The following article by Bill Donohue was published by Newsmax on February 6, 2014.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has just released a report on the way the Vatican has responded to the sexual abuse of minors by priests. The 15-page report contains not a single footnote, endnote, or any other mode of attribution. But it does provide plenty of evidence as to its real agenda.

The United Nations panel is using the sexual abuse of minors as a pretext for its true objective: It wants the Vatican to submit to its authority, and not just in instances involving international law — it wants the Catholic Church to change Canon Law and to adopt a secular sexual ethics.

 As such, it is one of the most ambitious power-grab efforts ever undertaken by a United Nations committee. The panel is also profoundly ignorant of the data.

On page 3 of the report, the panel says the Holy See should “undertake the necessary steps to withdraw all its reservations and to ensure the [United Nations] Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations.” (Its emphasis.)

It is quite explicit: “The Committee recommends that the Holy See undertake a comprehensive review of its normative framework, in particular Canon Law, with a view to ensuring its full compliance with the Convention.”

In other words, the teaching body of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, i.e., the Pope in communion with the bishops, should yield to the United Nations. This would be the equivalent of asking the United States Congress to make sure its laws are in compliance with U.N. strictures. Hubris is too mild a word to describe this unmitigated arrogance.

On pages 12-13, the panel says it wants the Catholic Church to change its teachings on abortion and contraception; it also says the Church needs to do more about HIV/AIDS.

It is painfully obvious that these panelists have not thought through this issue. To wit: if everyone followed the Church’s teachings on sexuality, we would not have this problem in the first place. To be exact, those who acquire HIV/AIDS typically do so because they live a reckless life, in sharp contradistinction to the Church’s plea for restraint.

The panel is so intent on policing the Church that it demands a Canon Law change in the use of the term “illegitimate children.” It also directs the Vatican to order Catholic schools to change its textbooks, getting rid of alleged “gender stereotypes.” Not only is this another example of its abuse of power, the panel provides not a single piece of evidence to buttress its claim.

Someone should also tell these experts that the Vatican does not tell Catholic schools what textbooks, or curricula, it should adopt. But to control freaks, delegation is a difficult concept to grasp.

The panel lectures the Vatican on the need for “awareness programs,” urging “systematic training” for those who work with minors. Just who do they think started these initiatives? We’re not the ones who lack mandatory training programs — the guilty parties are found in other religious communities, and in the public schools. This explains why sexual abuse is not a problem in Catholic communities today the way it is elsewhere.

 The panel needs to get up to speed, assuming it has any real interest in this issue.

 On page 8, the panel instructs the Vatican to end corporal punishment, saying it must amend “both Canon Law and Vatican City State laws.” Ironically, the U.N. has now detailed how 10,000 Syrian children have been killed and tortured in the last three years.

Syrian kids are being raped and beaten “with metal cabals, whips and wooden and metal batons”; they are also being subjected to “electric shocks, including to the genitals.” Their fingernails and toenails are being ripped out of them, and they are being lacerated with cigarette burns. Most of these barbaric acts are being conducted by government agents, yet there is no demand that Syrian officials yield to the United Nations. It is too busy wondering if Sister Mary Alice is taking a ruler to a miscreant student.

The one attempt at providing evidence is a colossal failure: On page 7 it cites the Magdalene Laundries as an institution that forced girls “to work in slavery like conditions and were often subject to inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment as well as to physical and sexual abuse.” This is a bald-face lie: the McAleese Report, an investigation authorized by the Irish government, shows that none of this is true. To read my analysis, “Myths of the Magdalene Laundries,” see the “Special Reports” section on the Catholic League website. The panel’s report is libelous.

Finally, the report says the Church needs to end the practice of “baby boxes.” In many countries, there are drop boxes next to orphanages; they are placed there to entice girls who are pregnant out of wedlock, and who cannot care for their babies, to allow others to raise their child. It is a humane practice, one that is widely practiced in South Korea. What is not humane is to kill babies in utero, which is precisely what this U.N. panel recommends.

For sheer demagoguery, this report cannot be beaten. It is as malicious as it is inaccurate.

When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit brought by a privately owned business, Hobby Lobby, that challenges the constitutionality of the Health and Human Services mandate, several organizations that have traditionally opposed the bishops lined up with their own brief on the other side.

BishopAccountability, a media outlet that allegedly monitors priestly sexual abuse, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), a “victims’ group,” and  the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist entity, do not want the owners of Hobby Lobby to win. Their stated objectives have nothing to do with this issue, but their real goal surely does: they want to weaken the moral voice of traditional religious organizations.

Seven “Catholic” organizations joined with others to oppose Hobby Lobby. Catholics for Choice is a pro-abortion, anti-Catholic entity; CORPUS, Women’s Ordination Conference, and Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual reject the Church’s teachings on ordination; DignityUSA and New Ways Ministry reject the Church’s teachings on homosexuality; and the National Coalition of American Nuns is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

The latter group is particularly interesting. In a Marist poll released at the end of January, it found that 84 percent of the American people favor abortion restrictions. But not the National Coalition of American Nuns: in 1989, they signed an amicus brief in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in favor of unrestricted legal abortion. In 2006, they issued an “open letter” to Catholic voters in support of abortion and gay marriage. The year before, they blasted the selection of Pope Benedict XVI; in 2008, they publicly opposed his papal visit to the U.S. In 2010, when the Catholic League protested the decision by the owner of the Empire State Building not to light the tower in recognition of Mother Teresa’s centenary, these nuns signed a letter in support of the owner (so much for the bonds of “sisterhood”). In 1984, this same group opposed formal U.S. diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

No sooner had these enemies of the bishops spoke when the pope called on Catholic universities to be “uncompromising” in their defense of the Church’s “moral teachings.” Too bad some nuns are working overtime to subvert his plea.

Recently, a worldwide survey of Catholics was conducted by Bendixen & Amandi International for Univision.

The survey of 12 nations yielded some interesting results, but first a note on its methodology. Asking people to identify themselves as Catholic is not a sufficient condition for drawing conclusions: we need to know whether they regularly attend to the sacraments, or not. The survey made no effort to distinguish between practicing and non-practicing Catholics.

Asking Catholics whether priests should be allowed to marry, or whether women should be allowed to become priests, does not tell us very much. Every survey says “yes” to both, but what counts is the intensity of the conviction: few Catholics have their bags packed ready to jump ship. If that were the case then the mainline Protestant denominations would be booming; instead, they are dying. In other words, there is a difference between a preference and a demand. There is no demand for either.

The survey is revealing in ways that the media are choosing not to discuss. On the two most contentious moral issues of our day—abortion and gay marriage—there is little sympathy for the secular perspective.

Only 10.3 percent of Catholics worldwide think abortion should be allowed in all cases. Yet in the United States, for instance, it is legal in all cases. Those who like to lecture the Church about “getting in step with the times” are deadly silent on this matter. In terms of gay marriage, only 31 percent support it; the United States and Spain are the only nations where a majority do. When asked whether the Church should perform marriages between two persons of the same sex, 76 percent say “no.” Had Catholics been asked whether the government should compel the Church to recognize gay marriage, even more would have said “no.”

The media are not reporting these findings; all that is needed is a calculator. And honesty. It is still painfully obvious that Catholics in the developed world need to catch up with those in the developing world, especially those in Africa and Asia, in their support for Church teachings.

The two greatest threats to liberty and Catholicism, stem from militant secularism at home and militant Islam abroad. Both strains of extremism were on display this past St. Valentine’s Day.

Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards celebrated St. Valentine’s Day by tweeting a video saying women need “safe + legal abortion.”

Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia took to the streets condemning St. Valentine’s Day for its celebration of promiscuity and abortion.

By contrast, Pope Francis celebrated St. Valentine’s Day by welcoming 10,000 engaged couples in St. Peter’s Square.

It is so nice to be a Catholic in this sea of madness.

The United Nation’s Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child recently held a hearing on the Holy See’s handling of sexual abuse.

The U.N. Committee that was charged with probing the Holy See’s response to the sexual abuse of minors is composed of 18 “independent experts,” from as many nations. Some of the committee members who profess an interest in the rights of the child, such as Hiranthi Wijemanne of Sri Lanka, say that human rights should not extend to nascent human life; a child in the first trimester, she said in an interview, should not be considered a child.

Many of the “experts” on human rights come from nations that are known for oppression, not liberty. Just recently, the Pew Research Center released a report on religious oppression worldwide. Nations with “experts” on the U.N. panel that earned a “High” rating are Bahrain, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and Tunisia. Even worse are the nations that merited a “Very High” rating: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Malaysia.

Freedom House listed Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Ethiopia as among the most oppressive places on earth. Open Doors listed the same nations as the Pew study (save for Russia) in its top 50 nations known for persecuting Christians.

Female genital mutilation has not stopped in Egypt, a nation where more than 90 percent of women have been subjected to it. This same barbaric practice is going on right now in Ethiopia. Ghana, which also had an “expert” on the panel, is now witnessing a spike in female cutting, despite a ban on it.

So these are some of the nations that are sending their “experts” to question a delegation from the Holy See about human rights. No wonder the U.N. continues to lose credibility. It would be as if a panel appointed by the heads of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey chose Alex Rodriguez to investigate cheating in professional sports.

A couple of weeks ago, an offensive video was posted on YouTube by Sarah Silverman.

Silverman is a champion of abortion rights, but that hardly makes her a bigot. What makes her an anti-Christian bigot is her video that featured her talking to a Jesus character about abortion. The language she used was so vulgar—she ended with the “c” word about women—that it cannot be repeated on broadcast television, or republished in any respectable newspaper.

Silverman exploited Christianity by hijacking Jesus in support of killing kids in the womb: he was shown making fun of unborn babies, saying “fertilized eggs aren’t people. People are people” and announced that he is, “Jesus F***ing Christ.”

Silverman said pro-life Christians are un-American and that “using religion to dictate legislation is un-American.”

Toward the end of the video, the Jesus character was shown rubbing her while they are sitting on a couch. She said, “Oh, that’s my spot.” To which he replied, “I know where your spot is…that’s a good little Jewish girl.”

Donohue expected most Jews would not be too thrilled with the remark about being a “good little Jewish girl.” It would be great if Jewish leaders spoke up about this taunt: If a Catholic girl trashed Jews, branding them un-American for dictating their pro-abortion values on society, and closed with a quip about being “a good little Catholic girl,” we would hear about it. Silverman wasn’t being comedic: this is hate speech with a smile.

Catholic University of America came under attack again for receiving a donation from the Koch Foundation. In December, Bill Donohue exposed Faith in Public Life, which led the first attack, as a group that is funded by a George Soros foundation, the Open Society Institute. Another left-wing entity, Catholic Scholars for Worker Justice, was spearheading the latest attack.

According to a Religion News Service story by David Gibson, Faith in Public Life said that while it receives $200,000 a year from the Open Society Institute, its officials “work with Catholic leaders in support of Catholic teaching,” and the Koch brothers do not.

Fully 13 percent of Faith in Public Life’s budget comes from an atheist who supports abortion, euthanasia, drug legalization, and many other causes that are opposed by the Catholic Church. By contrast, the Catholic League is a grass roots organization that is listed in the Official Catholic Directory; we wouldn’t accept funds from a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, drug legalization foundation. That’s dirty money.

If it is true that Faith in Public Life “works with Catholic leaders in support of Catholic teaching,” then why did the USCCB issue a three-page “Advisory Memo to Journalists” on June 27, 2012, warning them of the totally misleading comments made by Faith’s Catholic Program Director, John Gehring? Gehring’s memo advised the media about the “inflammatory and irresponsible” rhetoric of “several bishops,” and he tutored the secular media on how to handle the USCCB. In short, he worked against the bishops.

Bill Donohue is very happy with the fact that he has helped subvert Faith in Public Life. To wit: Gehring’s June 7 memo that the USCCB blasted was made public by Donohue on June 18; it was leaked to him by a loyal Catholic in the media.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recently announced that he has decided not to march in this year’s St. Patrick’s Day parade.

Not since David Dinkins decided not to march in 1993 has a mayor refused to do so. Bill Donohue was delighted: He leads the Catholic League contingent every year, and does not want to march with a public official who does not want to be associated with Irish Catholics.

De Blasio said he will not march because the parade does not allow pro-gay signs. Neither does it allow pro-life ones. The great myth has always been that the St. Patrick’s Day parade is anti-gay: in previous years, Donohue has gone on the radio inviting gays to march with the Catholic League, provided they do not draw attention to themselves or to some extrinsic cause. The parade is not about homosexuals, or abortion, or anything other than honoring St. Patrick.

The mayor said he will not accede to the request by gay activists to ban city workers from marching. So kind of him—otherwise he would be looking at an insurrection.

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo’s spokesman recently responded to criticism over Gov. Cuomo’s statement about “extreme conservatives.”

Gov. Cuomo has continued to give legs to the controversy over a remark he made a short time ago on the radio. Instead of apologizing, he has dug himself in deeper.

In the radio interview, Cuomo was speaking about New York Republicans who voted against the SAFE Act, a gun control law. Here is what he said: “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

After Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, criticized Gov. Cuomo, the governor’s spokesman complained that Gov. Cuomo’s comments had been “repeatedly taken out of context—what he actually said was that the state is a moderate political state with all views welcome.”

The defense offered by Governor Cuomo’s spokesman is stunning. Not only is New York one of the most liberal states in the nation, more important, Cuomo manifestly did not say that the Empire state is a place where “all views [are] welcome.” He expressly said that those who disagree with his policies on abortion, gun control, and marriage, “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” There is no welcome mat there.

In other words, Governor Cuomo’s spokesman lied. He lied for Cuomo.

Recently, Gov. Cuomo railed against what he called “extreme conservatives” who are “pro-life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay.” He said such persons “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Soon after Cuomo’s offensive remarks, NYC Mayor de Blasio said he agreed with Cuomo’s comments “100 percent.” He explained, “I interpret his [Cuomo’s] remarks to say that an extremist attitude that continues the reality of violence in our communities or an extremist attitude that denies the rights of women, does not represent the views of the people of New York State.”

The spin won’t work. Who is Cuomo, or de Blasio, to say which New Yorkers have a place in NY? Since when has ideology become a condition for residence? Such talk is demagogic and divisive.

This was not the first time de Blasio illegitimately arrogated the authority to speak for New Yorkers about abortion. In February 2011, a pro-life group, Life Always, displayed a huge billboard in the SoHo section of New York that showed a picture of a young black girl with the inscription, “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” Prominent African Americans endorsed the billboard; it was displayed during Black History Month.

This was enough to send de Blasio into orbit. As New York’s Public Advocate, he was not satisfied to criticize the billboard—he wanted it banned (he succeeded). “The billboard simply doesn’t belong in our city. The ad violates the values of New Yorkers.”

The lust for abortion that these two men have is disturbing enough, but it is their arrogance and censorial approach that is most obscene.