Connect with us

Nothing Catholic Church Has Said About Gays ‘Could Possibly Be Construed As Hateful’ Says Donohue

Published

on

Bill Donohue, the self-appinted defender of the faith of Roman Catholicism, has really gone off the deep end this time. The man who actually believes his (almost) one-man-band, the Catholic League, is a “civil rights organization,” this week claimed the unfathomable: Nothing the Catholic Church has said about gays is hateful.

“Nothing the Catholic Church has ever said about the moral status of homosexuals—which is as irrelevant as the moral status of heterosexuals—could possibly be construed as hateful,” Donohue said in a statement this week to CNS News.

Watch: Bill Donohue Puts Barack Obama In A Jar Of Feces

Unless Donohue is talking about an actual, physical, brick-and-mortar church building, he clearly is showing signs of, shall we say, forgetfulness?

Pope Francis I may have endeared himself to some of Donohue’s opponents — the moderate wing of the world’s Catholics — but his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, for starters, waged an international religious holy war against gay people.

Let’s have a quick review, shall we?

Pope Benedict XVI started 2012 off by claiming that same-sex marriage was one of a number of practices that “undermine the family, threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.” He earlier had claimed that same-sex marriages were “penalizing” straight marriages.

Before his resignation, Benedict had railed against same-sex marriage as an attack on the “traditional” family, and lamented that children adopted by same-sex couples “become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.”

Last year, Benedict claimed that gay people are “a concept of human nature that has proven defective,” that threaten the family, and are not “fully-developed” human beings. And last year a high-ranking Vatican official compared same-sex marriage to polygamy.

And earlier last year, a top Vatican representative and Roman Catholic Archbishop reached out to form a coalition with other religions and called on them to join the Vatican in a worldwide holy war against same-sex marriage, claiming that proliferation of equality “is not a good thing for society,” and will lead to “confusion.”

In February we learned that Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, at the time considered a top candidate to replace Pope Benedict XVI, has publicly supported Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill.

Even Pope Francis, before he was elevated, called same-sex marriage “a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.” In other words, of the devil. He also called the adoption of children by same-sex couples a form of discrimination against children.

So, let’s put to rest that false claim that “[n]othing the Catholic Church has ever said about the moral status of homosexuals—which is as irrelevant as the moral status of heterosexuals—could possibly be construed as hateful.”

It has been. For decades — if not centuries.

 

Related:

Bill Donohue: Obama’s IRS Targeted Catholic League Even Before He Became President

Catholic League’s Bill Donohue: ‘Everyone In Their Right Mind Knows Marriage Isn’t About Love’

Catholic League: Being Pro-Gay Is Marxist, Obama Should Be Sworn In Using ‘Das Kapital’

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

MTG, Thomas Massie Join Gaetz’s Call to Release ‘Congressional Sexual Slush Fund List’

Published

on

Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie have joined former Rep. Matt Gaetz’s (R-Fla.) call to release the “congressional sexual slush fund,” a list of congresspeople accused of sexual harassment.

On Thursday, both Greene (R-Ga.) and Massie (R-Ky.), posted to X calling for the release of information from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, which handles complaints of harassment by members of Congress.

“Congress has secretly paid out more than $17 million of your money to quietly settle charges of harassment (sexual and other forms) in Congressional offices. Don’t you think we should release the names of the Representatives? I do,” Massie tweeted, along with a video of Massie at the June 14 House Judiciary Committee hearing about former President Donald Trump’s hush money case.

READ MORE: GOP Congressman Who Cost Taxpayers $84,000 in Sexual Harassment Suit Refuses to Quit but Won’t Run for Re-Election

Greene retweeted Massie’s post, adding, “Yes. I want to release the congressional sexual slush fund list. Tax payers should have never had to pay for that. Along with all the other garbage they should not have to pay for.”

Concern about the “slush fund” has been circulating since the story first broke in 2017. However, it has picked up steam recently during the House Ethics Committee’s investigation of Gaetz. Last week, Gaetz suggested that he would show up on the first day of Congress to file a motion calling for the release of this information before resigning.

Someone suggested the following plan to me: 1. Show up 1/3/2025 to congress 2. Participate in Speaker election (I was elected to the 119th Congress, after all…) 3. Take the oath 4. File a privileged motion to expose every ‘me too’ settlement paid using public funds (even of former members) 5. Resign and start my @OANN program at 9pm EST on January 6, 2025,” he posted to X, alongside a “thinking” emoji. 

What Greene calls a “congressional sexual slush fund” refers to the payments made by the OCWR, formerly known as the Office of Compliance. The OCWR was established by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. The OCWR is sort of like Congress’ HR department. In addition to handling harassment complaints, it also makes sure that Legislative Branch properties adhere to OSHA regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other administrative concerns.

Though it was reported in 2021 that over $18.2 million had been paid in settlements since 1997, not all of those funds were used in sexual harassment suits. Some of the money has been used to pay for workplace safety and pay disputes, according to RealClear Policy. In addition, some politicians accused of sexual harassment have paid victims out of their own pockets.

That said, the OCWR has not released much information about these settlements, and it’s unclear how much of that money was used specifically on sexual harassment cases. In addition, many harassment claims are settled in mediation, according to CNN, so knowing the amount of money spent on sexual harassment claims could still underreport the number of cases.

Though thanks to Gaetz’s pushing, Republicans have recently embraced requiring the OCWR release this information, it’s had bipartisan support in the past. In 2017, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) called the OCWR “an enabler of sexual harassment” due to the secrecy, according to Politico.

“Make no mistake that the fault of the current complaint process lies within Congress, which authored and passed this deeply flawed legislation that established the Office of Compliance and its burdensome complaint process,” Speier told Politico at the time. “It is our responsibility to fix this law and do better for our employees.”

Speier, joined by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), proposed the Member and Employee Training and Oversight on (ME TOO) Congress Act in 2017, which would require the OCWR to identify congress members who settled sexual harassment suits and pay back the Treasury for funds paid to their victims, according to Vox.

It was passed in the House that November. The Senate referred it to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, but the bill ultimately died in committee.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Man Sentenced to Die Over Discredited ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ Blocked From Testifying at Texas House

Published

on

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has blocked Robert Roberson, a man given a death sentence based on the discredited “shaken baby syndrome,” from testifying at the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.

Roberson’s execution date was set for October 17, but the Texas Supreme Court granted a stay of execution so he could testify, according to the Austin Chronicle. Roberson was scheduled to testify on December 20, but Paxton filed a motion on the 19th, telling prison officials to ignore a subpoena issued by the House committee, declaring it invalid.

Roberson was due to testify about the state’s “junk science law.” That law is supposed to provide new trials when a person is convicted based on flawed forensic evidence, according to the Texas Tribune. However, critics allege the law rarely actually allows new trials, the Chronicle reports. The committee was supposed to hear Roberson’s story to help determine if the law is ineffective.

READ MORE: Texas AG Ken Paxton Threatens Democrat-Leaning Counties Not To Mail Out Voter Registration Forms

Roberson was convicted in 2003 of capital murder following the death of his 2-year-old daughter, according to Newsweek. At the time, a doctor said the girl had died from “shaken baby syndrome,” defined as head trauma due to shaking. Shaken baby syndrome has been controversial since it was first coined. Biomechanics scientists say that shaking a baby can’t create a force strong enough to cause the type of trauma seen in these sorts of cases, according to the New Jersey Monitor. It’s often used as a catchall type diagnosis, when a baby dies but has no other signs of abuse.

In Roberson’s case, the child had been chronically ill, Newsweek reported. She had a fever and respiratory issues, which likely caused her death.

Other cases based on shaken baby syndrome have been overturned. This includes a 2000 case in Dallas, where Andrew Wayne Roark was initially sentenced to 35 years in prison in the death of his girlfriend’s 13-month-old. The Texas Supreme Court overturned Roark’s conviction this year about a week before Roberson was due to be executed, according to KERA-FM.

Despite this, Texas officials have declined to address Roberson’s case. Though Gov. Greg Abbott pardoned four people this week, Roberson was not one of them, according to the Houston Chronicle. In October, Paxton called attempts to delay Roberson’s execution “eleventh-hour, one-sided, extrajudicial stunts that attempt to obscure the facts and rewrite his past,” according to the Tribune. At the time, Abbott agreed, saying the House had “stepped out of line” in its attempts to delay execution so Roberson could testify.

Last year, Paxton was impeached by the state House on 20 separate articles of impeachment. The Texas Senate, which skews Republican 19 to 12, voted to acquit. The charges mostly centered around allegations Paxton used his position to help a campaign donor under investigation by the FBI for fraud.

A new date for Roberson’s execution has not been set.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Outgoing Rep. Annie Kuster Says She Decided Not to Run Again After Seeing Biden’s Decline

Published

on

annie kuster

Outgoing Representative Annie Kuster (D-N.H.) said that she made the decision not to run for her seat again after meeting with President Joe Biden early in the campaign and seeing his decline.

Kuster, 68, said this March she would not run for re-election to the House seat she’s held for nearly 12 years. She told the Boston Globe on Thursday that she’d made the decision after flying with Biden on Air Force One. She says that though she felt he was capable of serving the rest of his term as president, she could see the signs of aging.

“Just in my heart, [I] reached the conclusion that this would be a very challenging campaign for him, and to put himself out there for another four-year term was was going to be a struggle,” she told the Globe.

READ MORE: Two-Thirds of Americans Want Age Limits for Politicians, Supreme Court

She also suggested that Biden’s advisers may have tried to hide the effect that the president’s age had on him, but wasn’t sure how much the party had. When the Democratic party first started floating the idea of replacing him on the ticket, she compared it to discussing end-of-life care for loved ones.

“It was painful. I haven’t had these kind of conversations since I talked to my own parents about, you know, their aging and their limitations,” she said.

Kuster hopes other senior citizen politicians follows her lead.

“I’m trying to set a better example,” she said. “I think there are colleagues — and some of whom are still very successful and very productive — but others who just stay forever.”

Kuster’s comments come in the way of debates over some elderly politicians’ abilities. Last week, it was revealed that Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), 81, despite technically serving in Congress, has been living in a senior living facility for months and missing votes. Her son said Granger has been experiencing symptoms of dementia, according to the Washington Post.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who died last year at 90, served in the Senate until she died. But during the last years of her term, many people, including fellow senators, said that she was unfit to serve, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Some lawmakers reported having to reintroduce themselves to her several times during a conversation. She also repeated general questions, another symptom of someone experiencing dementia. At the time, her office defended Feinstein and said that she had no problem serving.
The question of age was a big factor in the last two presidential elections. Both in 2020 and the first part of 2024, the two candidates, Biden and President-Elect Donald Trump, were the two oldest nominees in U.S. history. Trump will be 78 when he is inaugurated again next month, the same age Biden was when he was inaugurated.

Image by Tim Pierce via Wikimedia Commons

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.