher at the National Museum of Natural History (a division of the Smithsonian), served as managing editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. When Sternberg published a peer-reviewed article by a proponent of intelligent design, he quickly met the wrath of his colleagues and superiors. A Catholic, he even was warned that Christians should keep their faith quiet and was eventually banned from his office.

Skeptics would naturally suspect that something else must have happened to warrant Sternberg’s dismissal. After all, it’s the job of a publisher to run peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals—they don’t get fired merely because some articles are more controversial than others. But as “Expelled” shows, Sternberg’s is no isolated case. Many others have dared to bring up the subject of intelligent design, only to be labeled Creationists and find themselves pushed to the fringes of the academic community. Even at schools like Baylor in Texas, the world’s largest Baptist university, professors have found themselves mocked and penalized for treating intelligent design as a theory worthy of study.

The problem of suppression of views that counter Darwinism, however, isn’t limited to higher education and advanced scientific think tanks. A number of Darwin’s advocates are working hard to ensure that American kids are not presented with any alternatives to their theory in the classroom. One such advocate interviewed is Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The NCSE, an activist group, opposes any attempts to introduce the theory of intelligent design to students in public schools. They follow cases where parents and school boards express an interest in broadening the scope of the scientific materials with which students are presented. When so-called “attacks on evolution education” pop up in communities across the country, the NCSE comes in with offers of help for like-minded locals. This help can include talking points and legal assistance should they wish to pursue litigation. Scott defends the practice, noting for good measure that Catholics support evolution. (This is exactly the sort of thinking Cardinal Schonborn tried to clear up.)

Not every story of supposedly persecuted scholars comes across as proof of an anti-intelligent design cabal operating in the scientific community. An Iowa State professor was denied tenure after his views became known, but the film presents no proof to counter the university’s claim that he simply did not meet the qualifications they seek in those to whom tenure is granted. However, taken as a whole, it does seem apparent that there is a strong bias against those whose views differ from the strictly Darwinian.

Most compelling are the attitudes shown by the anti-intelligent design advocates in the film. Richard Dawkins, well known British atheist and biologist (he has written books such as The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design and The God Delusion) seems barely able to contain his anger as Stein peppers him with questions about the origins of life. Though Dawkins is unable to explain to his interviewer how, exactly, life started, he’s sure it didn’t start with a god. A gleeful Stein enjoys gently prodding Dawkins, tripping his subject up and leaving him sputtering for answers. Stein repeatedly questions him on his atheism. Is Dawkins an atheist when it comes to the Muslim god? To the Hindu gods? To the God of the Old Testament? Dawkins, routinely protesting that he doesn’t believe in any god, can’t figure out why Stein needles him so incessantly. The answer appears to be that Stein just likes to have a good time, and needling Dawkins is a hoot.

Stein’s occasional boyish jocularity serves as a welcome break mong some of the more horrifying subject matter. To underscore the results that can arise when we reject the idea of man as a unique creation of God, the film highlights the eugenics movement, and takes viewers on a tour of the German prisons where Nazi doctors performed their cruel experiments on humans they saw as being of lesser races. Stein is careful to clarify that he isn’t charging belief in Darwinism inevitably leads to such ends, but that Darwinian theory has been used to justify appalling acts.

According to spokesmen for the film, when Stein was first approached for this project, he accepted because he loathes any attempts to suppress speech.  He did, however, express his feelings that intelligent design is a load of nonsense. But making the film influenced his view. Stein’s change in attitude is evident in the contrast in the tone he takes with different interview subjects. The skeptical questioner yields to a man convinced that the theory of Darwinian evolution has huge gaps that are being ignored.

Overall, “Expelled” makes a compelling case for the argument that higher education and “big science” are no bastions of academic freedom. What the typical viewer can do to change things is left unstated. But checking out this thoroughly enjoyable documentary is a good start.

Kiera McCaffrey is the Catholic League’s director of communications.

For more information, visit www.GetExpelled.com.

The Rev. John Hagee, televangelist, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and co-founder of Americans for a Safe Israel, has dedicated a great deal of his time to attacking the Catholic Church. Not only has he trotted out old charges made by anti-Catholic Protestants that the Church is “The Great Whore” of Revelation, he has perpetuated lies and slander about Church teaching and history on numerous occasions. As Hagee has published a number of books and offers many of his sermons for sale on video, it is easy to document his clear pattern of attacking what he calls the “Roman Church” at every turn. Below are some of the claims and allegations he has made:

• “This is the Great Whore of Revelations 17. [Hagee is pointing to a picture of a woman on the back of a beast.] This is the anti-Christ system [pointing to the beast]. This is the apostate church [pointing to the woman again]. In this cup [the cup the woman is holding], if you will read it in the Book of Revelation, is the blood of the saints. This is talking principally about the blood of the Jewish people. Where from the Crusades that happened back here [pointing to a place on a timeline], from the Spanish Inquisition, from the Holocaust. When Adolf Hitler came to power he said, ‘I’m not going to do anything in my lifetime that hasn’t been done by the Roman Church for the past 800 years, I’m only going to do it on a greater scale and more efficiently.’ And he certainly had done just exactly that. God has said, ‘I gave you the time to repent but you did not.’ You, this false cult system [pointing again to the woman and beast] that was born in Genesis 10 and progressed through Israel and became veiled worship. God says, ‘The day is going to come when I’m going to cause this beast to devour this apostate system.’ So you can see very clearly that while the Church is in Heaven, this false religious system is going to be totally devoured by the anti-Christ.” (from a video of Hagee discussing the Book of Revelation, available on YouTube.com

•  There is no difference between the popular religious hatred of the Church Fathers and the Nazi hatred for the Jews, save the clerical robes of the religious princes and the Swastika arm bands of the Third Reich.” (Should Christians Support Israel?)

“Anti-Semitism in Christianity began with the statements of the early church fathers, including Eusebius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, Origen, Justin, and Jerome…. This poisonous stream of venom came from the mouths of spiritual leaders to virtually illiterate congregants, sitting benignly in their pews, listening to their pastors. They labeled the Jews as ‘the Christ killers, plague carriers, demons, children of the devil, bloodthirsty pagans who look for an innocent child during the Easter week to drink his blood, money hungry Shylocks, who are deceitful as Judas was relentless.’” (Jerusalem Countdown, with a quote from Should Christians Support Israel?)

• “The Crusaders “were thieves and they were murderers who marched from Europe to Jerusalem. Who murdered, who robbed and raped the Jewish people coming and going because they had been forgiven by the pope in advance of their sin before they left Europe.” (“Southern Steps: Jerusalem and Bible Prophecy”)

 “The Roman Catholic Church, which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the Dark Ages…. The brutal truth is that the Crusades were military campaigns of the Roman Catholic Church to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims and to punish the Jews as the alleged Christ killers on the road to and from Jerusalem.” (Jerusalem Countdown)

• “The Crusaders beheaded thousands of people. Others were shot with arrows. Infants were tossed into the air and caught on swords. Others were forced to jump from the towers of the city wall to their deaths…. What Jews the Crusaders could not find were accused of having aided in the defense of the city [Jerusalem]. They were rounded up and taken to the synagogue. There the Crusaders locked them in the synagogue, set the synagogue on fire, and as they listened to men, women and children begging for their lives, screaming for mercy, the Crusaders marched around the synagogue singing, ‘Christ, we adore thee.’” (“Southern Steps: Jerusalem and Bible Prophecy”)

• “The Spanish Inquisition was perhaps the most cynical plot in the black history of Catholicism, aimed at expropriating the property of wealthy Jews and converts in Spain for the benefit of the royal court and the Roman Catholic Church.” (Jerusalem Countdown)

• “In the fanatical effort to determine who was truly a loyal Catholic and who was not, Jewish children were choked to death in the presence of their parents.” (Should Christians Support Israel?)

• “When Hitler came to power he dutifully followed…Roman Church policies.” (Should Christians Support Israel?)

• “Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians ‘Hitler’s Pope,’ joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, ‘Pereat Judea.’” (Jerusalem Countdown)

• “Nazi legality was immensely strengthened by the concordat with the Vatican (July 20, 1933), an agreement that the Catholic Church had refused to grant the previous Weimar Republic. Hitler described the Concordat of Collaboration as an ‘unrestricted acceptance of National Socialism by the Vatican.’ Indeed it was, since it subordinated all of cultural and educational activities of the church to Nazi ideology and regimen. It began with the placing of Hitler’s portrait on the walls of all Catholic, parochial, and Sunday schools, and ended with the church bells ringing at every Nazi victory, including the arrest and transportation of the last Jew from every town and hamlet in Germany. The sell-out of Catholicism to Hitler began not with the people but with the Vatican itself…The German bishops followed the Vatican, represented by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pacelli, and later Pope Pius XII. The priests obeyed the bishops, and the parishioners fell in line.” (Jerusalem Countdown)

• “In all of his [Hitler’s] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world. To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed—to them it’s an electric chair.” (Jerusalem Countdown)

• “Need we be reminded that the loving theology of the New Testament, as translated by the Roman church fathers, is what sponsored the Crusades, the Inquisition, and ultimately produced the Holocaust?” (In Defense of Israel)

• “Where are the Jews of Spain? They were murdered in cold blood by the Roman Church! Where are the Jews of Portugal? They were murdered in cold blood by the Roman Church! Where are the Jews of Italy and France? There were murdered in cold blood by the Roman Church! Where are the Jews of Austria and Hungary? A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years, produced a harvest of horror.” (Should Christians Support Israel?)

• “The venom of Christian hatred for the Jews reached its crescendo with the coming of Saint John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407), known as the ‘bishop with the golden mouth.’ One of the first to describe the Jews as ‘killers of Christ,’ for centuries Chrysostom’s anti-Semitic venom was considered classic Roman church reading.” (Final Dawn Over Jerusalem)

• “The crusaders were, in fact, seasoned soldiers operating under a blanket of papal protection known as the indulgence…in other words, the crusaders could kill, maim, rape and steal from the Jews with impunity—and God would turn a blind eye to their sins.” (Final Dawn Over Jerusalem)
• “Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” (Jerusalem Countdown)

On March 3, Hagee issued a statement to the press claiming he was “shocked and saddened to learn of the mischaracterization of my views on Catholics.” We knew his claims of “mischaracterization” were bunk, so we trotted out a few of his meatier anti-Catholic allegations and printed them in a news release of our own.

The next day, we were surprised to find that Hagee’s statement had been amended, with a new paragraph added. Hagee’s new statement wailed, “I’ve learned that some have accused me of referring to the Catholic Church as the ‘great whore’ of revelations. This is a serious misinterpretation of my words. When I refer to the ‘great whore,’ I am referring to the apostate church, namely those Christians who embrace the false cult system of Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism.” Hagee continued that this false cult includes some Protestants as well as some Catholics.

The league wasted no time in blasting Hagee for his insincerity. We pointed out that labeling the Church “The Great Whore” has long been a staple of the arsenal stocked by anti-Catholic Protestants. We added that our office contains a whole library of similar preachers to Hagee labeling our Church a “false cult” and the “Whore of Babylon.”

It wasn’t long before we got a call from Hagee’s public relations agent. He was puzzled as to how we had gotten our hands on Hagee’s amended statement. When we explained we read it from reports in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the PR man was stunned. It seems Hagee never approved that paragraph. Apparently, someone at the PR firm had released it accidentally.

We had to laugh. Anyone familiar with the preacher would know the statement was rubbish. Even Hagee—who actually feigned amazement at the idea that anyone would find him anti-Catholic—knew better than to come out and say he doesn’t believe the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon.” It just shows how obvious and how deeply ingrained his bigotry is.

When Republican Senator John McCain appeared with Pastor John Hagee to embrace his endorsement, the presidential hopeful slapped American Catholics in the face. The following timeline demonstrates how events transpired leading up to McCain’s repudiation of Hagee’s anti-Catholic bigotry.

February 27: Republican presidential hopeful, Senator John McCain appeared with Pastor John Hagee and embraced the endorsement of the anti-Catholic bigot. McCain proudly exclaimed he was “very honored by Pastor Hagee’s endorsement,” calling the minister, “the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement.”

February 28: “There are plenty of staunch evangelical leaders who are pro-Israel, but not anti-Catholic. John Hagee is not one of them. Indeed for the past few decades, he has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system…’ In Hagee’s latest book, Jerusalem Countdown, he calls Hitler a Catholic who murdered Jews while the Catholic Church did nothing. ‘The sell-out of Catholicism to Hitler began not with the people but with the Vatican itself,’ he writes…. Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee.”
—Bill Donohue on McCain’s embrace of John Hagee’s endorsement

February 29: “If Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama were fighting over the support of Louis Farrakhan, we’d say they’re nuts. So what are we to conclude about McCain’s embrace of Hagee, and Huckabee’s lament for not getting the bigot’s endorsement?… McCain repudiated the remarks of talk radio host Bill Cunningham. He should now repudiate Hagee’s long record of bashing Catholicism. After all, George W. Bush apologized for speaking at Bob Jones University, and Hagee makes Jones look like a lightweight in the ring of bigotry.”
—Bill Donohue commenting on Mike Huckabee’s disappointment with Hagee’s endorsement of McCain

February 29: “[It] does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues…In no way did I intend for his [Hagee’s] endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.”
—John McCain responding to the criticism surrounding the Hagee endorsement

February 29: “McCain’s latest response is helpful, if disappointing. I expected more from the self-described ‘Straight Talk’ presidential candidate. Why couldn’t he have spoken specifically to the Catholic-bashing record of Hagee? Contrast McCain’s tepid response to what George W. Bush said…regarding his 2000 appearance at Bob Jones University. Bush said he did not approve of ‘the anti-Catholic and racially divisive views associated with that school….’ McCain will have other opportunities to address this issue. He would be well advised to model himself on Bush’s Bob Jones response if he wants to bury it altogether.”
—Bill Donohue comparing McCain’s tepid response to the concrete response from George W. Bush in 2000

February 29: “While John McCain certainly cannot be expected to defend or espouse the views of every individual who has thrown their support to him, McCain completely repudiates any and all remaining elements of anti-Catholicism in America today.”
—Senator Sam Brownback defending McCain

March 2: “I think they’re two very different situations. Pastor Hagee has done some very good things, particularly with regard to Israel and the support for Israel and denouncing terrorism in that area…His endorsement, I think, is for people who believe and work for him. And he does some good things.”
—Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson responding to Wolf Blitzer’s question if McCain should repudiate Hagee’s endorsement as Obama rejected Farrakhan’s endorsement

March 3: “Farrakhan has done some very good things too. He has called upon young black men to steer clear of drugs and to support their families. Yet no one is citing his good work as a justification for his bigoted comments. The same rule should apply to Hagee. We hope McCain gives us something concrete the next time he speaks to this issue. And we’d like to hear from him, not his surrogates.”
—Bill Donohue responding to Brownback and Hutchinson

March 3: “I am shocked and saddened to learn of the mischaracterization of my views on Catholics that has spread while I spent the weekend celebrating the 50th anniversary of my entry into the ministry with family and friends.”
—An excerpt from John Hagee’s statement

March 3: “Did we also mischaracterize Hagee when he called my religion ‘The Great Whore,’ the ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ’ and a ‘false cult system’? McCain cannot ignore Hagee’s lies any more than he can tolerate his bigotry. This is getting out of control.”
—Bill Donohue responding to Hagee’s statement

March 4: “The difference between the way Obama and McCain have handled their endorsements by bigots is enormous. Even worse, McCain actually solicited for Hagee’s endorsement. If Karl Rove is right to criticize Obama for not being strong enough in his denunciation of Farrakhan (which Obama explicitly did), what does that say about McCain’s response to Hagee’s endorsement? In short, Obama has set the bar for McCain. Whether he wants to clear it or walk away is his choice.”
—Bill Donohue responding to Karl Rove’s criticism of Obama’s repudiation of Farrakhan

March 4: “I’ve learned that some have accused me of referring to the Catholic Church as the ‘great whore,’ of Revelations. This is a serious misinterpretation of my words. When I refer to the ‘great whore,’ I am referring to the apostate church, namely those Christians who embrace the false cult system of Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism.”
—The amended paragraph to John Hagee’s statement of March 3

March 4: “Anti-Catholic Protestants have long labeled the Catholic Church ‘The Great Whore,’ and no amount of spin can change that reality. No one who knows anything about the term would suggest otherwise. Indeed, the Catholic League has a whole library of anti-Catholic books wherein such demonizing language is used.”
—Bill Donohue’s response to Hagee’s amendment

March 5: “If McCain was right to slam Bob Jones in 2000, why is he letting Hagee off the hook now? In fact, when Bush did apologize for his visit to Bob Jones (he was explicit and forceful in his denunciation of the school), McCain criticized him for taking so long. He said, if ‘you don’t say anything until three weeks later, then you have—are—abandoning your role as a person….’ Once he [McCain] explicitly rejects the anti-Catholic baggage that Hagee carries, it will be enough to settle this matter once and for all.”
—Bill Donohue comparing McCain’s reaction to the Hagee controversy with his reaction to Bush’s speech at Bob Jones University in 2000

March 6: “No one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic. If anything, John McCain has been a good friend to Catholics. But he and his staff have, thus far, grossly mishandled this issue.”
—Bill Donohue on McCain’s poor judgment regarding the Hagee endorsement

March 6: “Pastor Hagee endorsed me. That does not mean I endorse everything Pastor Hagee said. All I can say is lots and lots of people endorse me. That means they embrace my ideas and positions. It does not mean I endorse them.”
—John McCain, when asked about the Hagee controversy while in Georgia

March 7, morning: “Fortunately for McCain, he did not shut the door and say this matter is over. But time is running out. We expect to hear a more definitive statement that explicitly rejects Hagee’s anti-Catholicism. If we don’t, criticism from many quarters will only escalate. It is one thing for a candidate to disagree with the Catholic position on certain public policy issues, quite another to break bread with an anti-Catholic bigot.”
—Bill Donohue on McCain’s continuing tepidness

March 7, evening: “We’ve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics…. I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it.”
—John McCain when interviewed by the Associated Press

March 10: “Sen. McCain has done the right thing and we salute him for doing so. As far as the Catholic League is concerned, this case is closed.”
—Bill Donohue, in response to McCain’s repudiation of Hagee’s anti-Catholic comments

State lawmakers out to get the Catholic Church lost big time in Colorado and Maryland. The Catholic League was involved in both fights.

As we reported last month, Colorado legislator Rep. Gwyn Green introduced a bill that would lift the statute of limitations on all future cases involving the sexual abuse of children and grant a two-year period for those currently barred from bringing suit to do so. Her legislation unfairly invoked draconian measures for private institutions like the Catholic Church while letting public institutions off the hook with a mere slap on the wrist. Her bill died in March in the House Judiciary Committee; we had contacted the entire Colorado legislature about this issue.

Maryland lawmaker Eric Bromwell introduced similar legislation that would suspend the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases for almost two years. It would allow alleged victims to sue the predator and the organization where the abuser worked. The bill, however, did not apply to public institutions, which are subject to less punitive measures.

We spoke out against the proposed legislation: “It is simply intolerable to allow one set of penalties for private institutions and another for public institutions. If protecting students is the goal, then justice demands that all institutions be treated equally. It is mind-boggling to think that a young person who was previously abused by a public school teacher should be afforded less justice than a neighbor who was molested by a Catholic school teacher.”

We contacted the House Judiciary Committee saying that “To discriminate on the basis of religion—even if it is not the intent of the legislation—is indefensible.” We are happy to report that Delegate Bromwell withdrew his legislation. We believe Bromwell (unlike Colorado’s Rep. Green) had benign motives, even if his judgment was misguided.

On March 13 & 14, The Cavalier Daily, a student-run newspaper at the University of Virginia, ran two cartoons, both of which were offensive to Christians. We blasted the newspaper for their bigotry and pointed out its hypocrisy, which led to the newspaper’s apology the next day.

The first of the offensive cartoons portrayed a crucified Jesus doing stand-up comedy as He hung from the cross. The second cartoon took aim at the Virgin Mary. It depicted her standing beside a bed in her underwear, buttoning up her shirt, as a man lay in the bed smoking a cigarette. She asks the man, “Come on God, be honest—Did you really get a vasectomy? I can’t let Joseph find out about this.” The man replies, “Well, Mary, you’re F***ed.”

It’s typical for the hate-mongers to surface during the days leading up to Holy Week, and the actions of The Cavalier Daily came as no surprise. Although it had been relatively quiet on the bigotry front this Lent, the student newspaper couldn’t wait to put Catholicism in its crosshairs.

This wasn’t the first time that we have had problems with this newspaper. In the Fall of 2006, we requested an apology for cartoons that mocked the crucifixion and indicated that the Virgin Mary had an “Immaculately Transmitted” venereal disease. (The apology was originally denied, though eventually the cartoons were removed from the paper’s website and a statement of regret was posted.)

We also called to attention the hypocrisy that the newspaper displayed. Along with the March 14 cartoon that mocked the Blessed Mother, another cartoon acknowledged that any depictions of the Muslim prophet Muhammed are banned. Even last year the paper’s editorial board forced a cartoonist to resign after the campus chapter of the NAACP objected to a cartoon mocking Ethiopians. Also, in 2005 the paper was quick to apologize for offending homosexuals by remarking that the crane is the “gayest-looking of all birds.”

On March 15, The Cavalier Daily removed the cartoons from its website and issued a statement of regret. The newspaper also pledged to review their cartoon policy.

We are happy that the staff at The Cavalier Daily came to their senses and recognized that anti-Catholic bigotry has no place on the pages of its newspaper.

Senator Barack Obama recently proved that when it comes to the life issues and marriage, he represents a point of view that is in stark contrast to what the Catholic Church teaches about these subjects.

For instance, in a debate he had with Senator Hillary Clinton on February 26, MSNBC moderator Tim Russert asked both presidential candidates whether there was “any word or vote that you’d like to take back” in your “careers in public service.” Senator Obama cited his role in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Senate regarding the Terri Schiavo case. He said it was “a mistake” for the Congress “to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families” to settle her fate.

Not surprisingly, we jumped on this remark. “So now we know that Obama thinks it was a mistake—the biggest mistake he’s ever made in public life—to allow Schiavo’s parents the right to petition a federal court over the withdrawal of food and medical services necessary to save her life.”

Never mind that the vote was merely procedural: it simply allowed the patient’s parents the right to ask for federal review, never guaranteeing a particular outcome. Moreover, the bill was case specific—it had no bearing on any case other than Schiavo’s, and it explicitly said that “nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation.” Yet Obama now says his vote “was not something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped.” How revealing.

We also pointed out something that most people are wholly unaware of, namely, his support for selective infanticide. “Just as important as what Obama said is what he didn’t say: He could have taken the opportunity to say that the biggest blunder of his career in public life was his vote to kill a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have provided medical care for infants who survive abortions. In 2003, while chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee of the Illinois Senate, he led the fight to oppose a bill that would have mandated health care for a baby who survived an abortion, and he did so even though the bill explicitly said it would not imperil Roe v. Wade.”

If this wasn’t bad enough, on March 2, Obama told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the gathering that his support for legalized abortion does not make him “less Christian.”

Obama laid down a challenge to those who think gay civil unions shouldn’t be legal. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” He was referring to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans condemning homosexuality.

In the media, Catholic League director of communications Kiera McCaffrey took Obama apart for grounding his support for gay unions in the Bible.

So when it comes to the beginning of life, Obama thinks it is okay to let a fully born baby die on a hospital table without any doctor or nurse attending to his needs. When it comes to the end of life, he thinks it is a grave mistake for the state to intervene in saving the life of a person who is intentionally being starved to death. And when it comes to marriage, he basically wants to give gays the same rights as married couples, short of calling it marriage.

To top it off, Obama claims that all of his positions are in harmony with Christian teaching. The Illinois senator is a member of the United Church of Christ, the same church that Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State belongs to. It is not for nothing that its enrollment has plummeted over the past few decades.

On Sunday, March 2 the Catholic League celebrated the 69th anniversary of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII by submitting a petition for the late pontiff’s beatification.

The league along with the Society of Catholic Social Scientists amassed a Petition to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Beatification of Pope Pius XII, which garnered over 15,000 signatures in three months. The petition reads:

With profound respect and sincere devotion, We, the undersigned, humbly request that the cause for the beatification of Pope Pius XII proceed without delay. Pius XII’s virtuous life speaks for itself and is supported by an abundance of incontestable documentary evidence. The truth regarding his service to the Church and the World, as a diplomat and during his pontificate, prior to and through the World War II period, is also historically established. He has been the victim of an unjust smear campaign for fifty years. Now, however, overwhelming evidence has been amassed that proves beyond doubt that he labored without pause for peace, that he sought to assist in every way possible the victims of war, especially Jews, hundreds of thousands of whom were spared through his efforts, and that he constantly warned the world of the horrors of Nazism and Communism. We urge that you honor this holy and brave Pontiff at the soonest possible date.

It is our hope that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI heeds our request and beatifies Pius XII.