The FBI recently released its annual report on hate crimes; it reported a 21 percent increase between 2000 and 2001. Just prior to the release of the report, there was a news story regarding a 51 year-old Chicago Catholic woman who was murdered by a 19 year-old man because he objected to the woman’s questioning of his homosexual lifestyle.

The FBI says that for an act to be dubbed a hate crime it must be determined that hate speech accompanies intimidation in the commission of a crime. It is clear to nearly everyone that such determinations are highly subjective and open to serious abuse. That is why the Catholic League opposes hate crime legislation: ascertaining motive is difficult enough but it is further complicated in today’s highly-charged milieu of political correctness.

To demonstrate the utter futility of hate crime legislation, consider what happened to Mary Stachowicz. On November 13, after she received Holy Communion at St. Hyacinth Catholic Church, she walked across the street to volunteer at a funeral home. Above the funeral home is Nicholas Gutierrez’s apartment; he is a janitor at the funeral home. It was in his apartment that an argument took place about the young man’s gay lifestyle. Mary asked, “Why do you [have sex with] boys instead of girls?” This was enough to provoke Gutierrez to mutilate her with a knife, place a plastic garbage bag over her head, strangle her and then jam her body in a crawl space under the floor of his apartment.

In a news release on this subject, we offered the following comments: “a) this will not be listed as a hate crime, thus showing how useless this category of crime is b) the killer is going to be charged with a capital offense, thus showing once again how useless this category of crime is and c) Mary Stachowicz will never be remembered the way Matthew Shepard is, thus showing how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is. The fact is she was murdered for having a Catholic-informed conscience.”

On November 15, Dr. Glenn L. Archer died at the age of 96. In 1948, he served as the first executive director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State; he held this post until he retired in 1976 (the organization changed its name to Americans United for Separation of Church and State in 1982).

On November 21, Barry Lynn, the current executive director of Americans United, issued a statement saying, “Glenn Archer was a figure of towering energy and intellect” and cited him as “a strong defender of religious liberty through the separation of church and state.”

William Donohue answered Lynn with the following news release:

“Barry Lynn’s appraisal of Glenn Archer is incomplete. As with anyone, no doubt there was a good side to Archer, but it remains undeniably true that he used his ‘towering energy and intellect’ to bash Catholicism.

“It was under Archer’s tutelage that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was dubbed in 1949 as being ‘more dangerous and clever than communism.’ That this was said after Stalin had murdered tens of millions of his own people—starving the Ukrainians to death in the world’s first man-made famine—is truly astonishing. It was Archer who petitioned the FCC to deny TV licenses to Jesuits because they were ‘an alien organization.’ It was Archer who demanded that cardinals in the Catholic Church have their citizenship revoked. And it was Archer who asked the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate ‘the intentions, scope and achievements of Vatican espionage here,’ charging that the Catholic clergy had learned ‘American secrets hardly anyone except the president knows.’

“Not to acknowledge that Archer was an inveterate Catholic basher who received his largest per capita contributions from Christian Scientists, Seventh-day Adventists and Jews is to wash the face of a bigot.”

Americans United Spins the Truth:

“Thanks to Dr. Archer’s vision and hard work, Americans United was established as a permanent presence in American life and has built a reputation as a strong defender of religious liberty through the separation of church and state.”

—Americans United press release, November 21, 2002

On December 14, on the CNN show, “Inside Politics,” Nancy Pelosi said, “Yes, I’m a liberal Democrat, but I’m a conservative Catholic.” Her comment was also cited in the next day’s edition of USA Today.

William Donohue found her comments amusing and told the media what he thought about them:

“Nancy Pelosi, the new Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, has voted against school vouchers and the Faith-Based Initiative. When it comes to abortion, no one in the U.S. Congress has a more extreme record than she does. Whether the issue is parental consent or partial-birth abortion, she can always be counted on to deliver a proabortion vote. Yet she calls herself a ‘conservative Catholic.’ It would be instructive to know what she considers a liberal Catholic to be.

“It’s actually worse than this. The October 12 edition of the PBS program, ‘To the Contrary,’ showed Pelosi playing host to anti-Catholics. Frances Kissling and other staff members of the notoriously anti-Catholic organization Catholics for a Free Choice, were featured walking out of Pelosi’s office after a lobbying session.

“Pelosi’s contacts with these anti-Catholics is nothing new: in 1995 she was critical of the U.S. bishops for blasting Kissling’s outfit as anti-Catholic. At that time, the bishops objected to the inclusion of Kissling’s group at the U.N. Conference on Women that was to be held in Beijing. In reference to Kissling, William Cardinal Keeler, then head of the bishops’ conference, said ‘To use the name Catholic to promote the taking of innocent life is offensive.’ Pelosi defended Kissling saying ‘Many women are concerned about freedom of speech and association at the conference. Accreditation should not be a politicized process.’ It is not surprising, then, that Pelosi refuses to condemn the DNC for its support for Kissling’s group today.

“In short, Pelosi’s spin game is insulting. No conservative Catholic we know okays the killing of kids 80 percent born.”

We are proud to say that Baltimore media-legend Les Kensolving picked up on Donohue’s remarks at a White House press conference. He asked White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan whether President Bush agreed with Pelosi’s “Catholic conservative” claim or with Donohue’s criticisms of her. McClellan sidestepped the question but took the opportunity to reiterate President Bush’s opposition to partial-birth abortion.

On November 18, Tampa Tribune columnist Daniel Ruth wrote a column questioning the relationship between Governor Jeb Bush’s religion (he is a convert to Catholicism) and his suitability for public office. Bush supports school prayer, limits on abortion, school vouchers and the like.

As Ruth sees it, “if Jeb Bush appears for his second inaugural wearing a miter, vestments and carrying a staff, one might conclude he has taken this whole ‘Christian conservative political agenda’ thing just a pinch too far.” Ruth implored readers to remember that Bush “was re-elected governor of Florida, not vicar general”; Bush, he says, should recall he “won an election, not a canonization.”
Ruth also warned that Bush might “turn the state into a regulatory theocracy.” Finally, Ruth mocked Bush for converting to Catholicism saying, “he missed out on all the fun of having the living daylights beaten out of him as a child by the Sisters of Holy Inquisition.”

William Donohue responded with the following news release on November 21 (it was reprinted by the Tampa Tribune on November 27):

“Imagine a columnist from a mainstream newspaper questioning Joseph Lieberman’s Jewishness and his suitability for public office. Lieberman, after all, is a rabid defender of Israel and partial-birth abortion, two issues that are popular among Jews. Let’s go further: ‘If Joseph Lieberman appears for his next inaugural wearing a yarmulke, Star of David and prayer shawl, one might conclude he has taken this whole Jewish liberal political agenda thing just a pinch too far.’ Or this: ‘It is worth remembering that Lieberman was re-elected senator of Connecticut, not Chief Rabbi.’ Picture this: ‘Lieberman might turn the state into a regulatory theocracy.’ Finally, because Lieberman never converted to Islam, ‘he missed out on all the fun of learning how brutal and oppressive the imperialist theocratic-state of Israel really is.’

“Ruth is more than a bigot, he’s a hypocrite. He wants professors fired for views he abhors (see Tampa Tribune, Aug. 25) yet he regularly abuses his own free speech rights.”

The image that Planned Parenthood works hard to sell is that of an organization that cares for the plight of young women who find themselves in a pregnancy they never wanted. In reality, it is a well-greased monster that gets millions of taxpayer dollars each year to promote and offer abortions. But the blood on its hands is also accompanied by lying and deceit.

These days the average person thinks that any law that hasn’t been passed requiring all adults to report instances of sexual molestation of a minor by an adult is the work of the Catholic Church. But they are wrong. Take, for example, what has been happening in New York State.

New York State does not have a law that mandates the clergy to report sex abuse crimes to the authorities. This has led some public persons to criticize Catholic bishops for the exemption. To cite one case, Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro recently blasted the new norms on sex abuse that were approved by the U.S. bishops and called for new state legislation that would add the clergy to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse.

William Donohue, knowing how utterly untrue Pirro’s comment was, decided to write to every member of the New York State legislature urging him to mandate all professionals to report instances of the sexual abuse of minors to the authorities. In doing so, he also addressed the reason why a bill of this nature has been stymied. By Planned Parenthood and its allies, that is.

When a comprehensive bill on this issue was put forth last June, Donohue said, it was put on hold because of opposition from Family Planning Advocates, the lobbying arm of Planned Parenthood, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. They objected to having abortion providers report instances of statutory rape to the authorities. And with good reason: a recent study showed that 91 percent of Planned Parenthood staff members currently do not report such cases to the authorities.

In a news release on this subject, Donohue said, “People like Jeanine Pirro are more than dishonest when they suggest that it is the bishops who are holding things up—they are literally giving cover to those who work in the abortion industry.”

Donohue ended his statement with the following: “It is time for everyone to put his cards on the table. If the real issue is protecting minors, then everyone should be blanketed by the same law. But if the real issue is to ‘get the priests,’ then the exemption for the abortion industry will shamefully continue. It is time to pull the mask off the Pirros of this world and force them to come clean.”

After the news release was issued, Donohue was asked if he would debate Pirro on CNN’s “American Morning” show with Paula Zahn. He agreed. But when he showed up for the show the next morning, he was told Pirro had cancelled at the last minute. She wanted nothing to do with him.

Donohue wouldn’t let her scoot so easily so he wrote her a letter. Here is what the first paragraph said: “Since you cancelled our debate on CNN, I find it necessary to ask you a question in writing: do you support a sex abuse reporting law that is inclusive (coverage extends to teachers, abortion providers, social workers et al.) or one that applies to the clergy yet allows an exemption for special-interest groups like Planned Parenthood?” She never replied. That’s because she was trapped. It’s also because she’s a coward.

One more thing about Planned Parenthood. They are running an “Artwork & Poster Contest” asking young people to address the subject of the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. One of the conditions says, “Children under age 18 must have a parent or legal guardian’s permission to submit their designs and for us to publish it along with their name.”

This puts the lie to the charge that Planned Parenthood rejects parental consent. It does so only when “Children under age 18” decide to abort their baby.

On December 30, the Catholic Bishops of New York State filed a lawsuit against New York State challenging a law that requires religious institutions to provide prescription contraception coverage to employees.

New York State legislators ignored the bishops’ calls for exemptions for religious institutions, and in so doing have passed a law that would force the Church to violate its own teachings.

The law represents nothing less than an attempt on the part of the abortion lobby to use the power of the state to bend the Church to its will. The abortion industry shows the same contempt for Catholics that it does for the unborn, and has trampled the First Amendment right to religious liberty to prove it.

The Catholic League stands with the bishops against this attempt to meddle in the doctrinal prerogatives of Catholic entities. We look to the courts to remedy this shameful situation without delay.

The Pocono Record is a newspaper in Northeast Pennsylvania that may not be distinguished by its circulation, but it certainly is distinguished by its vitriolic attacks on the Catholic Church. A recent editorial took direct aim at the Church blaming it for AIDS. It was one of the more irresponsible editorials we’ve seen. Fortunately, area priests responded in a professional manner with a letter to the editor and the newspaper printed it.

The newspaper took grave exception to the Church’s position that abstinence is the only sure way to protect against AIDS. This was labeled “ridiculous, impractical and unkind.” Then the editorial began its lecture, saying “People have sex. All the time. They don’t want to have babies as a result and they certainly don’t want to catch diseases when they’re having it.” In other words, don’t tell men and women to act responsibly, they prefer to engage in irresponsible behavior and don’t want any consequences.

Branding the teaching of abstinence “the final solution” (take that survivors of Auschwitz!), the editorial ends by indulging in a bit of good-old fashioned Catholic bashing. It says that sex is “so natural that even those sworn to forego it—some Catholic priests, for one example—have been known to violate their holiest vows to engage in it.”
Here’s how 11 priests answered the editorial (we are grateful to Father Tom McLaughlin for sharing it with us):

“On November 8th of this year your editorial directed itself to matters of the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Most specifically a teaching related to the sacred nature of life. The tragic nature of a disease such as AIDS affects all humanity, and the Catholic Church was among the first to open hospital doors, clinics and care homes for those suffering and dying. This work still continues today even as victims live longer and healthier lives—we pray and work as we can for an end to this disease.

“We stand in defense of the right of the Catholic Church to speak clearly its moral teaching to all of its members and to share its teaching with the world. The teaching in question, regarding abstinence from sexual activity does have a 100% success rate. A fact you affirm in you editorial. You label this accurate fact to be ‘ridiculous, impractical an unkind.’

“A great many of the moral issues facing men and women today present immense challenges. At times our decisions about war and peace, justice and poverty, homelessness, disease and family stability are among the most difficult to resolve.

“Facts and information help us to properly form our consciences and thus help us to render better decisions. Facts which are both true and correct ought to be considered by all. The Catholic Church has the right and responsibility to speak. The Church has a duty to be a real part of the dialogue which shapes a better society and a more responsible world. It cannot do so silent from that which is true.

“The logic advanced in your editorial speaks a sad commentary upon our society. If we are so uncontrolled as to not be able to abstain from sex even for ‘days’ as your editorial implies, we are indeed in need of a true and guiding light. Your editorial language seems more reflective of addictive behaviors than ones freely chosen.

“Like all aspects of life, our sexual gift is a beautiful one. The expression of true and faithful love is dignified, good and wondrous. We need to convey to all its beauty and we do so by not lowering the value of one’s sexuality to an uncontrolled act. It has intrinsic value which needs to be uplifted.

“The right to speak is essential, a freedom guaranteed by our nation’s law and principles. Your editorial seemed to suggest that only voices in accord with your own were able to address this issue with meaning and real purpose. The voice which is both true and correct needs to be heard by all who face serious moral choices, to deny this right is to deny the freedoms we cherish and diminish our common calling to make our world an ever better reflection of the love of our Creator.”