The league’s own Kiera McCaffrey pre-viewed New Line Cinema’s upcoming film “The Nativity Story” and highly recommends it. Tracing the tale of Jesus’ birth from Zechariah learning that his wife will bear a son, John the Baptist, through the flight into Egypt and the Massacre of the Innocents, “The Nativity Story” is a moving and reverent look at the birth of our Lord.

Particularly well done is the focus on the difficult choice the compassionate Joseph has to make when he learns Mary is pregnant, and his determination to protect his wife and child once he learns the truth of Jesus’ conception. Viewers will also enjoy the focus on the bravery and devotion to the Lord that Mary (played by Keisha Castle-Hughes, who was nominated for an Academy Award for her performance in “Whale Rider”) shows in the face of judgment from her neighbors and the understandable reaction of her initially incredulous parents. Beautiful scenery and a moving score all add to the captivating effect.

The film received an MPAA rating of PG for some violent content. Small children may be frightened by scenes involving Herod’s cruelty and the violence committed by his soldiers. However, it is suitable for families and is sure to provoke thoughtful reflection in viewers of all ages.

“The Nativity Story” premiered at a charitable benefit held at the Vatican before 7,000 guests on November 26 and opens in the United States nationwide on December 1.

On the November 14 edition of “The O’Reilly Factor,” Bill O’Reilly said “the Vatican is calling the proposed fence on the southern border inhuman”; a picture of the pope was shown on the screen.

O’Reilly is wrong—the Vatican has said no such thing. As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict XVI never once mentioned the fence in his recent annual World Day for Migrants and Refugees message. Neither did Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants and Travelers; he spoke at a press conference about this issue. The person who made the remark at the press conference was Cardinal Renato Martino, temporary president of the migrants council.

More important, unlike one of O’Reilly’s guests, Pat Buchanan, who disagreed with Martino’s remark without becoming disrespectful, O’Reilly went for the jugular saying, “the Vatican needs to wise up or shut up.” O’Reilly’s outburst signifies his tyrannical approach: those who disagree with his “wisdom” have no right to speak. To top it off, he showed how much wisdom he possesses when he said that the Martino remark was the kind made by “a lot of secular progressives.” It is not everyday that “the Vatican” (as he sees it) is charged with promoting a secularist agenda; his other guest, Sally Vance-Trembath, was wise enough to chastise him for making this absurd comment.

O’Reilly ended this segment by saying, “The Vatican wants all the illegals to come here but it does want them to be Catholic.”

Bill O’Reilly cannot blame his ignorance of all things Catholic on his high school because Chaminade, located in Mineola, Long Island, is the flagship Catholic school in the New York metropolitan area. So it must be his intellectual sloppiness.

Looks like the time has come for O’Reilly to take some of his own medicine and wise up or shut up.

On October 31, the Christian Science Monitor featured two responses to Pope Benedict XVI’s call for dialogue in his University of Regensburg lecture. One response was from a Christian and the other from a Muslim. There was just one problem: the person who wrote from the Christian perspective is an anti-Catholic bigot.

Dave Hunt provided this insight: “The pope’s call for dialogue rings hollow. He mentioned the 16th century Reformation and its motto, ‘sola scriptura’—the principle that the Bible is the only, not just primary, spiritual authority. But he failed to admit that his church still opposes this concept as firmly as it did at the Council of Trent (1543-63).” Hunt also wrote that, “The Vatican no longer uses torture or the sword as a threat, but it hasn’t rescinded its anathemas, or curses, against Protestants. For all the current talk about dialogue and ecumenism, its earlier decrees declaring that there is no salvation outside submission to the Catholic Church have never been rescinded.”

The Catholic League has previously written about Dave Hunt and his anti-Catholic positions. In the October 1996 issue of Catalyst, we noted that Hunt wrote of Vatican City that, “a charge of fornication could be leveled” against it.

Bill Donohue wrote to Christian Science Monitor editor Richard Bergenheim. Donohue said, “Having Dave Hunt write about dialogue with the pope is akin to commissioning David Duke to espouse his take on race relations. If the Monitor wished to present the view of a non-Catholic Christian on the pope’s request for inter-faith dialogue, that would be absolutely fine with us. However, was there no one else available besides a man who has revealed his animosity for the Catholic Church time and time again?” Donohue also wrote that he was astonished that a responsible publication like the Monitor would publish Hunt’s views.

Mr. Bergenheim replied with a respectful letter, although it did not satisfy us. Bergenheim wrote, “As editors we are fully aware of Mr. Hunt’s controversial reputation. As a Christian publication, our motive was to reach out to him—rather than ostracize him…. We worked with him diligently to make sure of the article’s accuracy and to tone down his rhetoric. It was a Christian exercise, forgiving his past statements to possibly create a better future for all Christianity.”

The Catholic League certainly understands the need for forgiveness. What we do have a problem with is choosing someone who is unapologetic about his anti-Catholic bigotry to write about the church. If the editors of the Monitor worked with Hunt “to tone down his rhetoric,” we wonder what the article looked like before the toning down.

While we respect the Christian Science Monitor and have no reason to doubt its intentions and sincerity, we will be monitoring the newspaper to see how its future articles treat the Catholic faith.

Every day, newspaper editors receive letters intended for publication. Ideally, these letters are thoughtful responses or additions to articles that previously ran. In reality, some are vile, hate-filled pieces that usually end up where they belong—in the garbage.

Of late, the Philadelphia Daily News showed its anti-Catholic stripes by printing a letter from a reader from Royersford, Pennsylvania. The rant read in its entirety: “Recently, I’ve read a number of articles reporting how the Catholic faith has been praying for the Amish community. Don’t the Amish have enough difficulties? Isn’t that arguably the equivalent of Charles Manson praying for Gandhi?”

Our concern was not with the bigot who wrote the piece: we are used to receiving hate mail and are never surprised at such content. Rather, we questioned why a reputable newspaper would publish such a blatant and unwarranted attack on the Catholic Church. Since the paper publishes the letters it receives at its discretion, we can only wonder whether the editors share the letter writer’s views. After all, the screed included no new information, rational arguments or insightful commentary for readers to appreciate. We put this question to the managing editor, Michael Days, asking as well if the paper would print a similar rant comparing Jews to Jack the Ripper or Islam to the Son of Sam.

We’ve let the newspaper know we’re onto its game, and you can to. Write to Michael Days at 400 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130 or send an e-mail to daysm@phillynews.com. Send him a message that Catholics aren’t going to buy his paper unless he cleans up its act.

It is all too often that the Catholic Church serves as fodder for the vile smears of political cartoonists. Those artists with an axe to grind against the Church often vent their frustrations on the clergy as a whole. Thus we were not surprised to see a recent syndicated cartoon by Mike Shelton of California’s Orange County Register. Shelton’s cartoons, like several others we’ve seen, took the occasion of Representative Mark Foley’s disgrace to paint all priests as sex abusers.

What we aren’t accustomed to seeing are apologies from those whose papers print such trash. That’s why we are pleased to commend Thomas G. Rice, publisher of Philadelphia’s Evening Bulletin. The Bulletin ran Shelton’s cartoon on October 12. Rice was not aware of the cartoon’s content prior to the paper going to press, and he was suitably remorseful that it was ever printed. Not only did Rice print a letter of apology in his own paper on October 17, but he purchased advertising space in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s Catholic Standard and Times to extend his apology to area Catholics who do not read the Bulletin as well.

The Catholic League is happy to praise Thomas Rice for being man enough to accept responsibility for his publication and for vowing to ensure that no similarly bigoted piece makes its way into the paper again. We only wish there were more newspapermen like him.

The letter below ran as an advertisement on page 23 of The Catholic Standard and Times on October 19.

Last Thursday, The Evening Bulletin ran an editorial cartoon which was deeply offensive to Catholics and especially Catholic clergy and their supporters. This cartoon ran without my knowledge or consent. Nevertheless, as publisher of The Evening Bulletin, I accept ultimate responsibility for this offense to the community and offer my sincere apology. I am ashamed that this cartoon so offended good people I respect and admire. I will do everything necessary to ensure that nothing like this occurs again.

Sincerely,
Thomas G. Rice

Publisher
The Evening Bulletin
1518 Walnut Street, Suite 19102
Philadelphia, PA 19102

As we have recounted several times before, there is an anti-Catholic animus evident among the panelists on “The View,” with Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar being the worst offenders. On October 27, they were at it again, trotting out the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church one more time. The occasion for their outburst was an exchange they had with their guest, Amy Berg, the director of “Deliver Us From Evil,” a recent documentary on the scandal—which was a box-office bomb.

When Behar said that the molesting priests were pedophiles, not gays, she was either lying or mistaken. This is not a matter of opinion—it is simply wrong to pretend that pedophilia is the problem. As any honest person who has seen the data knows, the majority of the victims were postpubescent, not little kids. And since 81 percent of the victims were male, and 100 percent of the victimizers were male, the problem is one of homosexuality, not pedophilia.

Another lie or mistake was made when O’Donnell said, and Berg concurred, that “The current pope was the person who was supposed to investigate these charges of sex abuse in the Church in the last 20 years.” As a matter of fact, when Pope Benedict XVI was Cardinal Ratzinger, he was not appointed to deal with this problem until 2002—after the scandal hit the newspapers.

On October 31, the denigration of the Catholic faith continued on “The View,” when a discussion centered on the fate of someone who acts in a pornographic movie. Behar said, “In my day if you had done a porno flick, you would not have a career. You would have ended up at the Sisters of the Mary Magdalene.” She further added, “They put you away in a home. Now you become a big star.”
Barbara Walters stands behind all this bigotry—it’s her show.

Contact the executive producer of “The View,” Bill Geddie, at bill.geddie@abc.com.

On election day, voters in eight states were asked to decide whether or not to amend their state constitutions to ban gay marriage. In seven of those states, initiatives were passed to make such amendments.

Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin decided to ban gay marriage. In Wisconsin, Madison Bishop Robert C. Morlino led the battle, directing all the priests of his diocese to play a tape-recorded message from him in place of a homily on the weekend before Election Day. In the recording, Bishop Morlino addressed those who say opposition to gay marriage is discriminatory, “unfair or unloving.” The bishop’s response: “I’m so tired of reading that…. Nobody has a right to redefine marriage.”

Surprisingly, Arizona voters turned down the ballot initiative in their state by a narrow margin, 51-49 percent. But if you combine the results from this past election with the other 20 states where similar measures have previously passed, the message is clear: a majority of Americans are not in favor of allowing gays to marry.

It’s interesting, though, that gays find they can’t win with the American public, so they’ve decided to take the battle elsewhere: the courts. And so far, they’ve been successful there, most recently in New Jersey.

On October 25, the New Jersey Supreme Court said that gay couples have a constitutional right to the same benefits as married men and women, but it stopped short of saying gays had the right to marry. In 2003, Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gays should have a right to marry.

Such decisions are a wakeup call to the vast majority of Americans who are opposed to gay marriage but are reluctant to access the constitutional amendment process as the right remedy. Their reluctance is prudent: it is a grave decision to amend the constitution. But when faced with the prospect of arrogant judges who continue to appropriate powers to themselves that are nowhere authorized in law, many will now reconsider their reservations.

This poster was found at atheism.about.com. It leaves no doubt as to the motivation of many atheists, and how they want to remove religion from Christmas.

Here is an excerpt from atheism.about.com that accompanied the poster:

Christian Nationalists aren’t moved by the principle of treating adherents of other religions with respect—they sincerely believe that they deserve special privileges from the government. They may, however, be moved by the idea that the government will start treating other religions equally, for example by putting up religious displays that Christians don’t like. For Christian Nationalists, their support for having “more religion in government” ends quickly when they realize that “religion” may include more than their own.

The above image is taken from a World War II poster exhorting soldiers to take good care of their boots—it has no direct bearing on the war itself or the causes at issue in the war. In this context, however, it seemed an appropriate image to depict how Christian Nationalists seem to perceive the alleged threats to their treasured religious symbols.

The advertisement below ran in the New York Times op-ed page on Tuesday, November 28.