 |
| Double click image for larger view |
The Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery is currently hosting an exhibit, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," that features a video (Video Below) that shows large ants eating away at Jesus on a crucifix. The exhibit is replete with homoerotic images.From Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
According to Penny Starr of CNSnews.com, David C. Ward, co-curator of the National Portrait Gallery, says the video, "A Fire in My Belly," is one of the "masterpieces" of this exhibit. We call it hate speech. Perversely, there is a plaque at the entrance to the exhibit that says the Gallery is committed to "the struggle for justice so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America's promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity." Somehow Christians didn't make the cut.
The creator of this "masterpiece" video is dead of AIDS. But he did not die without blaming society for his self-destructive behavior. David Wojnarowicz said, "When I was told I'd contracted the virus, it didn't take long for me to realize that I'd contracted a diseased society as well." Who did he blame? Besides some politicians and government workers, he fingered "those thinly disguised walking swastikas that wear religious garments over their murderous intentions." So Father John did it.
At least Wojnarowicz bared his soul. Ward just spins. Like others who have attacked Christians before with their "art," he says the ants crawling all over Jesus represent "the lack of attention to Christian teachings." So the ants are actually giving Christians a wake-up call! How thoughtful.
It does not matter that private sources funded this exhibition: the majority of the money afforded the Smithsonian Institution comes from the taxpayers. Accordingly, I am writing today to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees asking them to reconsider future funding.
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman. DEN BOSCH, Netherlands, November 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
The letter, which was addressed to Representative Jeannine Hennis-Plasschaert and published in the Katholiek Nieuwsblad (Catholic News), was written in response to Hennis-Plassschaert's angry reaction after receiving a plastic fetal model from Catholic bishop Everard de Jong. The bishop had sent the models to Hennis-Plasschaert and all other members of the Dutch House of Representatives. He also included a letter in which he asked the representatives to stop the killing of the unborn in the face of impending budget restrictions, pointing out that defunding "bloody abortion clinics" would save money and help preserve future generations who could care for the elderly.
After Hennis-Plasschaert called the letter from the bishop "disgusting," Orbán wrote to her publicly, pointing out that both she and Hennis-Plasschaert have experienced the suffering of miscarriages, and that the fetal model she received from Bishop De Jong would resemble their lost children at the time of their deaths.
 |
| Image by Lee Stranahan |
8 November 2010. Catholic League of Australia.
If you ever wanted proof that the media does not give a fair go to the Pope and the Catholic Church then here it is.
Yesterday, the Pope arrived in Barcelona to open the new Cathedral of the Holy Family. As he was driving to the Cathedral around 100 to 200 hundred gay people staged a ‘kiss in’. This is compared to the 250,000 pilgrims who were there supporting the Pope. The protesters only represented 0.08% of the crowd.
Who do you think the media decided to focus on? These are the headlines of a few major Australian and international news services.
Mercator Net, Michael Cook | Friday, 9 April 2010
A United Nations jurist wants to put Benedict XVI in the dock for condoning sex-abuse. The real question is, how many others should be there with him?
A prominent Australian-British human rights lawyer and United Nations jurist has suggested that the Pope be put on trial for crimes against humanity. I think that this is a brilliant idea.
Geoffrey Robertson outlined his scheme in The Guardian and a number of Australian newspapers. Although he feels strongly that the Vatican is fraudulently representing itself as an independent country, the Pope should be brought to account for systematic abuse of human rights during his pontificate. Since 2002, he points out, heads of state are no longer immune from prosecution before the International Criminal Court. For instance, a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the president of the Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
In Pope Benedict’s case, Robertson argues that this includes sexual abuse of minors:
Continue reading at MercatorNet: Should the Pope be tried for crimes against humanity?
If you are interested in reading more, please check out MercatorNet's focus blog on the sexual abuse crisis -- Just B16
Catholic League, October 6, 2010
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on last night's episode of the Fox show, "Glee":
The producers of "Glee" decided to address religion. A gay atheist was treated with sympathy for his victim status, the victimizer being Christianity, especially Catholicism. Judaism was treated with kid gloves and Islam got a pass. In other words, it was the usual Hollywood stuff.
The show revolved around a football player who sees an image of Jesus in his grilled cheese sandwich, labeling it "Grilled Cheesus." Throughout the show the audience was treated to such lines as "I think God is kind of like Santa Claus for adults. Otherwise, God's kind of a jerk, isn't he?"; "Asking someone to believe in a fantasy [religion]…however comforting, isn't a moral thing to do. It's cruel." References to Catholicism included mocking quips about "Sweet Holy Mother of God Academy."
The pivotal remark, which set the tone, was made by the gay atheist: "The reason I don't go to church is because most churches don't think very much of gay people. Or women. Or science."
The lines mouthed by the characters are a reflection of what Hollywood script writers and producers believe. Back in 1986, S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter wrote a landmark book, The Media Elite. The three social scientists, not affiliated with conservative causes, found that the media elite had nothing in common with most Americans on the subject of religion: while 94 percent of Americans identified themselves as religious, only 50 percent of the media elite did. Even more striking, while 86 percent of the public said religion was important to them, 86 percent of the media elite said they seldom or never attend church. Studies since have shown that nothing much has changed.
Homosexuality and atheism are all the rage these days with the cultural elite. As "Glee" showed last night, so is ripping on Christians.
Catholic League, October 7, 2010
A Montana truck driver, Kathleen Folden, took a crowbar to the Plexiglass case housing artwork at Colorado's Loveland Museum which depicted a man performing oral sex on Jesus. Folden was arrested after she ripped the artwork to pieces. Commenting is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:
Had the art depicted a man performing fellatio on Muhammad, the museum may have been blown up by now. So it is lucky that Ms. Folden is a Christian.
It is striking to read the responses of those who defended the obscene art. "I am appalled by the violence," says Loveland's director of Cultural Services Susan Ison. But she is not appalled by the portrayal of Jesus having a man perform oral sex on him. Indeed, she justified this obscenity by calling it "very complex." Had the artwork showed her performing oral sex on her father, it's a sure bet it would lose its complexity.
Continue reading at Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights
Clare Rawlinson and James Madden The Australian October 07, 2010
THE priest who spent 25 years lobbying for Mary MacKillop's canonisation has angrily dismissed recent media reports.
The reports said the soon-to-be saint was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for exposing acts of child sex abuse by a South Australian clergyman.
Paul Gardiner, chaplain of the Mary MacKillop Penola Centre, said the claims, published on ABC Online and in Fairfax newspapers last month, were false, and he feared the misleading coverage was an attempt to take a swipe at the church and distract the public in the lead-up to MacKillop's canonisation on October 17.
ABC Online and Fairfax both reported that MacKillop's ousting from the church in 1871 was prompted by her exposure of a Kapunda priest's abuse of local children. The claims were based on remarks made by Father Gardiner in a documentary made for ABC TV's Compass program.
But both Father Gardiner and the program's executive producer deny ever making such an inference. "Early in 1870, the scandal occurred and the Sisters of Saint Joseph reported it to Father Tenison Woods, but Mary was in Queensland and no one was worried about her," Father Gardiner told The Australian.
Father Gardiner, considered the nation's foremost authority on the history of MacKillop, said his words had been twisted to suit the "ill will" of media outlets.
Continue reading Priest denies making claims about MacKillop's excommunication | The Australian
"10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."And of course the pope never said that he wished IVF children had never been born. What the Church teaches is that most artificial reproductive methods injure the dignity of the person conceived. Once conceived every human being has a right to be protected.
The Catholic League responses to another slur against the Pope.
William A. Donohue, Ph.D. Catholic League – 1st October 2010
The CNN documentary, "What the Pope Knew," which aired September 25, deserves a response.
The program begins with music and graphics that set the tone: those who think Pope Benedict XVI has been adept at combating priestly sexual abuse must realize that there is "a darker, more complicated story." Dark, yes, but from CNN's perch, the story is not all that complicated: the pope is guilty of "foot-dragging and, perhaps, obstruction."
We learn from CNN host Gary Tuchman that "For decades, before he became pope, Joseph Ratzinger was a high-ranking Vatican official who, more than anyone else beside Pope John Paul, could have taken decisive action to stem the sexual abuse crisis." Similarly, author David Gibson says the pope "always took the stalling tactic."
It is simply not true that Ratzinger was in charge of this issue "for decades." In fact, he wasn't given the authority to police the sexual abuse problem until 2001. What is truly astonishing is that Tuchman concedes as much later in the program. After he notes that "By 2001, the sexual abuse crisis was beginning to engulf the Catholic Church," he says, "The pope gave Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) the power to cut through the bureaucracy and handle all sexual abuse cases directly."
In other words, Tuchman was incorrect the first time when he said that "for decades" Ratzinger "could have taken decisive action." He couldn't have been in charge "for decades" if he wasn't given police powers until 2001 (he became pope in 2005).
Nowhere in the program is there any evidence that the pope was guilty of obstruction of justice. This is a serious charge—the most serious made in the course of the documentary. Yet to throw this out, without ever producing evidence to substantiate it, is malicious. It won't cut it to say that he was "perhaps" guilty of obstruction. CNN intentionally planted this seed and never explicitly addressed the subject of obstruction of justice again.
Continue reading at Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights
Catholic League - October 1, 2010
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a news story about a former priest who molested a male listed as John Doe:
On September 28, the Chicago Tribune reported that "former Chicago priest and convicted sex offender Daniel McCormick sexually abused him [Doe] while he was a grammar school student." We then learn that the student was really a middle-school student, in the eighth grade, when the abuse began. The abuse reportedly continued for five years. According to the lawsuit, "McCormack inappropriately sexually touched, hugged, rubbed and/or abused Doe."
It's time to ask some tough questions. Why did this young man not object earlier? Why did he allow the "abuse" to continue until he was 18? The use of the quotes is deliberate: the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing. While still objectionable, there is a glacial difference between being rubbed and raped.
Here's what we know. We know that this case, like most of them, was the work of a homosexual, not a pedophile. And like most of the cases of priestly sexual misconduct, there was no rape involved. Inappropriate touching is morally wrong, and the offenders should be punished, but the time has come to object to all those pundits who like to say that the scandal is all about child rape. Most of the cases did not involve children—they were post-pubescent males—and most weren't raped.
Why does this matter? Because those looking to sue the Catholic Church for being inappropriately rubbed decades ago are not exactly the poster boys for the victims of child rape. And because those who hate the Church continue to use the term child rape as a way of discrediting the Church. They lie about this being a pedophilia problem and they lie about the nature of the misconduct. That’s reason enough to call them on it.
Monday 13 September 2010. Brendan O’Neill.
Apparently the British state is about to roll out the red carpet for a seriously evil rape facilitator. Pope Benedict XVI is the boss of a church that acts as a ‘patron, protector and financier of child rape’, says one secularist writer. Last week the UK Independent reported that in America, ‘over 10,000 people have come forward to say they were raped as part of this misery-go-round’ overseen by His Holiness and His Lackeys. In Ireland alone, a tiny country of 4.5million people, ‘Thousands were raped in reform schools’, said a British broadsheet headline last year, ramming home the ugly truth of how many kids have been raped by the Catholic Church’s army of paedophile priests.
But how true is this ugly truth? Were 10,000 children in America and thousands more in Ireland really raped by Catholic priests? In a word, no.
Continue reading - How the New Atheists are abusing the truth | spiked
From the Catholic League. September 2010.
The following is a sample of the all-out attack on Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church prior to the pope's visit to the U.K. All quotes appear in original form:
Continue reading at the Catholic League: For Religious and Civil Rights
Mexico City, Mexico, Sep 9, 2010 / 09:53 pm (CNA).
Feminist groups and leaders have pressured officials in the Mexican state of Guanajuato to drastically reduce the punishment for infanticide.
For weeks, feminist organizations such as Las Libres confused the public by claiming that six women in Guanajuato, who were in prison for killing their babies, were in fact in prison for abortion.
After being dismissed by local officials and U.N. delegates, the feminists changed their strategy to seeking a reduction in punishment for women who kill their children during the first hours following birth. Such a crime, punishable in the past by 35 years in prison, will now be punishable be only three to 10 years due to a controversial reform of the state's civil code.
THE Vatican should be treated as a kind of ''rogue state'' by the rest of the world until it stops using statehood - and the ancient rules of the canon law - to protect paedophile priests.
So says Geoffrey Robertson, QC, the veteran human rights lawyer and United Nations judge, arguing that the Catholic Church is the only religion permitted under international law to claim the privileges of statehood and its leaders immunity from civil or criminal action.
Where to begin? [in addressing the nuttiness of Robertson's claims] (a) the Vatican does not deal with abusive priests, local dioceses or congregations do; (b) Where these have failed to act against abusive priests, it has not been because they have resorted to canon law instead of civil law, but because they failed to resort to either canon OR civil law; (c) the cases which have been referred to the Vatican (since 2001) have been referred precisely in order to ensure appropriate action IS taken; (d) confidentiality is imposed in canonical legal processes in those cases where -- as in solicitation in the confessional -- these are canonical crimes, not civil ones; (e) the canonical process (eg laicisation) only takes place after any civil action (prosecution, trial, sentencing) has taken place; (f) it wasn't the Vatican which back in the 1980s moved priests accused of abuse to other parishes, it was bishops. And so on.
If only Pope Benedict were an ordinary citizen, he could rightly sue Robertson for his wholly untrue and grossly defamatory claim that clerical abuse was allowed to take place because "Joseph Ratzinger, both as head of the CDF and as Pope, has insisted for the past 30 years that all such cases be dealt with in secrecy under canon law." That is a monstrous lie -- and, given Cardinal Ratzingers record in this area, simply laughable.
By Diogenes | Catholic Culture - August 20, 2010
To be honest with you, I couldn’t get worked up about Bill Donohue’s campaign to persuade the owners of the Empire State Building to light up the tower on the 100th anniversary of Mother Teresa’s birth.
Yes, it would be nice if the Empire State Building honored Mother Teresa. But if the owners continue to refuse? Outside of Manhattan—and New Yorkers sometimes need to be reminded that there is a world outside Manhattan—no one will know, one way or another. I’m sure Mother Teresa herself doesn’t care. When you’re living in the glow of divine light, the electric kind isn’t likely to produce much excitement.
But if I’m puzzled by Donohue’s insistence on this issue, I’m absolutely flummoxed by the effort by a group of radical-left Catholic organizations to persuade the Empire State Building management not to turn on the lights. Indifference to the issue is quite understandable; there are lots of other more pressing issues on the public agenda. But active opposition to the Catholic League’s campaign—from people who describe themselves as Catholics-- is truly astonishing. This bears investigation.
First let’s take a look at the list of groups that joined in condemning Donohue’s drive:
- Catholics for Choice
- Call to Action
- Chicago Women-Choice
- DignityUSA
- FOSIL
- National Coalition of American Nuns
- New Ways Ministry
- Roman Catholic Womenpriests—USA
- Take Back Our Church
- Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual
- Women's Ordination Conference
This is no ordinary list of Catholic organizations. These are groups that have been officially denounced by the Catholic hierarchy, groups led by people who have incurred formal excommunication, groups dedicated to the promotion of causes that the Church condemns.
Now look at the text of the letter they wrote to the Empire State Building’s management. They aren’t actually arguing against turning on the lights for Mother Teresa; they’re arguing against turning on the lights for Bill Donohue. The groups condemn him as “an attack dog for the radical right, helping to promote its misogynist and homophobic agenda.”
Ah, now I understand. If Bill Donohue wins, these groups lose. And now for the first time, I feel myself getting excited about his light-up-the-Empire-State-Building campaign.
August 10, 2010 - Catholic League.
Attorney William McMurry, who sued the Holy See for being complicit in the sexual abuse of his three clients, is seeking to end the lawsuit; similar suits are still pending. McMurry won a settlement from the Archdiocese of Louisville in 2003 for $25.7 million.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:
McMurry acknowledges that "Virtually every child who was abused and will come forward as an adult has come forward and sued a bishop and collected money, and once that happens, it's over." That's right—once they got their check, they cashed out. But not McMurry: his motives were more primordial. Which is why he continued.
What collapsed yesterday was the heart and soul of McMurry's interest: his attempt to put Pope Benedict XVI on trial. It was his objective to hold men in Rome accountable for the behavior of men in Louisville, simply because they all worked for the same organization. McMurry knew this was a high bar to clear—proving culpability on the part of the Holy See for what goes on in Kentucky—and so he decided it was a futile exercise.
There was one other reason why McMurry quit: he couldn't find any more alleged victims. But it was not for lack of trying. He admits he searched in vain for months looking to find any man who may have been groped. "No one who has not sued a bishop is in a position to help us despite our best efforts over the past several months," McMurry said.
Just think about it. Every day, for the past several months, William McMurry and his colleagues went to work in hot pursuit of finding some adult man who may have settled out of court. It did not matter how trivial the offense, how many decades ago it occurred, or how old the alleged victim was, all that mattered was that the offender had to be a priest. No minister, rabbi, school teacher, coach, counselor or psychologist would do. And now the gig is up.
Vanity Fair have sent me a preview of Christopher Hitchens’s very unpleasant piece about his cancer – unpleasant not just because Hitchens describes in detail the invasion of his body by a monstrous tumour, but also because it contains a despicable slur against the Pope. (And Henry Kissinger, but I don’t care about that.)
He writes: “Will I really not live long enough … to read – if not indeed write – the obituaries of elderly criminals like Henry Kissinger and Joseph Ratzinger?”
This should scarcely need saying, but Pope Benedict XVI is not a criminal: neither Hitchens nor anyone else has produced evidence that he covered up the crimes of paedophile priests. On the contrary, he sought to tighten up canonical procedures against sex abusers. There were plenty of cover-ups; it’s just that the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith didn’t organise them and, indeed, fought battles with some of those prelates who did.Continue reading Christopher Hitchens: I'm sorry that I probably won't live to see the death of 'elderly criminal' Benedict XVI – Telegraph Blogs
