Bill Donohue

Media bias is nothing new, and this is especially true when it comes to hot button issues such as abortion.

An AP-NORC poll on abortion conducted in late June, and released this week, resulted in four news stories that were picked up nationwide by various media outlets. In three of them, the headline was skewed toward a pro-choice position.

This is not unusual: reporters who write the stories generally do not write the headline. And headlines tend to be more sensationalistic. It is also true that most reporters, at least in the major media, take an abortion-rights position.

The survey was taken to see if public opinion on abortion had changed since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, sending the issue back to the states to decide. Alas, not much has changed: most Americans have never wanted to ban all abortions, and most have never supported all abortions. This poll did not dispute that conclusion.

But one might never know this by simply reading the headlines. Here are three of them:

(1) “Few US Adults Support Full Abortion Bans, Even in States That Have Them, an AP-NORC Poll Finds.”

(2) “Most Americans Support Abortion Access One Year After Roe v. Wade.”

(3) “Most in US Don’t Support Full Abortion Bans, Even in States With Them.”

There was another headline, however, which conveyed a somewhat different outcome. Here is what it said:

(4) “AP-NORC Poll: Most US Adults Support Some Abortion Limits, But Few Want Full Bans.”

The news story that followed the first and fourth headlines were identical. However, the first emphasized that most Americans don’t want full abortion bans, and the fourth emphasized that most Americans want some limitations. Both are accurate but they convey different outcomes.

In both of these stories, it was reported that “only about a quarter say it should always be legal.” That finding would likely come as a surprise to those who only read the first three headlines.

Why does this matter? Because in today’s soundbite society, where few have the time or attention span to read an entire news story, headlines carry more weight in influencing public opinion than they did in times past. The public is increasingly relying on tidbits of information provided by bloggers, social media sites, and news aggregates. Thus, when the headlines are skewed—and they are almost always slanted in a liberal direction—it is easy to deceive the public.

If it is true that “what you see is what you get,” it is also true that what you get—from reading news headlines alone—is often misleading.

Bill Donohue

The public appears to be souring on higher education. The level of confidence that Americans have for colleges and universities today is at its lowest level, as determined by Gallup. It is also true that confidence in  16 other institutions has been waning. But the big drop is scored by higher education.

The two institutions that have the highest confidence rating are small business and the military. In the poll taken in June and released in July, the level of confidence for those two entities was 65 percent and 60 percent, respectively. For higher education, the figure is 36 percent. While that number is still better than most of the other institutions that respondents were asked about, it represents a sharp decline.

In 2015, Americans’ confidence in higher education was 57 percent; in 2018, it dropped to 48 percent; now it is at 36 percent. Why? “While Gallup did not probe for reasons behind the recent drop in confidence, the rising costs of postsecondary education likely play a significant role.”

That conclusion reflects the political predilections of the Gallup researchers more than what their own data reveal.

Among Democrats, previous Gallup polls found that concern over costs was the big factor. For Republicans, the big concern is over the politicization of education. But since the biggest decline in confidence for higher education, as recorded by Gallup, was among Republicans—it dropped by 20 points to 19 percent—it would have made more sense to conclude that politics, not rising costs, “likely play a significant role.”

Democrats are more likely to support student loan forgiveness than Republicans, so of course rising costs figure prominently for them. What needs to be addressed is why the issue of the politics, raised by Republicans, played a more prominent role in driving down the overall public confidence in higher education. There are several factors at work.

In the last several years, the decline in free speech on the campuses has worsened. Critical race theory—the lie that all white people are inherently racist and that all existing racial disparities are due solely to racism—has been institutionalized. Gender ideology—the lie that the sexes are interchangeable and that there are dozens of genders—is now almost universally acknowledged.

These three factors alone—censoring speech, critical race theory and gender ideology—will continue to drive down public confidence in higher education unless college administrators buck up. But that is not likely given the fact that administrators tend to be even more left-wing than the faculty.

If colleges and universities are to regain the prestige they once commanded, they will have to return to the very reason they were founded: the pursuit of truth. That can only happen if the pursuit of politics is first jettisoned. But to do that, they must first admit that there is such a thing as truth, and that is a tall order given the postmodernist mindset that defines education elites.

Bill Donohue

This article originally appeared in The American Spectator on July 3, 2023.

It was just a matter of time. Decent Americans have had a radical race and LGBT agenda shoved in their face for too long, and now they are fighting back. Too bad not all conservatives are on board.

Former congressman Paul Ryan recently said that he was not a “cultural war guy,” contending that he is more concerned about the debt crisis. This is what we would expect from someone who found his home sitting on the board of directors of Fox News’ parent company, Fox Corporation.

Under its founder, Roger Ailes, Fox News Network covered what I call the three “M’s” of conservatism: missiles, markets and morality. But in more recent times, with some notable exceptions, Fox News has been more concerned about the first two “M’s.” Ryan’s influence is obvious. Tucker Carlson’s absence is only one clear example.

As it turns out, Fox News is on the wrong side of history. The country is becoming more socially and culturally conservative. Consider three recent Gallup surveys.

In a Gallup poll released June 8, we learned that “More Americans this year (38%) say they are very conservative or conservative on social issues than said so in 2022 (33%) and 2021 (30%). Those who identify as very liberal or liberal on social issues are in decline.” What makes these figures so impressive is that in the past two years, the increase in conservative identification is found among nearly all political and demographic subgroups.

The Gallup poll published June 16 found that support for same-sex marriage is declining: it went from 71 percent to 64 percent in the past year, which is dramatic. This helps to explain the increase in social conservatism.

Why this is happening can be gleaned from a Gallup poll released June 9. The title says it all: “Views of State of Moral Values in U.S. at New Low.” Public assessments on the state of moral values is the worst since Gallup took these measures 22 years ago. “The 54% of U.S. adults who rate moral values in the country as ‘poor’ marks a four-percentage-point increase since last year and the first time the reading has reached the majority level.”

A third of Americans, 33 percent, say our moral values are “only fair”; 10 percent say they are “good”; and a mere 1 percent rate them as “excellent.”

No wonder social conservatism is rebounding—most are convinced we are morally troubled, to say the least. I hasten to add that there are reasons for optimism. Some very good things are happening.

While Covid was a tough time for many Americans, there is one good thing that came of it. Parents, especially moms, found out what some of the schools were doing to their children. Instead of education, there was indoctrination. The content of this proselytization—and that is what it is—is also objectionable: students are being told how racist America is, and that they can switch their sex. Both are invidious lies.

As a result of this kind of activism, we now have Moms for Liberty, and similar other groups. Proof that they are having an effect is the ruling by the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center to name them on its “hate map.” That is a badge of honor.

Disney is being beaten up all over the place. It has decided to adopt the radical LGBT agenda, most notably by inviting children to believe that they can change their sex, and that there are many sexes besides male and female. Both are palpable lies.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis led the way in taking Disney to task for adopting the woke agenda. The Catholic League documentary, “Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom,” added to their problems. The blowback from customers showed up on its bottom line: it has taken quite a hit. We are also happy to note that its summertime film, “Elemental,” featuring a “non-binary” character, bombed at the box office.

Bud Light is still reeling from trying to push trans politics down our throats. It now regrets hiring a trans person to market its beer. It should never have done so in the first place. Ditto for the U.S. Navy which hired a drag queen, a man dressed as a woman, to recruit new sailors. It was a monumental flop—recruitment numbers are down.

Target got into the act by selling “tuck-friendly” swimwear—with “extra crotch coverage”—for men trying to pass as a woman. Ever since, they have been feeling the pinch of a boycott.

Muslims run the Michigan town of Hamtramck, and their city council has banned the LGBT pride flag, making the case that only the American flag should be flown.

The pushback against the Dodgers for honoring drag queens who mock Catholicism, which the Catholic League led, made international news. From all accounts, the message has been received.

Moreover, surveys show that most Americans do not believe men should be able to compete in women’s sports. They also oppose sex-reassignment surgery performed on children.

These are encouraging developments. The culture war is far from over.

Bill Donohue

If you asked 100 Catholics who Roger Haight is, less than one percent would know. That’s the way it should be. Truth to tell, the man is one of the most dishonored Catholic theologians in American history. That’s why he was the recent recipient of the most prestigious award given annually by the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA).

CTSA is to Catholic doctrine what the Flat Earth Society is to geography. More about them in a moment.

Roger Haight, like too many Jesuits, has a problem with fidelity. He was censured by the Vatican in 2004 for failing to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Sandro Magister, the renowned Italian journalist who has covered the Catholic Church for decades, succinctly explained why Haight was censured. It was due to “the loss of substance of key truths of the Christian faith like the preexistence of the Word, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the salvific value of the death of Jesus, the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and the Church, the resurrection of Jesus.”

Looks like Haight left nothing on the table. Had he worked at the New York Times and took a pro-life position, he would have been fired. But lucky for him he was just told to stop teaching theology.

Left-wing Catholics are very good at giving each other awards. In fact, they are masters of nepotism. So it was hardly surprising that CTSA would give its top award to Haight; he is a former president of the dissident organization. This kind of political stunt has a long history.

In 1969, CTSA elected Charles Curran president. Like Haight, his heretical views got him in big trouble. In 1997, the organization endorsed women priests. Some critics of CTSA, such as Catholic historian James Hitchcock, blame it for punishing orthodox Catholic faculty members.

Worse still is CTSA’s role in promoting the clergy sexual abuse scandal.

In the 1970s, it commissioned a book by Father Anthony Kosnik, Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, that was used in seminaries across the nation. Kosnik taught that homosexual acts were not intrinsically evil, arguing instead that they need “to be evaluated in terms of their relational significance.” In doing so, he rejected Catholic sexual ethics as it had been understood throughout the ages.

Kosnik even went so far as to question the validity of condemning bestiality, never mind homosexuality. Human sexuality, he said, should be “self-liberating” and “joyous.” He was as blunt as anything found in Playboy. “The importance of the erotic element, that is, instinctual desire for pleasure and gratification, deserves to be affirmed and encouraged.”

The book won first prize by the Catholic Press Association.

As I argued in The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse, a normal seminarian who read this stuff would not be enticed to molest a minor. But an abnormal one—and the seminaries were loaded with disordered men in the 1970s—would likely interpret what Kosnik said as a green light.

It was not priests who were sexually uptight who preyed on adolescents—it was priests who followed their libido, not their vows. CTSA should own up to its destructive role. Ditto for the National Catholic Reporter, which to this day praises guys like Kosnik and Haight.

Michael P. McDonald

At the end of 2022, Rep. Nancy Pelosi announced she would not seek a leadership position in the House Democratic Caucus, signaling she might retire soon. While we can only hope that such an ardent foe of Catholic teachings might bow out of national politics, unfortunately, those waiting in the wings to replace her are just as radical.

At the top of that list is California State Senator Scott Wiener. He has represented San Francisco and parts of San Mateo County since December 5, 2016. Wiener has garnered attention as an advocate for many progressive causes; however, what has brought him the most notoriety during his political career is his promotion of radical LGBT causes.

Wiener has a reputation for being an outspoken proponent of the most extreme LGBT positions. For instance, he condemned legislation in Texas that would make it illegal to take children to drag shows. Wiener tweeted that the bill had given him an idea of “offering Drag Queen 101 as part of the K-12 curriculum.”

It would be bad enough if Wiener’s support for radical LGBT causes was limited to public statements. Unfortunately, he has used his seat in the California Senate to craft legislation ensuring these causes are enshrined into law.

He drafted legislation that allows men in prison who self-identify as women to gain access to the women’s facilities. Since this bill became law on September 26, 2020, a number of women have been impregnated by men taking advantage of this law.

Wiener also sponsored legislation, which allows homosexual adult men not to register as a sex offender if they have relations with minors provided the ages of the victim and perpetrator are less than ten years apart, and the minors are older than 14. This also became law in 2020.

His biggest legislative victory for LGBT causes was his 2021 bill that made California a sanctuary state for sexually confused children and their abusive parents. When this became law in 2022, it essentially turned the Golden State into a destination for child mutilation.

Wiener is not only a supporter of radical LGBT causes, but he also flagrantly disregards parental rights.

For instance, in his legislation making California a sanctuary state for trans kids, he makes it clear if children run away to California because their parents do not support transgenderism then the state will not work to reunite the children with their parents.

Early this year, Wiener killed legislation that would require schools to notify parents in writing that their child has changed his gender identity.

However, his greatest assault on parental rights came when he amended legislation so that it would compel parents under the California Family Code to affirm their “child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.” If this legislation were to become law, parents who do not endorse this madness risk losing their children to state authorities.

In addition to these positions, Wiener is openly hostile to religion. He has long supported the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, one of the most virulent anti-Catholic groups among LGBT activists. He was highly supportive of the Los Angeles Dodgers reinviting the “Sisters” to the team’s “Pride Night” ceremonies. He went so far as to present the anti-Catholic bigots with an award at the State Capitol.

Wiener has additionally been extremely critical of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. On several occasions, he has lambasted Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco. He also blasted the Vatican for ruling that the Church could not bless same sex unions.

Wiener has even put his hatred of religion into legislation. In 2021, he introduced a bill that requires the University of California healthcare to break existing partnerships with hospitals, particularly Catholic ones, that refuse to provide elective abortions, sex reassignment surgeries and sterilizations.

While it is bad enough that he has inflicted his radical agenda on California, Wiener has started to lay the ground work to bring these policies to the national stage. In March of 2023, he announced that he formed an exploratory committee for the congressional seat currently held by Pelosi.

Given the hard left turn taken by the Democrats, Wiener could easily find himself in a prominent role within party leadership. In such a position, Wiener would be in a strong position to influence national policy. With Pelosi gone, we could be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

To read our full report on Scott Wiener, click here.

Bill Donohue

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment rights of a Colorado woman, Lorie Smith, must be respected when it comes to forcing her to express beliefs that are contrary to her conscience. This is a great victory for free speech and freedom of religion. Catholic League submitted an amicus brief in this case.

Our brief was prepared by Kathleen A. Gallagher and Russell D. Giancola of Gallagher Giancola LLC, a Pittsburgh-based law firm. They argued that “it is clear that the First Amendment provides dual protections for religious expression (or non-expression) in its guarantees of free speech and free religious exercise. This reality compels the conclusion that religious speech enjoys the highest constitutional protection.”

The judicial merits of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act were at stake. It would compel Smith to design a website that celebrates same-sex marriage. Smith had never refused to service anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, or any other demographic factor. But she drew a line when it came to compelling her to violate her Christian beliefs.

Smith was sincere. “As a Christian who believes that God gave me the creative gifts that are expressed through this business, I have always strived to honor him in how I operate. Because of my faith, however, I am selective about the messages that I create or promote.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the high court, said, “The First Amendment protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”

The decision rebuked the dissenters, saying that when someone’s speech is found objectionable, “the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment.”

We are delighted with this outcome, and we are just as delighted to have played a role in it.

Bill Donohue

More than 30 congressional Democrats who call themselves Catholic issued a robust defense of abortion-on-demand on June 24 claiming their position is entirely in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church. They know this is not true.

“The Statement of Principles,” led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade. The statement contains at least four egregious falsehoods.

First, the Democrats claim that in the Dobbs decision “the Justices stripped women of their right to abortion and escalated an ongoing reproductive healthcare crisis in this country.” That is a lie. The Supreme Court declared there was no federal right to abortion. It did not outlaw abortion in the United States; it left that decision up to the states.

Second, the Democrats are playing the typical pro-abortion game of interpreting survey data that validates their position. They claim that 68 percent of Catholics support “the legal protections for abortion access enshrined in Roe” and 63 percent “think abortion should be legal in most cases.”

A survey of Catholic voters taken a year ago by RealClear Opinion Research found that 82 percent support some restrictions on abortion. Roe effectively permitted abortion through term, and thus did not reflect the thinking of most Catholics, or, for that matter, most non-Catholics. In a Tarrance Group poll released a few weeks ago, 77 percent of all voters support at least some prohibitions on abortion.

Third, the Democrats falsely argue that their pro-abortion stance is consistent with the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on conscience rights. It is not. The statement quotes the Catechism as saying, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

That is a selective reading of paragraph 1790. The statement never mentions the next sentence: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” Shortly thereafter (1792), it explains that among the expressions of ignorance is an “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy” and a “rejection of the Church’s authority.”

And, of course, the pro-abortion Democrats did not quote what the Catechism says about abortion (2271). “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Fourth, the Democrats invoke “separation of church and state” by claiming that Catholics cannot “impose our religious beliefs and customs on others who may not share them.” That’s true, but it has nothing to do with abortion. Opposition to abortion is grounded in science, as well as in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It is science that tells us that human life begins at conception—at the very moment when the DNA that makes us unique individuals is present. Therefore, it is preposterous to assert that the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are identical to the scientific evidence, somehow violate the First Amendment.

It cannot go without saying that abortion is regarded by the Catholic Church as “intrinsically evil.” Now if self-described Catholics want to defend it, they should cease claiming that their position is authentically Catholic. It manifestly is not.

Contact: Becky Salay, chief of Staff to DeLauro: rebecca.salay@mail.house.gov

Bill Donohue

Rabbi Aryeh Spero passed away on June 25. I knew him for decades and consider him to be one of the most brilliant and bravest men I have ever known. Kind and thoughtful, he was a stalwart in the conservative movement. He was also a good friend of Catholics.

Aryeh was often called “America’s Rabbi.” He founded the Caucus For America, which is “dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the historic and unique American culture and civilization.” He was also the spokesman for the Conference of Jewish Affairs and was a founding Advisory Board Member of CASEPAC.

In 2015, Aryeh published Why Israel Matters to You, a fictional account of a young man who learned how important Israel is for every American. In 2012, he authored Push Back: Reclaiming the American Judeo-Christian Spirit, a work that astutely analyzed current conditions, offering cogent recommendations.

In 1979, he was the first rabbi to publicly endorse Ronald Reagan for president. In 2020, he offered his blessings to Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention.

As an Orthodox rabbi, Aryeh took great umbrage when a gay rabbi who claimed to be Orthodox held a same-sex ceremony in 2011. Aryeh was one of 100 distinguished Orthodox rabbis to register his objections.

Ever the activist, in 2019 Aryeh led a sit-in at Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office. He did so in response to Pelosi’s warm embrace of anti-Jewish Democrats, Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib. Pelosi had bowed to the two bigots by watering down a statement condemning anti-Semitism. Always fair-minded, Aryeh argued that it was hardly an expression of anti-Semitism to criticize George Soros, the atheist billionaire donor to left-wing causes.

Aryeh and I worked together on many campaigns. Whether it was condemning anti-American zealots, or those with an animus against Jews or Christians, he was always ready to join the next culture war battle. In 2014, we issued a joint statement supporting the NYPD and condemning anti-police agitators.

Like most who take their religion seriously, Aryeh was not offended by Christmas celebrations. Indeed, he loved them. In 2017, he blasted the ACLU, saying, “America needs Christmas as a public expression: not only for its magic and delight, but as a testament to the Judeo-Christian roots upon which this country was founded.”

When the media and many activists, including conservative Catholic notables, turned on innocent Catholic white boys from Covington Catholic High School, falsely portraying them as racists, Aryeh came to their defense. “This is a contrived and false episode pounced on by people who hate religious white Catholics and are always on the look-out to demonize Catholics. These people are bigots.”

In 2020, Aryeh and I released a statement to the media commenting on the decision by WarnerMedia to pull “Gone With the Wind” from its HBO Max package because of “racist depictions.” If it were opposed to “anti-Catholic depictions” as well, we said, “it would have shut down Bill Maher’s HBO show years ago.”

A man like Aryeh doesn’t come around too often. It was my pleasure to have known him. Our prayers are with him, his wife Beth, and their sons.

Bill Donohue

It is hard to say what motivates the Biden administration more: the radical LBGT agenda or abortion. Both are representative of the radical left’s obsession with sexuality—one queer, the other straight—and both are way out of touch with the sentiments of most Americans.

Saturday is the Women’s March. It has become an annual event run by people who cannot define who a woman is. So we really can’t be certain if real women, as opposed to men who pretend to be a woman, will be marching. After all, even the men will be wearing dresses. The march is about one goal: aborting children. More about the main event shortly.

On Thursday, June 22, the honor of celebrating abortion rights this year goes to the First Lady, Jill Biden. She is expected to put her Ed.D. to good work by deciding who should speak first (her degree, unlike a Ph.D., is in administration, not research).

On Friday, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will participate in an event that includes the Democratic National Committee and the nation’s largest pro-abortion organizations: EMILY’s List, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Harris will speak in North Carolina with Doug Emhoff, a person who identifies as a man, a.k.a. her husband.

These gatherings are a lead-up to the Women’s March, which this year centers on the Supreme Court decision that overruled Roe v. Wade last year. At the march on Saturday, all of the aforementioned organizations will be there, along with the ACLU (formerly a free speech organization) and others cut from the same cloth. They will walk from Union Station in Washington, D.C. to the Supreme Court.

It remains to be seen how the marchers will behave, but if the past is any guide, expect there to be trouble. These are usually hate-filled events.

The first Women’s March took place on January 20, 2017, the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. As I said at the time, “Some critics are calling this an anti-Trump rally.” I disagreed, saying, “It is a protest against the American people who voted for Donald Trump. In short, it is a protest against democracy.” At the march were ten organizations that have a history of promoting anti-Catholicism.

The Women’s March in 2018 gave due recognition to street walkers, or what the organizers called “sex workers.” It was reported by Yahoo that the focus was on “the rights of prostitutes, adult-film stars, strippers, and other sex workers as an issue.” Assumedly, that included pole dancers. News stories did not mention whether Hunter Biden was in attendance.

The 2019 march blew up when the anti-Jew crowd assembled. Hosting the likes of Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian Jew basher, and others—all of whom adore Louis Farrakhan, the black anti-Semitic bigot—forced EMILY’s List and the National Council of Jewish Women to bolt.

The 2020 Women’s March was aimed at Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. The women’s rights organizers took a page from the playbook of misogynists by making it clear that they would prefer a man who shared their position to a woman who did not. In fairness, the marchers wore face masks (it was during Covid), though they could have done a better job at social distancing (many were holding hands).

In 2021, coat hangers were all over the place. The organizers went on record saying there is nothing dangerous about women using coat hangers to rip their baby from their womb. “We do not want to accidentally reinforce the right wing talking points that self-managed abortions are dangerous, scary and harmful.” That should end the debate.

The violence that marks abortion also marked the Women’s March in 2022. There were actually two events—May 3 and May 14—and both were in reaction to the leak of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Pro-abortion protesters attacked the police in some cities, none worse than in Los Angeles: a bloody scene took place when cops were belted with rocks and bottles. “EAT THE FETUS” was scrawled on the stairs at LA City Hall.

Given the Women’s March penchant for vulgarity, bigotry, misogyny, and violence, this year’s event should be interesting to watch. Whoever chose the Biden administration to host this year’s celebration of abortion made a good choice—they have no rival.

Bill Donohue

We live in a postmodern world where people make up their own idea of truth. It’s delusional. People are entitled to their own opinion, but there is only one truth. And in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, I amassed over 800 footnote citations telling the truth about how the scandal unfolded. The role of homosexuals was central.

But living in a state of denial about this verity is commonplace, and not simply among secularists. High-ranking officials in the Catholic Church are just as guilty.

The National Catholic Reporter, which contributed to the scandal by giving succor to dissident and twisted seminarians and priests, published an article on this subject, trotting out all the old canards. It begins by quoting Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Parolin, who is not a social scientist, said to link homosexuality to clergy sexual abuse is a “serious and scientifically untenable association.” He said, “Homosexual orientation cannot be considered as either cause or aspect of the person.” He’s wrong.

There is a reason why the Catholic Catechism teaches that homosexual inclinations are “intrinsically disordered.” It does not say that about heterosexual inclinations, and that’s because men and women are naturally ordered toward each other. It is this attraction of people of the opposite sex that allows for procreation.

Does a homosexual inclination, or orientation, cause the sexual abuse of minors? Not directly. But then again mono-causality is an anomaly. Is there is a link between a homosexual orientation and the sexual abuse of minors? Of course. How else to explain why homosexuals are more likely to abuse minors than heterosexuals, in and out of the priesthood?

We know that 81 percent of the molestation of minors has been the result of priests hitting on adolescent boys (pedophilia is rare). The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which did two big studies on this issue, provided the data. The Reporter says that the researchers “found no correlation between homosexual identity and the sexual abuse of minors.” That’s correct. But that finding is next to meaningless.

Notice the key word “identity.” Now ask yourself, “If an adult man has sex with a postpubescent male—that is defined as homosexuality—why would it matter if he does not consider himself to be a homosexual?” His perception does not change objective reality.

To put it differently, if most of the priests who had sex with a male adolescent considered themselves to be straight, would that mean that the clergy sexual abuse scandal was driven by heterosexual priests? Only a fool would conclude as such.

Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna, who is also living in denial, is quoted as saying, “We don’t have categories of people. I would never dare to indicate a category as a category that has a tendency to sin.” This is nonsense.

Most street crime is committed by young men from fatherless homes. Fatherless homes are a category of people; not to discuss their role in accounting for violent crimes would be delinquent. Similarly, since homosexual priests commit most of the sexual abuse of minors, it would be delinquent not to discuss their role.

It was not very helpful of the Reporter to cite Pope Francis as being in their corner. Not quite.

If Pope Francis did not believe there was a link between a homosexual orientation and sexual molestation, why did he second the position of Pope Benedict XVI in barring men with “deeply-seated homosexual tendencies” from the priesthood? It’s because they are the problem, that’s why.

The pope has also spoken about the “gay mentality.” He doesn’t talk about the “heterosexual mentality.” He has repeatedly warned about the “gay movement” and the “gay lobby.” Every honest person knows why.

Similarly, when a bishop told the Holy Father that it was no big deal that several priests in his diocese were homosexuals—it was just an “expression of affection”—he strongly disagreed. “In the consecrated life and in the priestly life, there is no place for that kind of affection.” Well said.

If there is no direct cause between being a homosexual and molesting minors, why are homosexuals overrepresented in committing these crimes? Between the independent variable, being a homosexual, and the dependent variable, the molestation, there is an intermediate variable that explains the relationship: emotional and sexual immaturity.

We’ve known, at least since Freud, that many homosexual men are psychosexually stunted—they tap out in their adolescence—and it is this immaturity that attracts them to adolescents. Some, though not most, homosexual men express their immaturity by molesting minors. It is this that accounts for their role in the sexual abuse of minors.

We will never cure this curse in the Catholic Church unless we come to grips with the disastrous role that immature homosexual priests have played in generating the scandal. As Catholics, we are called to pursue the truth. It’s time more did so.