This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

When Josh Shapiro was the Pennsylvania Attorney General he went after the Catholic Church with a vengeance for allegations of sexual abuse made against priests, most of whom were either kicked out of the Church or were dead. How ironic it is to note that now that he is governor, he is in hot water over his handling of sexual misconduct in his administration.

Shapiro has been governor since the beginning of the year, and he is already caught up in a shady deal that makes him look like a raging hypocrite. To wit: His office recently wrote a check for $295,000 to settle a sexual harassment complaint against one of his top advisors, and in doing so the public was intentionally kept in the dark. Looks like Mr. Transparency is caught in a web of deceit and hypocrisy.

The advisor in question is Mike Vereb, Shapiro’s longtime buddy and member of his cabinet. In September, he abruptly resigned. Known in Harrisburg as a womanizer, the woman who brought him down accused him of multiple offenses. In her formal complaint, she said that aides in the administration had joked about her having a sexual relationship with Vereb (her name has not been made public).

According to the accuser, who started working for Vereb in January, in February she told him about the rumors and he demanded to know what was being said. That’s when things got dicey.

In reference to the gossip about their alleged encounters, Vereb allegedly baited her, saying if that is what she wanted, he’d comply. “If you decided you wanted to do that,” he said, “and go close the door to this office, tell me to bend you over this conference table, hike your skirt up, and [expletive deleted] you from behind, that would be our decision to make.”

The woman accuser said Vereb advised her to “wear lower cut tops and shorten the slits in your skirts.” When she told him she was not interested in having a sexual relationship with him, he said, “well [expletive deleted] you then.”

Questions remain as to when Shapiro learned of his friend’s behavior. We know it took more than a week before he said a word about his departure. We also know that months went by between the time of the complaint and Vereb’s resignation.

One reason why we do not know more is because of the nondisclosure agreement (NDA): both the accuser and Vereb are barred from discussing this matter. Pennsylvania, unlike neighboring New Jersey, still has NDAs on the books. Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation four years ago barring NDAs in settlement agreements involving sexual misconduct.

Apparently, Shapiro likes keeping the public in the dark. On January 18, lancasteronline.com ran a piece, “The Shapiro Team Failed Transparency Test.” It was in reference to having more than 300 members of his transition team sign a NDA that barred them from publicly discussing their work. “And because the team is organized under the federal tax code as a so-called ‘dark money’ group, it does not have to publicly disclose the private interests that may be underwriting its work.”

Shapiro’s inauguration committee operated under the same cloak of secrecy. His donors are not known to the public. In the eleven months since he has been governor he has not shared his daily calendar, so the public hasn’t a clue who is coming and going. His predecessor, Tom Wolf, did not operate this way, so Shapiro can’t say he is following precedent.

Over the summer, Shapiro agreed to give the state’s 80,000 union workers a 22 percent raise. But we know nothing of what transpired, and that is because Shapiro is keeping that a secret as well. On top of that, the legislature never voted for the over $3 billion in new money.

All of this is in stark contrast to Shapiro’s image as the great defender of the rights of those victimized by the Catholic clergy. This has angered many, including Democratic activist and civil rights advocate Julie Roginsky. “He made it clear that those kinds of abuses should not be covered up.” But that is exactly what is happening in the Vereb case.

Shapiro’s 2018 grand jury report on the Catholic clergy in Pennsylvania resulted in the prosecution of only two priests. But he knew from the get-go most of the accused priests were untouchable, either because they were dismissed, deceased, or their case was beyond the statute of limitations. This was a grandstanding show designed to elevate Shapiro’s status as a brave fighter against sexual abuse. The Vereb matter shows what a joke this is.

None of the priests had a chance to defend themselves—there was no cross examination—and those who fought back won. The Catholic League filed an amicus brief on behalf of eleven priests who claimed that their reputational rights would be violated if their names were released to the public. We won 6-1 in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2019.

The Catholic Church did away with NDAs years ago. Shapiro still has them, and he uses them to avoid scrutiny. In short, Mr. Transparency is a monumental fraud.

This is the article that appeared in the October 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Faithful America is a far left-wing entity (it is not a true organization) that pretends to be Christian while working hard to undermine Christianity. It has a particular hatred of Catholics. Its latest salvo is hurled at Bishop Joseph Strickland.

Newsweek, which acts like a PR outlet for Faithful America, said that “Thousands of Christians have signed a petition thanking Pope Francis for removing Joseph Strickland as the bishop of Tyler, Texas.”

They previously attacked the bishops’ conference.

Bishop Strickland is a “partisan false prophet who has absolutely no business continuing to hold a position of moral authority in the Body of Christ.” These are the words of Rev. Nathan Empsall, head honcho.

Empsall is not a Catholic. He is an Episcopalian priest. Thus he has no standing in evaluating the authenticity of the Catholic clergy. Moreover, we’re not even sure he is a man. Anyone who likes to be referred to as he/him makes us wonder.

Empsall boasts that Faithful America is “the largest online community of grassroots Christians” in the nation. Wrong.

To begin with, there is no such thing as an “online community.” It would be more honest to say that Faithful America has a website. Most important, there is nothing “grassroots” about this phony Christian entity—it is funded by George Soros and other left-wing organizations, such as the Arcus Foundation.

Further proof that Faithful America is a fraud can be seen by considering its contact information. Workers are allowed to work from home. That’s because there is no office. The address listed on their website is “206 Elm Street, Unit #202898” in New Haven, Connecticut. That is the street address of USPS Yale Station. Oh, yes, Amazon has a locker at that address as well.

Empsall and his little Soros-funded crew are frauds.

This is the article that appeared in the December 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Hating Jews is now the number-one sport in the world among left-wing activists. They may say they don’t hate Jews—it’s Israeli policies they find detestable. Don’t believe them: They hate Jews. Here’s the latest proof.

Thanks to a splendid piece by sociologist David Ayers in The American Spectator, Bill Donohue learned of an open letter titled, “Sociologists in Solidarity with Gaza and the Palestinian People”; it was signed by more than 1,900 sociologists (and students pursuing a doctorate). After reading it, he’s almost embarrassed to be a sociologist. Almost.

Donohue stopped being embarrassed years ago about his fellow sociologists—he simply gave up on most of them. But he never gave up on sociology. They did. They are nothing but left-wing ideologues disguised as sociologists. Indeed, they don’t even know what sociology is.

“Sociology as a discipline is rooted in a recognition of relationships of power and inequality.” That’s how the letter begins. They are wrong. That is not an accurate definition. What they are describing is social stratification and political sociology, two areas of study within sociology (which happen to be the focus of Donohue’s own sociological work).

Emile Durkheim, who did more to make sociology a legitimate social science than anyone else, was proud to call sociology the “queen of the social sciences.” In capable hands, it still is. He wrote that “the object of sociology as a whole is to determine the conditions for the conservation of societies.” That is clearly not what motivates these charlatans. As left-wing activists, they are more interested in destroying Western societies than they are in conserving them.

Now for the Jew-hating part of the letter. “As sociologists and human beings [are there sociologists who are not human?], we unreservedly condemn the latest violence against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank at the hands of the Israeli regime.”

Throughout the letter, the Israelis are called “murderers” who are committing “genocide” against the Palestinians. Never once does the letter comment on the unprovoked assault on innocent Jews.

Children have been beheaded, women have been raped, hospitals have been bombed and yet not a word of protest. It’s as if October 7 never happened. Instead, the deep thinkers lash out at Jewish leaders who said they are “fighting human animals.” The sociologists labeled such language “dehumanizing”—not the savagery of Hamas.

These savants are also illiterate, and not just in the sociological sense. Here is Donohue’s favorite sentence. “As of writing, over 6,500 Palestinians have been murdered, including a staggering 2,360, and over 17,400 injured.”

Did they not notice that the word “this” belongs in between “of” and “writing”? More revealing is the bit about “over 6,500 Palestinians have been murdered, including a staggering 2,360 (our italic).” Only an illiterate would write such gibberish and only a dunce would sign such a letter.

Here’s another great part of the letter. They say that as educators “it is our duty to stand by the principles of critical inquiry and learning.” But as the letter shows, it more accurately reflects a groupthink mindset, one anchored in hate.

If these sociologists read more of Durkheim’s works and less of Marx’s, they might mature intellectually. In the meantime, they should at least learn how to write a coherent sentence.

This is the article that appeared in the December 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Election day was a bad day for pro-lifers. They need to learn some lessons if progress is to be made.

It is not easy to win when the pro-life side is outspent by enormous margins, and that is exactly what happened in Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia.

The pro-life side in Ohio was outspent by a margin of $24.4 million to $16.3 million. In Kentucky, the figures were $47.8 million to $29.2 million, respectively. In Virginia, $35.2 million was raised by Democrats for the state legislative races, compared to $27.6 million for the Republicans. When Virginia Republican Party chairman Rich Anderson met with senior members of the Republican National Committee on Columbus Day, asking for help in raising money, he was turned down.

Money is tied to voter turnout, and the Democrats succeeded on that measure in all three states. While money is important, there are lessons that transcend this issue that pro-lifers must grasp.
It is a staple in pro-life circles to say they need to do a better job in messaging. Thats true but it belies a bigger problem: their message is wrong.

The fact is the American people will never vote for a complete ban on abortion, and it is about time our side got the message. In Ohio, the law signed by Gov. Mike DeWine in 2019 allowed for no exceptions for rape or incest. In Kentucky, the law that went into effect after Roe v. Wade was overturned allowed for no exceptions.

These laws are a non-starter. Moreover, they play into the hands of demagogues. In Kentucky, the pro-abortion side ran ads saying, “To tell a 12-year-old girl she must have the baby of her stepfather who raped her is unthinkable.” Even in Virginia, where the law allowed for exceptions, ads were run saying the pro-life candidates “will take away your rights.”

Some may say that if allowing for the usual exceptions didn’t work in Virginia, whats wrong with an absolute ban? For one, an absolute ban guarantees failure. Second, as the Wall Street Journal put it, Virginia witnessed “razor-edge races [that] hardly amount to a grand rebuke of Gov. [Glenn] Youngkin.” In fact, the Democrats lost in key swing districts.

The moral issue is paramount. Is it acceptable for Catholics to vote for a candidate who is not opposed to all abortions? The answer is a qualified yes. If the choice is between candidates who are all in the pro-abortion camp, though not to the same degree, then the candidate who is the least pro-abortion can in good conscience be chosen.

Intent matters as well. If the reason why someone votes for a pro-abortion candidate has nothing to do with his support for abortion—it might have to do with the candidates support for union rights—then that is also an acceptable reason to vote for such a candidate. If the vote is cast to support abortion, that is illicit.

Consider what Saint John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae about Catholic politicians.

He wrote that “when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

Similarly, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) put it, “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued statements that mirror what these two popes have said. For example, they have said that in circumstances where all the candidates are pro-abortion, Catholics may vote for the one who is “deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”

In practical terms, the USCCB is saying that if one of the candidates is pro-abortion but is opposed to forcing doctors to perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgery, and the other pro-abortion candidate wants to do just that, then voting for the former candidate is acceptable.

The choices we are faced with are not always ideal, but prudence dictates that we choose the lesser of two evils (for the reasons Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI enumerated).

The bottom line should be clear—the ultimate goal is the end of abortion. In the process of getting there, however, we should be prepared to get what we can realistically get now and then proceed to get more. Those who take an “all or nothing” stance should be prepared to get nothing. It is better that some lives be saved than none at all.

This is the article that appeared in the December 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Jesuit-run colleges and universities have a reputation of intolerance for free speech and a tolerance for pro-abortion clubs on campus. They are in serious need of reform.

In September, the latest report on free speech on college campuses was published by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), “2024 College Free Speech Rankings.”

For the last several years, four Jesuit-run schools have ranked among the worst in the nation when it comes to respecting freedom of speech: Georgetown University, Fordham University, Boston College and Marquette University. They are still at the bottom of the barrel.

The latest FIRE survey of 248 colleges and universities lists five Catholic schools that achieved a “Poor” rating; the only non-Jesuit school is Duquesne University. Boston College (#229), Marquette (#230), Duquesne (#241), Fordham (#244) and Georgetown (#245) made for an embarrassing cluster of Catholic schools. Georgetown even earned a “Very Poor” rating.

The most intolerant institution of higher education in the nation, coming in last at #248, was Harvard University: it actually earned the lowest score possible, 0.00, meriting the tag, “Abysmal.” Why would anyone who has a serious interest in academic excellence go to such a close-minded school? Graduates may land a good job, but can they think for themselves?

Some of the key findings in this year’s report are disconcerting, if not disgusting.

The schools in the bottom five, which includes Fordham and Georgetown, are not only intolerant of controversial ideas on campus, they succeeded in censoring speech 81 percent of the time.

What subjects set off the speech police the most? Abortion is #1. God forbid a student accepts the findings of science, and agrees with the teachings of the Catholic Church, that life begins at conception. Such speech simply cannot be tolerated by those who fancy themselves as “open-minded.”

Turning to the overall data on the 248 schools, as usual it’s the left-wing students—they are dogmatically obedient to their professors—who are the most intolerant. “Student opposition to allowing controversial conservative speakers on campus ranged from 57% to 72%, depending on the speaker. In contrast, student opposition to controversial liberal speakers ranged from 29% to 43%.”

Incredibly, 45% of today’s college students believe that it is okay to block other students from attending a speech—this is up from 37% last year. More than a quarter, 27%, say it is acceptable to engage in violence to stop a speech they don’t like—it’s up from 20% last year.

Have our colleges become hotbeds of fascism? Some are moving very quickly in that direction.

Importantly, there are some schools that respect free speech. The top five are: Michigan Technological University, Auburn University, University of New Hampshire, Oregon State University and Florida State University.

It might be worthwhile for the alumni of the Jesuit-run schools cited near the bottom of the free-speech rankings to demand that their school officials meet with administrators of the top five schools—all of which are public universities—to find out what they are doing right.

If these schools are intolerant of free speech in general, they are quite tolerant of pro-abortion speech.

For example, the Law Schools at Boston College, Fordham and Georgetown all have chapters of If/When/How. While its name is deceptive, its goal is not. “Law Students for Reproductive Justice [its previous name] trains and mobilizes law students and new lawyers across the country to foster legal expertise and support for the realization of reproductive justice.”

Georgetown is so committed to abortion rights that it has a longstanding undergraduate student club, H*yas for Choice. It is a “queer affirming” group that provides “safer sex supplies, including condoms, dental dams, lube and emergency contraception on Georgetown University’s campus—all of which are provided free of charge and without judgment.”

It does not matter that H*yas for Choice is not endorsed by the school and does not receive funding: It is allowed to operate on campus. If a chapter of the Klan were to seek the same status it would be summarily rejected. That’s because the Jesuits who run Georgetown are infinitely more upset about racism than they are the killing of innocent children.

Many of those who send their children to Georgetown say they don’t approve of the pro-abortion clubs, but when asked why they do so anyway they reply that their children are likely to land a good job upon graduation. As if they couldn’t do that from a Catholic college or university that does not compromise its mission.

Unfortunately, most Catholic institutions of higher learning have strayed from its mission, though none as badly as the Jesuit-run schools. It is up to the parents of high school students weighing which college to choose to become more vigilant about the true Catholic nature of these schools. It is also incumbent on the alumni to let school administrators know of their concerns.

Too many Catholic colleges and universities are guilty of false advertising. They talk the Catholic talk to the parents of prospective students, but their deeds are quite different.

This is the article that appeared in the November 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

The Biden administration is seeking to limit the rights of foster parents who currently care for LGBT children. It also wants to limit the rights of all future foster parents, making sure they respect the wants and desires of adopted children who may elect to switch their sex.

The public has until November 27 to respond to the proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Information will be provided at the end of this article.
Before examining the proposal, we need to understand what is driving this issue. It’s not hard to figure out.

No queer organization has been more prominent in affecting policy in this administration than the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

Lavishly funded by the corporate world, it was ready to hit the ground running if Biden won the presidential election. On November 11, 2020, eight days after he won, it rolled out its 22-page “Blueprint for Positive Change.” It detailed a list of policy recommendations for the administration to follow.

HRC officials have not been disappointed. On June 8, 2023, they issued a press release applauding the administration for its “continued support.” They had previously decided, in 2019, that “Adoption is a Trans Issue.”

The proposed policy, which appeared in the “Federal Register” on September 28, makes it clear that foster parents of trans children do not call the shots—the kids do. And by kids, we mean those who are fourteen years of age; in some cases, even children under fourteen can overrule their foster parents.

For example, what if the child of foster parents decides she is unhappy being a girl and wants to identify as a boy (80 percent of the time it’s the girl who wants to transition), and the parents object. According to this proposal, the foster parents are “expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression.” In other words, the state is eclipsing the rights of parents.

What if the child of foster parents wants to finish the job, accessing “Clinically appropriate services” based on “accepted medical standards of care”? In other words, submitting to irreversible puberty blockers and chemical castration. Can the parents overrule their child? Not on your life.

Ordinarily, as even HHS admits, the age that most states say is the legal age of adulthood is eighteen. There are rare instances, such as consenting to certain medical treatments, where a child of sixteen is permitted to consent. But fourteen and below? This is novel, and precarious, territory.

Worse, the issue is not overruling one’s parents in electing to take aspirin—we are talking about physically altering a young person for the rest of his or her life, changes that also have dramatic psychological effects.

When they talk about “Clinically appropriate services” based on “accepted medical standards of care,” they are talking about “age appropriate services that support their [the child’s] needs related to their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.” That obviously includes sex-reassignment surgery.

The term “age-appropriate” is used in this section of the proposal on p. 66760, but it is not specific. The first time this term is used is on p. 66757. It is never defined. But we do know that fourteen-year-olds can override their parents’ counsel, and if there are some serious problems at home (e.g., the child was removed due to familial conflict), even those who are younger than fourteen can overrule their parents. This is unprecedented in Western law.

What if the foster parents of a young girl who identifies as a boy refuse to accommodate her? Can the government take the child away from them? You bet. It says that “LGBTQI+ children can be transferred from any entity that will not provide a safe and appropriate placement,” as described in the proposal. It defines as unsafe attempts by the parents to dissuade the child from transitioning.

What if the parents object to their child’s transitioning plans on religious grounds? Too bad. The proposal ostensibly recognizes the validity of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which protects religious liberty, but nonetheless concludes that no religious exemption should be afforded if the burden on the religious rights of parents “is necessary to the advancement of a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible.” Thus does the proposal stand RFRA on its head—it’s the government that has to have a compelling interest to override religious liberty!

Of course, the proposal says that allowing sexually confused kids to transition to the opposite sex meets this test. In other words, it is not a “compelling government interest” to defend parental rights, and this extends even to parents who have sincerely held religious convictions. To be exact, this proposal undermines parental rights and eviscerates RFRA.

Please register your objections to this proposal by emailing your response to the address below.

CBComments@acf.hhs.gov
Be sure to put the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) in the subject line: RIN 0970-AD03.

This is the article that appeared in the November 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

The Biden administration’s foster care proposal, which seeks to limit the rights of foster parents with trans children, says not a word about a very serious issue, namely the propriety of allowing transgender couples to adopt children. Quite frankly, the history of violence within this segment of the population—assaulting each other—is so serious that it makes no sense not to address this issue. Indeed, it is delinquent not to do so.

Throughout the proposal, there are several references to safety in the home, as in, “each child must receive a placement that is safe.” It says quite clearly that “hostility, mistreatment, or abuse” will not be tolerated.

Surely the administration must know about the legacy of violence that plagues the trans community, but if it doesn’t, it should. The evidence is startling, and it is mounting.

It’s not always easy to find data on this issue, but there are a number of studies on “intimate partner violence” (IPV) that are enlightening. IPV refers to violence committed by someone who is intimately involved with his or her partner, regardless of marital, sexual orientation or gender status.

Let’s look at some early data and make our way forward.
“The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey,” published by the National Center for Transgender Equality, found that with regard to trans adults, “More than half (54%) of respondents have experienced some form of intimate partner violence. More than one-third (35%) experienced physical violence by an intimate partner, compared to 30% of the U.S. adult population. Nearly a quarter (24%) experienced severe physical violence by a current or former partner, compared with 18% of the U.S. population.”

Also in 2015, the Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA Law, published a report that reviewed 42 studies on IPV among LGBT people. The one study that “directly compared the lifetime prevalence of IPV among transgender and cisgender people” [those who accept their biologically determined sex] found that “31.1% of transgender people and 20.4% of cisgender people had ever experienced IPV or dating violence.” Of the three studies on lifetime violence among trans persons, between “25.0% to 47.0%” report being victimized.

In 2019, researchers from Syracuse University and the University of Maryland, College Park, published their findings on sexual and gender minority youth and found that they “disproportionately experience intimate partner violence,” as well as higher rates of drug use as compared with “cisgender heterosexual youth.”

A study by seven experts published in 2020 in the American Journal of Public Health on this subject found that “Transgender individuals experience dramatically higher prevalence of IPV victimization compared with cisgender individuals, regardless of sex assigned at birth.” In fact, “Transgender people are 1.7 times more likely to experience intimate partner violence in their lifetime compared to cisgender people,” and are “2.2 times more likely to experience physical IPV.” Worse, “Sexual intimate partner violence is even more prevalent, as trans people experience it about 2.5 times more than cis people.”

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reviewed the literature on domestic violence in the LGBT community, and in 2018 it published its results. It found that the prevalence of IPV was comparatively higher for this community than it is among heterosexuals who accept their status as a male or female. Regarding trans persons, the situation is worse. They suffer “an even greater burden of intimate partner violence than gay or lesbian individuals.”

The Portland Monthly did a story on this issue in 2020, and after consulting the work of several experts, it concluded that “statistically speaking, the most common perpetrators of violence against trans women are domestic partners.”

In 2021, another study by the Williams Institute concluded that “Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault.”

In 2023, four authors of a study on IPV among transgender and gender diverse people found that “between 42 and 62 percent” of them experience some type of IPV. The prevalence of IPV is considerably higher with this sector of the population than it is with others.

The Biden administration appears to be oblivious to these alarming statistics. Indeed, whenever it addresses violence in the trans community, it leads the public to think that it is those who are not part of this group—which means everyone else—are responsible for the violence against them.

The raw truth of the matter is that trans persons who are intimately involved with their partner are victimizing each other. It is not frat boys roaming the streets of trans neighborhoods who are committing the violence against trans persons—they are doing it to themselves.

Those in government, the health profession, education, and the media are not telling the public the truth. Indeed, they are involved in a cover-up; their deceit is appalling.

If the Biden administration is truly interested in the safety and wellbeing of trans children in foster care homes, it should be wary of placing them in settings where the parents are trans adults.

This is the article that appeared in the November 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

There is a violent streak among trans activists that is underreported in the media. The following events all took place this year.

February 2023—National Public Radio (NPR) ran a story on Rainbow Reload, a group of trans activists training with firearms in New Hampshire. While NPR usually opposes the 2nd Amendment, in this particular story, NPR frames these activists in a heroic light noting that LGBT people are under attack across America. One member of Rainbow Reload said he joined the group because “there’s been an uptick in groups that have been protesting drag story times and drag shows. And it felt like I needed to learn how to protect myself.” NPR concludes the piece with the line “the guns over their shoulders a source of security in a world that feels full of threats,” further highlighting the sense that trans activists are in an armed conflict for their survival.

February 2023—Approximately 150 trans activists stormed the Oklahoma Capitol. Sporting trans flags, these radical protestors occupied the atrium of the Capitol building to oppose legislation aimed at protecting young people from medical procedures for “gender reassignment.” The trans activists then broke into the balconies chanting “This is our house!”

March 2023—When three King County Sheriff’s Deputies served an eviction notice on Nathan Stolsig, a man pretending to be a woman, he opened fire on the deputies and a shootout ensued. One of the deputies was shot when a bullet struck him above his body armor. Stolsig, who went by the name Eucytus, was a trans activist and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He was affiliated with Antifa and had been preparing to be evicted by barricading his apartment. Surrounded by the deputies with no way out, Stolsig took his own life. The local NPR social justice reporter presented this story as a tragic suicide of a trans individual and left out that Stolsig injured a deputy in the shoot out and his ties to Antifa.

March 2023—Audrey Hale, a woman pretending to be a man, entered the Covenant Christian School in Nashville, Tennessee, and proceeded to go on a shooting spree. In the span of approximately 15 minutes she fired over 200 rounds and killed six people, including three nine-year-old students. Immediately following this tragedy, local police reported that Hale had written a lengthy manifesto. Local police also confirmed the attack was targeted, and there was strong reason to believe Hale’s transgender identity played a part in attacking the Christian school. At the time of writing, Hale’s manifesto has not been released. Many LGBT groups have been calling for the manifesto to be withheld from the public.

March 2023—Several hours after the shooting at Covenant Christian school, Josselyn Berry, press secretary to Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D), posted on Twitter a GIF from the movie “Gloria” showing a woman holding two pistols with the caption “Us when we see transphobes.” While Berry would resign in disgrace several days later, her GIF appears to justify using violence against people who disagree with transgenderism.

March 2023—Hundreds of trans activists took over the Texas Capitol to protest legislation that would protect children from puberty blockers and genital mutilation. The radical protestors began chanting and then staged a die in “to symbolize how many trans lives that could be lost if the legislation became law.”

March 2023—When the Kentucky State Legislature overrode Governor Andy Beshear’s (D) veto of legislation to protect minors from transgender procedures, hundreds of trans activists stormed the Kentucky Capitol building. Capitol security and the Kentucky State Police struggled to remove protesters from the gallery. Nineteen people were arrested.

March 2023—In response to the Covenant Christian School shooting, approximately 400 radical leftists stormed the Tennessee Capitol building. Supported by Democrats in the State Legislature, the protesters attempted to shift the focus of the tragedy at Covenant Christian School to focus on gun control rather than the targeted attack by a trans radical.

March 2023—William Whitworth, a man pretending to be a woman who goes by the name Lily, was arrested by police in Colorado Springs. Whitworth began behaving violently and threatened to go on a shooting spree at local schools when his family called the police. When police arrived, they found Whitworth drunk in his room and arrested him charging him with two counts of “attempted first-degree murder.” The local district attorney’s office confirmed that “Whitworth is in the process of transitioning to female.”

April 2023—Wyoming Minority Whip Karlee Provenza (D) posted a meme of an elderly woman shooting an AK-47 with the caption “Auntie Fa Says, Protect Trans Folks Against Fascists and Bigots.” Auntie Fa is a reference to Antifa. Further the meme implies anyone opposed to transgenderism is either a fascist or a bigot and should be resisted with physical violence.

April 2023—Etsy, the popular e-commerce site dedicated to the buying and selling of handmade and vintage items, has a slew of merchandise that promotes violent transgender rhetoric. One such item is a “Progress Pride” flag with an AK-47 assault rifle superimposed on it and the caption “ARMED QUEERS BASH BACK.” A sweatshirt reads, “Respect my pronouns or yours will be was/were.” Meanwhile, there is a t-shirt with the picture of three daggers and the words “Protect Trans Kids.” A sticker of a cat holding a knife reads “Respect my gender pronouns or I will identify as a problem.” Another sticker of a sword features the phrase, “Respect my pronouns or die by my sword.”

April 2023—After San Francisco State University students could not shout down former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines, a mob of radical transgender activists stormed the stage. Turning out the lights, they used the chaos to rush past her security. Police eventually got her out of the room, but not before a man in a dress punched her several times in the head. Gaines was then trapped for three hours in an empty classroom surrounded by the transgender activists. One of the mob demanded cash to ensure Gaines’ safe passage off campus.

April 2023—A male teacher, who pretends to be a woman, threatened to shoot his students at Fox Chapel Middle School in Spring Hill, Florida. The teacher was upset about students making fun of him on social media. When school administrators recommended he talk to the school guidance counselor about his “bad thoughts,” the teacher admitted that he “wanted to shoot some students….”
April 2023—Hundreds of pro-transgender protesters tried to disrupt a debate at the University of Pittsburgh featuring Michael Knowles. Knowles had previously raised the ire of transgender activists when he declared that transgenderism needed to be eradicated from public life. When the debate began, a few radicals that got past security tried to shout down Knowles; however, they were unsuccessful. Outside of the event the protestors set off fireworks and other explosives. They burnt Knowles in effigy. Police had to lockdown parts of the campus for nearly two hours. Order was not restored until 90 minutes after Knowles finished his remarks.

April 2023—During a debate on banning transgender procedures for minors, Montana State Rep. Zooey Zephyr (D-Missoula), a man pretending to be a woman, said, “The only thing I will say is if you vote yes on this bill and yes on these amendments, I hope the next time there’s an invocation when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands.” Because these comments appeared to be in reference to the shooting at Covenant Christian School and implied that the law would threaten the very existence of the trans community justifying their further retaliations, Zephyr was sanctioned by Montana State House and barred from debating on the legislation. When the Montana State House moved to pass the legislation, trans activists stormed the Capitol building. The radicals proceeded to take over the gallery and attempted to break the doors of the chamber when Zephyr was not permitted to speak. As part of their demonstration, the trans activists threw red gloves, symbolizing the “blood on your hands” that Zephyr had threatened earlier. Riot police were sent in to restore order. In the ensuing clash with the mob of trans activists, seven radicals were arrested.

April 2023—Trans activists vandalized the home of Utah State Senator Mike Kennedy. The radicals spray painted “FASH” (an abbreviation for fascist) and “THESE TRANNIES BASH BACK” on the front of his home in response to legislation he introduced to protect children from transgender procedures.

April 2023—Thomas Jay White, a man pretending to be a woman going by the name Tara Jay, is a prominent trans influencer on TikTok. In a recent video, White threatened to shoot anyone that prevented him from using the women’s restroom. In another video, White claims he wishes he could see several high profile figures who have spoken out against transgenderism hanging from a rope and contemplates throwing a party to celebrate their deaths.

April 2023—A group of concerned citizens from Protect Texas Kids protested an all-ages drag show held at Fort Brewer and Pizza in Fort Worth. They were met by black-clad counter-protesters from the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club. Many of the counter-protestors were equipped with tactical gear and armed with handguns and long guns. At first, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club members began screaming in the faces of the protestors while they were silently praying and proceeded to use pepper spray on the protestors. This was not the first time the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club has attempted to intimidate Protect Texas Kids with violence. The gun club has gone to at least 16 demonstrations to verbally and physically harass the protestors. The Club is affiliated with Antifa.

May 2023—Trans activists disrupted a meeting of the Westwood Regional School District in Bergen County, New Jersey when the school board voted to allow schools only to display the American and state flags. The trans activists shouted down the school board members, and police were required to remove unruly speakers from the microphone to restore decorum.

June 2023—When mostly Armenian and Hispanic parents protested the Glendale Unified School District in southern California for indoctrinating their children, trans activists, answering a call from Antifa, confronted and physically attacked the parents. Three people were arrested on various charges.

August 2023—When parents demonstrated outside of the Los Angeles Unified School District headquarters urging the district to implement a policy to notify parents if their children identified as transgender, trans activists confronted the parents. The scene quickly turned violent as the trans activists attacked the parents and the police that were attempting to keep the two groups apart. Two trans activists were arrested and several more were taken into custody.

This is the article that appeared in the November 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Hierarchy. It’s a word the Left loves to rail against, seeing in it the heart of every social injustice. This holds true for Catholic dissidents, as well as left-wing egalitarians outside the Church. But don’t believe them—the only hierarchy they hate is the one they seek to overthrow. They love the hierarchal structures they seek to create and command.

The Synod on Synodality that occupied the Church in October ignited dissidents and inspired some of its members to celebrate an end to hierarchy. Mercy Sister Angela Perez of Guam was one of them. “I’m experiencing and witnessing the dismantling of the hierarchical,” she said.

Ironically, her presence at the synod was testimony to just the opposite. She was not chosen by lottery, but because she had distinguished herself from other nuns. She was past president of her community’s Guam region; held several other leadership positions; was a former principal; and president of the Academy of Our Lady in Guam. In short, she has occupied senior positions in the hierarchy of her associations.

Sister Perez was delighted to see the 464 synod participants sitting at roundtables throughout the Paul VI Hall. The ever dissident publication, National Catholic Reporter, noted that Pope Francis was also sitting at a roundtable, just like everyone else. Not quite. The pope’s table was at the head of the room and his chair was slightly elevated. At his table were the key synod organizers. Seems like hierarchy was everywhere.

Another example of the ubiquity of inequality was the realization that not all 464 participants, which included laypeople, were permitted to vote. That prize was given to 365 of them, meaning that 99 of the participants were treated unequally.

While all the participants were permitted to express themselves, a summary of the roundtable discussions, written by theologians, was to be presented to the Secretariat of the Synod office. In other words, not everyone’s voice would be given equal treatment.

If the proceeding was to be an exercise in equality—with no hierarchal overtones—then those not in attendance should have been able to witness the event. But the pope disallowed this. Conversations took place in secret, behind closed doors, away from the media.

The fact is hierarchy is unavoidable. Moreover, there is nothing disdainful about it. God’s existence proves this verity.

Hierarchy is first evident in the family. Ineluctably, parents have more rights and authority than children. Yet to this day, left-wing thinkers, pundits and activists are angry that this is so. But they may as well bang their heads against the wall—hierarchy is what defines society.

Three European sociologists, Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto, understood how society works and how absurd was the idea that a true democracy was possible. Michels posited an “iron law of oligarchy,” Mosca wrote about “the ruling minority,” and Pareto discussed “the circulation of elites” that governed society.

In other words, it has been, and always will be, impossible to run a family—never mind a group or an organization—where everyone has an equal voice. It’s always a small number of people who make the key decisions. That’s just the way life is, and all the protestations to the contrary will never change this reality.

We live in a society that is a republic, not a democracy. We elect our representatives. We even have an Electoral College that ultimately chooses the president. The founders distrusted giving all power to the people, knowing full well that in times of crisis the people were prone to act like a mob, not a reasoned citizenry (recall that Hitler was democratically elected chancellor). The expectation was that a carefully chosen elite might not rubber stamp the people’s choice in cataclysmic times.

Outside where the synod participants met, Catholic dissidents from around the world met. They want to turn the Church inside out and upside down. They claim to hate hierarchy, but they cannot win without forcing the faithful to accept their blueprints for change.

Karl Marx, the great hater of hierarchy, said that his utopian communist society would be an egalitarian wonderland, but before that could happen, those who would lead the communist movement would first have to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Marx’s famous words were, “In order to establish equality, we must first establish inequality.”

There you have it. The love of hierarchy is what the Left has always wanted, as long as they are in charge. And what happens to those who resist and refuse to live in their egalitarian paradise? Sudden death. That’s what history teaches.

The penchant for radical equality inevitably comes at the expense of liberty. The most intolerant people in our society today are the ones who think they know better than the rest of us.

Catholic dissidents are no different. They have no use for the rank-and-file who love the Church. They are determined to change the Church, making sure the faithful follow their marching orders. The sooner the faithful see through these little dictators, the more likely they will resist their appeals.

This is the article that appeared in the November 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

We learned in January that “traditional” Catholics were being investigated by the FBI for the crime of being traditional Catholics. We were assured by FBI Director Christopher Wray that only one Field Office, in Richmond, was involved. Then we learned that the FBI was also going after “mainline” Catholics, and had developed a plan to spy on them. Then we learned that it wasn’t just one Field Office—agents in Los Angeles and Portland were also involved in the probe.

Wray has repeatedly said he knew nothing about Catholics being targeted. In fact, when he testified in July he said that when he first learned about this he was “aghast.” Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, testified on September 20 saying that he, too, knew nothing about this. When he found out, he told Rep. Jeff Van Drew that he was “appalled.” Garland said the same thing when he testified last winter.

Let’s assume they are telling the truth—neither man knew anything about those in their employ involved in raping the constitutional rights of ordinary Americans. Let’s also assume they were “aghast” and “appalled” about what happened.

What exactly have they done about it?

There has been no public record, nor statement of any kind, issued by either Wray or Garland regarding steps taken to hold those accountable for this egregious violation of the First Amendment rights of practicing Catholics. Have disciplinary measures of any kind been invoked? Has there been an internal investigation of the FBI seeking to learn if other agents have also been spying on Catholics?

Bill Donohue wrote to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and to Committee member Rep. Van Drew, asking for their cooperation in finding the answers to these questions.