This fall, the Manhattan Theatre Club is scheduled to produce a Terrence McNally play, “Corpus Christi,” that makes reference to Jesus having sex with the twelve apostles. When the Catholic League learned of this play, it immediately voiced its objections; its news release was picked up by newspapers across the country. This, in turn, led to several interviews on radio and TV, all handled by Rick Hinshaw, the league’s communications director.

The response to the league’s concerns, both from the public and from those in the media, was overwhelmingly positive (even Joan Rivers was unequivocally on our side). The league’s next step was to ask playwright McNally, winner of three Tonys, to alter the script. Below is the text of the letter that Catholic League president William Donohue sent to McNally:

“In your upcoming play, ‘Corpus Christi,’ the script calls for an offstage comment by the apostles regarding their having sex with Jesus. As you know, this part of your work is deeply offensive to Christians. That is why I am asking you to delete any such reference from the script.

“If this part of the play is not central to your work, then you should have no problem honoring this request. On the other hand, if you insist that you must not excise this segment because it is integral to the play, then the intent and effect of ‘Corpus Christi’ will be evident for all to see.

“You have earned a reputation for being a creative playwright. Surely your status would not suffer by acceding to this request, and indeed it may well be enhanced. The obverse, however, is also true: by failing to amend the script, you will have sent a message to the public that is hardly endearing.

“In the spirit of civility and community, I appeal to you to make the requested change. Thank you for your consideration.”

Donohue’s letter was released to the press and a copy was sent to McNally’s agent as well. News reports said McNally was not going to back down and that is why the league wrote to those federal, state and local officials who have oversight responsibilities for funding of the arts; the production company receives monies from all three layers of government.

The April 25 edition of Fox’s “Mad TV” contained a skit about an Irish Catholic priest who visits a patient in the hospital. It intimated that the priest was a child molester and an alcoholic. It showed him grabbing the behind of the mother of the dying patient and repeatedly fondling the breasts of the patient. The patient called him “Father Fellatio” and remarked that it was clear that his “Crucifix swings both ways.” The skit ended with the statement, “To be continued.”

In a news release to the media, the Catholic League complained that “It is one thing to poke gentle fun at a priest, quite another to set him up as a depraved cleric. The language used was deplorable and it makes absolutely no difference to the Catholic League that it was a late-evening show: there is no legitimate time slot for Catholic bashing.”

Many media outlets picked up our story, the result being that Fox was forced to make a statement of its own. “We respect the Catholic League’s work to combat religious bias,” said Fox. “Comedies like ‘Mad TV’ use social satire to expose cultural stereotypes rather than to perpetuate them.”

Catholic League president William Donohue wrote to Fox chief Roger Ailes expressing his desire not to see a sequel to this episode. We are delighted to note that it didn’t appear in the May 2 edition.

William A. Donohue

A few years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a brilliant article explaining how our society was “defining deviancy down.” What he observed was the disturbing tendency to approve of behavior that previously had been labeled deviant. He was right in his assessment, but he didn’t adequately address its root causes.

Over the past quarter century, there has been a concerted effort to redefine morality. Those leading the charge have come almost exclusively from the ranks of well-educated men and women who are paid to disseminate ideas. For the most part, they work in higher education, the entertainment industry, journalism, the arts, the publishing world, foundations and non-profit activist organizations. Never mind that their sermons on tolerance often belie a mad devotion to intolerance, what deserves discussion is why they seek to redefine morality.

The contemporary approach to morality, as understood by the chattering class, is expressly solipsistic. In other words, morality is something that begins and ends with individual preferences. It’s as though each of us is entitled to make up his own morality without any reference to the common good. The result is moral chaos.

The term “individual morality” is an oxymoron: morality is a social construct, having absolutely nothing to do with individual wants or desires. It cannot be said too strongly that morality refers to principles or standards of right conduct and is not therefore analogous to tastes or opinions. Just as there is no such thing as an individual social order, there is no such thing as an individual moral order; only a society can possess a social and moral order.

Part of the problem we have today is the belief that societies are comprised of a bunch of individuals. Nothing could be more wrong. Societies are comprised of groups—families, tribes, clans, parishes, communities, organizations—all of which form a reality that transcends the contribution of the many individuals who live within its normative boundaries. The idea that every man, woman and child walks around with his or her own morality—as if we were speaking about legs—is sociologically illiterate.

When you are invited into the home of your neighbor or cousin, you are expected to abide by the house rules, some of which you may find disagreeable. Similarly, when you live in society (you have no other choice, by the way) you are expected to live by its house rules, some of which you may find disagreeable. In short, house rules, or moral codes, cannot be vetoed by individuals willy-nilly. They can change but they can never be whatever anyone wants them to be.

The idea that morality can be dissolved to individual claims is not simply wrong, it is pernicious. For example, no one could drive to school or work unless a moral code was understood and enforced. We don’t leave it up to each driver to determine what is right and wrong and that’s why we have signs and lines. The fact that not everyone agrees with these moral rules means nothing: what matters is that most people agree with them.

The same is true of such fashionable ideas as gay marriages. It does not matter that the chattering class approves of two men marrying, what matters is that most people see no legitimate social interest in granting gay couples the same social status that heterosexuals enjoy. To the extent that we value the institution of marriage, we must devalue alternatives to it.

The good news is that the Catholic Church doesn’t subscribe to the thesis that everyone is free to determine what is right and wrong. That is one reason why the Church is properly seen as a countercultural institution these days. This is the kind of deviancy we should applaud.

At bottom, those who want to treat morality as if it were a smorgasbord are driven by selfishness. They want sex without encumbering consequences (no kids or AIDS) and they want the rest of us to pay for their abortions and medical research. They want access to pornography on the internet and laws that punish sexual advances in the workplace that they deem unwanted.

Most of all, those who seek to privatize morality want to live in a world where no one passes judgment on their behavior. This is a world of fantasy. It’s also a world of deceit, discontent, discord and disease. So three cheers for Catholicism. By rejecting this world it makes possible the only alternative lifestyle worth pursuing.

The following op-ed piece by William Donohue appeared in the New York Daily News on May 19.

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has done more to restore civility to New York than any other mayor. That is why it is so frustrating to see him now endorse legislation that would help to destabilize the institutions of marriage and the family, the very font of social stability.

What would we think of a doctor who did medical research on lung cancer and then recommended smoking to his patients? So it is with Giuliani’s proposal: by treating marriage as an alternative lifestyle, the mayor lays the seeds for social disorder, something he fights hard to check.

The reason why marriage has always been given preferential treatment in society, as well as in law, is because most people understand that there is a fundamental social interest in safeguarding its health. Marriage channels the sexual appetite in a constructive fashion and allows for the development of a stable and patterned environment into which children are born; it goes by the name of family. If none of this mattered, then there would be no need to institutionalize sexual relations. After all, people have always found ways to fornicate and procreate without subscribing to social norms.

Men and women who live together outside of marriage do so because of convenience, sexual or monetary. Unfortunately, the social science data convincingly show that those who practice cohabitation before marriage have a much higher divorce rate than those couples who do not. That’s because lifestyles of convenience are ill-suited to the rigors of compromise, a property that is integral to relationships built on commitment. While surely not intended, Giuliani’s scheme adds to the likelihood that cohabitation, and eventually divorce, will increase.

If marriage counts, it must be treated in a special manner. But there can be nothing special about marriage if Mark and Mary, as well as Mark and Mark and Mary and Mary, decide to shack up, declare themselves partners, pay twenty bucks to City Hall, and cash in on marriage benefits.

Those who say that they are not attacking marriage by extending marital benefits to those who shack up are kidding themselves. I’m a veteran and thus I qualify for veteran’s benefits. Extend those benefits to Clinton and my special status is gone. I’m not a senior citizen and should therefore not qualify for the perquisites that they ordinarily receive; if I did, seniors would lose their special status. And it cannot be said too strongly that this is not a matter of discrimination: it is a matter of drawing critical social distinctions based on merit.

We live in a culture where men and women want all the sex they can get, but they don’t want the kids or the diseases that their promiscuity engenders; this explains their enthusiasm for abortion and AIDS research. Self-absorbed, we’ve forgotten to distinguish between individual tastes and desires and legitimate social interests. So we keep pressing for more rights and less responsibilities.

One more thought. Who’s going to police this monster? When the relationships break up, who will know? Will the benefits continue in perpetuity? And what if the two Marks meet another Mark? Will they be able to declare themselves in an extended domestic partnership and thus slip the new Mark in the door, without, of course, being discriminated against? We’ve moved from a culture of My Three Sons to Three’s Company, so why not ratify it, Mr. Mayor?

by Sister Margherita Marchione

With the issuance of the Vatican document, “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,” voices adversely judging Pope Pius XII’s alleged “silence” have increased. Some writers are igniting flames of hatred by claiming that the Catholic Church is responsible for the Holocaust. The evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

Through public discourses, appeals to governments, and secret diplomacy, Pope Pius XII was engaged more than any individuals or agencies combined in the effort to curb the war and rebuild the peace; and in alleviating the sufferings of Jews and other refugees during the Holocaust.

Except to the extent that he did, how could Pope Pius XII have prevented a world power, with military domination over a continent, from murdering the civilians it defined as its enemies? Would Adolf Hitler, an apostate Catholic who despised Christianity for its Jewish origins, have obeyed a directive from the Vatican? The undeniable historic realities persuasively say “No.” In fact, they point to certain disastrous retaliatory reaction, with awesome responsibility upon the Pope, which was fortunately avoided.

It is doubtful that even the most flaming papal protest would have slowed the Holocaust. What is certain is that such a protest would have risked the lives of countless Jews hidden in Church institutions. Could things possibly have bee made any worse? Of course. And, in this fickle world, Pope Pius XII would have been blamed for it.

The Vatican is accused of complicity because it entered into the Concordat with the Nazis in 1933. Actually the Concordat was suggested by Hitler. The record indicates that at the time Pius XI was faced with entering into an agreement defining the rights of the Church (which the Nazis shortly thereafter violated), or the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in Germany.

The Concordat was not a political document, nor did the Catholic Church thereby compromise its principles against racial persecution and genocide as set forth in the encyclical, “Mit Brennender Sorge” issued in 1937. As Secretary of State, the future Pope Pius XII played an important part in drafting the document. In fact, upon its publication, the Nazi press carried vulgar cartoons and claims that “Pius XI was half Jewish and Cardinal Pacelli was all Jewish.” Two months before that anti-semitic horrors of Kristallnacht (The Night of the Broken Glass), Pius XI stated: “Anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually we are all Semites.” (Pius XII: Greatest Dishonoured, 1980, p.45)

The day after Cardinal Pacelli’s election to the Papacy, the Nazi newspaper Berliner Morgenpost (March 3, 1939) stated its position clearly: “The election of Cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.”

With the start of the war in September 1939, Pius XII pleaded that “in occupied territory the lives, the property, the honor, the religious convictions of the inhabitants will be respected.” The following month he issued “Summi Pontificatus,” the encyclical condemning radicalism.

In his 1939 Christmas message to the Cardinals, Pius XII referred to the invasion of Poland and related events: “We have been forced to witness a series of acts which are irreconcilable, both with the practices of international law, and with the principles of natural right based on the elementary feelings of humanity; acts which demonstrate in what chaotic and vicious circles we are now living….

“We find premeditated aggression against a small work-loving, peaceful people on the pretext of a threat which never existed nor was possible. We find atrocities and illicit use of means of destruction against old men, women and children. We also find contempt for freedom and for human life, from which originate acts which cry to God for vengeance.” (The Tablet of London, December 30, 1939, p. 748)

On January 27, 1940, Vatican Radio proclaimed to the world the dreadful cruelties marked with uncivilized tyranny that the Nazis were inflicting on the Jewish and Catholic Poles. The German ambassador protested while the Nazis jammed the broadcasts.

Among the ninety-three Papal communications to German bishops in World War II, a letter from Pius XII to Bishop von Preysing of Berlin is dated April 30, 1943: “It was for us a great consolation to learn that Catholics, in particular those of your Berlin diocese, have shown such charity towards the sufferings of the Jews. We express our paternal gratitude and profound sympathy for Monsignor Lichtenberg, who asked to share the lot of the Jews in the concentration camps [Dachau] and who spoke up against their persecution in the pulpit.

“As far as episcopal declarations are concerned, We leave to local bishops the responsibility of deciding what to publish from Our communications. The danger of reprisals and pressures – as well perhaps of other measures due to the length and psychology of the war – counsel reserve. In spite of good reasons for Our open intervention, there are others equally good for avoiding greater evils by not interfering Our experience in 1942, when We allowed the free publication of certain Pontifical documents addressed to the Faithful justifies this attitude.” [The Dutch bishops’ declaration on behalf of the Jews, resulted in the deportation from Amsterdam to Auschwitz of ninety per cent of them, including baptized Jews.]

Cardinal Paolo Dezza, S.J., wrote: “Pius XII did a great deal to help the Jews persecuted by the Nazis and the Fascists. He abstained from making public declarations in favor of both Catholics and Jews who were being persecuted by Hitler because, whenever he did speak, Hitler had his revenge by committing worse acts of violence against them. The clergy and bishops in Germany begged him to keep silence’ (Letter to Margherita Marchione, July 25, 1995)

The truth is that Pope Pius XII, though his inspiring actions and moral leadership, saved many thousands of Jews and countless other refugees from deportation to concentration camps, torture and death. Details of the Vatican’s humanitarian work are available to all who seek the truth: in the records of the Vatican’s activities during World War II, in the preserved accounts of individual witnesses to some of its tragic events and, as those occurrences were reported in the newspapers.

It is well known that, in consonance with the Pope’s direct urging, hundreds of convents, monasteries, and other religious buildings were opened, not only in Italy, but also in Poland, France, Belgium and Hungary, to shelter and hide thousands of men, women, and children from Nazi cruelties.

Everywhere those protecting Jews and other refugees were not immune from suspicion and arrest, were sent to prison, and were treated with brutality and contempt. Many were murdered in reprisal killings. Priests and nuns were also arrested, imprisoned, and subjected to brutal interrogation. Many were sent to concentration camps and gas chambers.

In his book The Last Three Popes and the Jews (Souvenir Press, London, 1967), Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide concludes that during the Nazi period “Pius XII, the Holy See, the Vatican’s Nuncios, and the whole Catholic Church saved between 700,000 and 850,000 Jews from certain death.”

It is incomprehensible that a negative portrayal of Pius XII should be given credibility among many Jewish leaders and be accepted as fact in a large part of the Jewish Community.

One must not confuse the religious anti-Semitism of historic Christianity with the racial anti-Semitism of the Nazis. There is evidence that whatever our Christianforebearers thought of Judaism as a religion, they consistently opposed genocide, and never would have sanctioned the extermination of Jews as a racial group.  To charge that anti-Semitism, which is inconsistent with the basic tenets of Christianity, is part of Church teaching, is without foundation.

Pope Pius XII was not anti-Semitic. He recognized the evil doctrines of Nazism and strongly opposed them. No pontiff in history received as many manifestations of gratitude and affection from the Jewish community.

Jewish physicist Albert Einstein testified to his appreciation of Pius XII’s actions in an article published in Time magazine (December 23, 1940, p.40): “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I had never any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom.”

Marc Saperstein, a professor of Jewish history and director of the program in Judaic studies at the George Washington University wrote: “The suggestion that Christian doctrines or practice led directly to the Nazi death camps is misleading and inappropriate…. The fundamental responsibility for the Holocaust lies with the Nazi perpetrators. Not with Pope Pius XII. Not with the Church. Not with the teachings of the Christian faith.” (Washington Post, April 1, 1998)

Only by becoming more sensitive to each other can Jews and Catholics improve their relationship and achieve reconciliation and peace. This requires authentic dialogue, profound understanding, and mutual respect.

This is a plea for brotherhood and peace, for Jews and Catholics to build together a human bridge of love and understanding. It is also a call for justice toward the memory of Pope Pius XII. Finally, it is a prayer for the Catholic Church during World War II, in light of the documentation that has been ignored.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE’S
SILVER ANNIVERSARY
(1973-1998)

Twenty-five years ago this month, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights was founded by Father Virgil Blum, S.J. Established to defend individual Catholics and the institutional Church against defamation and discrimination, the league has surged in membership in recent years to 350,000, with no end in sight. We are funded strictly by private donations.

There are many battlegrounds for the Catholic League:

• Activist organizations with an animus towards the Church’s teachings often engage in bigoted assaults

• Some of the most vulgar attacks have come from the artistic community

• The corporate world has not been immune from making anti-Catholic statements; similarly, there are problems in the workplace

• Intolerance for Catholicism is evident in education, and this is especially true of higher education

• Agents of government have crossed church and state lines in a manner that is highly offensive to Catholics

• There is an element in the media that bears a special hostility to the Catholic Church

The Catholic League seeks an equal playing field. We do not challenge criticism of the Church, but we are outraged by the disdain, disparagement and insult that too frequently accompanies discourse on matters Catholic. That is why we want an end to Catholic bashing.

In 25 years the Catholic League has achieved great success. It is our hope that we have less to do in the next quarter century.

William A. Donohue

President

On April 17, Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty of the Diocese of Scranton spoke at Bishop O’Reilly High School. During his talk, Bishop Dougherty was greeted with disrespect by members of the junior class. School administrators and faculty overwhelmingly decided that all juniors would be barred from the May 15^thjunior/senior prom; the junior class has a record of misbehavior, stemming from its freshman year. Most seniors, including the senior class president, supported the school’s action against the juniors.

What makes this incident a news story is the reaction to it by outsiders. An area radio show, “Hot 97” (WBHT, 97.1), announced that it would host a free prom for the juniors; a local businessman promised to donate space for the prom; music and flowers were extended by other businessmen; and a dentist offered free check-ups for the juniors. The radio show also welcomed on-air calls by those opposed to the school’s decision.

When news of the community reaction reached the Catholic League, we immediately contacted the media with our position. Here it is:

“If school officials at a Catholic high school were to publicly challenge the workplace decisions of local media and business operations, they would be summarily denounced in the press for sticking their nose in where they do not belong. Why there hasn’t been an outcry of public sentiment against the Bishop O’Reilly busy-bodies is itself worthy of investigative reporting.

“The lesson that the busy-bodies are selling is that bad conduct ought to be rewarded and that Catholic schools should forfeit their autonomous status. If they actually had an opportunity to meet Bishop Dougherty, they would no doubt agree with the Catholic League that he is one of the finest bishops in the nation, as is his superior, Bishop Timlin. We will watch this closely and take whatever steps are necessary to defend Bishop O’Reilly.”

The good news is that public pressure was brought to bear, resulting in a change of heart. The owner of the establishment that promised to host the alternative prom went on the radio with Bishop Timlin apologizing for his initial reaction. The radio station changed its plans, deciding instead to throw a prom for all area high school students who could demonstrate a “B” average or better. Most of the other busy-bodies also backed away, with the exception of the dentist. You can write to Dr. Dale Wilkie at Back Mountain Shopping Center, Shavertown, PA 18708.

The Catholic League is proud of the work of the Diocese of Scranton and was only too happy to be of assistance.

Geoffrey Fieger, attorney to suicide doctor Jack Kevorkian, is running for governor in Michigan. Over the past few years, Fieger and his client—from whom he has never distanced himself—have not just disagreed with the Catholic Church’s teachings on life issues, they have attacked and disparaged Roman Catholicism. Consequently, the Catholic League believes that Fieger is ill-suited to hold public office.

Catholic League president William Donohue stated the league’s position in a news release:

“In my debates with Geoffrey Fieger, and in my readings of his commentaries, I have seen enough evidence to warrant the conclusion that he bears an animus against Catholicism and should therefore be denied an opportunity to govern. He and his client, Dr. Kevorkian, have taken great delight in ridiculing and caricaturing the Catholic hierarchy and Catholic doctrine. That Fieger should now seek public office in Michigan is on a par with David Duke seeking office in Louisiana.

“Fieger’s penchant for demagoguery means that he cannot stick to the issues. Moreover, he has misrepresented the truth by claiming, without a shred of evidence, that a Catholic priest assisted in one of Kevorkian’s assisted suicide cases.

“In debate, Fieger makes it clear that he believes Catholics like myself should not engage in public dialogue on the issues of the day. What he appears to want is the assignment of practicing Catholics to a second class status. Fieger has a right to entertain any views he wants, but Catholics, as well as non-Catholics, not only have a right—they have a duty—to send him the same message that was previously sent to David Duke: pack it in and get on with your life.”

Consistent with league policy, there will be no endorsement of any candidate running for governor in Michigan.

In late April and early May, the Seattle’s Art/Not Terminal gallery featured two obscene, blasphemous paintings, both of which were displayed in the gallery’s window. As described by Michelle Malkin in the Seattle Times, the first painting showed “a smiling papal figure standing between two nuns. Each nun has her hand on the head of a male figure who is kneeling in front of the papal figure’s crotch. Are they conferring a religious blessing—or forcing the figure to perform oral sex?” It was entitled, “A Sex Act?”

Here’s how Malkin described the second painting: “Hanging from a crudely designed crucifix made of intersecting penises is a Jesus Christ-like figure receiving oral sex from a veiled figure. Below the cross, two nuns lie on their backs with the ends of a coat hanger between their legs. Pages of the Bible are scrawled with the Satanic figure, 666.” There was also a “painted depiction of a priest receiving oral sex from a small child.”

William Donohue voiced his thoughts to the press this way:

“We’ve known about these paintings for two weeks but decided not to issue a statement given the fact that the artist, Leigh Thompson, was actually calling the Seattle media trying to draw attention to his junk-yard creations. The gallery’s location and status are on a par with the abilities of the artist, and that is why we decided to let this public-access TV equivalent pass without comment. The gallery is a non-juried dump on Westlake street that accepts any submission for a mere twenty bucks.

“I personally spoke with the artist last week and found him to be barely literate. Given all this, the Catholic League has no intention of using its resources to chase after Mr. Thompson. His fifteen minutes of fame have already been exhausted and that is why he will soon disappear. Unless Larry Flynt picks him up.”

The league is pleased to note that the new Archbishop of Seattle, His Excellency Alex J. Brunett, publicly protested the artist’s work.

PBS will soon air a recently taped special two-hour edition of “Firing Line” that featured a debate over the question, “Is the ACLU Full of Baloney?” On one side was William F. Buckley, Jr., William Donohue, Lino Graglia and Robert Knight. The ACLU side was represented by Ira Glasser, Nadine Stroessen, Leon Botstein and Barry Lynn. The debate, which was held on the campus of Bard College, was interrupted several times by four female students (the Women of Color contingent demanded an African diet on campus, more affirmative action, etc.); they were upset with their president, Dr. Botstein, for not acceding to their demands.

The debate is scheduled to appear on June 19 in some parts of the country. Check your local listings for when it will air. No word from the ACLU yet on whether an African diet is a constitutional right, but we look forward to these hot dogs taking up the case.