Over the past few months, it has become increasingly evident that a large-scale campaign against Pope Benedict XVI is being waged by his critics. The issues that his adversaries have seized upon include his relations with Muslims and Jews, and his opposition to embryonic stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage. The latest firestorm occurred when the pope questioned the utility of condoms to check AIDS.

On his flight to Cameroon in March, Benedict XVI was asked about the Catholic Church’s position on fighting AIDS. He said, in part, “One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.” Despite the uproar this caused, the facts support the pope’s position.

Last year, Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, wrote that “In every African country in which HIV infections declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year—which is exactly what fidelity programs promote.”

As for condom use, Green said, “Many countries that have not seen declines in HIV have seen increases in condom use, but in every country worldwide in which HIV has declined there have been increases in levels of faithfulness and usually abstinence as well.” No wonder that when Green was asked about the Holy Father’s remarks, he said, “The pope is correct, or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments.”

The Catholic Church, we pointed out to the media, has been the most active of any institution promoting the very programs in Africa that Green touts. It also operates more hospitals and related medical centers for AIDS patients than any other private institution in the world.

The Holy Father will be visiting Israel from May 8-May 15. Look for commentators to try to discredit him by mentioning the flap over Bishop Richard Williamson’s inane comments on the Holocaust; the St. Pius X Society bishop has since apologized.

What the pope’s critics are trying to do is frame him as being out-of-touch. That way they can try to force feed Catholics with a steady diet of their so-called progressive ideas. Funny thing is this pope could run intellectual circles around every one of them.

“Angels & Demons” opens May 15 and promises to be yet another hit job on the Catholic Church. Just as bad, those responsible for the film are engaging in doublespeak.

In a TV promo for the film, Tom Hanks, who plays Harvard professor Robert Langdon, discusses “the 400 year myth of the Illuminati”; he says they “have come for their revenge” against the Vatican.

What makes this so infuriating is that Hanks is on record saying he doesn’t believe in conspiracy theories. Yet that hasn’t stopped him from playing the lead role in two back-to-back conspiracy tales, both of which target the Catholic Church. “Conspiracy theories, I think…conjured up by people who can then sell their books about conspiracy theories,” says Hanks. People like Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons?

Here’s more doublespeak. On Brown’s website he addresses the conspiratorial Illuminati: “It is historical fact that the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600s.” But as we have pointed out, it is an historical fact that there was no Illuminati until 1776; it folded in 1787.

Were it not for savaging Catholicism, few would care about the duplicity of Brown and Hanks. But they are obviously not content to spin mysterious tales absent an anti-Catholic animus. That is why the Vatican denied them the opportunity to film on its grounds. It also explains the Catholic League’s on-going campaign to educate the public about their agenda.

Throughout American history, there has been an uneasy relationship between those on the left side of the political spectrum who are religious,  and those who are secular. It has been obvious that the two groups share the same politics, but just as obvious has been their point of departure—the origin of their values is quite different. This may now be changing: the religious left is becoming increasingly secular. The obverse is not true, i.e., the secular left is not becoming more religious.

Why the shift? The religious left has lost its moorings. Importantly, this is a phenomenon that has not gone unnoticed in the philanthropic  community. Take what has been happening in Catholic circles.

The establishment has long hated the Catholic Church. We know this because the Foundation world has been awash with cash flowing to causes that specifically undermine Catholicism. The population control movement—which has long screened out so-called undesirables like blacks and Catholics—has been funded by the Rockefeller Foundation since its inception. The Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (sponsors of the so-called genius awards), the Hewlett Foundation, the Packard Foundation and the Buffett Foundation (named after the famed tycoon, Warren Buffett), have all contributed mightily to Catholics for Choice (formerly Catholics for a Free Choice). Which means they underwrite abortion and anti-Catholicism.

There is another foundation that gives to Catholics for Choice, and that is the Open Society Institute. Sounds professional. It is. It is professionally anti-Catholic. The guy who runs it is George Soros, the billionaire left-wing activist who has his teeth in every radical cause. Lately, Soros has expanded his reach by funding dummy Catholic groups like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.

Catholics United is listed on the IRS form of Catholics in Alliance, and is the more extreme of the two. Soros funds Catholics in Alliance directly via the Open Society Institute, and thus indirectly funds Catholics United. His goal is to undermine organizations that promote traditional values, and he is pretty good at it. Both of these shell organizations work closely with Catholic Democrats, another association of disaffected Catholics.

Catholics in Alliance, Catholics United and Catholic Democrats are all pro-abortion. If you ask their spokesmen, they will deny it. They will say that even though someone like Obama has a 100 percent approval rating from NARAL, and is the darling of Planned Parenthood—he has never taken a stance against abortion—none of this should matter. They still believe he is anti-abortion. Somehow they expect us to swallow their moonshine.

When Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was nominated by President Obama to be secretary of health and human services, she was roundly criticized by the Catholic League and others for her unyielding pro-abortion positions. Her local bishop, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, asked her specifically what laws she had ever supported restricting abortion rights in her 30 years of public service. She couldn’t come up with any. But this didn’t matter to Catholics United—they praised her for her “deep Catholic faith” and opposition to abortion.

When the Obama administration took a position against conscience rights for healthcare workers, the Catholic League and other Catholic groups weighed in heavily against the administration. Catholics in Alliance, Catholics United and Catholic Democrats said nothing. This is telling: there is no more basic right than the right to refuse to perform an act that violates one’s conscience (and in some cases results in the certain death of innocents), yet none of these Catholic groups could summon the moral courage to defend Catholic doctors and nurses.

When Connecticut lawmakers sought to take over the Catholic Church (see the last issue of Catalyst), the Catholic League worked overtime with the state’s bishops to defeat them. We won. And what did these same Catholic groups do? Absolutely nothing. Now if they will sit on the sidelines and do nothing while fascistic legislators embark on a power grab to control the Church, how can they in any way be taken seriously as Catholic entities?

Voice of the Faithful is another fraud. In New York State, two bills are being considered dealing with the sexual abuse of minors. On one side are the bishops, the Catholic Conference and the Catholic League; all of them support a bill that treats public and private institutions equally. On the other side are the professed enemies of the Catholic Church. Voice of the Faithful is on their side: it is actively supporting a bill that works against the Church and gives the public schools a pass.

It is one thing for the ACLU to work against us. We expect that. It is something else altogether when those who purport to be on our side do.

But we remain emboldened. All across the nation bishops are stepping up to the plate in greater numbers than we have seen in years. So keep the faith! This isn’t over by a long shot.

In an outrageous series of events in New York State involving unscrupulous lawyers, victims’ advocacy groups, lawmakers and journalists, the Catholic Church has been unfairly portrayed as standing in the way of justice for those who have been sexually abused by members of the Catholic clergy, religious and laity. Before discussing the way the truth has been distorted, consider the facts.

For the past several years, there has been an attempt by some New York State lawmakers to promote legislation that would suspend the statute of limitations for cases involving the sexual abuse of minors. In every instance, the unstated target has been the Catholic Church. How do we know this? Because those sponsoring the legislation have intentionally done nothing to change the way the law treats abuse cases in the public schools. In California, what this meant is that those who alleged being molested in a public school a decade ago were uniformly turned away. Yet the courts accepted a case of someone who said he was abused in a Catholic school in 1929! This is the kind of “justice” some want to bring to New York.

In most states, the public schools are given special protections. In cases involving abuse, a victim student has only 90 days to file suit. After that, it is too late. What this means is that laws that suspend the statute of limitations for cases of the sexual abuse of minors that do not specifically mention the public schools (they almost never do) leave in place the 90-day rule. Thus, public schools get a pass. In other words, the goal of those who want to suspend statute of limitations laws is to “get the Catholic Church.” It is not to protect kids or to render justice.

An Assemblywoman from Queens, New York, Margaret Markey, is the person responsible for promoting this kind of scurrilous legislation in the Empire State. Her bill only addresses private institutions like the Catholic schools. For one year, a suit could be filed by those who allege that they were abused regardless of how long ago the offense took place and regardless of whether the accused, or witnesses, are alive. Meanwhile, her legislation would do nothing to affect the public schools.

To counter this discrimination, a bill was introduced by Assemblyman Vito Lopez that would treat private and public institutions the same way. Moreover, it would not focus on past cases of abuse, and for good reason: statute of limitations laws were written precisely to protect the rights of the accused. After all, how can justice be served when witnesses die and memories fade?

Despite all this, Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, took the side of the Markey bill. So did the New York Times. And in neither case did the newspapers even mention that there was an alternative to the Markey bill. As we pointed out, under Markey’s bill, someone who alleges he or she was molested in a Catholic school when JFK was president could do so. But a kid molested in a public school as recently as last Christmas is  already out of luck.

Sometimes it’s not clear whether it’s ignorance or malice that is at work. For example, the National Catholic Register recently ran a story on its blog about the two New York bills and the way the Markey bill discriminates against the Catholic Church. “In a detailed statement responding to criticisms of the bill,” the story said, “Markey said that public schools have handled abuse cases well in recent years, whereas the Catholic hierarchy ‘has relied on secrecy, quiet transfers and threats to hide abusers when the threat of public disclosure emerges.’” We were startled to read this, so we immediately checked it out.

When the Catholic League asked Markey’s office for a copy of her statement, we were told by Rosemary Lategano that the story was wrong—there was no such statement. We then called the newspaper and obtained a copy of it. This led us to question: “Was Markey’s office in error? Or were we lied to? One thing is for sure: Markey is wrong about the facts. She says the public schools have shown ‘increasing sensitivity’ to cases of child sexual abuse, and that they ‘routinely move swiftly to respond to allegations against employees.’”

In 2007, the AP did a major report on this subject. It concluded that child sexual abuse in the public schools was “a widespread problem,” saying there was “a deeply entrenched resistance toward recognizing and fighting abuse.” Moreover, offending teachers are moved from one school district to another, so often that they are called “mobile molesters.”

Two years earlier, author and educator John Seryak concluded that “The problem in education dwarfs the Catholic Church.” And a year earlier, Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, the nation’s leading authority on the issue, estimated a few years ago that “the physical abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse of priests.” So common is the transfer of offending teachers that it is called “passing the trash.” Yet reporters sympathetic to the public schools almost never mention such facts.

In other words, if lawmakers were really interested in the pursuit of justice, they would begin where the action is, namely in the public schools. Not only do they not do so, they deliberately leave in place all the special exemptions afforded the public schools. They are worse than phonies—they are as anti-Catholic as any redneck ever was. It’s just that they dress differently and use the law as their weapon of choice.

In April an amendment that would have protected conscience rights of healthcare providers was defeated in the U.S. Senate. The amendment was proposed in light of the Obama administration’s plans to rescind the rule, which was issued in December by the department of health and human services (HHS), that protects the right of healthcare workers at federally funded facilities to refuse to perform or be involved in medical procedures that would violate their conscience.

The failure of the Obama administration and the Senate to protect freedom of conscience is an outrageous violation of human rights and a slap in the face to Catholics. No one in the healthcare field should ever be compelled by law to perform or assist in a procedure that violates his conscience. This should be an elementary right, yet there are those who want to trespass on it.

Francis Cardinal George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has called upon Catholics to let the government know that conscience protection is a fundamental right. He expressed concern that reversal of the current rule “would be the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism.”

Failure to protect conscience rights, combined with overturning the Mexico City Policy, supporting the U.N. Population Fund, funding embryonic stem cell research and nominating radical abortion rights supporter Kathleen Sebelius to head HHS, sends the message to Catholics that their concerns are not important

With the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel and the appointment of Harry Knox to serve on the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, President Obama showed that his administration has no problem appointing anti-Catholics.

As past staff counsel for the ACLU and legal director for NARAL, Dawn Johnsen has done more than consort with the enemies of Catholicism—she has sought to undermine the Church.
In the late 1980s, Johnsen worked on a lawsuit, United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, that sought to strip the Church of its tax-exempt status. Thus, she is not simply a critic of the Church’s pro-life position—she wants to cripple the institution.

Most Americans are appalled at the thought of partial-birth abortion, but not everyone. For example, Johnsen has said that even the term “partial-birth abortion” is “intentionally provocative,” but there is no evidence that she has ever described the hideous procedure that way.

As soon as President Clinton took office in 1993, he took the occasion to sign five executive orders overturning abortion restrictions. Dawn Johnsen wrote every one of them.

The U.S. bishops strongly oppose the Freedom of Choice Act, a law so draconian that if it were enacted (which Obama has said he would sign) it would force Catholic hospitals to start performing abortions or have their funding pulled. Who helped write this bill? You guessed it, Dawn Johnsen.

To say that Johnsen has a problem with Catholics is a monumental understatement, but she is not alone. With his past anti-Catholic statements, Harry Knox, the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), has proven that he is unfit to serve on the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

On the HRC website, it says that Knox was “denied ordination because he is gay.” That is patently untrue. He was denied ordination in the United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ because he is a sexually active homosexual. Knox has also said that the Bible is inaccurate in its condemnation of homosexuality. Despite these troubling statements, his open disdain for Catholicism is what makes him a bad choice for this position.

When Pope Benedict XVI said that condoms are not the answer to HIV/AIDS, he was simply voicing common sense: the promiscuous distribution of condoms has coincided with a precipitous increase in HIV/AIDS. But to gay activists, like Knox, the pope was considered a liar. Indeed, Knox instructed the pope to “start telling the truth about condom use,” holding the Holy Father accountable for “endangering people’s lives.”

Knox even went so far as to say that because the Knights of Columbus—like most Americans—oppose gay marriage, they are “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression.”

Because of comments like these, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence called on the president to withdraw Knox’s appointment and to “select a person who can serve the faith-based community with the respect and dignity it deserves.”

Though Knox is not Catholic, he could not resist blasting the Church’s 2005 decision to ban homosexual candidates to the priesthood who “supported gay culture.” He branded this position as “an attempt at mind control” and a “dangerous and immoral” stance. In other words, Knox wants candidates like himself, practicing homosexuals so radical that even liberal mainline Protestant denominations turn them away.

With these appointments, Catholics should take note: the Obama administration doesn’t blink when it comes to appointing anti-Catholics for positions.

The following comments were found on the websites of Democratic Underground, Queerty, Towleroad, the Human Rights Campaign and the Washington Post/Newsweek blog, “On Faith.” All comments appear in their original form. We are highlighting the first entry (it is an excerpt) because it was written by author Susan Jacoby, an embittered atheist and Catholic basher:

Jacoby: “When the Pope apologizes for anything, his statement generally signifies nothing more than an attempt at damage control in the wake of an unanticipated public relations disaster created by his church and his church’s actions…Religious authorities ought to burn in hell, if there were a hell, for hypocritical apologies composed of words rather than deeds. There could surely be no better place for church leaders who believe in forcing a nine-year-old to bear the children of her rapist.”

Contact Jacoby’s literary agent: George Borchardt, Inc., 136 E. 57th Street, New York, NY 10022.

“Hey, what do you expect from the head of the church that brought us the Inquisition, pedophile priests, and demands for belief in a geocentric university?”

“Righteous arrogance is always sickening. Benedict XVI is steeped in righteous arrogance. The man who presided over the child of the Inquisition (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith) knows nothing about the people he lauds or condemns.”

“I’m a Catholic and I also believe in virtually nothing the Catholic Church teaches. Therefore I’d be all for impeaching the Pope and replacing him with someone who knows what in the hell he — or she — is doing.  But why stop there? Nobody is irreplaceable if you know what I mean.”

“Where do we send the dead bodies of African AIDS victims? To the Vatican, or to u citizenx1?”

“The man is head of one of the largest corporate entities in the world. Lets have him do something other than spread guilt and suffering.”

“while we are at it, lets ban all organized religions or put them all in one place so that they can kill each other. They are all corporations. no different than AIG, designed to intimidate and cheat innocent people. They should be all taxed. None of them are the true representaions of what original prophets and God meant them to be.”

“THe pope doesn’t like condoms because he looses sensations when he has his p****r in little boys bums.”

“As head of the Roman Catholic church the Pope is responsible for providing new membership in his church which is why contraception is forbidden. More babies equals more souls for the church, simple math.”

“This religion is a joke! But beyond that, this particular pope is an evil Nazi and HE MUST GO.”
“The idea of a POPE in the twenty-first century is demeaning to the civilized world. In addition, a man with no real life experience of ordinary people being considered as a leader is just disgusting. This man and his predecessors have caused more misery in this world than all the dictators and tyrants combined. People who worship this man and considered him their spiritual adviser need brain transplants.”

“HIV is a serious problem everywhere.Africa surly doesn’t need words of wisdom from a hypocrite.Lets get started Impeach !!!”

“The Pope is an a**hole.”

“Denial of the Holocaust is illegal in some countries. Perhaps claiming condom use does not protect against HIV/Aids should be regarded as Contraception Denial.”

“This makes it perfectly clear that a celibate male cannot run a church. His mind is warped by his myopic view of the world. He obviously does not care about his congregants, esp. the women. As a man of the cloth, his grasp on reality is gone. He is probably suffering from dementia & his celibate Vatican handlers have kept it from us.”

“Of course, the Pope IS a complete nutter, just as is anyone who bases his/her existence on beliefs in sky-gods, devils, virgin births, praying to dead people, and assorted other craziness.”

“Y’all can argue the finer points of Catholicism all you want; the greater truth is all about control, control of the greater population, but particularly the control of women.”

“Whatta Pope! Once a Nazi, Always Nazi! ‘The Final Solution’ apparently lives on this Old Youth Nazi.”

“If the Pope is motivated by God, then his God is evil! How dare this evil Pope condemn these suffering people to a hell on earth by his insidious religion!”
“Yet ANOTHER way in which the Catholic Church has done more harm than good… not a huge surprise from the people who brought you the Spanish Inquisition and Vatican-approved child molestation. Who better than an elderly celibate ex-Hitler Youth to understand the needs of Sub-Saharan Africa, right?”

“if this p.o.s. is god’s representative on earth, then all is lost, and there is no god worth respecting.”

“this pope is a despot and should be not only impeached, but excommunicated for all of his lies and hypocrisies.”

“If the Catholics can’t impeach the Pope, let them do away with him as a courtesy to the rest of the society.”

“I AM a Catholic.  I do NOT agree with much that the Prada pump wearing prick in Rome says or does.  He means NOTHING to me or to most Catholics in the USA.  He is a EVIL man& has been for years he can excommunicate if he has the balls to but I am sure he is too busy playing with the ‘boys’ to do that.”

“The Catholics have been stupid enough to pay for this man’s extracurricular activities; it is their responsibility to deal with him. May be he got HIV after using condom and his experience may be what he is talking about.”

“More immorality, deceit, fraud, torture, abuse, war, destruction, and death has been perpetrated over the Millenia by the Catholic Church than any other organized religion there has ever been.”

“I have a picture of Benedict as a Hitler Youth giving the heil hitler salute-hated gays then now he has power-what an evil man.”

“You expect morals from the leader of the largest child molester organization in the world?”

“While ‘f*** the pope’ is a phrase that lilts off the tongue so pleasingly, let us not forget that his power derives from many sources, not the least of which are the myriad people like my family, all of whom are varyingly supportive of me and my same-sex husband, and also regularly attend mass, go to confession, receive communion, and ‘just love that mumbo-jumbo.’”

“Any man that sets thier self up as God or say that they are a spokeman for God has a mental problem.”

“Hmmm, and it was the ‘divine responsibility’ of Popes to murder thousands of men, women, and children over the years to support the superstition of the ‘church’.”
“He, himself, is a closeted gay. Believe it or not, the fierce opponent of gays, usually they are gays in denial.”

“I’ve long suspected that the ultimate destruction of the Catholic Church was his secret goal. It would be a good thing, I only wish it weren’t taking so damn long – and I hate the fact that so many people will have to die in such a horrible way before this institution of inhumanity is rendered null and void. On the other hand, I agree with His A**holiness that ‘a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease’. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church’s attitude toward sex is neither responsible nor moral.”

“Yep, handcuff him and make him attend sex education classes like all the rest of the teen population.”

“I thought the Popes had to have some kind of intelligence to get the position…? This guy is a f***ing idiot. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: F*** THE POPE!!!”

“He’s just bringing the Final Solution into the 21st century, focused on all those darkies in Africa and DC.”

“will somebody drop an acme anvil on this d*****bag already? ^_^”

“Should we all be surprised to hear Nazi spouting hate coming from a  former  member of the Nazi Party”

“I think the Pope and the arch Conservative Catholic Church are guilty in the deaths of millions across the globe. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on medical care for AIDS treatment, but refuse to lift the ban of a 25 cent piece of plastic.”

“NAZI BASTARD. He needs to hook up with Ted Haggard”

“Why does the Church persist in such a manifestly immoral doctrine? One SUSPECTS that it must be the usual twisted thinking about sex and women.”

“As a christian this guy embarrasses me he is a moron and he is creepy looking. Pope John Paul was such a sweet looking old man.”

“Organized religion has done nothing but cause strife in humanity. Wars, discrimination, hatred in the name of ‘our father’ and pure ignorance. People need to start thinking for themselves. Throw organized religion to the curb.”

“The popes comments represent nothing more than criminal stupidity.”

On May 17, President Barack Obama is scheduled to give the Commencement address at the University of Notre Dame and receive an honorary doctor of laws degree. It has set off a fury that extends way beyond the campus.

Because the Obama-Notre Dame controversy is not an issue that deals with anti-Catholicism, we initially decided not to comment on it. But when the media kept calling us wanting to know what we thought anyway, we responded. The following is an excerpt of Bill Donohue’s comments on this subject that he delivered on CNN.

The first remark was given on March 25, a few days after the story broke:

· “I’ll tell you what, my phones have been ringing off the hook since last Saturday. I think this broke maybe on Friday and people have been e-mailing the Catholic League and contacting us through our website. This is the most polarizing thing I’ve seen in the Catholic community in some time.”

On March 30, Donohue offered the following comments:

· “Abortion, like racism, is intrinsically evil. Liberal Catholics would be against a racist getting an award. They’re not against giving an award to somebody who is pro-abortion.”

· “When he [Obama] was in the Illinois State Senate, he said a baby born alive as the result of a botched abortion—no health care for that kid. He found an exception to his universal health care. This guy is off-the-charts, 100 percent record with NARAL. Planned Parenthood loves this man. If this doesn’t disqualify him at a Catholic institution, nothing does.”

· “The ultimate losers are the kids, the parents, and the grandparents on their special day. And not only that. They’re giving him an award. So this is kind of an in-your-face situation. [Notre Dame] President Jenkins, I’m sure, is a good man. He made a lousy decision on this.

The Associated Press recently reported that in reviewed documents, President Obama’s choice to head the department of health and human services, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, received three times as much money from late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller than she previously acknowledged.

Tiller’s name is synonymous with death. By his own admission, he has performed over 60,000 abortions. His specialty is killing babies in utero who are nearly born, or are already partially born. Tiller is the same guy who lined the pockets of Kathleen Sebelius when she ran for office in Kansas: he knew what he was buying—a public official he knew wouldn’t betray him.

Sebelius testified that she had received $12,450 from Tiller between 1994-2001. Here is what the AP reported: “What Sebelius left out: Campaign finance documents show that Tiller also contributed $10,000 to Sebelius’ Bluestem Fund PAC in September 2000, and his clinic, Women’s Health Care Services, contributed $8,000 to the PAC in December 2001 and another $5,000 in March 2002.”

The real problem is not Sebelius’ habitual underreporting (she also had to pay more than $7,000 in back taxes): the real problem is the source of her PAC money. Tiller has to kill kids in order to get the dough he needs to grease Sebelius. No wonder the last three archbishops of Kansas have publicly criticized her.

When addressing the media, Bill Donohue said, “If I were to inadvertently shake George Tiller’s hand, I would immediately repair to the bathroom for a cleansing. I can’t imagine what kind of person would take tens of thousands of dollars from him, year after year, as well as throw parties for him in the Governor’s Mansion. Gives me the creeps just thinking about it.”

On April 16, New York Governor David Paterson introduced a bill legalizing gay marriage. We quickly noted that in a recent Quinnipiac poll, New Yorkers rejected gay marriage by a margin of 59-41 percent. So why is Paterson trying to force-feed legislation the people don’t want?

If two guys can get married, on what principle can the state deny three guys? It can’t. Marriage is not for men or women: its function is to provide for procreation and the establishment of a family. Nature limits that function to a man and a woman.

For all the happy talk about inclusion, gay marriage is exclusionary in its effects. How do two men tell their legally acquired children that they are excluded from celebrating Mother’s Day? How do two women tell their legally acquired children that they are excluded from celebrating Father’s Day? One way to do it is to ban these special days, and that is exactly what has already happened at some gay-friendly schools in New York City.

So not only will New Yorkers be force fed gay marriage, they can look forward to the time when the despots censor Mother’s Day and Father’s Day in the schools.