“Jerry Springer: The Opera” is the most obscene anti-Christian play ever performed; it is particularly targeted at Catholicism. It is coming to off-Broadway on January 23rd.

That is also the day that Bill Donohue and others will hold a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. For a description of this vile musical, see pp. 8-9.

When it was performed in London, a critic for the Sunday Mercury in Birmingham, England called it “the filthiest thing I have ever seen on stage.” The Associated Press picked up on “arias about transvestitism, pole-dancing and diaper fetishism.” A senior radio producer for the BBC said, “The blasphemy was far, far worse than even the most detailed news reports had led me to believe.”

As bad as the content of this play is, what is worse is the fact that it is being funded largely by the public.

The New Group is the site of the play, a small theater near the Port Authority bus terminal in New York. It receives most of its money from the government, not private sponsors. New York City and New York State both contribute to this theater, but the largest donation comes from the federal government by way of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

The purpose of the press conference is to request that President Donald Trump appoint a chairman of the NEA who will not violate the public trust: any theater or gallery that hosts plays or exhibitions that maliciously disparage Christianity, or any other world religion, should not receive funding. He is poised to make a selection soon; the current chairman’s tenure ends in April.

The Catholic League has long called for an end to public funding for the arts, largely because of NEA-sponsored events that attack Catholicism. President Trump sought to cut such funding but was overridden by the House and the Senate.

Catholic League members will recall that an appeal for donations made in October cited the need to underwrite a response to a new assault on our religion that was forthcoming from the arts. Now you know what it is.

We are told all the time that the government cannot fund religion. Why, then, is it acceptable for the government to bash religion?

The opera’s most demonic message is stated at the end: “Nothing is wrong and nothing is right.” That is a prescription for moral nihilism, the precise cultural condition that Hitler seized on in the 1930s.

In the next issue of Catalyst, we will report on the proceedings of the press conference.

A comparison between President Donald Trump’s first year in office on the issue of religious liberty, and that of his predecessor, President Barack Obama, showed a considerable difference: religious rights spiked under Trump.

On February 1, 2017, Trump chose Judge Neil Gorsuch to take Antonin Scalia’s place on the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch is a strong proponent of religious liberty, holding that conscience rights are paramount.

Trump endorsed school choice, championing the cause of tax incentives to businesses that fund private schools; he emphasized the need to help minorities.

An executive order on religious liberty was signed by Trump. It sent a clear message to his cabinet on how to proceed with such matters.

A bill to allow the states to strip funding from Planned Parenthood was signed into law by Trump. This encouraged several states to pass bills restricting abortion.

Trump authorized direct assistance to persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

As important as anything, a religious exemption to Obama’s HHS mandate was granted by Trump.

The religious elements of Christmas were celebrated at the White House. Under Obama, they were downplayed. In fact, an ornament depicting a mass murderer, Mao Zedong, was hung from a Christmas tree.

Obama chose several anti-Catholics to be in his administration; no bigots were selected by Trump.

William A. Donohue

The Boston Globe has been the most merciless attack dog in the media condemning the Catholic Church for the sexual abuse scandal. But when it comes to dealing with its own scandals, it plays a different game.

In the 1970s, a senior editor at the Boston Globe was known to sexually harass young female workers, plying them with alcohol before molesting them. More important, he was not the only one who preyed on women. But nothing was done to stop him, or the others.

Sexual abuse is still going on at the Globe. In March 2017, a young woman employee filed a complaint against a male journalist with human resources. She said he propositioned her to have sex with his wife. But nothing came of it. One year ago, the same man propositioned her to have sex with him. He was allowed to stay on the job, until, that is, more accusations were made against him from outside the office.

So who is he? The Globe refused to say. They declared this to be a “confidential personnel matter.” Indeed, they are proud of covering up for the predator. Globe editor Brian McGrory said he knew he would be accused of hypocrisy, but said, “I can live with that far more easily than I can live with the thought of sacrificing our values to slake the thirst of this moment.”

Well, looks like McGrory had to eat crow. We issued a news release on December 18 blasting his hypocrisy, asking subscribers to contact him. That night I blasted the Globe again on Laura Ingraham’s show. On December 22, he apologized for mishandling the latest incident and named the offender. But he never addressed previous cases of sexual misconduct, so he really didn’t come clean.

In 2002, the investigative staff of the Boston Globe published a book, Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church; it detailed its findings on the sexual scandal in the Archdiocese of Boston. It took the archdiocese to task for settling claims of priestly sexual abuse “in private, with no public record.” That is what McGrory initially defended.

The book also commended its editor at the time for challenging a judge’s confidentiality order “on the grounds that the public interest in unsealing the documents [of offending priests] outweighed the privacy concerns of the litigants” of the Boston archdiocese. We can only assume that “privacy rights” constitute the “values” that McGrory covets—for the Globe, that is. They certainly do not apply to the Catholic Church.

The editorial page of the Boston Globe has been relentless in criticizing the Catholic Church for its reluctance to name the names of priests who have been disciplined for sexual abuse, even though it now insists it has no obligation to name the names of its employees who have been disciplined for such offenses. Here is an example of its editorial treatment of the Church.

• It accused the Church of a “code of silence” about abusive priests. (7/20/92)
• “It’s time for the secrecy to end.” (1/9/02)
• “Compassionate means exist to resolve these cases, but only if the Archdiocese of Boston provides the names of victims to law enforcement officials.” (2/27/02)
• After accusing the Boston archdiocese of a “veil of secrecy,” it wrote that “Full disclosure ought to be standard practice throughout the Catholic Church in the United States.” (3/13/02)
• “The essence of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church was clerical power and secrecy.” (6/16/03)
• It noted that “the district attorney criticized O’Malley [when the Boston archbishop was Bishop of Fall River] for not releasing names of priests involved in long-ago cases of abuse until the Boston scandal flared last year.” (7/2/03)
• It said Boston Archbishop Bernard Law was forced to resign because he would not release “confidential church personnel files.” (7/17/07)
• It accused Pope Benedict XVI of ruling over a “secretive culture.” (4/25/10)
• It said the Church had “kept information from parishioners” about offending priests. (7/21/10)
• It said that “over the years, a lack of transparency has been a problem for the Boston archdiocese.” (3/25/11)
• Archbishop O’Malley, it said, prevailed over an archdiocese that lacked transparency, noting that “The linchpin was secrecy.” (8/27/11)
• It heralded Archbishop O’Malley’s decision to “release the names of priests accused of abuse,” imploring him to do more. (9/17/11)

If the Boston Globe had any integrity, it would not have one standard for itself and one for the Catholic Church. But it plainly does, and that is why its credibility, at least on this matter, is shot.

We need Hollywood to do a “Spotlight” film on the corruption within the Boston Globe. But that is not likely to happen: studio moguls, actors, and entertainers—most of whom feel about the Catholic Church the way the Globe does—are too embroiled in sexual abuse scandals of their own.

Bill Donohue

“Jerry Springer: The Opera” debuted in 2002 at the Edinburgh Festival, and then moved to London’s west end in 2003. After two years, it began a U.K. tour, which lasted another year. Then it was scheduled to run in New York in 2005.

When I learned that the opera was coming to New York, I issued a news release on March 1, 2005, “‘Jerry Springer’ Better Stay in Britain.” I detailed why by citing the following three media sources.

• The opera “contains up to 8,000 profanities and features tap-dancers dressed as Ku Klux Klan members and a showdown between Satan and a diaper-wearing Jesus.” Amidst songs like “Chick with a D…” and “Eat Excrete,” the show portrays “the Messiah as a fat, diapered man who sings he’s ‘a little bit gay.'” (MSNBC News, 1-7-05)
• The show features a “semi-naked ‘gay’ Jesus who is being fondled by a disheveled Eve, as the Devil looks gleefully on with an inebriated Adam.” Also, “the Virgin Mary turns up to talk about her trials as the mother of a wayward saviour, and blitz of four-letter words.” The show ends with Springer telling Jesus to “grow up for Christ’s sake and put some f—ing clothes on.” (Sunday Telegraph, 1-9-05)
• “Surely no more blasphemous, vulgar or salacious piece of musical theatre than Jerry Springer—the Opera has graced the London stage in modern times.” (Evening Standard, 4-30-03)

I labeled the show “Satanic” and pledged to arrange a “massive protest” if it comes to New York. But it didn’t: the show was cancelled.

The opera did make it to New York’s Carnegie Hall for two nights at the end of January in 2008. I pressured Carnegie Hall’s sponsors to register a complaint, and succeeded in getting Bank of America to do so. In fact, it told Carnegie Hall’s officers that it wanted the public to know that its patrons had nothing to do with the show.

By that time I had seen the DVD version of the musical. Besides the non-stop obscenities, and trashing of Christianity—it really has it out for Catholicism—the most disturbing aspect of the show is its celebration of moral nihilism. At the end of the show, the actors scream, “Nothing is wrong and nothing is right.” They add, “there are no absolutes of good and evil.”

At the time, I said, “This is exactly what the Nazis said in their defense in Nuremberg.”

The following script summary, from beginning to end, demonstrates just how morally debased this show is.

• The studio audience for a taping of the Jerry Springer show sings about what they want to see on the show. Some hope for bare breasts, some for lesbians or bisexual dwarfs, some for a “chick with a d***.”
• The character of the “Warm-Up Man” gets the crowd excited before the Jerry Springer-character comes out. He sings to the crowd that Jerry is “bigger than Dave Letterman, bigger than Bob Hope. And give or take a few million, bigger than the f***ing pope.”
• A cast of losers sing about their problems. These are all vulgar and graphic. For instance, there is a “chick with a d***,” and a guy who wants to be his girlfriend’s “baby.” By this he means that he wants to wear a diaper and have her treat him like an infant, as this will get him aroused.
• The chorus sings that people all have different interests, explaining the sexual deviants on the show. One line is, “For some, morning Mass, for others, hairy a**.”
• More deviants are brought out. In one scene, a stripper’s mother, wearing a large crucifix, confronts her daughter. The mother informs her daughter that she wishes she died at birth.
• The KKK is introduced. Klansmen dance around in front of a burning cross, and a man in a diaper tries to shoot one of them, but misses and hits Jerry instead.
• Jerry learns he has gone to Hell. The “Warm-Up Man” from his show, it turns out, is actually Satan. The viewers see pictures of naked men descending into Hell.
• Satan wants Jerry to host a conflict resolution show for heaven and hell. Satan is angry with God for casting him out of heaven, and hopes to be an angel again; he wants an apology from Jesus. Satan gives Jerry cue cards to read for the show, and he reluctantly agrees to be the host.
• There is a set, and a sign reading, “Jerry Springer Show—in Hell.” A disclaimer is shown that reads in part, “It may not be suitable for viewers without a strong grasp of Judea-Christian mythology.”
• Jerry reads one of Satan’s cue cards to introduce the next guest. Jerry balks at first, but then introduces the guest as “The hypocrite son of the fascist tyrant on high, Jesus of Nazareth.”
• Jesus appears (he is the same actor who played the man interested in dressing up as a baby). Jesus is fat, effeminate, and wearing a loincloth. Jesus tells Satan to sit down on his a**.
• Satan breaks into song, singing about Jesus: “So he turned the water into wine, oooh! So he walked across the freaking seas, oooh! So you got yourself crucified. Here’s a little biscuit from me.” Satan holds up an off-white biscuit that resembles the Eucharist.
• Jesus then grabs the biscuit from Satan and holds it above his head before throwing it down, singing, “I am Jesus, son of man, son of Mary, son of God. So do not, do not, do not f*** with me. I do not want your biscuit. I want your love and your respect, for I am love and I love all mankind.”
• The chorus then sings, “Jesus is gay, Jesus is gay.”
• Jesus yells at the choir, telling the singers to stop, but then admits, “Actually, I am a bit gay.”
• Jerry reads aloud one of the cards. He says, “You call yourself Jesus, but you are not worthy of the name.” Then Jerry looks up from the card and asks, “Who wrote this s***?”
• At this point, Adam and Eve come out as the next guests. Adam is singing to Eve, “put your f***ing clothes on, you stupid b****.” Eve responds, “Talk to the a**!”
• Jerry tries to resolve a conflict between Adam, Eve and others. Eve sings to Jesus that she shouldn’t have been cast out of the garden for one simple mistake. Jesus responds that Eve had her chance, and she blew it.
• Eve reaches under Jesus’ loincloth and fondles his genitals. Jesus sings that he was crucified and Eve didn’t even care. Eve and Jesus continue arguing and eventually come to physical blows.
• Jerry tells Jesus he has to apologize for hitting Eve, but Jesus refuses. Satan then sings that Jesus should get over the crucifixion, “and give us all a f***ing break.”
• When Jerry suggests to Satan that it may be impossible for him to get Jesus to apologize for casting Satan out of heaven, Satan and the choir sing out a warning, indicating that if Jerry doesn’t succeed, he will be “f***ed up the a** with barbed wire.”
• Jerry announces that it is time to bring in the next guest, “the teenage mother of Jesus, Mary.”
• The choir sings, “Raped by an angel, raped by an angel, raped by an angel, raped by God!”
• Our Blessed Mother enters. She is angry and pointing at Jesus. She sings a song to him asking things such as, “Where were you when I was getting old? Where were you when the children cried?”
• Satan sings back, “Jesus wasn’t there. He didn’t care.”
• Jerry tells Satan that there is no way of resolving all these conflicts short of a miracle. At this point, God descends onto the stage. He is a fat man in a white suit.
• God sings that it isn’t easy being God, as everyone makes bad choices, blaming God for all their problems. God invites Jerry up to Heaven to “sit in heaven beside me, hold my hand and guide me.” Jerry gratefully accepts, but Satan and God then get into a fight over him. Jerry is put in a cage and is going to descend into a pit of fire. He then gives a speech to convince everyone to keep him away from hell. He steals lines from Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
• Jerry ends with his own words: You’re never going to agree on everything. And what’s so bad about that? Satan, you’re never going to get your apologies … Jesus, grow up for Christ’s sake and put some f***ing clothes on. Haven’t you people heard of yin and yang? Love and hate? Attraction and repulsion? It’s the human condition we’re talking about here. Energy is pure delight. Nothing is wrong and nothing is right. And everything that lives is holy. And in conclusion, f*** you. F*** you all.
• All the action on the stage stops, and images of angels are projected onto the stage. The angels have the curves and breasts of females, along with male genitalia. The chorus starts to sing Jerry’s words: “Energy is pure delight. Nothing is wrong and nothing is right.”
• Everyone is pleased with what Jerry said, and he is free to go. One of the perverts from the show, Baby Jane (she also got her sexual kicks from acting like a baby) lets him out of the cage. Jerry tells her that he wants to stay in hell because he likes it there.
• Baby Jane repeatedly sings “Jerry Eleison” (a spin from the Greek Kyrie Eleison, or “Lord have mercy”). Jerry finds himself back on earth, dying from the gunshot wound. The crowd watches him die, asking if he has any final thoughts.
• Jerry pontificates, “I’ve learned that there are no absolutes of good and evil. We all live in a glorious state of flux….For better or for worse, history defines us by what we do and what we choose not to do. Hopefully, what will survive is love. So until next time, take care of yourselves.”
• Jerry then dies, and the chorus sings a closing song with the frequently repeated line, “3 nipple closet f***er, what the f***.” The chorus comes out all dressed as Jerry, singing about how it’s not easy to be Jerry Springer.

The show’s message—”nothing is wrong and nothing is right” and there are “no absolutes of good and evil”—is brought to life on stage.

Good and evil trade places (Jesus is a gay fascist who must apologize to Satan); nature-based differences between the sexes are blurred (women are depicted with male genitalia); terrorists are portrayed as friendly (tap dancing Klansmen); and Christianity is defamed (the Mass and the Eucharist are trashed, the crucifixion is ridiculed, and the Virgin Mary was raped by an angel).

To say the theme is demonic is hardly an exaggeration.

This is an excerpt from a longer document found online under “Special Reports“

ENTERTAINMENT:

Ben Affleck—After speaking out against Weinstein, the Oscar winner became the subject of his own sex assault narrative when a Twitter user unearthed a clip of Affleck grabbing the breast of then-MTV VJ Hilarie Burton during a 2003 taping of “Total Request Live.” Affleck has apologized for “acting inappropriately” towards Burton. (Flare, 11/26/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: Starred in “Dogma,” anti-Catholic movie, said film is intended to “push buttons.” (Catholic League, 11/19/2004) The plot was an irreverent look at Catholicism, one that maintained that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations; Mary gives birth to a daughter who works in an abortion clinic. God (played by Alanis Morissette) and the apostles (a foul-mouthed 13th is introduced) are also subjected to director Kevin Smith’s brand of humor. (Catholic League, 10/6/2014)

Woody Allen—Accusations of child molestation. (Breitbart, 10/25/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: Starred in “Picking Up the Pieces,” an anti-Catholic movie that thrashes Catholicism from beginning to end. The plot revolves around a butcher (Allen) who slices up his wife and buries her in the desert. One of the hands is found (giving the finger) by a blind woman who brings it to a priest. The woman, now cured of her blindness, insists that the hand belongs to the Virgin Mary. The priest, who is having sex with a prostitute, advertises the hand to the faithful as a cure for all types of maladies; one of the “miracles” results in enlarged breasts for a woman and an enlarged penis for a dwarf. (Catholic League, 5/24/2000)

Alec Baldwin—Bullying and sexist behavior toward women. (Breitbart, 10/25/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: In a burst of anger directed at a photographer Baldwin disliked, he said, “You must have been raped by a priest.” (Catholic League, 9/18/2002)

Louis C.K.—Accused by several women of sexual misconduct. He says the allegations are true and has apologized. (AP, 11/24/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare:
• Accused Pope Benedict XVI of “f***ing boys” (Catholic League, 5/18/2015)
• His show “Louie” featured an entire episode mocking and maligning Catholicism. For example, he said “the purpose of the episode was to convince elementary school kids that all the talk about Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins is pure bunk.” (Catholic League, 10/15/2010)
• YouTube mockumentary called “Louis C.K. Learns About the Catholic Church.” It features a priest who tells him that the purpose of Catholicism is “boy f***ing,” not faith. He takes him through a crash course in this perverse theology. (YouTube)

David Letterman—Admitted on Oct. 1, 2009 that he had been sexually involved with female staffers on his show. (People, 10/19/2009)
Offensive Catholic fare: A sampling of Letterman’s anti-Catholic bigotry excerpted from Catholic League news releases:
• On Good Friday (2015), David Letterman joked about the pope’s physical exam, saying his weight gain may be a function of “a little too many Communion wafers.” (4/7/2015)
• On Holy Thursday (2015), Letterman made ten jokes about the pope’s physical exam; all the comments were attributed to the attending physician. The joke listed as #1 was: “I know you don’t use it, but I still have to take a look at it.” (4/7/2015)
• Letterman began by saying Pope Francis is thinking about lifting the celibacy requirement. “That’s right. The pope is saying that priests can be in a marriage with a woman and have sex.” (7/17/2014)
• Letterman mentioned Pope Francis’ appearance at World Youth Day in Brazil by saying, “And I’m telling you if there’s anything the kids can’t get enough of, it’s a 76-year-old virgin. Come on! World Youth Day. Or as the Vatican calls it, salute to altar boys.” (7/24/2013)
• Letterman said he was “stunned” and “fascinated” by the pervert, Anthony Weiner’s predicament. He said, “Honest to God…it is the kind of behavior you’d expect from a priest.” (6/15/2011)
• When the “Opie and Anthony” radio show graphically described a couple having sex in St. Patrick’s Cathedral on August 15, 2002, a holy day of obligation, Letterman joked about it in his monologue. He also made a crack about a priest molesting an altar boy in the Cathedral. (8/21/2002)

Bob Weinstein—Accused of sexually harassing a former employee. (Breitbart, 10/25/2017)
Harvey Weinstein—Accused by dozens of women of sexual harassment or sexual assaults, including rape. Fired by The Weinstein Co. and expelled from various professional guilds. Under investigation by police departments in New York, London, Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. (AP, 11/24/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: Long history of making anti-Catholic movies:
• In 1995, Harvey Weinstein and his brother, Bob, offered us “Priest,” a film featuring nothing but miscreant priests.
• In 1999, we were treated to “Dogma,” where the audience learned of a descendant of Mary and Joseph who works in an abortion clinic.
• In 2002, they released “40 Days and 40 Nights,” a film that ridiculed a Catholic for giving up sex for Lent.
• Also opening in 2002 was “The Magdalene Sisters,” a movie that smeared nuns.
• In 2003, “Bad Santa” opened for the holidays; Santa was cast as a chain-smoking, drunken, foul-mouthed, suicidal, sexual predator.
• In 2006, “Black Christmas” made a predictably dark statement about the holiday.
• “Philomena” was released in 2013. It is a tale of malicious lies about Irish nuns and the Church (Harvey lobbied hard for an Oscar, but came up empty). In real life, Philomena Lee was a teenager who abandoned her out-of-wedlock son, and who, because of the good efforts of the nuns, was adopted by an American couple. (Catalyst, 11/2017)

MEDIA:

NPR Chief News Editor David Sweeney—Left NPR in late November amid allegations of sexual harassment by at least three female journalists. (AP, 11/24/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: Sweeney has been with NPR, in various management positions, since 1993. During that time, NPR has had a long record of anti-Catholic content, including mocking the Eucharist, sexualizing Jesus, criticizing the Catholic faith of Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic public figures. (Catholic League, 5/16/2017)
• On May 27, 2012, Barbara Bradley Hagerty did a piece that was posted on the website of National Public Radio (NPR) titled, “Just Doing His Job Is Catholic Official’s Defense.” Here is how she opened her story: “A clergy sex-abuse trial in is [sic] reaching a crescendo in a Philadelphia courtroom. One defendant is James Brennan, a priest accused of trying to rape a minor, which is not that unusual.” [Emphasis added.] (Catholic League, 5/30/2012)

PBS and CBS host Charlie Rose—Accused by several women of unwanted sexual advances, groping and grabbing women, walking naked in front of them or making lewd phone calls. He has apologized for his behavior, but has questioned the accuracy of some of the accounts. (AP, 11/24/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: PBS has a long history of bias against the Church when it comes to the reporting of sexual abuse:
• “Secrets of the Vatican” marked the 48th time PBS has addressed sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Though this problem is practically non-existent in the Catholic community these days, and is rampant in the public schools, as well as in the Orthodox Jewish community, PBS has devoted a combined total of ZERO episodes on both. (Catholic League, 2/25/2014)

Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner—Accused by one man of sexual harassment. He says he did not intend to make the accuser uncomfortable. (AP, 11/24/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: Rolling Stone published Sabrina Rubin Erderly’s article, “The Catholic Church’s Secret Sex-Crime Files,” (9/6/2011) a hit piece on the Philadelphia Archdiocese based partly on the since exposed lies of Daniel Gallagher. After she was shown to be a fraud with the University of Virginia gang rape story, “A Rape on Campus,” (11/19/2014) Rolling Stone referred to it as an isolated incident. According to the New York Times, which conducted interviews on this story, publisher Jann W. Wenner insists that Erdely’s dishonesty “represented an isolated and unusual episode.” (Catholic League, 4/6/2015)

Leon Wieseltier—Accused of sexually harassing numerous women. Removed from the masthead of the Atlantic magazine. He has apologized for his behavior. (AP, 11/24/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: When Pope John Paul II in 2000 issued his historic apology for mistakes and errors in Christian history, Wieseltier pointedly rejected the pope’s gesture of reconciliation, saying he could not accept the pope’s apology. (Catholic League, 5/26/2000)
• Wieseltier trashed Mel Gibson’s, “The Passion of the Christ,” calling it “a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film.” (Catholic League, 3/5/2004)

POLITICS:

U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)—Accused of sexual harassment toward staffers in his office, and has settled one claim of harassment. He has denied the allegations, even the one he settled. (AP, 11/24/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: Sponsored legislation that would have made religious pronouncements against homosexuality a hate crime. (Catholic League, 4/20/2009)

U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)—Accused of forcibly kissing a woman while rehearsing for a 2006 USO tour; Franken also was photographed with his hands over her breasts as she slept. Franken has apologized, while maintaining that he remembered the rehearsal differently. (AP, 11/24/2017)
Subsequently, several more women have come forward accusing Franken of having groped them while posing for pictures with them. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/30/2017)
Offensive Catholic fare: Franken has a history of mocking priests, and indeed the entire Catholic Church, for sexual offenses. (Catholic League, 11/16/2017) Here is a sampling of his virulent anti-Catholicism:
• He has mocked the Eucharist
• He has ridiculed the crucifixion of Jesus
• He has slandered all priests as molesters
• He has belittled practicing Catholics (e.g., Knights of Columbus)
• He has disparaged the Church’s teaching on embryonic stem cell research
• He made crude jokes about a dying woman, Terri Schiavo, and then misrepresented her condition by passing her off as already dead
• He once called New York Archbishop John Cardinal O’Connor “an a**hole.” (Catholic League, 10/27/2008)

The “War on Christmas” began in the 1980s with legal challenges to nativity scenes on public property, and then morphed into a multicultural rage in the 1990s. It peaked around 2005-2008, and then subsided.

The anti-Christmas forces are still out there, most notably on college campuses. One thing never changes: the anti-Christmas activists continue to make spurious legal and ideological arguments to justify their hostility to the holiday. But they do not speak for most Americans.

As a recent Pew Research Center survey showed, 90 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas. The majority still celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, though somewhat less than a few years ago. The majority also note that the religious roots of Christmas are less emphasized now than in the past, however only a third say they are bothered by it.

Some observers conclude that since most Americans are not bothered by the diminishing religious role of Christmas that that is evidence of how contrived the “War on Christmas” is. Wrong.

The attacking and neutering of Christmas has had the cooperation of elites from many segments of society: the courts; the universities; the elementary and secondary schools; the media; the entertainment industry; and activist secular organizations. All have played a pivotal role. So it would be astonishing if the survey data were different.

It is important to note that the elites did not take their cues from the people: there was no push by the public to accomplish this end.

Americans are a practical people. Their primary interests are both micro and local: they put their family and community first. In general, they tend to accommodate themselves to the prevailing winds of the culture, even if they would prefer different conditions. This includes the transformation of Christmas.

Instead of asking respondents whether they are “bothered” by the decline in the religious elements of Christmas, Pew researchers should have asked if they are “happy” with this outcome. No doubt that would have elicited a different response.

Most Americans are not cultural warriors, so when they note changes in the culture that they dislike, they tend to shrug, saying such things as, “it is what it is.” That should not be read as an endorsement: it is a way of practically adjusting to new norms and values.

Similarly, if the American people had been asked some 30 years ago, when the “War on Christmas” began, whether they would prefer to preserve the religious roots of Christmas, or adopt a more secular approach, it is a sure bet they would have opted for the former. But the elites never asked—they never do—they simply imposed.

Anyone who thinks the “War on Christmas” is not real should go to the Catholic League website and check out our Annual Reports; there are hundreds of examples available online. Below follows a short list of some of our favorites.

THE DATA

2017

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority–Banned a D.C. bus ad by the Archdiocese of Washington because it featured the words, “Find the Perfect Gift.” It neither mentioned nor depicted Christ.
University of Minnesota–Santa Claus, Christmas trees and the colors red and green are examples of inappropriate “religious iconography” during the holiday season, according to a paper distributed during a “Respecting Religious Diversity” event. “Jewish Hanukkah” is targeted, too, with menorahs and the colors blue and white also described as being “not appropriate.”

2015

University of Tennessee–The Office of Diversity and Inclusion at UT issued guidelines indicating which kinds of “holiday” celebrations would be tolerated, and which would not be. Best of all was their admonition not to hold “a Christmas party in disguise.”
December 2
Marlborough, NH–The school superintendent banned use of the word “Christmas” from all Christmas events, including celebrations at the local American Legion post. He said he was constitutionally obligated to censor Christmas. Bill Donohue suggested that he contact the United States Congress and demand that it rescind Christmas as a national holiday.
December 15
Johnson County, KY–The superintendent of schools censored all references to religion in this year’s Christmas celebrations. Specifically, he banned a presentation of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at one school.

2014

December 15
Orono, ME–An administrator at the University of Maine, emailed other employees advising them not to display any “decoration that could be perceived as religious” including “xmas trees, wreaths, xmas presents, candy canes, etc.”

2013

November 15
West Columbia, SC–The American Humanist Association threatened to sue the East Point Academy charter school over its annual Christmas toy drive “because the purpose and effect of Operation Christmas Child is to induce impoverished children to convert to Christianity.”
December 5
Frisco, TX–Students who attended Nichols Elementary School’s “Winter Party” were banned from talking about Christmas or any other religious holiday.
December 5
Nashville, TN–Two shoppers were asked to leave the Opry Mills Mall because they were dressed in Christmas costumes and wishing people a Merry Christmas.
December 12
Kings Park, NY–Officials at the Ralph J. Osgood Intermediate School decreed that the version of “Silent Night” performed during the school’s concert would delete all religious references. Thus “Silent Night” was sung with lyrics such as “Holy infant,” “Christ the Savior,” and “Jesus Lord at thy birth” omitted.

2011

November 3
The Air Force apologized after being accused of religious intolerance by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for promoting Operation Christmas Child. Sponsored by Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian group, it sends Christmas gifts to impoverished children worldwide.

2009

December 1-4
Chelmsford, MA–The Byam Elementary School asked parents to donate holiday gifts to the school’s holiday gift shop. Shopping guidelines specified “No Christmas, Chanukah, or religious items,” and “No Santa, candy canes or stockings.”
December 14
Slatington, PA–Santa was banned from his gift-giver role in the Northern Lehigh Valley School District in Pennsylvania; instead the district mascot, the Bulldog, got the job.
December 18-19
Benton, AR–A children’s play “Christmas Hang-Ups” included a hula girl. The woman in charge of the play announced that the hula girl represented the reason for the season: “The meaning of Christmas is to not judge each other.”

2007

December
During a “Winter Concert” at a public elementary school in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., “The Twelve Days of Christmas” was performed, but the word “Christmas” was replaced throughout the song with the word “winter.”

2006

Penn State’s Associate Professor of Diversity Education issued guidelines for holiday parties “neutral” decorations—”flowers, balloons, candles and snowflakes.”

2005

Jefferson, GA–The Jackson County School System sent a letter to teachers prohibiting them from wearing “any pins, angels, crosses, clothing” with any religious connotation or affiliation, and from referring to any party as a “Christmas” party.
Texas public school teachers were told that they could not mention the word “Christmas.”

2004

Sacramento, CA–Three first-grade teachers were ordered by a superior not to let the word “Christmas” slip from their lips.

2001

Rochester, MN–Two 13-year-old middle school students were disciplined following a holiday skit. Their offense was wearing red and green scarves and ending the skit by saying, “We hope you all have a merry Christmas.”
Plymouth, IL–A second-grade teacher was warned by the principal not to read a book about Christmas to her students. The book was available in the school library.
Kensington, MD–The town of Kensington officially banned Santa Claus at its annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
Northdale, FL–Government officials banned icicle lights that some residents wanted put up on public property as part of the Christmas season.

1997

Hillsborough, NJ–The school board decided to change the name of the Christmas holiday to the “December season” in order to avoid “religious overtones.” Classroom gift-giving was also banned as a religious activity.

1996

Sacramento, CA–In a public school a ban was placed on celebrating Christmas because school officials held that Christianity “was not a world religion.”

An Australian commission report on the sexual abuse of minors says that 7 percent of priests who worked in Australia between 1950 and 2009 had an accusation of child sexual abuse made against him. It recommended, among other things, that the Catholic Church end mandatory celibacy, saying it is tied to sexual abuse.

The 7 percent figure is virtually meaningless: what matters are cases of alleged abuse that have been substantiated. For instance, in the U.S., between 1950 and 2002, accusations of abuse were made against 4 percent of the clergy. But only half were substantiated.

In other words, the real number was half the reported figure; that may be true in Australia as well.

Citing celibacy dodges several issues. The rate of sexual abuse of minors among Protestant clergy in the U.S. is at least as high, if not higher, than exists among Catholic priests. Most of them are married. What about stepfathers? It is not celibacy that is driving their numbers.

Most significant, are calls for ending mandatory celibacy a nice way of saying that there are too many homosexuals in the Catholic clergy? If so, the commission should come right out and say so.

We do know that in the U.S., 81 percent of the clergy victims were male, and 78 percent were postpubescent, meaning that homosexuals committed most of the abuse; less than 5 percent of the abusers were determined to be pedophiles (see the John Jay College of Criminal Justice reports on this subject).

Though it is not considered polite to say so, most people know that homosexuals are responsible for the lion’s share of the problem in the Catholic Church. This includes those who insist they are gay-friendly.

“Look, it’s a fact of life. Priests, a lot of times, molest boys. Okay? They are celibate and it’s a magnet for homosexual pedophiles.” The author of those words is Bill Maher, made on August 9, 2000.

It’s time we dealt with this issue honestly, free of political considerations.

Pope Francis has been consistent in his condemnation of what he calls “ideological colonization,” or the attempt by developed nations to impose a radical cultural agenda on the poor, including those who live in less developed nations. Such efforts ignore basic human differences, rooted in nature. This agenda inexorably leads to oppression, he said, manifesting itself in religious, political, and cultural persecution. Recently, the pope singled out abortion as an example. He called it a “sin” that results in “killing children.” As if to prove the pope right, California and Pennsylvania recently filed suit seeking to turn back the Trump administration’s rejection of President Obama’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate. It would force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.

The Little Sisters of the Poor are fighting back. They asked federal district courts to prevent the two states from undoing the rollback of the HHS mandate.

The pope’s remarks are prescient. His love for the least among us, and his contempt for elites who seek to impose their corrupt ideas on society, should be welcomed by all Catholics.

If there is one thing that the leaders of SNAP have had in common over the years, it is their propensity to lie. Barbara Dorris, its leader by default, added to the litany of lies when she told a dissident, and sympathetic, Catholic source that SNAP did not make false allegations against Fr. Joseph Jiang, a St. Louis priest who was falsely accused of sexual abuse.

On November 27, the Archdiocese of St. Louis issued a news release titled, “SNAP Apologizes to Archdiocese and Falsely Accused Priest.”

SNAP’s apology was extended to Fr. Jiang, St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson, the late Msgr. Joseph Pins, and the St. Louis archdiocese. It was part of a settlement with SNAP in a defamation lawsuit filed by Fr. Jiang in 2015.

In its settlement apology, SNAP said it “apologizes for any false or inaccurate statements related to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang that it or its representatives made which in any way disparaged” the aforementioned principals to whom the apology was extended.

When asked about this Dorris proved to be as disingenuous as she is dishonest. “It is an apology if we made a false allegation….And right now, I’d say none of them have been proven to be false.” Perhaps she needs someone to interpret the apology that her organization made.

Last year, when a federal judge hammered SNAP for defaming Fr. Jiang, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch laid out the particulars. U.S. District Court Judge Carol E. Jackson plainly said that SNAP’s public statements “were false and that they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth.”

The Catholic League has led the fight against SNAP. We are delighted with the outcome.

We are happy that Fr. Jiang has been vindicated. We extend our congratulations to him and to his stellar boss, Archbishop Carlson.

Bill Donohue

On November 27, the New York City Mayoral Commission on Art, Monuments, and Markers completed its hearings to assess the propriety of controversial monuments on public grounds. They were held in all five boroughs. I testified on Thanksgiving eve, in Manhattan. What I witnessed was disturbing.

The hearing was scheduled from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Although I signed up online to speak, I got to the assigned venue at 9:10 a.m., hoping to enhance my chances of speaking.

The guards I spoke to had no idea about any hearing on monuments, and directed me to go around the corner to another address. When I spoke to those guards, they said the hearing does not begin until 10:00 a.m. and I should wait outside. It was raining. I asked if I could stand inside, off to the side, and they said no.

Shortly before 10:00 a.m., the guards allowed those waiting outside to enter. We were directed to the second floor, where we waited in a hallway until 10:30 a.m.

Once seated, the commission’s members introduced themselves. Then we heard about the purpose of the hearings. From what was said, it was apparent that most of the panel members were on the left. But all of them were fair to those who testified, showing no partiality.

We watched a short video and then, at 10:45 a.m., the first three persons selected to testify were called to the front.

Everyone was told they had three minutes to speak; a timer was set off to the side. No clapping, shouting, etc. was allowed, but if people in the gallery liked what they heard, they could wave their hands in the air in support. There were approximately 200 people present, roughly split between those who came to testify and observers.

It was evident from the get-go that most of those who came to testify were left-wing activists. They were pros. Some made it clear that they had already testified in other boroughs. Who were they? The Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter crowd.

The hatred for America was palpable. The first speaker, after condemning America in the most vile and sweeping terms, said that if the panel did not approve removing the statue of Columbus in Columbus Circle, he and his followers would forcibly take it down.

This elicited a massive wave of hands in support. The haters did not see the irony of accusing Columbus of being tyrannical while boasting of their contempt for the law. That’s because they were weaned on the Howard Zinn thesis of the American founding (Zinn, who once was a member of the Communist Party, authored the most widely used radical history textbook on college campuses).

The haters broke along bimodal age lines: most were in their twenties; some were of the Sixties generation. This makes sense. Most Americans who are in their thirties, forties, and fifties have their own families. Moreover, they were raised in times of relative placidity compared to the 1960s or today. Also, it was the day before Thanksgiving, a time when most normal people spend time with their family, not with their comrades.

Among the normal people who came to testify, most were Italian. They came to defend Columbus, and they did a fine job, notwithstanding the hostile reception they received. One young woman—she was from the Dominican Republic but her mother was born in Italy— startled the audience with her strong defense of Columbus.

I got the nod to speak after the break. I am not one to tout credentials, but after listening to panel members cite their achievements—many were academicians—I mentioned mine. Unlike the other normal people who spoke, I did not address Columbus (except at the end as a sign of solidarity with the Italian Catholics who spoke). I spoke about the dark side of an American icon, Frederick Douglass.

Douglass was an ex-slave, abolitionist, and a supporter of women’s rights. Unbeknownst to most, he was also an anti-Catholic bigot. He held a particular animus against Irish Catholics, blaming them, not the English, for their plight. He was in Ireland in 1845 when the English stole food from the Irish during the famine, yet he never objected.

After making my case against Douglass, I emphasized that I did not want the statue of him removed from Central Park. I explicitly condemned all attempts at cultural cleansing. The room was silent; there was no hand waving of any kind.

I sought to make two points. First, removing the monuments and statues of controversial persons is a very dangerous road to go down. Is there any public figure—or for that matter private person—who is so squeaky clean that he has nothing to regret? Not only that, but those leading the charge against revered American figures proved just how badly tainted they are.

In making my second point, I said I was “too mature” to take a harsh position against Douglass. He had done great good, I said, and the times in which he lived were different, so to indict him on the basis of his anti-Catholic side (the Church was “Satan” he said), was not entirely fair.

If these hearings prove anything, it is that most New Yorkers, like most Americans, are normal: they have better things to do (like preparing the stuffing) than listen to anti-American propaganda over the holidays. The activists made it clear that they do not speak for most of us. Indeed, they are an angry, arrogant, and badly educated gang of haters.