The Thomas More Law Center, representing a Catholic League parent and her two minor children, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case that allows New York City to ban nativity scenes in public schools; the schools allow the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent.

This case already has been before the federal district court and the court of appeals. Despite the fact that our side has twice lost, Bill Donohue is not discouraged. It has been his goal all along to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule definitively on this matter, one way or the other. However, it is critical that the high court accept this case; otherwise the circuit court decision stands.

At stake is government sanctioned religious discrimination. The brief filed by the Thomas More Law Center cites a 1982 case wherein the Supreme Court ruled that “The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” And that is what New York City has done: by allowing some religious symbols and disallowing others, it has shown preferential treatment.

Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, and Robert Muise, the trial attorney handling this case, are eminently qualified to pursue this matter. The Catholic League was only too happy to secure a Catholic League member, Andrea Sokoros, to test this outrageous policy in the courts.

No sooner had the new school year begun than the Catholic League was drawn into a battle with the University of Virginia (UVA).

Catholic students on the campus contacted us about two anti-Christian cartoons that appeared in The Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper on campus. The August 23 edition showed a drawing of Jesus crucified on a mathematical graph with the inscription, “Christ on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane.” On August 24, the newspaper ran a cartoon of Mary and Joseph, with Mary holding baby Jesus. “Mary…I don’t mean to ruin this special moment,” Joseph says, “but how did you get that bumpy rash?” To which Mary says, “I swear, it was Immaculately Transmitted.”

We requested an apology, citing precedent: In November 2005, the newspaper apologized to homosexuals for publishing a cartoon that described a crane as the “gayest-looking of all birds.” Michael Slaven, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, replied to our request: “Under our newspaper’s policies, satire of religion, or any other belief or creed, is acceptable.”

Our response was predictably strong. Here is what we told the media: “When gays were offended at the University of Virginia for some throw-away line, The Cavalier Daily said it ‘regrets printing this comic and deeply apologizes to those who were offended.’ Yet when it comes to Christians, not even a shallow apology can be mustered. So it can be implied that the Mother of Jesus has a sexually transmitted disease—and that’s okay with the editors—but making flip comments about homosexuals is unacceptable.”

Kiera McCaffrey, the league’s director of communications, was quoted in the Richmond Times-Dispatch saying, “We’re calling them out on it. They’re mocking the crucified Jesus and there’s an insinuation of a sexually transmitted disease.”

The response that our news release garnered caught the student newspaper by surprise. Both The Cavalier Daily and The Washington Post admitted that the school was bombarded with 2,500 e-mails and 50 phone calls registering a protest. And, of course, Bill O’Reilly did a segment on this story without mentioning the Catholic League. That’s why we call his show “The O’Shameless Factor.”

On September 15, the two offensive comics were pulled from the website of the newspaper and a statement of regret was issued. We are satisfied with this ending.

William A. Donohue

Colleges and universities are called institutions of higher education, but it makes one wonder these days whether the appellation is warranted. Take the response we got from the University of Virginia and the University of Minnesota about their sponsorship of anti-Catholic fare.

The anti-Catholic graphics that appeared in the student newspaper at the University of Virginia garnered much publicity, thanks to the Catholic League. We were able to show that when gays were offended by the newspaper, the editors had no problem offering an apology. But not when it comes to Catholics—we’re treated to a different standard.

When pressed to explain the double standard, editor-in-chief Michael Slaven told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that he “draws a distinction between stereotyping people and satirizing ideas that people have in their heads voluntarily. A comic saying ‘all Catholics bomb abortion clinics’ would not be allowed, but a comic that satirizes religious ideas—including these—is allowed.”

So according to Slaven’s reasoning, the vicious attacks on Jesus and Our Blessed Mother do not constitute a negative stereotype. Either that or he doesn’t consider Jesus and Mary to be people. In any event, it’s nice to know that he considers the offensive cartoons to be satire, something which managed to get into people’s heads voluntarily (as opposed, I guess, to getting there involuntarily).

Here’s another gem. The Roanoke Times showed its brilliance by issuing an editorial defending Slaven’s logic. “Just because something offends cherished beliefs does not mean it must not be spoken,” it said, “or in this case, drawn.” Which would be fine except that neither the Roanoke Times, nor most any other newspaper in the United States, had the guts to publish the inoffensive depictions of Muhammad that appeared in the Danish press. Was it the “cherished beliefs” of Muslims that allowed for such sensitivity. Or was it fear?

The editorial not only defended the bigots, it got huffy with us. After noting that Christians have taken offense, it opined that “when they call for censorship and apologies, they forget that the same constitutional amendment that enshrines freedom of religion also establishes freedom of speech and the press.” But we never called for censorship. And since gays received an apology when they were offended by the newspaper (for something quite mild compared to the assault on Jesus and the Virgin Mary), why is it that there was no editorial lecturing them? In any case, perhaps the Roanoke Times hasn’t noticed, but freedom of speech applies equally to those who have been offended. Including Catholics.

Here’s another classic. I recently wrote to the president of the University of Minnesota complaining about an upcoming play that slanders Catholicism, and the answer I got was one for the ages. The first three sentences were fine as they directly referenced the specific nature of my complaint. But then it veered off into a form letter, and in the course of doing presented logic that literally imploded under the weight of my objection.

After stating the mundane—the university “hosts hundreds of conferences, concerts, theatre events, lectures and workshops every year”—President Robert H. Bruininks informed me that “The University of Minnesota is committed to establishing and nurturing an environment that actively acknowledges and values a very broad diversity of points of view that are free from racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, intolerance or harassment.”

Bruininks’ response might have made sense if I had complained that not enough orthodox Catholics were being invited to participate in a conference on the “Future of Catholicism.” But my complaint spoke to an offensive play. A summary of the play, found on the university’s own website, says “it is easy for a rich church to rage against abortion when millions are born into poverty, and become victims of the drug trade, from which people under the Vatican’s protection can fill their pockets.”

So what are we to make of this? The president boasts that the university does not welcome “prejudice, intolerance [and] harassment,” but finds no occasion to slam this virulently anti-Catholic play. The most generous thing that can be said about Bruininks is that he didn’t even bother to read what he signed. Either that or he believes that anti-Catholicism is not a form of prejudice.

Stuff like this gets exasperating, especially when it emanates from “higher” education. Fortunately, there are enough honest persons in the media who can see through this nonsense. As long as they continue to do so, the culprits will not escape scot-free. Remember, no matter how powerful the person or the institution is, bad publicity hurts. And trust us to deliver it, when warranted.

by Sister Margherita Marchione, Ph.D.

Sister Margherita Marchione is the author of several books on Pope Pius XII, the latest being Crusade of Charity: Pius XII And POW’s 1939-1945.

Below the portrait of Pope Pius XII in the Israeli Holocaust Memorial, Yad Vashem, there is a statement which is contrary to the truth and is unjust. It must be repudiated. I contacted the director of Yad Vashem and asked him to consider the efforts of the Pope who helped save hundreds of thousands of Jews and other victims of the Nazis. But will Yad Vashem at least correct the errors beneath his photo?

The statement includes:

“Pius XII’s reaction toward the killing of Jews during the period of the Holocaust is controversial. In 1933, as the Vatican Secretary of State, in order to maintain the rights of the Church in Germany, he signed a Concordat with the Nazi regime even at the price of recognizing the racist Nazi regime. When he was elected Pope in 1939, he put aside an encyclical against racism and anti-Semitism prepared by his predecessor.”

     ● Pius XII wrote his own encyclical, “Summi Pontificatus,” which did deal with racism. 

“Although reports about the assassination of Jews reached the Vatican, the Pope did not protest either by speaking out or in writing.”

     ● This is not true. Whenever Pius XII spoke out, there was immediate retaliation by the Nazis. There were more than 60 protests!

“In December of 1942, he did not participate in the condemnation by members of the Allies regarding the killing of Jews. Even when the Jews were being deported from Rome to Auschwitz, the Pope did not intervene.”

      ● The Pope did indeed intervene. After that first day, the SS were ordered to stop the deportation of the Jews in Rome.

“He maintained a neutral position except toward the end of the war when he appealed on behalf of the government of Hungary and of Slovakia. His silence and the absence of directives obliged the clergy in Europe to decide independently how they should behave toward the persecuted Jews.”

      ● This is not true. Members of the Church were ordered to protect all refugees and Jews. 

Pius XII’s sanctity has been recorded. There are many volumes of depositions for his beatification. He was a humble person who did not want his accomplishments and many good works revealed. Respecting his wishes, Sister Pascalina Lehnert—his housekeeper—implemented the Pope’s charitable works and served him faithfully from 1923-1958.

In her deposition, Sister Pascalina clearly stated that Pius XII did not issue a formal condemnation of Nazism because the German and Austrian bishops feared increased retaliation and dissuaded him from making additional protests that would undoubtedly irritate Hitler. And there was retaliation. During the persecution against Catholics, the Nazis not only destroyed churches and closed schools, but also arrested priests and Catholic leaders who were sent to concentration camps. All the protests of the Holy See were reported in a volume published in Germany in 1965.

Michael Tagliacozzo, a Jewish historian responsible for Beth Lohame Haghettaot Center in Italy, praised Pope Pius XII’s wartime efforts. He recently provided the following information from Hashavua, the magazine of “Beth Alpha”:

     ● Maurizio Zarfati, a resident in Acco, Hativath Golani St., wrote December 7, 1994, that he was saved with his parents, brother and sister in the monastery of the Augustinian Oblates of Santa Maria dei Sette Dolori in via Garibaldi. To permit men to enter, the Holy Father exempted them from rules of cloister. The Sisters gave up their rooms and moved to restricted quarters. … There were 103 Jews in that convent.

     ● Soldier Eliyahu Lubisky, a member of the “Kibuz Beth Alpha,” wrote on August 4, 1944, in the weekly Hashavua, that “he found more than 10,000 Jews in Rome. The refugees praised the Vatican for their help. Priests endangered their lives to save the Jews.”

In general, while begging for help, the Jews who were in contact with Pope Pius XII insisted that he avoid any public action. Sister Pascalina wrote: “The Pope not only opened the doors of the Vatican to protect the persecuted, but he encouraged convents and monasteries to offer hospitality. The Vatican provided provisions for these people. He ordered me to spend his inheritance and personal funds to provide for those who wished to leave Italy and go to Canada, Brazil, or elsewhere. Note that $800 was needed for each person who emigrated. Many times the Pope would ask me to deliver to Jewish families a sealed envelope containing $1,000 or more.”

In 1944, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Anton Zolli, gave an interview to the American Hebrew (July 14, 1944). Rabbi Zolli, who had been hidden in the Vatican during the German occupation of Rome, told the paper, “The Vatican has always helped the Jews and the Jews are very grateful for the charitable work of the Vatican, all done without distinction of race.”

In his book Antisemitismo, Rabbi Zolli would later write: “World Jewry owes a great debt of gratitude to Pius XII for his repeated and pressing appeals for justice on behalf of the Jews and, when these did not prevail, for his strong protests against evil laws and procedures…. No hero in all of history was more militant, more fought against, none more heroic than Pius XII in pursuing the work of true charity!… and this on behalf of all the suffering children of God.”

It is well known that Zolli converted to Catholicism after the war, taking as his baptismal name the pope’s, Eugenio. As Zolli would write in his memoirs: “The Holy Father sent by hand a letter to the bishops instructing them to lift the enclosure from convents and monasteries, so that they could become refuges for the Jews. I know of a convent where the Sisters slept in the basement, giving up their beds to Jewish refugees.”

Pope Pius XII made abundantly clear his judgment of the German aggression. In its front-page caption, the New York Times announced: “Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism; Urges Restoring of Poland.” The paper printed the entire text of Pius XII’s encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, on pages 8 and 9. It was a powerful attack on totalitarianism and racism. Pius XII condemned racism not only by publicly defending his Jewish brethren and explicitly using the word “Jew,” but did so by quoting Saint Paul (Col. 3:10-11).

During his first year as pope, he created a special department for Jews in the German section of the Vatican Information Office. According to the Canadian Jewish Chronicleand other Jewish publications, some 36,877 papers were processed on behalf of Jewish refugees. In view of the plight of the Jewish people of Europe, resolutions were adopted at the January 1939 meeting of the Jewish Congress in Geneva. Dr. Nahum Goldmann, chairman, stated: “We record the Jewish people’s deep appreciation of the stand taken by the Vatican against the advance of resurgent paganism which challenges all traditional values of religion as well as inalienable human rights upon which alone enduring civilization can be found.”

Pius did more than protest. He immediately issued directives to all convents and monasteries to open their doors to protect Jews and other refugees. Some 80 percent of Italian Jews would survive the war, a much higher percentage than in many other nations. Refugees, mostly women and children, were even housed in the papal apartments at Castelgandolfo, where 28 children were born during the spring of 1944. Over 12,000 people found refuge in this papal villa. Day and night, Vatican trucks bearing the yellow and white flag brought food and other necessities to Castelgandolfo. After the war, as an expression of their gratitude, these refugees placed a memorial tablet “To Pope Pius XII, the Angelic Shepherd…” in the tower of the papal palace.

Tibor Baransky, a board member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and a Yad Vashem honoree, recalls that “Papal Nuncios helped the Jews. They got the orders straight from the Pope.” He recounted that, while working at the age of 22 as a special representative of Angelo Rotta, the papal nuncio in Hungary, he heard from Jewish leaders who asked the pope not to raise a public outcry over the Nazi atrocities—since it would likely only increase their ferocity. (The Nazis had solidified their power in the early 1930s, and ferocious retaliation had been the typical response to every other Vatican protest.)

Working with Rotta—Pius XII’s personal emissary in Hungary—Baransky carried blank documents, forged protective passes, and faked baptismal certificates to save as many Jewish lives as possible; when Nazis and their local sympathizers ignored these documents, Rotta sent Baransky to retrieve them.

In July 1944, the American Jewish Committee and other Jewish organizations organized a rally in Manhattan, New York, to protest the deportation of Hungarian Jews. In his discourse, Judge Joseph Proskauer, president of the American Jewish Committee, said: “We have seen how great was the work of the Holy Father in saving the Jews in Italy. We also learned from various sources that this great Pope has tried to help and save the lives of Jews in Hungary.”

The anti-papal polemics of ex-seminarians like Garry Wills [Papal Sin], and John Cornwell [Hitler’s Pope], of ex-priests like James Carroll [Constantine’s Sword], and other lapsed or angry liberal Catholics exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today.

Recently, John Cornwell conceded that he was wrong to have ascribed evil motives to Pius XII and now finds it “impossible to judge” him. Indeed, those who have slandered him contradict the words of Holocaust survivors, the founders of Israel, and the contemporary record of the New York Times. In short, Pius XII deserves to be honored, not castigated, at Yad Vashem.

The play, “The Pope and the Witch,” is scheduled to open March 1, 2007 at the University of Minnesota. The playwright, Dario Fo, is a well-known Stalinist and anti-Catholic bigot.

Newspapers like the Albany Times-Union and Newsday have noted the anti-Catholic nature of the play, and even the University of Minnesota admits it. The school’s department of theatre, arts and dance summarizes the play’s message by saying, “it is easy for a rich church to rage against abortion when millions are born into poverty, and become victims of the drug trade, from which people under the Vatican’s protection can fill their pockets.” This is why Bill Donohue appealed to University of Minnesota president Robert Bruininks to cancel the play. Bruininks’ response appears below.

Our friends at the Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian public interest law firm, are already gearing up to defend against the War on Christmas that inevitably takes place every year.

The Law Center is going on the offensive, and they need your help. You can help the Law Center achieve its goal by asking your city to allow the display of a Nativity scene on public property during the Christmas season.

If you are interested in erecting a Nativity display on public property, Law Center attorneys stand ready to give you advice on how this can be legally done. If a city denies your request to erect a display, Law Center attorneys will investigate the matter, determine whether your constitutional rights have been violated, and when appropriate, initiate a lawsuit. All their legal services are without charge.

If you or someone you know wants to help with this Christmas campaign, please contact the Thomas More Law Center at 734-827-2001 or by e-mail at Christmas@thomasmore.org.

The Catholic League, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, has sued the City and County of San Francisco alleging a First Amendment violation on the part of government officials. A hearing on a motion by the officials to dismiss the case is set for early October.

Our suit maintains that when San Francisco elected officials lambasted the Vatican for its teachings on marriage and sexuality, they spoke as agents of the state. In doing so, they used the instruments of government to express a message of hate toward Catholicism.

It is astounding that in this day and age of “tolerance” that those who wear tolerance on their sleeves are often the most likely to abuse it. We hope the district court in Northern California allows the case to proceed. By the way, since they were sued, they’ve cleaned up their act.

On September 10 and 11, ABC-TV aired a docudrama, “The Path to 9/11.” Because word got out that the miniseries did not paint former President Bill Clinton in a particularly favorable way, a campaign to kill the program quickly got under way, the result of which was some last-minute editing by ABC. The reaction to the film was so extreme and dishonest that it occasioned the following news release on our part:

“When ‘The Da Vinci Code’ was in production, the Catholic League raised a red flag, the result of which was that we were denounced for criticizing a film before we had seen it. When we asked Ron Howard to put a disclaimer in the movie, we were condemned for disrespecting his artistic liberties. To top it off, we were told to lighten up—’it’s just a movie.’ But when everyone from Bill Clinton to the more than 100,000 protesters garnered by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) demand that ABC cancel ‘The Path to 9/11,’ no one denounces them for criticizing a movie they haven’t seen. Moreover, they suffer no condemnation for tampering with artistic liberties. And no one tells them to lighten up—the refrain, ‘it’s just a movie,’ is nowhere heard.

“The double standard is not the most upsetting aspect of this fiasco. Censorship is. Bill Clinton and the DNC’s troops have every right to complain, but sitting government officials are a different animal altogether. The letter sent to Robert Iger, president and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, by the senate Democratic leadership shows contempt for the First Amendment: they are not registering a complaint—they are demanding that the film be cancelled.

“Senator Harry Reid, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Byron Dorgan should be censured from the senate floor for their attempt to censor ‘The Path to 9/11.’ In their letter of September 7, they literally invoke a federal law, the Communications Act of 1934, warning ABC that their ‘free broadcast license’ is predicated on acting responsibly. Are they the new tribunal? And in vintage McCarthyite fashion, they even go so far as to say that the film ‘raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators.’ Maybe a special prosecutor can be appointed to discover what they are.

“The failure on the part of media commentators to express outrage over this abuse of power is the real story behind ‘The Path to 9/11.'”

This is the kind of issue that should have galvanized people across political lines, but, alas, it did not. The country is so torn on so many different levels that to expect a principled response from either side is probably unrealistic. This doesn’t bode well for the future regardless of one’s politics.

In late summer, we noted that Catholic-bashing plays were hot. Here is what Bill Donohue told the press:

“The Helen Hayes Theatre in New York must be experiencing hard times these days, otherwise it wouldn’t be home to ‘Kiki & Herb: Alive on Broadway.’ According to Variety, the play claims that the Catholic Church is run by the Nazis and that ‘the devil really does wear Prada’; the devil is the pope. To show how timely they are, the play’s producers manage to squeeze in a smack at Mel Gibson, dropping the line ‘now he wants the Jews to treat him like they’re Christians.’ According to the Associated Press, ‘Catholics routinely come in for a thrashing, as do Republicans and anti-gay advocates.’ Guess that covers the bases. But this isn’t enough to satisfy the depraved appetites of the audience, which is why there is a discussion about a pet cow—actually a stuffed animal—who ‘ate the afterbirth of Jesus in Bethlehem and later became a show pony for the pope.’ Now would anyone want to have dinner with someone who thought this was funny?

“Another stellar play, ‘Mitzi’s Abortion,’ completes its run on August 20 at Seattle’s ACT Theatre. Mitzi is unsure whether she wants to abort her baby and seeks advice from none other than St. Thomas Aquinas. Guess what he has to say? According to a Seattle newspaper, the Stranger, Aquinas says, ‘This inane position that the Church has taken lately which gives an embryo moral standing as a human person from the moment of conception! It’s ludicrous. But these puppies are eating it up like kibble!’ No one, of course, eats this stuff up more than those who consider this to be entertainment.

“Bigots in Chicago are running to the Oracle to see—one more time—’Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You.’ This perennial features a vicious nun who rails against her dysfunctional students, derides the teachings of the Catholic Church, attacks Jesus and disparages the Virgin Mary. It has an almost cult following among the morally destitute.”

In early September, the Catholic League learned of another production that paints nuns in the worst light. “The Convent” is a dance production that was presented at the Arden Theatre Company in Philadelphia. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the piece is about “Three nuns, in full habit with blood-red lipstick, [who] live in radical isolation. They are very hungry.” Such circumstances make the nuns “cruel and greedy and jealous and possessive and crazy.” The nuns “play nasty practical jokes, sing songs, perform religious rituals, experience spiritual ecstasy, and beat one another up.” If one were to base his opinion of nuns on just this and “Sister Mary Ignatius,” he’d be inclined to think the religious women were monsters.

Donohue concluded, “My guess is that those who spend money to see this fare are mostly angry old ex-Catholics stuck in a time warp. They’ll never move on.”

Father Gabriele Amorth, a noted exorcist in the Diocese of Rome, was recently interviewed on Vatican Radio, and immediately triggered a wave of hypercriticism.

Various forums on the Internet were alive with chatter over Father Amorth’s comment, “I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed by the devil.” Furthermore, the Pauline priest asserted that the “horrors” committed by Stalin and Hitler also demonstrate that “they were possessed by the devil.” Unfortunately, some read those remarks as Father Amorth’s way of saying Stalin and Hitler were nuts who cannot be held responsible for their actions.

Catholic teaching on exorcism, we pointed out to the media, does not equate demonic possession with mental illness. On the contrary, the Catholic Catechism says, “Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science.”

Moreover, in no way does exorcism imply that those possessed by the devil are not responsible for their actions. Satan, the Church teaches, “was at first a good angel, made by God.” Indeed, at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the Church made plain that “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.” So much for giving totalitarians a pass: over 20 million lost their lives to the Nazis and over 150 million were killed by communists in the 20th century.

Father Amorth is alleged to have said something about how Harry Potter hides the work of the devil. We’re not sure. What we do know is that in 2003, Father Don Peter Fleetwood, who helped write a Vatican document on New Age phenomenon, told a Vatican press conference that “I don’t see any, any problems in the Harry Potter series.” Indeed, he praised the good intentions of the British writer J.K. Rowling, who authored the series.