Nigerian Catholic Massacre: The Murderers are Muslims

The Catholic League points out the taintedness of the media's coverage of the Nigerian Catholic Massacre.

This was only the latest in a series of killings carried out by radical Islamists against Christians in Nigeria, though the media are reluctant to discuss the identity of the terrorists.

No one was better at describing what happened than Nina Shea, whose expertise is monitoring religious liberty worldwide at the Hudson Institute. “The massacre in a church while filled with Sunday worshippers is an atrocity that we’ve repeatedly seen in northern Nigeria over the years. Those were the work of Islamist extremists.” Mostly Muslims live in the north of Nigeria; the south is populated by Christians.

Among the media who did an accurate job reporting on the mass shooting was Christianity Today, Quartz Africa and Reuters. They made it clear that Muslim radicals were to blame.

The New York Times and the Associated Press made a passing reference to the role of Muslims (abcnews.com and the Washington Post picked up the AP story). Many others were worse.

There are many reasons why people like to cover for the violent actions of Muslims, but they all cause the truth of Islamic violence to be supressed in the name of something of lesser value than the truth. Sensitivity ("They have a different culture..."), equality ("Christians can be violent, TOO!") and even tolerance ("We have to try to understand their point of view!").

Here's the harsh truth from a page on the Christianity.com site.

By most conservative counts, the Quran contains over 100 passages that call Muslims to take up arms against unbelievers in the name of Allah.

“Kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them… And fight them until there is no more unbelief and worship is for Allah alone” (Quran 2:191-193).

“Strike off their heads and strike from them every fingertip” (Quran 8:12).

“Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties; in exchange for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they slay and are slain” (Quran 9:111).

“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array…” (Quran 61:4)

“The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (Sahih Muslim 1:33).

Pauli Theorem 3

I'm working on something new called Pauli Theorem 3. Don't worry about what theorems 1 and 2 are. They are not germane to the discussion.

By the way, there are many more than two Pauli Theorems, but as the theorem formerly known as theorem 3 has been disproved I thought it would be good to recycle the number. It's like when you are at the deli and you have to use the bathroom so you give your take-a-number slip to a French guy who is jonesing for cheese.

The topic of the theorem is the seemingly permanent, ever-growing news story of famous men behaving badly. There is absolutely no way for the media to ignore it because FacebookTwitterDrudgeInternetSexyGirlHits and—barring a mass castration of the male population—information is being collected and incubated even now which will be hatched later to derail careers at the proper time, or to attempt to blackmail people, or simply for revenge.

Depressing? Yes; but here's my theory:

Famous men who have publicly attacked the Catholic Church or Christian beliefs are more likely to be caught in sexual scandals.

Obviously this is a theorem and the converse does not have to be true to be a valid theorem. Roy Moore is almost assuredly a serial power-abuser and he seems to at least have the veneer of Christian piety. And of course you have the many televangelists which you can add to the list of bad male actors, along with high profile priest scandals like Thomas Euteneuer and John Corapi, although the main scandal for these priests was the violation of a vow of chastity and seemingly not unwanted advances or rape.

I have several reasons to propose this theorem, and the first of them is theoretical yet fairly obvious. The Catholic Church teaches the highest standards of sexual morality in the world, and most of the traditional Protestant churches agree with 95% of the its teachings. People mad at the church are usually mad because of these teachings—along with the prohibition against abortion, many times related to fornication and infidelity—and not because the church condemns stealing, bearing false witness, or monophysitism.

Back in the late nineties I was working in an office which coincidentally employed a lot of other Catholics. I had a conversation with an atheist colleague that went like this:

Pauli: You say you are an atheist in the tradition of the famous philosopher John Hume, so what do you think of all the Catholics you are working with now?
Friend: I actually like religious people, and I'll even say they are much easier to get along with than other atheists.
Pauli: Well, you're a really honest atheist. But you were raised Catholic; why have you left the Church?
Friend: The reason I left the Church is because I don't want to follow the rules about premarital sex.
Pauli: You are the most honest atheist I ever met.

Moses came down the mountain and said "I have good news and bad news. Good news: I talked Him down to Ten. Bad news: Adultery still stands."

The empirical reason I am proposing this theory is because of my familiarity with William Donohue and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Long time readers of this blog know that I am a big fan of Bill Donohue and have rare disagreements with his take on political and cultural matters. I began noticing several weeks ago that many of the names of Hollywood men being accused of sexual misconduct were former subjects of Catholic League press releases. Here is a list for starters:

1. Louis C. K.
2. Harvey Weinstein
3. Bob Weinstein (yes, he's Harvey's brother)
4. Al Franken (Donohue has also praised Franken when he was deserving of it.)
5. Leon Wieseltier
6. Michael Oreskes
7. Ben Affleck
8. Oliver Stone
9. Kevin Hart
10. Kevin Spacey
11. John Edwards

Another person I thought had been taken on by the Catholic League but who did not show up in my search on their site is Joss Whedon. Donohue has not taken on Whedon whose ex-wife recently penned an excoriating account of his serial affairs while married. What I might have been remembering was Bishop Robert Barron's criticism. Bishop Barron did take on Whedon's philosophical atheism and noted his penchant for "on many occasions, signal[ing] his particular dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church."

A lot of religious people reading this might roll their eyes and say "Oh, this is so obvious... everyone knows that Hollywood is decadent and doesn't particularly like Christianity or religion in general." Decadence is sleeping around a bunch, cheating on your wife, etc. You know, partying too much. This is something else; it's powerful men taking advantage of the less powerful. It is beyond decadence and in Weinstein's case, it is way beyond decadence. Just like the molesting priests are predators, theses men are preying on those in weaker positions.

On the other hand, a lot of non-religious people might say "Nice try, but correlation doesn't prove causation. Some of the people on these lists match up. So what?" True, this evidence is anecdotal yet still curious. Many people were criticizing the Catholic Church's response to priestly abuse and even making strong condemnations of bishops' mishandling and they did not show up on the Catholic League's radar. The line these actors and comedians crossed was stating in many ways, comedic and non-comedic, that these people were bad because they were Catholic priests and bishops not in spite of that fact. To them, the Catholic Church is just an institution perpetuated to give creepy guys access to sexual abuse victims. When these showbiz people are not focusing on the creepiness of the crimes of pedophile priests, they are going on about "hypocrisy". How can the Catholic Church teach its members to be pure and chaste when these priests and bishops are screwing little boys? And then arrange hush money payoffs?

This can be seen as effort to shut the Catholic Church up. Quit preaching these standards if you are not able to live up to them. Well, does Hollywood ever preach? on topics like feminism, to name one? Uh, yeah, and with much greater ferocity, consistency and volume than the average parish priest addresses homosexuality or adultery. So behold these scandals, and realize that the "hypocrisy" is just as foul at the highest levels of power in Hollywood as it is within any religious denomination. And my prediction is that we are going to hear even more sermonizing after these revelations since these people are in the wordsmith business and know little else about how to deal with issues. Don't expect any real repentance or self-examination, however. Possibly uncomfortable joking about serious matters, but little more.

This all illustrates a spiritual principle which is that those who exhibit the same faults as our own become our biggest irritants. I forget what spiritual writer or saint pointed this out, but it was after hearing many confessions at a convent or monastery. Imagine how this irritation translates into the world of nonspiritual persons without the self-control or self-examination of nuns or monks, yet possessing commanding media pulpits. It becomes uncontrolled rage.

I do not wish to suggest that there has not been any self-examination or introspection in some circles over this rash of scandals. Matthew Yglesias has gone on record regretting the cultural left's dismissiveness of President Clinton's* sexual predation. David Brooks broke the topic of Clinton/Lewinsky as a starting point for all this last weekend and, of course, we conservatives have been quoting Brooks more than usual as a result.

But we have been talking about this for so long it really makes these people look late to the game, and I mean fourth-quarter, two-minute warning late. Here's Donohue again from 14 years ago. Excerpt:

There’s something else going on here as well. The New York-Hollywood axis of smut, and those who support it, want the Catholic Church to fail. What it comes down to is that these people do not want to be told that their promiscuous lifestyle is sinful.

Sadly, this represents the Clintonization of our culture. In other words, shamelessness has been mainstreamed. Because it is nothing if not shameless that the same men and women who rush to put a medal around the neck of celebrities for sexually abusing children rush just as fast to put a millstone around the neck of priests who do so.

* - I love the fact that I can write President Clinton and everyone knows I mean Bill Clinton.

"ISIS is Islamic." Not bigoted, just honest.

I received a birthday present today from Aaqil Ahmed, the head of the BBC’s religious programming via the Catholic League. Here it is in its entirety:

Bill Donohue comments on remarks made this week by Aaqil Ahmed, the head of the BBC’s religious programming:

In 2009, when Aaqil Ahmed was appointed the first Muslim to direct religious programming at the BBC, he was looked upon with some suspicion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, wasn’t happy that the “Christian voice is being sidelined.” Now others are looking askance at Ahmed; his remarks made this week at a London gathering of journalists are raising some eyebrows.

Ahmed, who is a professor at Middlesex University, was asked about the phrase “so-called Islamic State.” His answer was enlightening: “I hear so many people say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam—of course it has.

They are not preaching Judaism. It might be wrong but what they are saying is an ideology based on some form of Islamic doctrine.” He added that the Islamic nature of ISIS is “a fact and we have to get our head around some very uncomfortable things.”

Those who work at the State Department have an ethical responsibility to discuss Ahmed’s position. The same is true for those who teach multiculturalism on American college campuses.

Clear-minded persons know that ISIS is rooted in an interpretation of Islam that is widely shared in Muslim communities, even if it is not embraced by most Muslims. This isn’t being bigoted—it’s being honest.

President Obama bears much of the blame for closing down an honest discussion on the religious roots of ISIS; his constant denial of any relationship between the teachings of Muhammad and terrorist acts conducted in his name is absurd. We can’t make progress in any area without robust freedom of speech, untainted by political considerations.

Professor Ahmed has done us a service. It is up to others to grab this opportunity.

And grab it we will. With both hands. "Of course ISIS has something to do with Islam." Just like the Orangemen have something to do with Protestant Christianity, although most Protestants aren't Orangemen, nor do they condone their actions.

Clarity is so refreshing, and this has to be listened to because this man is both trusted on the subject matter and a public figure. And now he has proven himself to be a courageous one.

If anyone needs more proof that Islam is a violent religion, here you go.

Better commentary on the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Since I often have offered the opinions of William Donohue as my own on a wide range of topics, I've been planning to post for some time with regard to how much I disagreed with his press release two weeks ago in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Donohue mentions how important it is to be "unequivocal", then he coughs this up:

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

This is pure victim-blaming, and the only explanation I'll offer cannot be an excuse for a man as bright as Donohue. He had waged battles against Charlie Hebdo and other publications which insulted religion in the past and he seems to have felt a certain justice had been served by their murders. This is not unlike the phenomenon of Jodi Arias supporters who go too far in their empathy for someone suffering at the hands of a sex-abusing reprobate. But Arias didn't get a restraining order against Travis Alexander, she murdered him. If a sensible man educates himself on what we know about the type of person Alexander was, he wouldn't want him near any of his female friends or relatives. But he was murdered; it's not about him anymore. It's about a crime which is worse.

What troubles me even more is that this characterization of an anger which is supposedly righteous and yet leads to murder misses out entirely on the nature of Islamic jihad and the threat it poses. The men who perpetrated this violence were soldiers. If there was a miraculous religious conversion at Charlie Hebdo two months ago and everyone repented and disbanded the paper, is it sensible to think that these jihadists would not have perpetrated any terrorist attack ever? They would have just waited until another target was acquired; that's what soldiers do. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing — jihadists didn't need an insult to their religion to target a foot race. Is it insulting to Muhammad to watch a soccer game? Should kids who watch a soccer game be publicly executed? Some Islamists think that's a wonderful idea, obviously, and so in a country without any "satirical" magazines that's as good a target as any for the jihad. And we could list more.

So once again, I think that William Donohue has done a very poor job of picking the bad guy here, and I'm wondering if it might be a good time for good old Bill to take a senior advisory role at the Catholic League. You don't have to hang a Je suis Charlie sign around your neck to get your priorities straight in a response. A better Catholic response was offered yesterday by George Weigel who wisely waited a few weeks before pointing out the vulnerabilities of Europe's secularism which are epitomized by Charlie Hebdo. Excerpt:

If all that Europe can say in condemning the despicable murders of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists and editors is “We are all Charlie Hebdo,” then what Europe is saying is, in effect, “We are all nihilists.” And how, pray, is nihilism—nothingness raised to a first principle, skepticism taken to the last extreme—supposed to defeat conviction, however warped that conviction is? If all that Europe can say to murderous jihadism is “Why can’t we all just get along?” its fecklessness will make it an even softer target for the kind of lethal fanaticism that recently turned Paris into a war zone.

There’s another aspect to this tangled and bloody business that’s worth noting, and that is the high price that Europe, and France in particular, is paying for culturally engrained (and sometimes legally enforced) political correctness. Virtually proscribing public discussion of the threat to European civility and order posed by Islamist maniacs has made dealing with that threat far more difficult: for citizens, for the security services, and for the public authorities. In the years since 9/11, the French public square has been dominated by the jihadists and the xenophobes; and in that volatile social environment, something very bad was going to happen. Now that it has, perhaps steps can be taken to bring the adults—and the real issues—back into the discussion.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that William Donohue is one of the "adults" on this topic any more than those infected with nihilism and/or political correctness. One of the secondary effects of the murders is to send the popularity of Charlie Hebdo soaring and selling more copies than ever before. So if the true purpose of these jihadists was to silence those who attach their religion, they are miserable failures. But if their purpose is to "[C]ast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve... (Qur'an 8:12)" then they are a success. Yes, many Muslims have already voiced this opinion; the them what these jihadists did in the name of Islam was fully justified.

Facts on Catholic clergy sex abuse

As always, the latest release from the Catholic League will irritate some people, but there are no denying the facts. So I republish them here.

Now that Pope Francis has set up a commission to study priestly sexual abuse, Bill Donohue urges reporters to get their facts straight:

Myth: Children have been the main victims of priestly sexual abuse.

Fact: Since more than 95 percent of all the victims of priestly sexual abuse, as reported by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, are not prepubescent, that means that adolescents have been the primary victims.

Myth: Pedophile priests have been the problem.

Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.

Myth: The problem is on-going.

Fact: The homosexual scandal took place mostly between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. In the last ten years, the average number of credible accusations made against 40,000 priests is in the single digits.

Myth: The Church’s repressive teachings on sexuality are the problem.

Fact: It was liberals outside the Church who pushed for the sexual revolution, and it was liberals in the Church who abetted the revolution in the seminaries. Moreover, it was liberals who promoted therapy as the way to deal with molesters, instead of using punitive measures.

Myth: The Church has done nothing about the problem.

Fact: Pope Benedict XVI made it more difficult for active homosexual priests to enter the priesthood, thus getting directly to the source of the problem. Also, steps have been taken in every diocese to ensure that anyone who works for the Church must participate in a training program aimed at curtailing the abuse of minors.

So "tolerance" is a genetic trait?

This is why we need the Catholic League. Bill Donohue represents boldness, balance and common sense in defense of the truth.

Bill Donohue comments on the reaction of a gay group, the New Civil Rights Movement, to a Chicago eatery that is featuring a hamburger topped with a Communion wafer:

Five years ago we protested the desecration of a Communion Host by P.Z. Myers, an anti-Catholic atheist professor. Yesterday, I decided not to protest the antics of Kuma's Corner, a Chicago restaurant, for serving a burger with a Communion wafer. The difference: Myers secured a consecrated Host and drove a nail through it; the sandwich shop played games with an unconsecrated wafer. While Kuma's showed disrespect, what Myers did was despicable.

Now I have learned that the New Civil Rights Movement, a homosexual outfit that is ever so sensitive about gay issues, is taking utter delight in the burger spoof. The guys who work there predicted that I would be "stroking out." Sorry to disappoint, boys. In fact, the only angst I feel is toward people like them. They say that what Kuma's Corner did risks the wrath of "every Christian born without a tolerance gene or a sense of humor." I'll remember that the next time they complain about one of my gay quips.

By the way, I thought tolerance was a function of nurture, not nature. So what is it? A preference or an orientation? Please advise as this is very confusing to a straight guy.

"Please advise as this is very confusing to a straight guy." Donohue is a messaging genius.

I've read that some gays are afraid that if a "gay gene" is ever discovered then there will be orientation-based abortions. I suppose if these same gays realized how intolerant they are of people who have a Christian sense of morality, they would be even more scared at the notion of a tolerance gene actually existing. But I'm sure they don't really believe there is a tolerance gene and they have shown time again that they cannot see any intolerance in the mirror.

"Cautious restraint" versus "Voyeuristic intrusiveness"

I liked Bill Donohue's observations in comparing the media's treatment of Pope Francis and that of Pope Benedict. Excerpt:

There were 14 editorials on Pope Benedict XVI and 11 on Pope Francis. The difference can probably be chalked up to the familiarity of the former versus the unfamiliarity of the latter. But there were more similarities than dissimilarities.

Two segments of the population dominated the media’s interest in the two popes: homosexuals and women. In the 25 editorials, homosexuals were cited 13 times, and women 15. With the exception of a few editorials that gave faint praise to Pope Francis for not judging gays of goodwill, they were uniformly critical of the teachings of the Catholic Church on both subjects. Only two newspapers, USA Today and the Washington Post, did not mention either subject explicitly.

There is no other religion that is subjected to this kind of micro-scrutiny. The elite media react to Islam and Judaism with cautious restraint, and with voyeuristic intrusiveness to Catholicism. Yet when it comes to teachings on homosexuality and women, there is very little difference between the three monotheistic religions. Judaism is respected, Islam is feared, and Christianity—especially Catholicism—is loathed.

Of course one of my friends who I've blogged about is continuously sending me emails about how Pope Francis is pretty much the anti-Christ and Benedict is still the authentic Pope, though exiled by the gay mafia. The latest rumblings about relaxing celibacy mandates for the priests of the Latin Rite have him apoplectic. Personally, Pope Francis's style with the media reminds me of chasing parking lot gulls scrounging for old meat in back of the grocery store. It's amusing for the chaser and it keeps the gulls out of trouble for a bit.

Too many rights?

Who is allowed to have "too many rights"? Not Christians serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, that's for sure. Bill Donohue explains in his piece about how the Obama Regime opposes a Religious Liberty amendment in a National Defense Authorization Act. Excerpt:

When it comes to those who elect to mutilate their genitals in transgender surgery, we are told they can’t have too many rights. When it comes to suspected Muslim terrorists, we are told they cannot have too many rights. When it comes to pre-teen girls seeking to get birth control pills behind their parents’ back, we are told they cannot have too many rights. But when it comes to the religious rights of the Armed Forces, we are told they already have too many rights.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Liberals dislike of good news is telling

Bill Donohue shows how liberal Catholics dislike good news about their own church.

Peter Steinfels, who wrote the obituary on Father Andrew M. Greeley in today’s New York Times, notes that “there was resistance among liberal Catholics to his [Greeley’s] positive findings about Catholic schools.”

This is striking. Steinfels, himself a liberal, is writing about Greeley, another liberal (on most subjects), about the way liberal Catholics react to good news about Catholic schools. Which raises the question: Why do liberal Catholics treat good news about Catholic schools as bad news? Would they prefer they fail?

Steinfels went on to say that Greeley’s “research debunked the received view at the time that Catholics had low college attendance rates. He found instead that white Catholics earned bachelor’s degrees and pursued advanced degrees at higher rates than other whites, and he attributed their success to the quality of education in parochial schools, a controversial assertion in a time of public-school ascendancy.”

Conservative Catholics cheer such news. Apolitical Catholics cheer such news. So what’s wrong with liberal Catholics that they resist such news? Is their craven need for acceptance by secular elites so debased that it drives them to resist good news about Catholic education?

Of course many of them also dislike good news about the abuse scandal in the church. The proposition that there are a finite number of child abusers in the church or that the problem is at least under control disturbs them for some reason.

Sorry, Toibin

I think the reason that so many of us Catholics love Bill Donohue is because he states what we are all thinking. Especially about the sort of irreverence displayed in "The Testament of Mary":

Bill Donohue comments on “The Testament of Mary,” which ended its Broadway run yesterday:

The play, based on the book by Colm Toibin, opened on April 22 and was scheduled to run through June 16. But instead of lasting 12 weeks, it lasted only two. On the day it opened, I said, “it is not easy to see who is going to be drawn to this play.”

The play bombed. That’s why it closed. Quite frankly, there aren’t enough people who want to spend their evenings watching a dark performance about a fanciful Virgin Mary who rejects the divinity of her son. My only regret is that we don’t have the results of a psychological battery of tests performed on those who like this kind of stuff.

The Irish Times’ Fintan O’Toole is furious that the play bombed. He blames capitalism. “The most basic truth about Broadway is that it’s about money. It is the raw, ruthless marketplace to which some people would like to reduce all artistic endeavour. It is a primal form of capitalism: enormous risks in pursuit of enormous rewards.”

In O’Toole’s world, plays he likes should have a long run on Broadway, even if no one wants to pay to see them (no doubt he would like to get some stimulus money to subsidize his leisure). But one of the great things about capitalism is that it accurately gauges public sentiment, rewarding what people want, and discarding what they don’t. A market economy, I am happy to say, doesn’t necessarily reward what the elites want. Which is why they hate it.

Sorry, Toibin. Looks like there aren’t enough O’Tooles out there to enjoy your angry discourse on Catholicism.

So you take libel about the Blessed Virgin Mary, turn it into slander and when it bombs you blame capitalism. "Sorry" is about the only word we have for you, or for people who spend years studying and promoting Esperanto as a language.

William Donohue: "Our moral code is patently incoherent"

From the Catholic League:

Bill Donohue comments on the decision by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ordering the Food and Drug Administration to make the “morning-after” emergency contraception pill available without a prescription to girls of any age:

A 12-year-old girl in a New York City school cannot be given an aspirin by her teacher, even if she has a fever. The same girl cannot buy a large soda during lunchtime because Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decreed that it is not good for her. But she can be given a pill, unbeknownst to her parents, that could arguably abort her baby.

Neither Judge Korman nor Mayor Bloomberg has said what the aspirin-denying teacher should do if he sees a girl reaching for a large Coke to down her abortion-inducing pill.

This is what we’ve come to in our culturally schizophrenic society. Our moral code is patently incoherent, and the contempt shown for parental rights is astonishing. Hopefully, this imperial decision will be overturned.

On the same kind of incoherence: I've often wondered what will happen when marijuana becomes legal and the political activist pot-heads successfully get pot-smoking legalized in restaurants. My prediction is that cigarette companies will start putting small amounts of marijuana in the product to make them legal in eating establishment, thus setting up a "dope loophole".

People used to say that Marlboro did put some Buddha in the reds, but that was probably an urban legend.

Whose views better represent Catholicism?

Everyone is bloviating about how Catholic Paul Ryan really is and how much of Ayn Rand's philosophy he buys into. As usual, Bill Donahue has the most clear and succinct analysis. And, it seems to me, the most Catholic.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the two Catholic vice presidential candidates:

In many respects, the Catholic community today is divided into pro-life and social justice camps. That is unfortunate, and while this division can be overstated, it remains true that most Catholic activists sit in either one camp or the other; cross-over Catholics are a rare breed.

Paul Ryan represents the pro-life wing, and Joe Biden represents the social justice wing. Indeed, both exemplify the differences, and not just on the issue of abortion. For example, Ryan’s idea of freedom of choice commits him to supporting school vouchers; Biden’s notion of choice commits him to abortion rights. Ryan is opposed to reinventing the institution of marriage; Biden wants to expand marriage to include two people of the same sex.

The Catholic Church opposes abortion and gay marriage. On both of these issues, Biden disagrees with the Church. Biden’s defenders, e.g., Catholics who identify with social justice concerns, argue that Ryan’s budgetary prescriptions make him the dissident Catholic; his ideas are said to hurt the poor. This assumes, however, that there is a clear Catholic teaching on what constitutes the best means to conquer poverty. There isn’t. For instance, fidelity to the Church’s preferential option for the poor can be realized by making a serious case to raise taxes, or to lower them. In effect, both Biden and Ryan can plausibly maintain that he is a champion of the poor. But only one, Ryan, can be identified as the champion of the unborn.

Not all policy issues are equal. Abortion is regarded by the Catholic Church as “intrinsically evil.” Moreover, the bishops’ conference has explicitly endorsed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This puts Biden at a decisive disadvantage in making the case that he better represents Catholic teachings.

The key sentence: "This assumes, however, that there is a clear Catholic teaching on what constitutes the best means to conquer poverty. There isn’t." This needs to be repeated over and over again until Catholics get it through their heads that fiscal conservatism is completely compatible with a preferential option for the poor. If the economy contracts then rich people sit on their cash. The poor are hurt worst. This is self-evident; look around if you doubt. And while you're at it, compare the charitable giving of Republicans with that of Democrats.

Oh, Those Relentless Numbers...

In this excellent report by Bill Donohue about the embarrassing deposition of David Clohessy, we learn that in 2008 SNAP spent $92,000 on travel. I'm guessing that it was "time travel", especially after reading this news release from the Catholic League, dated April 11, 2012, which summarizes a study done by a Georgetown institute.

The headlines should read, “Abuse Problem Near Zero Among Priests,” but that is not what is being reported.

According to the 2011 Official Catholic Directory, there are 40,271 priests in the U.S. The report says there were 23 credible accusations of the sexual abuse of a minor made against priests for incidences last year. Of that number, 9 were deemed credible by law enforcement. Which means that 99.98% of priests nationwide had no such accusation made against them last year. Nowhere is this being reported.

Here are more data from the report that won’t appear elsewhere: almost all the offenses involve homosexuality. Indeed, 16% of the credible allegations made against priests who work in dioceses or eparchies, and 6% of religious order priests, involved pedophilia. In the former category, 82% of the alleged victims were male; in the latter, the figure is 94%. In other words, we are not talking about kids as victims, and we are not talking about females: we are talking about postpubescent males who were allegedly violated by adult males. That’s called homosexuality.

When did these alleged offenses take place? Overall, 68% took place between 1960 and 1984; 1975-1979 being the most common period (among religious order priests, 33% took place before 1960, and another 40% took place between 1960-1980). In 75% of all the cases, the accused priest is either dead or has been dismissed.

I've often wondered what would have happened to me if I were born a Catholic and had been raised during this turbulent period in church history. Would I have kept my faith? I know it's not good to second-guess God's plan for ones life, so I don't dwell on it. But my money is on something like, "Pauli loses faith; blames it on liberal priests and homosexual abuse scandal." To prove this, of course, is as impossible as time travel. Or vanishing into thin air, which is most likely what David Clohessy wanted to do in the middle of that deposition.

A sense of humor

One thing which is critical to possess in this world is a sense of humor. Bill Donohue has been blessed with a superb one. He skewers KKT, but oh, so gently:

I spent my St. Patrick’s Day marching in the parade up New York’s Fifth Avenue, and then drank beer with my friends. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend spent her St. Patrick’s Day at a conference attended by homosexuals, lesbians, and men/women with new genitals. I had a good time.

Kathleen is confused. She says the Catholic Church’s teachings “encourage bigotry and harm.” She doesn’t cite a single example, so she obviously meant some other religion. She also says that the conference was put on by a Catholic organization called New Ways Ministry. Again, she is confused—there is no Catholic group by that name (on St. Patrick’s Day last year the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirmed that New Ways Ministry is not a Catholic organization). To top things off, she says that two female priests gave her a special blessing at the conference. More confusion: my religion does not have female priests. All three errors of fact were made in the first six sentences, which is why I didn’t go any further.

I am at a loss to know what the source of Kathleen’s confusion is. This wouldn’t be so bad if she didn’t have that sterling Kennedy name.

Love that photo. Too funny.

To lack a sense of humor isn't so much to be sad as it is to be angry. Someone has been trying to get me to fight with her on Fbook over Obamacare. She is someone who has been on the left her whole adult life, and she knows where I'm at; she knows I'm conservative. So I don't know why she is bothering to try to get me to argue. She is not married, has no kids, and I really feel bad for her. There is anger and bitterness behind the confrontational language in her direct messages to me and in her indignant tone over Scalia's remarks which I posted over on Fbook.

All the "defenses" of Obamacare which I've heard from committed lefties are pretty weak. "You're a racist" is, of course, both the silliest and the most impossible to refute, along with "why do you hate poor people?", which is analogous to the famous wife-beating question/accusation. A more challenging charge is "Well, WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING!", but in the end still an assertion devoid of substance. Maybe this is why the Solicitor General had such a hard time defending it.



We're done making arguments. It's time to fight it. It's time to beat Obamacare to death by any means. And we will do it with joy, hope and a raucous sense of humor. "And they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them."

Sebellius is a LIAR

This from Bill Donahue, filed under the title Obama Mandate Never Scrutinized.

Following her testimony yesterday before the Senate Finance Committee, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius was asked whether she spoke to the bishops about the controversial mandate she is pushing. She admitted she did not. Then she said, “I know that the president has spoken to the bishops on several occasions.”

Sebelius is wrong. Bishop William Lori, who heads the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, said this week that administration officials should have sat down with the bishops. “That certainly did not happen,” he said. Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who heads the bishops’ conference, met once with the president, and that was three months ago; the two phone calls he has had since were to inform him that the bishops’ religious liberty concerns would not be honored.

Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sebelius further admitted that HHS never subjected the religious liberty issues to a legal analysis, as requested by 27 senators. She also admitted that she never asked the Justice Department to consider this issue.

It gets worse. Today’s New York Times reports today that the administration announced the Obama mandate “before it had figured out how to address one conspicuous point: Like most large employers, many religiously affiliated organizations choose to insure themselves rather than hire an outside company to assume the risk.” As the Times points out, this is not a slight issue: 60 percent of all workers with health insurance are covered by a self-funded plan, and the figure jumps to 82 percent for large companies. And no one bothered to address this?

So they refused to consult with the bishops; they refused to weigh the First Amendment religious liberty concerns; and they refused to study how the mandate might impact self-insured companies. In other words, with characteristic arrogance, they just “winged it.” Wait until the Supreme Court hears all of this.

OK, all well and good. But for God’s sake don’t say “Wait until the Supreme Court hears all of this.” I hope they shoot it down if it comes to that, but I hope it doesn’t come to that. It’s a gamble to hope the SCOTUS bails out religious liberty, even though it would be awesome to see a big victory there, I mean 6-3 or better.

Also, I don't think Sebellius is wrong, I think she's lying when she says "I know that the president has spoken to the bishops...." Either that or Obama lied to her, but why should he? She's his Catholic bitch and always does whatever he wants.

Obama delenda est.

Senator Marco Rubio Submits Religious Liberty Bill

Wow, religious liberty! What a concept for the United States. From the Catholic League:

Senator Marco Rubio introduced legislation today to repeal the Obama administration’s mandate requiring healthcare plans to cover abortifacients, contraception and sterilization.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

The Catholic community will be delighted to learn of the courage shown by Sen. Marco Rubio in seeking to combat the Obama administration’s unprecedented assault on religious liberty. If the administration were to get its way, Catholic non-profit institutions would be forced to carry healthcare services that the Church deems immoral. What’s at stake is the First Amendment right to religious liberty, and nothing goes to the heart of this civil liberty more than conscience rights.

The Catholic League appreciates the incredible support we are receiving from people of all faiths, as well as from some agnostics and atheists. We pledge to them that we will support our bishops in pursuing every legitimate remedy to this outrageous threat to religious liberty. Sen. Rubio has properly titled his bill the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012.”

I hope to God this guy is our next Vice President.

Rep versus Rev

Donohue asks the question "What if Rep. Weiner were Rev. Weiner?" Excerpts:

Priests who engage in lewd conversations with teenagers are suspended from ministry for committing a "boundary violation," and are charged with sexual abuse. But Rep. Anthony Weiner can send pornographic images of himself to young girls and he is free as a bird. Indeed, the majority of New Yorkers say he should not resign.

Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle says Weiner's "biggest sin may not have been sexual"—it was "lying." Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine says that "Lying is unforgivable," but has no comment on his sexual offenses. Joan Walsh of Salon confesses that "The lying is what disturbs me." S.E. Cupp's article in the New York Daily News is flagged, "The disgraced congressman should resign, but immorality has nothing to do with it." Similarly, Leslie Savan of the Nation wonders, "How can you be so stupid?"

...

In other words, if the guilty party were Rev. Weiner, he would be sanctioned by the Catholic Church's "zero tolerance" policy. But because he is Rep. Weiner, there are no penalties. As usual, it's not the offense that matters—it's the status of the offender.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... William Donohue is always going on like this. Only... he's absolutely right. We'll call the policy in effect for House and Senate Democrats the "infinite-tolerance policy", infinity being the opposite of zero.

The only insight I have on the Weiner apology is that the line "In addition, over the past few years, I have engaged in several inappropriate conversations conducted over Twitter, Facebook, email and occasionally on the phone with women I had met online," is meant to alert all the cool people that he can do better than Gennette Cordova.

Waiter, I'll take two spheres, over easy please

Or maybe "scrambled" better describes the Catholic League's latest report from the "you can't make this up" files.

Ricky Gervais felt the need to offer a very public "Holiday Message," notifying the world that though he is not a Christian, he is a very Christ-like person. It is revealing that this British atheist couldn't find a single secular humanist to model himself after.

That is pretty rich. Why would you want to be Christ-like if he is a total fraud? Oh, I forgot—Christians are the real frauds. We learn from James Frey with an "E" that Jesus Christ is "an alcoholic who lives in a filthy Bronx apartment, smokes dope, kisses men and impregnates prostitutes." So is that the Christ that Gervais is trying to emulate, or the regular Christ who Christians believe in? Unclear.

Anyway, Frey's book The Final Testament of the Holy Bible contains this valuable bit of info. I don't know about you, but that title smacks of dogmatism to me, does it not? Who is James Frey to assert that he has the final word. And it's far from accurate. Someone is sure to write another "testament" by Lent of next year and chances are it will be fouler and more shocking. Maybe the Jesus in the next fantasy will reside in the suburbs and have a coke problem.

There is nothing quite like doubling down on your bet that God doesn't exist and Christianity isn't true. I don't advise it. Do it every few days like these people do and you're in for quite a negative payoff when the game is up.

Righteous Anger, Judgment, Reason and Hobbyhorses

If you have a Facebook account then you can see this thread here where Joseph D'hippolito and I are engaged in our same old argument about the child abuse scandals in the Catholic clergy. Or, possibly, we're engaged in "talking past each other" as some call it. Either way I'm done writing anything on Mike Liccione's Facebook account. But I have more to say so I'm going to put it here, and if Joe D wants to he can come over and comment as he's done before in the past.

Here's an abridged version of our exchange so far:

Joseph D'hippolito: Paul, I read William Donahue's response. I did not see one word concerning conviction of sin or repentance. All I read was more of the same kind of arrogance -- only, this time, masquerading as victimization -- that pervades Church leaders and sycophants like Donahue, who wouldn't have a platform if he did not receive support from the hierarchy. Church leaders do a great job lecturing the laity about "social justice" and trying to enforce convoluted fasting regulations during Lent but don't have the guts to apply their self-professed principles to themselves -- at least, not without massive public pressure shaming them to do so. The fact that unscrupulous people will try to exploit the situation does not relieve Church of the responsibility of putting itself in that situation.

Paul: Joseph, you have allowed your anger to countermand your reason when discussing this issue. Some priests *are* innocent victims, and it is not "arrogance" to defend them from those unscrupulous people, as you rightly name them. Your name-calling swipes at Donohue reveal that you cannot contest the facts he presents. Also your remarks about fasting and social justice are completely irrelevant to this conversation.

Joseph D'hippolito: Paul, I don't deny that there are unscrupulous people who will exploit the Church (or any other institution) for financial gain. I don't deny that innocent priests have been smeared. But clerical sex-abuse has been a significant problem since St. Peter Damian's time, when people *weren't* dropping lawsuits left and right, and Church leaders have failed in eradicating it. Yes, this is a "church of sinners." So what? God demands righteousness from His people, especially those who bear authority in His name. Unfortunately, those leaders are so infatuated with the idea that the Church embodies "the fullness of the Gospel" that they refuse to understand the awesome responsibility that carries. Instead, we get misdirection, non sequiturs and arrogance masking as victimization and persecution. Such tactics blaspheme God's holy, righteous name.

Joseph D'hippolito: BTW, Paul, I am angry. Why aren't you? As one devout Catholic said, "since She is the one, true Church, we expect more from those that represent Her than any other church organization. There is no defense against what the cardinals and bishops failed to do. None."

Paul: Joe, I am angry when I think about what the abusive priests did, and I am angry when I think of how it was sometimes covered up. And if that was the only thing I ever thought about, I suppose that I would be angry all the time. I feel sorry for anyone who obsesses about anything to the degree that it becomes obvious to all that they can no longer think straight.

Joseph D'hippolito: Paul, if you are referring to me, then how do any of my comments prove that I'm not thinking straight? How am I or other Catholics *supposed* to think when they see those who hold authority in God's name abuse that authority (no pun intended) to protect unrepentant evildoers? How are we supposed to think when God's holy, righteous name is sullied -- and nobody, not even the most "devout" Catholics, gives a damn?

Joseph D'hippolito: Here's a post from a Catholic who understands the situation better than you do: "Whether the incidence of abuse is worse elsewhere is irrelevant. I have no doubt that there is abuse in the public schools, in swim teams, and within families, etc. But most of us have no practical way to voice our displeasure within those systems. As Catholics who care about the spiritual health of the Church, we have an obligation to speak out when we see that conditions that enable abusers to escape detection continue to persist. Besides, I don’t think the argument that essentially says, 'The Catholic Church: Just as bad or a bit worse than the rest of society at attracting pedophiles' makes for good apologetics."
So much for Bill Donohue and his spin.

Following are my thoughts, not necessarily in order of importance.

Near the end Joseph asks "[H]ow do any of my comments prove that I'm not thinking straight?" Two sentences later he provides an example with his assertion that "nobody, not even the most 'devout' Catholics, gives a damn[.]" Any Catholic trying to practice his faith devoutly to a measure will find that claim untrue and unreasonable. They will also most likely be offended if they hadn't before encountered this type of extreme rhetoric on the issue.

I don't know who gave swim team coaches some kind of immunity from prosecution for child abuse.

When I wrote "you have allowed your anger to countermand your reason", I was voicing my opinion based on Joseph's comments in past threads as well as the present. Joseph's justification for being angry is that his anger is righteous anger. To wit, he states "Why aren't you angry?" And, of course, he has a point. If we read St. Thomas on anger, we can see that lack of anger can also be against reason and correct judgement and therefore can also be a serious sin of omission. Check out point 1 and point 8 on that page. If I have been dismissive about what a child abuser has done to a child, or have been tolerant of it out of misguided patience then I have sinned, plain and simple.

Here's my defense—I have never done that. If anything, I have been too fierce in my anger about the perpetrators, thinking to myself that when John Geoghan was murdered in a prison cell by a White Supremacist maniac that it was simply a case of what Aristotle called natural justice as interpreted by "the Punisher" comic book character. I'm not sure I was correct at the time about that specific line of thought, but I am still angered by the sex crimes he committed, literally hundreds, and the way he was enabled. If someone wants to attack my righteous anger cred based on my sporadic blog posts then they can attack me just as forcefully on all sorts of other "sins of omission", e.g., is Pauli really angry enough about abortion? does Pauli pray enough? did Pauli, who is conservative, point out when Rush Limbaugh said something uncharitable last week like he did when Obama made fun of retarded kids? did Pauli, who has Jewish friends, condemn Sarah Silverman for saying horrible things about Jesus Christ? Et cetera. It is possible that I'm far too tolerant of the sins of others, but if you want to earn a well-deserved "Are you crazy?" look, ask my kids that question.

I continue to post insights from Bill Donohue because I feel he is providing "equal time" on this issue from a completely valid angle, although it is a different angle than is taken by Lee Podles. If SNAP and Bishop Accountability can be devoted 100% to sexual abuse crimes committed only by Catholic priests, then there is no reason why the Catholic League and this blog can't focus on the gross hypocrisy, lies and propaganda about the same class of people.

If I see a Catholic priest and immediately say to myself "Priests molested children," then I really think there is something wrong with me. If I see a Bishop and immediately say to myself "Bishops enabled molesting Priests," then I also think I have fallen into a dangerous anti-clerical mindset. Explain to me how this is any different than the logic of a suburban black who suspects all blacks in the inner city of being pimps and drug peddlers. We would rightly conclude that that man had sadly adopted the beliefs and conclusions associated with white racism.

My final note. Look back at the St. Thomas anger section and focus on the Angelic Doctor's warnings about when anger can be sinful, then ask yourself if Mr. D'Hippolito seems to cross the line sometimes. Does he ever desire punishment beyond the deserts of the guilty, is his rhetoric immoderately fierce, is it ever contrary to charity and/or justice? Has his anger given birth to clamor, contumely, quarreling, swelling of the mind or indignation? I'm not going to answer any of those questions, which I believe are valid when asked with regard to anyone, myself included.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Bill Donohue and the Catholic League: Straight Talk about the Catholic Church

Maybe a few people still wonder what I really think about the recent attempts by the legal, media and entertainment industries to resurrect the dead scandal involving gay Catholic priests abusing kids. Fortunately there is now an ad written by Bill Donohue and run in the New York Times by the Catholic League which can serve as a manifesto for my position. You can read it here and after you do, you will understand exactly what I think about it. There are some really choice paragraphs in it will I will excerpt and add my own comments below.

Every time a new wave of accusations surfaces in one diocese, not coincidentally we see a spike in accusations in other dioceses. What is not often reported is that the vast majority of new accusations extend back decades. For example, for the first quarter of this year, 80 percent of the cases of alleged abuse involve incidences that occurred before 2000.

This is significant and sheds light on what a joke most accusations are. Yes, most accusations against priests are a JOKE. Want me to write it again? The people who have legitimate accusations are the ones who should be the most angry about this current situation because they are lumped in with the other lying money-grubbers.

The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped. We know from the John Jay study that most of the victims have been adolescents, and that the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape). The Boston Globe correctly said of the John Jay report that “more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.” In other words, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.

Bill Donohue sounds like a broken record on this, but he has to keep saying it because the kids in the media haven't gotten it yet. Once everybody knows it and understands the ramifications I'm sure that Donohue won't feel the need to continue educating everyone.

Why are priests being singled out when the sexual abuse of minors among other segments of the population is on-going today? According to Virginia Commonwealth University professor Charol Shakeshaft, the nation’s leading education expert on this issue, “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” We know from the work of Jenkins, and others, that there is no reason to believe that the rate of abuse is higher among Catholic priests than among the clergy of other religions. Moreover, there has been a slew of stories over the past few years detailing the extent of this problem in the Orthodox Jewish community; some rabbis still insist that sexual abuse cases should be handled internally. No wonder Jenkins maintains, “As a result of the furious investigations of the past decades, and particularly the John Jay study, the U.S. Catholic clergy are now the only major group on the planet that has ever been subjected to such a detailed examination of abuse complaints, using internal evidence that could not have come to light in any other way.”

In civil society, public teachers should be held to just as high a standard as Catholic priests. Justice is blind... remember?

The real damage done by the therapeutic approach is that it fostered the phenomenon of reassigning priests after they were treated. The exact same thing happened in the teaching profession. Indeed, moving treated teachers to new school districts is so common that it is called “passing the trash.” While moving treated priests to new parishes is no longer tolerated, the New York Times found that the practice of moving abusers around who work in New York’s state-run homes is commonplace.

In civil society, public administrators should be held to just as high a standard as Catholic bishops. Justice is blind... remember?

If I as a Catholic want to be angrier as a Catholic about the Catholic Bishops and priests screwing up one way or the other then that's fine. Maybe I get piety points for that, I don't know. In fact, maybe I'll make some targets with the US Catholic bishops' face on them to go shoot at the pistol range. That would accomplish a lot because it would show everybody how serious I am about child abuse, dammit.

There is a huge difference between an accusation, a credible accusation, a substantiated accusation and a finding of guilt. But not when it applies to priests. I once had a female reporter lambaste me in my office when I expressed my opposition to proposals calling for all dioceses to publish the names of accused priests. I then asked her for her boss’ name and phone number. Startled, she asked why. “Because I want to press charges against you for sexually harassing me,” I intoned, “and then I want to see your name posted on your employer’s website.” She got the point.

This is exactly the right way to educate these asinine prigs. Hold up a mirror—"This is what you look like."