The selection of Pope Benedict XVI was hailed by American Catholics as a great choice. One poll showed that more than 80 percent supported the selection of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and most of those did so with enthusiasm (no doubt the figure would be much higher if only practicing Catholics were sampled).

However, the selection has not sat well with dissident Catholics, and many non-Catholics have made it clear that they are unhappy as well. The latter group triggered a response from William Donohue: he plainly told them to “butt out.” (For more on this subject, see pp. 4-5.)

In a statement released to the media, Donohue said, “It’s one thing for them to be voyeurs—peering into the Catholic Church the way kids peer into candy stores—quite another when they become meddlers.” And at a press conference in Louisville (see p. 6) Donohue added that it was hypocritical of the press to complain about Catholics mixing it up with politics when the media have had a field day injecting itself into the internal affairs of the Catholic Church over the selection of the new pope.

The level of media meddling was unprecedented. Never before have so many people who are not Catholic offered their commentary on the teachings of the Catholic Church. While most of the media were respectful—especially in its treatment of Pope John Paul II—there was a loud minority of angry reporters and pundits who took aim at Pope Benedict XVI.

Regarding the coverage of the new German pope, Uwe Siemon-Netto of UPI noted, “Type the words ‘Nazi pope’ into the Goggle search line, and you will get nearly 700 mentions.” The headline of a reader’s letter posted on the New York Times website said, “Nazi pope a clear and present danger to the civilized world.” Similarly, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune observed that newspapers, television and the Internet carried phrases like “Hitler Youth,” “God’s Rottweiler,” “Panzer Cardinal” and the “Pope’s Hitman.”

For the record, when Joseph Ratzinger was 14 he was forced to join some Nazi organizations, and when it was possible for him to escape, he did. The Jerusalem Postwas particularly good in defending him, saying it was rubbish to suggest that he had Nazi sympathies. Indeed, his family was strongly anti-Nazi.

The Catholic League will carefully monitor the way Pope Benedict XVI is treated by the media.

On Sunday, May 8, the Catholic League was bombarded with phone calls informing us that someone was able to “hack” into our website, replacing our homepage with a vile statement. Apparently, it was the work of Islamic extremists.

The heart of what was said was as follows: “F— BUSH – F— SHARON — FREE PALESTINE — FREE IRAQ”

The following inscription was also made: “Morocco RuleZ—Greetz [sic]: ALL Palestnian people [sic] – Ben_laden [sic] -sadam [sic]- ch33ta -Mianwalian – mani 1 – [code] – nEt^DeViL & all Moroccan Hackerz” [sic]

The day before our site was hacked, there was an article in the New York Post about the new movie, “Kingdom of Heaven.” In it, William Donohue was quoted as saying, “It is a matter of historical record that Muslim violence—in the form of a jihad—was responsible for Christians striking back, hence the Crusades. Yet in the film, it is the Christians who are the bad guys. This is on the order of doing a movie on the Warsaw Ghetto and blaming the Jews for all the violence.”

We contacted the New York City police and the FBI about this matter. Donohue also released the following comment to the press:

“I really can’t stand dealing with illiterates. If these jerks can spell Palestine correctly, why can’t they spell Palestinian people correctly? And I’m not so sure that bin Laden and Saddam would care to know that their names have been misspelled.”

William A. Donohue

The day before he was elected pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger gave a homily before the College of Cardinals warning of a “dictatorship of relativism” that was sweeping much of the world. Obviously, they liked what they heard, otherwise he would still be a cardinal.

It is also obvious that there are many in the U.S. who reject this notion. What reigns supreme is the idea that each individual possesses his or her own morality. This popular view is not only sociologically illiterate—no society in the history of the world has ever survived without a normative order, that is, without a moral consensus—it is positively pernicious. It is pernicious because it inexorably leads to moral anarchy.

Pope Benedict XVI knows that a society absent moral absolutes is capable of great evil. His homily on the “dictatorship of relativism” owes much to John Paul II’s encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, one of the most brilliant statements ever written on the relation between morality and liberty. In it, the pope said that such things as genocide, torture, mutilation, prostitution, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, slavery and trafficking in women and children were always wrong, and that they were wrong for all people and in all societies. Put differently, these are not matters of conscience. In this regard, it is worth remembering that Jeffrey Dahmer followed the dictates of his conscience, and he ate his victims for lunch.

Ironically, it was Joseph Ratzinger’s fellow Germans who gave us the diabolical idea that moral absolutes are nonsense—nihilists such as Nietzsche and Nazis such as Heidegger. They, in turn, were the intellectual fathers of Foucault and Derrida, two Frenchmen who corrupted the faculty of reason with their postmodernist assault on truth.

Postmodernist thought, which is fashionable on college campuses, is alive in many ideological isms: subjectivism, historicism, multiculturalism, deconstructionism, moral relativism and nihilism. It is the work of leftist academics at war with the Catholic concept of natural law. But beyond the academy, others have promulgated this invidious idea. “There is no such thing as truth, either in the moral or in the scientific sense.” The author of this sentence was Adolf Hitler, though it could have been penned by any of today’s postmodernist intellectuals. History shows that Hitler made good on his beliefs.

Beyond expounding on the wisdom of moral absolutes, Pope Benedict XVI can be expected to hold the line on the Church’s teachings on sexual ethics. For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has taught that the only morally acceptable expression of sexuality is between a man and a woman in the institution of marriage. This teaching is obviously not going to change under Pope Benedict XVI. But do American Catholics agree?

When asked in a survey, many Catholics say they would prefer the Church to change some of its teachings on women and sexuality. However, a recent Quinnipiac poll also shows that by a margin of 80-11, Catholics say that Pope John Paul’s strong support of traditional Church positions was good for the Church. In other words, Catholics are conflicted: On the one hand, they want to soften the teachings; on the other hand, they understand the need for moral ordinates.

We found the same thing in the mid-1990s. That was when the Catholic League commissioned a poll of Catholics and learned that although most Catholics expressed a desire for some changes in Church teachings on sexuality, 83 percent said they would be as committed, if not more committed, to the Church if it did not make the desired changes. Again, Catholics seem to be saying that while they are open to change, they also admire a Church that stands fast against prevailing cultural winds.

That there is no great demand for the Church to change its teachings on matters sexual was proven in 1997. Under the banner We Are Church, a radical group of Catholics announced that its petition drive aimed at securing a million signatures demanding “progressive” changes in Church teachings was a monumental flop: Only 37,000 signatures were garnered. And it certainly wasn’t because of lack of cash—fat cats forked over a small fortune to pay for full-page ads in newspapers, and children were literally bribed a buck a name for every signature they could hustle.

Even if the Church made all the changes that its critics want, there is little reason to think that would bring people back to the Church: The Anglican Church in England, and the Lutheran Church in Sweden, have made the desired changes and their pews are empty.

Granting all this, it remains true that some are very unhappy with our new pope. If they cannot reconcile themselves to the Church, perhaps the time has come for them to join a religion that delivers on what they want. After all, there are plenty of them available, although most are losing members fast. That might end their discontent. It would certainly show respect for diversity.

On April 20, 2005, a new organization was established, Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation (JAACD). The president, Don Feder, held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., and was joined by several members of the group’s advisory board. Feder was a Boston Herald writer and syndicated columnist for 19 years. He is the author of A Jewish Conservative Looks At Pagan America and Who’s Afraid Of The Religious Right?

The purpose of JAACD is “to expose and counter discrimination against Christians, as well as anti-Christian bias.” Its advisory board includes “rabbis, commentators, academics, authors, activists, Zionist leaders and an entertainer. Members span the spectrum from Orthodox to secular, but are united in their determination to support our beleaguered brothers and sisters in the Christian community.” Furthermore, “JAACD will work to combat anti-Christian prejudice in Hollywood, the news media, politics, government and the courts.”

The advisory board members are: Mona Charen, syndicated columnist; Natalie B. Choate, attorney; Rabbi David Dalin, professor, Ave Maria University; Barry Farber, talk-show host; Raoul Felder, author; Beth Galinsky, Jewish Action Alliance; Rabbi Joshua Haberman, Foundation for Jewish Studies; Bruce Herschensohn, professor, Pepperdine University; David Horowitz, Center for The Study of Popular Culture; Jeff Jacoby, columnist, Boston Globe; Binyamin Jokolvsky, Jewish World Review; Morton Klein, Zionist Organization of America; Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition; Barbara Ledeen, Jewish-Republican Activist; Rabbi Yeduda Levin, Jews for Morality; Herb London, Hudson Institute; Jackie Mason, entertainer; Michael Medved, talk-show host; Rabbi Jacob Neusner, professor, Bard College; Judith Reisman, author; Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Caucus For America; and Herb Zweibon, Americans For A Safe Israel.

William Donohue is friends with many of these Jewish writers and activists. When he asked some of them what motivated them to establish such an organization, they said they were concerned about the moral drift the nation is experiencing. To be specific, they said that to the extent Christianity is weakened, America becomes less hospitable for Jews.

The article below was printed with permission from GrasstopsUSA, where it first appeared.

by Don Feder

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post (February 10, 2005) charging that some well-known Jewish conservatives are doing incalculable harm to their people by affirming that America is a Christian nation.

In a rather kvetchy column about Jews who defend the public celebration of Christmas and Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ,” the rabbi rhetorically inquires:

“Is it not highly misguided, not to mention erroneous, for Medved and Lapin to openly speak of America as a ‘Christian’ nation, something bound to make Jews feel like they are guests in someone else’s land?” The author here speaks of syndicated talk-show host Michael Medved and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition.

Does Boteach also believe we shouldn’t speak of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, because to do so will make Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus “feel like they are guests in someone else’s land”?

Does “one nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance (and “In God We Trust” on our currency) make atheists and agnostics feel like outsiders? Other than the ACLU, who cares?

Do Israel’s Christian and Muslim minorities feel alienated living in a Jewish state?
Individual comfort-levels aside, is it “erroneous” to say that America is a Christian nation? That depends on what you mean.

If it’s meant to signify a country whose people are overwhelmingly Christian, the characterization is correct. As a percentage, America’s population is more Christian than India’s is Hindu or Israel’s is Jewish.

If by “Christian America,” we mean that those who shaped our national consciousness subscribed to the tenets of Christianity, that too is true. From the earliest settlements on these shores until the last few decades, our leaders saw America as a reflection of a Christian worldview.

The Mayflower Compact (1620), precursor to the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, proclaimed that the first permanent English-speaking settlement in the Americas was intended for the “advancement of the Christian faith.”

In a message to his troops (1778), George Washington observed: “To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished character of Christian.”

The first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote in 1816 that it was in the interests of “our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

As late as 1931 (historical revisionism would set in a decade later), the Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Macintosh, “We are a Christian people.”

Woodrow Wilson told a campaign rally in 1911, “America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”

In a 1947 letter, President Harry Truman (who was instrumental in the establishment of the state of Israel) assured Pope Pius XII, “This is a Christian nation.”

Even William O. Douglas, that most liberal justice of the liberal Warren Court, was forced to admit that Americans are “a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” By a religious people, Douglas did not mean Scientologists.

The foregoing is a very broad overview. Until the secular revolution of the 1960s, none of this was considered remarkable.

America has never had a state church. (Thank God.) At the federal level, there has never been a religious requirement for citizenship or test for public office. (Although the first Congress hired a chaplain and appropriated sums of money to support Christian missionaries to the Indian tribes. It was 1860 before a non-Christian clergyman opened a session of Congress.)

Clearly and manifestly, the American ethos is based on the moral code found in the Torah and New Testament.

Without Sinai there would have been no Philadelphia in 1776 and 1787. Absent Protestantism, there would have been no Pilgrims and Puritans. Without the evangelical Great Awakening of the 18th century, no Lexington and Concord and no “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

America was founded on the moral patrimony of the West—that Bible-based code called the Judeo-Christian ethic. Whether they do so out of malice or ignorance, those who attack the idea of a Christian America are really attacking this.

Finally, we must ask if America is a Christian nation—in the sense that our laws still are shaped by Christianity. Alas, no.

A Christian (or Judeo-Christian) America would not have legalized abortion. It would not be inching toward euthanasia. It would not be on the verge of homosexual marriage. It would not have no-fault divorce, rampant promiscuity, state-sponsored illegitimacy, government-condoned pornography or any of the other myriad delights of a post-Christian culture.

Everything must be something. As Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington pointed out in his seminal work, “Clash of Civilizations,” all great civilizations are intimately connected to a religion. Culture is derived from cult.

In his most recent work (Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity) Huntington writes: “Americans have been extremely religious and overwhelmingly Christian throughout their history.”

Huntington further observes that America’s national identity is based on Anglo-Protestant culture, including “the English language; Christianity; religious commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, the responsibility of rulers, the rights of the individual; and dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, and the belief that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create heaven on earth, a ‘city on the hill.'”

Those who believe America can turn its back on our heritage and succeed as a secular civilization are sadly mistaken.

The choice isn’t Christian America or nothing, but Christian America or a neo-pagan, hedonistic, rights-without-responsibilities, anti-family, culture-of-death America.

As an American Jew, I never felt like a “guest in someone else’s land.” America is a product of a process that began when a Mesopotamian named Abram (Abraham) left his land at God’s behest.

That launched the Western world on a journey whose footfalls may still be heard. And here we are, almost 4,000 years later. We may worship the Master of the Universe differently, but I identify body and soul with my countrymen who share the lofty vision of Washington and Adams, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.

And so, I feel very much at home here.

For more information on the group Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, contact Don Feder at 508-405-1337 or write to P.O. Box 4751, Framingham, MA 01704.

As the lead story in this edition of Catalyst indicates, non-Catholic reporters and pundits used the election of Pope Benedict XVI to inject themselves into the affairs of the Catholic Church in an unprecedented fashion. What follows is a sample of just how bad things got.

In April 21, the New York Daily News printed two articles under the banner, “Agendas for the New Pope.” Neither of the writers was Catholic. One was Stanley Crouch, a black journalist noted for being controversial; the other was Ari Goldman, a Jewish professor at Columbia.

Before Crouch got to lecturing Pope Benedict XVI, he slandered the Catholic Church’s heroic efforts during the Holocaust to save Jews and blasted the Church for oppressing women. Goldman admonished the new pope to “get off his papal throne” and start reaching out to “alienated Catholics, Jews and gays.” One wonders what was more insulting—the attack articles or the decision to enlist two non-Catholics to set the new pope’s agenda for him.

Like Crouch and Goldman, Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice was loaded with advice for the new pope. In her press release of April 19, she even “laid out a schedule for the next one hundred days.” At the top of her list was a need to “immediately meet with survivors of sexual abuse by the clergy.” Second, she demanded that the new pope “form a commission to study the current church policy on condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS.”

Kissling also told the pope that he needs to establish a Pontifical Academy on Women’s Rights in the Church. And with a straight face, this champion of violence against innocent children said it’s time for the Church to oppose capital punishment and war in every instance.

On April 20, in the online site, SFGate.com, Mark Morford offered “14 Thoughts For The New Pope.” Predictably, many had to do with sex. Yes to condoms, no to gay bashing, etc. He even advised the pope to see the movie about the sex pervert, Alfred Kinsey. Morford ended his screed by saying he was not particularly optimistic about Pope Benedict: “All signs point to more repression, homophobia, intolerance, denial, insularity, guilt like a weapon.” Now if only Morford felt guilty about the intolerance he shows for Catholicism—instead of insulating himself in a web of denial—all would be well.

Richard Cohen is a Jew who feels left out because he was not asked to elect the new pope. That’s right—he said so on April 21 in the Washington Post: “Being a non-Catholic nowadays is a bit like being a non-American most of the time. Important, maybe even historic, decisions are being made and you are totally locked out.” To which Bill Donohue replied in a news release, “maybe he [Cohen] can arrange for me to vote in the next Israeli election.”

Then there was Rabbi Michael Lerner, the rabbi who counseled Bill Clinton at the time of his problems with a girl named Monica. Speaking of the pope, Lerner said, “This guy is going to continue the Vatican’s authoritarian, hierarchical, antigay policies.” Which makes us wonder why this guy Lerner always seems to show up at the wrong time offering the wrong advice about matters he knows nothing about.

The Rev. John H. Thomas is president of the United Church of Christ, a religion so liberal it makes rabid secularists look conservative. Thomas is unhappy with the new pope, saying the selection is a “profound disappointment” for him. He called the pope’s ideas “confrontational,” as if Thomas’ stance isn’t.

Dean Hoge, a non-Catholic who teaches at Catholic University, labeled the pope a “polarizing figure,” and said that “dissident Catholics”—the only ones he would know—”won’t go away.” Indeed, he said they would “push harder,” something we have come to expect from those who complain about polarization in the Church. The irony is apparently way over Hoge’s head.

CBS Evening News, which tried to fix the presidential election, made it clear that it would not have chosen Pope Benedict XVI: “In choosing Joseph Ratzinger, the cardinals picked the most polarizing figure in the Catholic Church.” Translated, this means that CBS likes abortion and gay marriage, and the pope doesn’t.

CNN’s Jim Bittermann let his feelings loose when he opined, “Well, it’s hard for me to believe that there wasn’t at least some controversy in the decision of Cardinal Ratzinger.” Well, it’s just as hard for us to believe that he thinks there wasn’t—after all, Cardinal Ratzinger was not elected on the first ballot. In any event, we were struck by Bittermann’s decision to call the new pope “Cardinal No,” a term he said was appropriate for someone who has taken “very hard-line positions.” “Hard-line,” of course, is never used to describe those who defend partial-birth abortion.

Want to hear what a real crackpot had to say? This is what an unidentified CNN “insider” is reported to have said: “I can’t believe the Catholic Church would do this. This guy [the new pope] doesn’t believe in abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, or female priests. I was really anticipating that the Catholic Church was ready to elect a pope that was not a true Catholic. Someone far more flexible on these issues. You know. Like a Unitarian Church leader.” Spoken like a true CNN insider.

“There’s widespread doubt here that he will be able to overcome his reputation as the intimidating enforcer, punishing liberal thinkers and keeping the Church in the Middle Ages.” Now how’s that for objective reporting? According to Christel Kucharz of ABC news, this is the way some Germans feel. We are to believe that she didn’t meet any Germans who were delighted that one of their own was elected pope.

Morton Kondracke of the Fox News Network could barely contain his disdain for the new pope. “What I’m worried about is the dictatorship of certitude, where you stifle dissent, you prevent growth…What worries me is that this Catholic…basically [was] trying to discourage Catholics from voting for…John Kerry.” In other words, Kerry is Mort’s kind of Catholic—a dissenting one.

Endtime Ministries runs an internationally syndicated anti-Catholic radio show. In its April 19 edition, Irvin Baxter and Eddie Sax declared the pope to be a “false prophet.” They said that when the anti-Christ comes, he will have as his partner the person who is pope at that time. Indeed, they said that the pope will have enough power to appoint the anti-Christ the leader of the world. They allowed that Ratzinger was probably too old to be the last great “false prophet,” although they confessed that if he stays healthy, anything could happen. So stay tuned.

A Latino minister from New York, Rev. Allan Ramirez, saw racism in the selection of a European pope: “It is insulting to the Latin church. It is insulting to the African church.” (And all along we thought there was just a Catholic Church.) Mary Mitchell, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, is a Ramirez soul mate, with an edge. She is so disheartened that a “brown” or “black” person didn’t get the nod that, “It’s pretty clear, at least to this Baptist, that the Holy Spirit didn’t get the final word.” In other words, the Holy Spirit wanted anyone but a white.

The Los Angeles Times made Ramirez and Mitchell look good. In a pointedly labeled editorial, “The German Pope,” the newspaper said, “The church is sadly putting off a change in worldview and retaining its Eurocentric focus. By failing to pick a pope from Latin America or elsewhere in the developing world, the church reinforces the impression that it is a colonial enterprise, run in Europe.” Colonial empire has a better ring to it, and it conveys what the writers were thinking anyway.

Gay radicals weren’t too happy either. Rev. Troy D. Perry is a homosexual activist and moderator of the Metropolitan Community churches. He expressed a “deep sadness that one of the world’s most homophobic religious leaders has been elevated to the papacy, and regret that his policies will continue to devalue the rich spiritual gifts of LGBT people and women of faith.” LGBT, for the uninformed, stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. They allegedly have some “rich spiritual gifts” that make them different.

An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle was laden with raw emotion. “The secrecy of his selection as Pope Benedict XVI rules out direct testimony about what was said by the red-robed figures behind the closed doors of the Sistine Chapel.” But when the dourly dressed Harvard faculty assembled behind closed doors to silence their president, Larry Summers, the same editorial writers let it pass. The fact that the vote to punish Summers—for exercising his free speech rights—was taken in secrecy similarly meant nothing to these savants.

People magazine is often read at checkout counters; some even buy it. The May 2 edition was almost worth purchasing because in it readers learned that the new pope used to command the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, an office that People parenthetically branded, “formerly the Inquisition.” The Jewish Forward, a weekly newspaper, went further, calling the office the Sacred Congregation for the Universal Inquisition, adding parenthetically, “yes that Inquisition.” (Emphasis in the original.)

Ellis Henican writes for Newsday and is a Fox News contributor. The day after the new pope was named, he unleashed his fury: “The only person around here yesterday who seemed truly excited about the news was Bill Donohue, head of the ultra-conservative Catholic League. Donohue’s group is the closest thing we have to our own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—weighing in on movies and books that go against church teachings, denouncing alleged anti-Catholic bias in the media.”

As Donohue said in our press release on this subject, “After listening to these people rant, the idea of bringing it [the Inquisition] back is awfully tempting.”

On April 24, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins staged a major event in Louisville, Kentucky, “Justice Sunday.” Held at Highview Baptist Church, the program was an effort to rally pro-life Protestants against efforts to block people of faith from sitting on the federal bench.

Perkins was supported by Protestant leaders such as Rev. James Dobson, Dr. Al Mohler and Chuck Colson. William Donohue was the lone Catholic to speak at the event, though Perkins would later say, “your speech ‘stole the show.'” The event was shown on simulcast to 61 million households in 44 states.

In addition to Perkins, Dobson, Mohler, Colson and Donohue, the other speakers were Baptist Bishop Harry Jackson, Judge Charles Pickering and Senator Bill Frist; Dr. Frist and Chuck Colson appeared on video.

Dr. Frist spoke for everyone when he said that judges deserve “respect, not retaliation, no matter how they rule.” The goal of the event was to put pressure on the Senate to rewrite the filibuster rules that Democrats have used to block 10 of President Bush’s appeals court nominees. What the speakers demanded was a vote, up or down, and an end to the procrastination.

In a press release issued just two days before “Justice Sunday,” we explained why we supported the event: “For the past few years, the Catholic League has protested the way some Democrats have engaged in obstructionist strategies designed to stop committed Christians from being confirmed for circuit and district court positions. In addition to discussing this issue on radio and TV, we have had Catholic League officials attend congressional hearings on some of the targeted nominees, and have written letters to all 100 senators outlining our position. Our position is this: Though there is no de jure discrimination against people of faith, there is de facto discrimination.”

We then provided the following evidence: “For example, when Senator Schumer labeled a pro-life candidate for the federal judiciary a person with ‘deeply held beliefs’ on abortion, we all know what that means: it’s code for deeply held religiousbeliefs.”

We did not budge on this issue just because some of those opposing Catholic pro-life judges like Bill Pryor are themselves Catholic. “It does not matter that senators like Kennedy, Durbin and Leahy—all of whom are part of the problem—are Catholic,” we said, “none accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion, and are thus quite capable of keeping those who do from being a federal judge.”

Donohue also deflected the charge that we are calling these senators bigots: “So as not to be misunderstood, let me repeat what I’ve said before: the Catholic League believes there are no anti-Catholic senators. But that doesn’t empty the issue—if Catholics who hold to the Church’s position on abortion are repeatedly vetoed—the effect is clearly a form of de facto discrimination.”

Moreover, Donohue did not shy from critics who said he should not take part in the program: “Some opponents of ‘Justice Sunday’ have said that Dr. Al Mohler has branded the Catholic religion ‘a false religion.’ He’s obviously wrong, but then again he’s a Southern Baptist and that’s what they believe. As long as we’re not called a satanic cult—a la Bob Jones University—I’m prepared to join hands in the culture war.”

No sooner had our statement been released when the Family Research Council was on the phone inviting Donohue to join them for the event. The next day, Donohue flew to Louisville.

The following are excerpts from Donohue’s speech that were quoted on TV and in newspapers:

·      “They’ve set the bar so high on the abortion issue, we can’t get any real Catholics over it.”

·      “Dr. Frist is absolutely right. Keep it civil. And what do they do? They say we’re going to have a  theocracy. They said the same thing when Bush got elected, we’re going to have a theocratic state. What are we, the Taliban?”

·      “We will be disobedient altar boys! We won’t be told to shut up and give it over to the secular left! Who are they to say that I don’t have a right to freedom of speech?”

·      “We’re not gonna shut up and be little altar boys. We have something to say.”

·      “They claim to be the high priests of tolerance, and yet they practice intolerance against us.”

·      “White or black, Protestant or Catholic, Orthodox Jew, we’re fed up. We’re on the same side. And if the secular left is worried, they should be worried.”

An event staged to counter “Justice Sunday” was held the same day in Louisville. Jim Wallis, a leading liberal evangelical who edits Sojourners magazine, led the protesters. He accused those involved in “Justice Sunday” of instigating “a religious war.”

The culture is surely changing. On pp. 8-9, we have a feature story on how some Jews are working with Christians to halt the moral decline of our culture. And in Louisville, it was clear that Catholics and evangelical Protestants are working together toward the same end. This fight isn’t over by a long shot.

Scott Bloch, who heads the Office of Special Counsel, has been the subject of an on-going campaign to discredit him. At issue are his policy decisions and hiring practices. Regarding the latter, Bloch has actually been attacked for hiring Catholics!

Just when we thought things couldn’t get any worse, the campaign got even uglier when Pete Leon, an aide to Congressman Eliot Engel, literally cited Bloch’s status as “a devout Catholic” as a reason for opposing him.

As soon as William Donohue read this in The American Spectator, he sent a letter to Congressman Engel on April 27 demanding a strong response; a news release on this subject was issued the next day. “If someone on my staff were to oppose a Jewish person on your staff because he was “a devout Jew,” I’d fire him, said Donohue. He ended by saying, “I would like to hear from you what you are going to do about Mr. Leon.”

Rep. Engel wasted no time replying—he faxed a letter the same day we issued our press release. Donohue, in turn, put out a statement praising Engel for such a “speedy response,” saying he was satisfied with the outcome.

The text of Congressman Engel’s letter appears below.

he Catholic League scored four recent victories, and did so without costing its members a dime.

The Catholic League supports the right of public schools to have dress codes, provided, of course, that they are reasonably written. One we thought unreasonable was the one being proposed by the Ysleta Independent School District in El Paso, Texas. The code read as follows: “Any type of clothing including but not limited to T-shirts that advertise, support, glorify, or support inappropriate language, gestures, gangs, illegal activities, tobacco, sex, alcohol, illegal drugs, violence, religious pictures, or satanic philosophies are not allowed.” (Our italics.)

In a letter to Hector Montenegro, Superintendent of the Ysleta Independent School District, we focused on the ban on religious pictures. We also cited a 1997 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, that ruled that school districts could not bar students from wearing rosaries despite the fact that rosaries were used as a gang symbol in the area.

We are pleased to say that the officials of the Ysleta Independent School District have decided that religious messages will be allowed.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) has a cadet training program that covers a lot of ground. It is not unusual for it to go to various civic groups enlisting their support. One such group that the NYPD works with is the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Based on the west coast, the organization has a Tolerance Center in New York.

Acting upon complaints from sources we have chosen to keep anonymous, we wrote the NYPD’s Commissioner of Training regarding a particular class offered by the Tolerance Center. The class, which was being proposed for the cadets, is entitled, “Building Community Trust in a Diverse Post-9/11 Environment.”

The problem with the class, we said, was its one-sided story on the role of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust: the Church was blamed for not speaking out against the Holocaust, and there was video footage of fanatical Christian activists saying homosexuals and abortion providers will “burn in hell.”

We said it was irresponsible to pass off as an objective account what was really one ideological position on this historical period. Others have contended, including the Catholic League, that the Catholic Church made heroic efforts to rescue Jews and that indeed it did a better job than anyone else in saving Jewish lives. Of the Christian fanatics, we said that to show these people as being representative of Christians would be like “a presentation on the American civil rights movement that ignored Martin Luther King, Jr., showing only the Black Panthers.”

We are delighted to report that the NYPD, while it will continue to work with the Wiesenthal Center, has “no plans to include the Wiesenthal Center tolerance programs in our recruit training.”

Hershey High School in Hershey, Pennsylvania, featured an April Fool’s Day edition of its newspaper that Catholic students didn’t think was too funny. In its article, “God vs. Satan,” God was presented as saying “Mother Teresa makes one mean salami sandwich.” Other comments included, “I accept cash gifts and songs addressed to His Lordship,” and, “We’ve got our fair share of angel hotties.” And then there was Satan calling God a “stuffy twit.”

In our letter to Dr. Linda Brewer, Superintendent of Schools for the Derry Township School District, we made the point that “In the current public school atmosphere where prayer in the classroom is banned and honest discussion about religion is stifled, it is baffling why a student publication should be permitted to lampoon God and the Church.” We then asked, “Is it the policy of the Derry Township School District that religious expression must be limited to jokes that make a mockery out of faith?”

A letter from Dr. Brewer made it clear that the student editorial board now understands something about student responsibilities that it apparently didn’t understand before this happened. The message, in other words, has been received.

Finally, we got a complaint from someone that the American Bible Society, headquartered in New York, was carrying Chick publications in its bookstore. These publications, often in the form of small cartoon-like booklets, are found in many public places. They are the work of virulent anti-Catholics, appealing mostly to poorly educated persons.

For example, one of the booklets in the store was entitled, “Are Roman Catholics Christians?” This booklet, written in English and Spanish, says things like, “Billions of dollars have made ‘The Whore’ rich….” Another booklet, “The Death Cookie,” refers to the Eucharist. There is also one called “Holocaust” that claims the Catholic Church funded and ran Hitler’s Gestapo.

A letter of complaint to Dr. Eugene B. Habecker, president of the American Bible Society, was greeted with professionalism. He extended an apology, returned the material to Chick publications and pledged this would never happen again.

On May 10, the San Francisco board of supervisors unanimously passed a gag rule that violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. Aaron Peskin, one of the board members who advocates banning free speech, spoke for the other 10 censors when he said, “The intent of this resolution is to make a clear statement that discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, weight, height or place of birth will not be tolerated in San Francisco city government.” As the San Francisco Chronicle said on May 11, the wording of the resolution is targeted at speech.

On May 15, the gag rule was violated. During the Bay to Breakers footrace in San Francisco, there were several runners dressed as the pope. One of the “Holy Fathers,” as the San Francisco Chronicle put it, “lifted what looked like a bottle of Bud between the bosoms of two female freak dancers.” One of the pope’s guards said of the dancer dressed as a Catholic schoolgirl, “She puts the Ho in Holy.”

Here is what we told the press: “The Catholic League could sue the city of San Francisco over this incident. All we would have to do is cite the city’s newly passed censorship ordinance, and then maintain that the ‘pope’ incident qualifies as religious harassment. And we wouldn’t have to worry about the ACLU: it has said nothing about the attempt to muzzle free speech in the land of anything goes. (The fact that many men ran naked in the race is what we would expect from San Francisco.) But unlike the left-wing fascists who run the city, we at the Catholic League believe in free speech. Which is why we will not legally protest this outburst of anti-Catholic bigotry.”