Bill Donohue

If those pushing for women priests were to learn that only women who are loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church were to be ordained, they would oppose it. Dissidents have long hated Mother Angelica and Mother Teresa, as well as orders of nuns such as the Sisters of Life. Make no mistake, their mad quest for women priests is nothing but a mad quest for power.

On August 6, Pope Francis closed the door on women priests once again. When returning from World Youth Day in Lisbon, Portugal, he was specifically asked why, if the Church is open to everyone, does it not ordain women and support gay marriage? “The Church is open to everyone but there are laws that regulate life inside the Church,” he said.

Two days later, a magazine that once supported Joseph Stalin, The Nation, published a piece arguing for women priests. The author cited the heroics of Victoria Rue, a champion of women priests. She is a classic advocate for this cause.

Rue has had two abortions, which helps to explain why she is a rabid advocate of abortion rights. She even considers herself to be a priest. Which raises the question: If that is the case—if this is a do-it-yourself religion—why bother lobbying to change Church teachings? But deep down, she knows she is no more a priest than a man who claims to be a woman is a woman. There appears to be no limit to delusional thinking these days.

The upcoming Synod on Synodality will draw more dissidents to push for women priests, gay marriage, etc. One of the groups promoting this agenda is the Association of U.S. Catholic Priests. It is a group of malcontents, dissident priests unhappy with Church teachings on an array of issues. They met recently in San Diego, in what were dubbed “listening sessions.”

One of the priests, Fr. Kwame Assenyoh, made it clear that he had had it with listening. He called on those in attendance to start implementing some of their ideas right now in their parishes. “We should not wait for Rome to come out with a big book before we start doing things.” Others urged everyone to follow the Germans, who want to Protestantize the Catholic Church. Ironically, the dissident Germans are pushing the faithful out the door. Not exactly a blueprint for success.

Ruth Fitzpatrick died in July. Almost no one ever heard of her, but the there was one newspaper—and only one—in the entire world that ran an obit on her. The New York Times.

What was so special about this 90-year-old woman who died that inspired the Times to write a 1200-word obit on her, when every other media outlet ignored her? She spent her life pursuing the mad quest for women priests. She was so confident that the Church would give in to her pipe dream that she once said women priests would become a reality by 2000.

The Catholic Church, beginning with its unparalleled reverence for Our Blessed Mother, has done much to secure standing for women. This partly explains why women attend Mass more than men, and by a significant margin.

The few who continue to carp are mostly disaffected old ladies, nuns and priests, and those who have completely lost the faith, if not their minds. They are a sorry crew, and one best ignored, even by the New York Times.

Bill Donohue

The following letter was sent to Rep. Jim Jordan today. Please contact  his communications chief, Russell Dye: russell.dye@mail.house.gov

August 10, 2023

Hon. Jim Jordan
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
2056 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3504

Dear Chairman Jordan:

Yesterday, your letter of August 9 to FBI Director Christopher Wray was made public. We are just as disturbed as you are to learn that the FBI’s probe of Catholics was never confined to one field office in Richmond. From the trove of documents you received, it is now known that the FBI’s Portland Field Office and the Los Angeles Field Office were also involved in this unseemly investigation.

The new documents, some of which have less redactions than the initial batch, provide evidence that Wray’s comment on July 25 that the FBI’s actions were limited to “a single field office” is not true. This calls into question Wray’s forthrightness, and it also begs the question: What else does the FBI know about this matter?

Your request for more documentation, especially with regard to communications between these three field offices is much appreciated. But given that the FBI has proven that it has not been transparent about this matter, Wray needs to explain why.

We also need answers to questions I raised in my letter of July 26 to you.

On what basis did the FBI conclude that these Catholics [“Radical-Traditionalist Catholics”] warranted a probe? Do they have a history of violence? If so, where is the evidence? If not, why were they singled out?”

On what basis did the FBI decide it was necessary to enlist “mainline Catholics” to spy on their fellow parishioners? Where is the evidence that ordinary practicing Catholics pose a security threat to the United States or to other law-abiding Americans? How common is it for FBI agents to infiltrate houses of worship—of any religion—employing “tripwire sources”?

Thank you for pursuing this issue. We stand ready to cooperate in any manner you desire.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

Bill Donohue

The role of government, the economy, and social institutions have an enormous impact on our daily lives. Most of us understand the role that lawmakers, business leaders, and the family play in determining our wellbeing, but often underappreciated is the role that culture plays. Yet it is culture—the norms and values that serve as life’s guideposts—that ultimately have the greatest affect on our lives, as well as on the other three sectors of society.

Values, the ideas of right and wrong, and norms, the standards of right and wrong, are found in the religious teachings that mark any given society. In fact, religion is the heart of culture, and it matters not a whit when and where in history: it’s universally true.

To be sure, secular norms and values also may play a role in determining cultural outcomes, and this is especially true in the most developed world. No matter, it is culture, not the political, economic, or social institutions, that is the most influential force determining the makeup of individuals and society.

Why, then, is culture undervalued? It depends, to a large extent, on one’s political predilections.

Conservatism, I would argue, consists of the three “M’s”: markets, missiles and morality. A market economy has proven to be far superior to the socialist model; missiles are necessary for national security; morality is fundamental to the ordering of the good society. Unfortunately, for many conservatives, especially libertarians, the latter “M” is not taken seriously. This is not a good sign—it smacks of self-absorption.

Liberalism these days has turned sharply left, and with it has evolved an animus against religion. The contempt shown by contemporary liberals for our Judeo-Christian heritage is stunning. Having become militant secularists, they see that heritage as an obstacle to their liberation.

These secularists dominate our institutions. Indeed, they comprise the ruling class. It is they who are trying to transform our culture by pushing critical race theory and gender ideology, the two most pernicious cultural ideas of our age.

Critical race theory holds that all white people are irredeemably racist and that every racial disparity is a reflection of racism. Never mind how insulting and inaccurate this is, it is the reigning dogma of the ruling class. Gender ideology holds that men and women can change their sex as easily as they can change their clothes. This is not only absurd, it expresses a deep-seated hostility to science.

There are some encouraging signs on the horizon. During the pandemic, moms learned how culturally corrupt many schools had become. Instead of teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, many schools played the radical race and gender game, belittling white students and abetting young people to consider changing their nature-determined sex.

Fortunately, mothers started running for school boards, and founding organizations like Moms for Liberty. This kind of social activism has also been felt outside education, even affecting beer sales, e.g., Bud Light.

We need to get back to basics. In other words, we need to stop with adopting the norms and values of the secularist woke culture and repair to our religious moorings.

In my latest book, War on Virtue: How the Ruling Class is Killing the American Dream, I detail the many ways in which the elites who run our institutions have moved away from our founding principles, and the virtues that have served our society so well.

Virtue is a good habit. A culture that does not appreciate the saliency of virtue is one that will not succeed. Regrettably, the elites that run our institutions are failing in this regard. Instead of nurturing virtue, they are denigrating it.

Cultures can change—there is no iron law of history. It is up to the people in a free society to hold its ruling class accountable and to demand change, when necessary. When our culture decomposes, everyone loses, including, ironically, those responsible for the collapse.

Bill Donohue

The ongoing culture war between those who adhere to Judeo-Christian principles on one side, and militant secularists on the other, is increasingly taking on a political dimension. While there has long been funding for anti-Catholic art exhibits, what’s relatively new is the decision by Democrats to force taxpayers to fund the radical LGBT agenda. This issue is currently at a fever pitch.

On July 18, at a hearing on funding for transportation and housing programs, members of the House Appropriations Committee got more than testy—they engaged in the kind of verbal abuse we would expect from cable TV talking heads, not members of Congress.

Rep. Mark Pocan, a homosexual Democrat, branded Republicans who disagreed with him “bigots,” resorting to foul language while making the case for the radical LGBT agenda. Worse was Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the most anti-Catholic pro-abortion Catholic in the House. She called her critics “terrorists.” After she was called out for her invective, she asked that her “offending words” be withdrawn. But the damage was done.

Politico, the liberal media outlet, published a fine piece on this story (none of the major dailies covered it).

“What Do Drag Shows, Pride Flags and Latino Museums Have to Do with Roads and Parks?” The headline, while baiting, hit on something real: Republicans are becoming much more aggressive in tackling social and cultural issues. Perhaps that is because they realize, as a Gallup poll recently found, that social conservatism is rebounding.

Some of the issues that are being hotly debated include providing for so-called gender-affirming care; diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; the distribution of Pride flags; drag queen workshops, performances and documentaries; and dishonest exhibits that portray Hispanics as “victims.”

The national debt has never been greater, yet some members of Congress think we should pay for these ventures, several of which are morally offensive. They are taking their cues from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the influential gay activist organization.

To show how extremist HRC is, consider some of its objectives:

• It believes that it is acceptable to allow a person who misidentifies as transgender to use whatever bathroom he wants. In other words, women who object to showering with men have no rights.
• It contends that by ensuring safety and fairness in women’s sports that this amounts to a total ban on transgender persons from participating in athletics. However, transgender persons are not prohibited from competing against each other. But this is not what HRC wants—it wants males to compete against females, effectively destroying women’s sports.
• It contends that LGBT persons are being discriminated against if students and teachers are not forced to use “preferred pronouns.” In other words, it wants the government to abridge the free speech rights of students and teachers by mandating what words they must use when identifying those who have misidentified their sex, or who falsely think that they are more than one person (as in being called “they”).
• It is strongly opposed to parental rights. For example, it is opposed to state laws that notify parents if their child has chosen to adopt a transgender identity.
• It argues that age restrictions on drag queen shows—of any kind—are tantamount to discrimination against the performers. Moreover, it contends that protecting children from sexually explicit material is an expression of bigotry.

It is fashionable to say both sides are crossing the line these days. With rare exceptions, this is not true.

Those who are promoting the anti-science view that the sexes are interchangeable are all liberal Democrats. These are the same persons who want to gut women’s sports, allow boys to share locker rooms with girls, dictate what pronouns people must use, nullify parental rights, and expose children to perverted theater. To top things off, they want the taxpayers to flip the bill for their sick agenda.

Paradoxically, referring to those who object to this madness as “terrorists” may actually be a good sign. It suggests that the DeLauros of this world are losing, and in an act of desperation, the only ammo left in their armor is vitriol.

Bill Donohue

Hemant Mehta is an atheist activist who is not too happy with Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent atheists in the world. He is angered that his fellow God denier insists that “sex really is binary.” This should be about as controversial as saying the world is not flat, but in some circles it is cause for apoplexy.

Dawkins is someone whom I have mostly criticized, and occasionally defended, in the past. In 2016, I called him out for his hate speech when he said, “I’m all for offending people’s religion.” In 2017, I defended the Englishman on free speech grounds when a left-wing radio station based in Berkeley, California disinvited him after he called Islam the “most evil” of world religions. Now I am defending him once again.

Mehta holds to the anti-science view that sex is fluid. It is not. It is binary, just as Dawkins said it is. We are either male (XY chromosomes) or female (XX), notwithstanding the biological disorder that affects boys called Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY). That does not make for a third sex.

Dawkins is a biologist. Mehta is a blogger. Despite the glaring difference in credentials, the occasionally employed blogger is accusing Dawkins of “abandoning” science.

“What is a woman?” We know that Mehta can no more answer this question than can Ketanji Brown Jackson, but when Dawkins was asked to respond, he was not puzzled. “A woman is an adult human female, free of Y chromosomes.” Mehta says, “That flies in the face of what many scientists have said about the subject.”

What Mehta is referring to is the alleged category of “intersex” persons. Yes, there are rare instances of babies who are born with both male and female genitalia. Anomalies exist in nature. It is also true that there are people who suffer from polydactyly, a condition in which a person is born with extra fingers or toes. So what?

Father Tad Pacholczyk has a doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did postdoctoral work at Harvard. Even those born with “confounding physiological factors,” he says, are either intrinsically male or female. In other words, humans are “marked by sexual ‘dimorphism,’ or ‘two-forms,’ namely, male and female. When problems arise in the development of one of these forms, this does not make for a new ‘third form,’ or worse, for an infinite spectrum of different sexual forms.”

Mehta is upset that Dawkins has previously said that trans people are similar to Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who claimed to be black. The analogy is apt: if self-identity is dispositive, then Dolezal is as black as the guy who claims he is a gal.

Finally, Dawkins insists that it is people like him who are being bullied today, not trans people. Mehta disagrees but Dawkins is right. It is true, as Mehta contends, that trans people are much more likely to experience violence than normal people are, but what he leaves out is that most of the violence against trans people is being carried out by other trans people. That’s the dirty little secret no one wants to talk about.

Bill Donohue

Survey data reveal that the most intolerant people in America are unquestionably young liberals. Why this is so needs to be probed, but first the data.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) studies free speech on college campuses, and its 2022-2023 “College Free Speech Rankings” is particularly insightful. In a survey of almost 45,000 college students from 201 schools, the University of Chicago was rated the top spot; Columbia University was rated the least respectful of free speech of any institution of higher education in the country.

Overall, the degree to which free speech is prized on campus was among its most alarming findings. Liberals, not conservatives, are the problem.

Opposition to allowing controversial conservative speakers on campus ranged from 59 percent to 73 percent, depending on the speaker.

However, opposition to controversial liberal speakers on campus ranged from 24 percent to 41 percent, depending on the speaker.

Is it acceptable to shout down a speaker? For liberals it is: 76 percent approve. For conservatives, the figure is 44 percent.

Is it acceptable to block entry to a campus speech? Almost half of liberals (47 percent) agree. Among conservatives, 25 percent agree.

Is it acceptable to use violence to stop a campus speech? A quarter (25 percent) of liberals approve. For conservatives, the figure is 16 percent.

Not surprisingly, liberals are more comfortable expressing themselves on campus than conservatives are. As we might expect, 53 percent of college students describe themselves as “left of center”; only 20 percent identify as “right of center.”

When students were asked which subjects were the most difficult to have a conversation about on campus, they mentioned abortion, racial inequality, Covid mandates and transgender issues as the most difficult. With the exception of Covid restrictions, this reflects the Left’s obsession with sex and race.

A recent survey conducted for Newsweek found that 44 percent of those aged 25-34 want to make “misgendering” a person—using the “wrong” pronoun to describe a transgender person—a criminal offense. Among those aged 35-44, 38 percent support treating this as a crime. The overall figure for Americans is 19 percent.

Only in times of war has there traditionally been support for muzzling free speech. But we are not at war, so there is no need to balance free speech with national security. What we are witnessing today is unlike anything we’ve seen before.

There has been next to zero media outcry over this condition. Yet the assault on the First Amendment is palpable.

The reason for this situation should be obvious to those not drugged by ideology: it is young liberals, indoctrinated by teachers, especially professors, who are the most intolerant, and those who work in the media are so thoroughly politicized these days as to be unmoved by what is happening.

All this talk about “Christian nationalists” being a threat to free speech is a ruse. The real threat is coming from the Left, the very same persons guilty of blaming their favorite bogeyman—Christians.

Bill Donohue

There are extremists in both the Republican and Democrat parties, and some support violence to achieve their goals; this is true even among some self-described independents. But the enthusiasm for violence is clearly more popular among Democrats.

In a large survey recently released by the Chicago Project on Security & Threats, which is affiliated with the University of Chicago, researchers tapped hot button issues for Republicans and Democrats, seeking to measure support for violence. For Republicans, the issue was Trump; for Democrats it was abortion.

The report, “Dangers to Democracy,” found that 6.8 percent of Americans agreed that “the use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.” Among Republicans the figure was 9.5 percent. It also found that 12.3 percent of Americans agreed that “the use of force is justified to restore the federal right to abortion.” Among Democrats, the figure was 16.4 percent.

The Democrats were also the more likely than Republicans to favor using violence to attain other goals.

One in four Democrats (25.6 percent) say “the use of force is justified to protect the voting rights of Black Americans and other minorities.” But when it comes to using force “to prevent the teaching of CRT [critical race theory] in schools,” far fewer Republicans (14.6 percent) were inclined to violence.

Among Democrats, 16.3 percent are in favor of using force “against the police to prevent police brutality against Black Americans and other minorities.” When Republicans are asked if the use of force is justified “to preserve the rights of whites,” 9.9 percent agree.

The inescapable conclusion is that Democrats are more comfortable endorsing violence to accomplish their goals than Republicans are in achieving their ends.

It is striking that neither the authors of the report, nor the media who covered this story, decided to highlight this conclusion. Indeed, an article by The Hill on the survey only mentions Republicans who support violence over the treatment of Trump, never mentioning that hot button issues for Democrats elicit more support for force.

Why are Democrats more supportive of violence than Republicans? They are the party which adopts the most aggressive forms of political persuasion. They favor direct intervention, including blocking traffic, shouting down conservatives on campus, free speech gags, and unauthorized street demonstrations. Not surprisingly, they are the party that was supportive of the violence committed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter. They are also the party of abortion.

Sometimes it’s not hard to connect the dots.

Bill Donohue

Sinead O’Connor is being lionized for her “bravery” in ripping up a picture of Pope John Paul II on “Saturday Night Live” in 1992. Her fans are commending her for calling attention to clergy sexual abuse. The reaction has been effusive.

“She was proved right” says Harvard Law School instructor Alejandra Caraballo. Brenna Moore, who teaches theology at Fordham, called her “a kind of prophetic truth-teller.” America magazine senior editor James T. Keane wants to know “when are we going to apologize to her?” Indeed, there is a Facebook page called, “Apologize to Sinead O’Connor NOW.”

If a Martian landed today and read this he might well conclude that Sinead was a scholar who commanded great prescience. In fact, she was a troubled soul who was badly educated (I know because I debated her on TV). She was no more a “truth-teller” than are her fans who have written on this subject.

The truth is that anyone who talks about clergy sexual abuse and refuses to tell the truth about the oversized role played by homosexuals is either ignorant or dishonest: they were responsible for 8 in 10 cases of molestation. And they got away with it because of the gay subculture that orchestrated the cover-up. All of this is detailed in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes.

The Associated Press (AP) has an embarrassing article on Sinead. It cites as authoritative the pro-Sinead remarks of David Clohessy, the man who once headed the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). He had to leave in disgrace. As I show in my book, he was shown to be an utter fraud. I am delighted that the Catholic League played a major role in his ouster.

AP reports that Clohessy was in his early 30s when Sinead pulled her “SNL” stunt. It says that “he had only recently recalled the repressed memories of the abuse he suffered.” Never mind that the idea of “repressed memory” has been thoroughly discredited—no serious psychologist defends it anymore—Clohessy has said that his memory of what allegedly happened to him was jarred when he and his fiancée were watching a Barbra Streisand movie. That would do it.

Michael McDonnell is quoted in the AP article speaking favorably about Sinead. He is identified as the “interim executive director” of SNAP. Poor Mike has been the “interim director” for quite some time now. The reason he is still “interim” is because SNAP does not exist anymore. It’s nothing but his cell phone.

AP also cites comments by Jamie Manson, the lesbian head of an anti-Catholic pro-abortion group, Catholics for Choice. Manson said that when Sinead ripped up the picture of the pope she was “feeling a call to the priesthood at the time.” Now if a male Catholic activist said he once felt called to be a nun, wouldn’t it make sense to call the mental health hotline?

Molly Olmstead at Slate wrote a beauty. She goes after Pope John Paul II for his “role” in covering up the scandal. The link she provides is to a story by National Public Radio saying the pope was aware of accusations against homosexual predator, and former cardinal, Theodore McCarrick.

The pope should have listened to New York Archbishop John Cardinal O’Connor. He had McCarrick’s number and explained in detail to the Vatican why he was alarmed. Instead the pope was persuaded by two high-ranking Vatican officials who took McCarrick’s side. He heeded the wrong advice, but this is not the same as instituting a cover-up.

Olmstead resurrects fictitious tales about the Magdalene Laundries, where Sinead stayed, so she can bash the Catholic Church. As I recount in my monograph, “Myths of the Magdalene Laundries,” data contained in what is known as the “McAleese Report” demonstrate that these homes for wayward girls that were run by nuns were not anything like its harshest critics have alleged. No one was imprisoned, forced to stay or engage in slave labor. Not a single woman was sexually abused by a nun. Not one. It is all a lie.

It is true that Sinead was sexually abused. But not by a nun—it was her own mother who molested her. So it was hardly surprising that her father decided that she would be better off being taken care of by the nuns.

Olmstead says that “Bill Donohue of the Catholic League led the public charge against O’Connor back in 1992,” I would have been happy to do so, but I didn’t become president until 1993.

Bill Donohue

Irish singer Sinead O’Connor has passed way at age 56.

In her better years, O’Connor sold millions of record albums, winning a Grammy for her work.

She became an overnight sensation in 1992 when she appeared on “Saturday Night Live” and ripped up a picture of Pope John Paul II. Her antics, often controversial, were condemned not only by rank-and-file Catholics, but by celebrities such as Madonna and Frank Sinatra.

The “SNL” stunt was uncalled for, but it was her advocacy of violence that was more disturbing. In 2011, she warned Pope Benedict XVI not to come to Ireland, saying that if he did there would be a “f***in bloodbath.”

O’Connor was also delusional, perhaps a reflection of her drug habits. In  1999, she announced that she had become a priest; she even wore priestly attire. She described herself as Mother Bernadette Mary and claimed the authority to say Mass and administer the Sacraments.

When I was asked about this, I told The Star she “must be hallucinating. Next week, she’ll be a Buddhist monk. The week after, maybe she’ll turn  into an Orthodox rabbi. She is no more a priest than I am a camel. The woman is obviously certifiably crazy.”

I once debated her on Larry King’s CNN show on the subject of clergy sexual abuse. The discussion floundered when I mentioned that most of the victims were postpubescent, meaning that it was homosexual priests, not pedophiles, who were the offenders. She asked, “What does postpubescent mean?”

O’Connor was a victim of child abuse and her travails were long standing. In 1997, she admitted, “I’ve been a very troubled person.” So  true. She had at least two abortions, suffered from mental health issues, and contemplated suicide; her son killed himself last year at 17.

May she find peace at last.

Bill Donohue

We sent the following letter to Rep. Jim Jordan today (we urge you to contact his communications director, Russell Dye:  russell.dye@mail.house.gov).

July 26, 2023

Hon. Jim Jordan
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
2056 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3504

Dear Chairman Jordan:

In my letter of July 24, emailed to you that day, I asked that you follow through in your pursuit of having FBI Director Christopher Wray submit documents you requested regarding the agency’s probe of Catholics. You did just that: On July 25, he handed over documents pertaining to this issue. It is reported that your team will now review the documents and then decide what to do next.

I commend you for your work. Finally, Catholics have someone who listens to their concerns and acts on them.

In Wray’s July 25 letter to you, he asks the House Judiciary Committee not to publicly disclose information in the documents without prior consultation with the FBI. I trust you will act prudently. In your review of the documents, I would like to raise some questions relevant to this inquiry that are of importance to the Catholic community. It is my hope that the FBI will release information that satisfies my concerns.

We know from a January 23 internal memo that the FBI’s Richmond Field Office was conducting an investigation of “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics,” particularly those who prefer the “Traditional Latin Mass.” At least one undercover agent was involved.

Question 1: On what basis did the FBI conclude that these Catholics warranted a probe? Do they have a history of violence? If so, where is the evidence? If not, why were they singled out?

In your April 10 letter to Wray, you comment on FBI documents you received on March 23. What you said about the FBI’s probe of “mainline Catholics” was especially disturbing.

“The FBI similarly noted two other opportunities to engage in outreach with religious institutions in the Richmond area, citing a desire ‘to sensitize the congregation to the warning signs of radicalization and enlist their assistance to serve as suspicious activity tripwires.’ This outreach plan even included contacting so-called ‘mainline Catholic parishes,’ and the local ‘diocesan leadership.’”

Question 2: On what basis did the FBI decide it was necessary to enlist “mainline Catholics” to spy on their fellow parishioners? Where is the evidence that ordinary practicing Catholics pose a security threat to the United States or to other law-abiding Americans? How common is it for FBI agents to infiltrate houses of worship—of any religion—employing  “tripwire sources”?

Thank you for your efforts. If there is anything the Catholic League can do to be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

cc: Christopher Wray