By Don Feder
Mazel Tov to the season to be jolly

This article originally appeared on, December 8, 2021 in the Washington Times.

I once interviewed Elyakim Haetzni, then a member of the Knesset, who told me that he always supported higher subsidies for religious education in Israel.

I was puzzled. “Elyakim, you said you’re an agnostic. Isn’t that a contradiction?” I asked. “Not at all,” he replied. “Even though I’m not a believer myself, I know that religion makes my country stronger.”

That’s how I feel about Christmas. I don’t celebrate the holiday, but I support its public celebration robustly. Christmas is something that brings us closer as a people.

This era is marked by relentless assaults on our institutions and traditions. Statues of historical figures as diverse as Stonewall Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt are removed from public display. At sports events, it’s become routine for players to refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Students are taught to hate America through critical race theory and other educational indoctrination. The Supreme Court is under attack by partisans who fear it will overturn Roe v. Wade.

As a Jew, I have no problem with Christmas trees in parks or nativity scenes in front of city hall, whether or not they’re camouflaged with Santas and snowmen. They are reminders of our religious heritage.

America was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. A majority of Americans are Christians, to one degree or another. Our institutions are based on an ethos derived from Sinai and Bethlehem. The Founding Fathers spoke of rights endowed by our Creator and dated the Constitution Anno Domini (in the year of our Lord) 1776.

That’s one of the things that makes the Left nervous about Christmas. It wants America to be a cosmopolitan land of rootlessness — united by nothing more than our location on the globe and a vague belief in democracy. That’s why it cheers the alien horde surging across our southern border and purging Christmas from the public square. Anything that disunites us is good in its eyes.

As much as the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, Christmas unites us as a people.

According to a 2017 Pew poll, roughly 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas — probably more than any other holiday, including Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July. In a way, that makes Christmas a national holiday.

Christmas has a venerable lineage. Although the custom of the gaily festooned tree only goes back to the 19th century, the gift-giving tradition is said to be inspired by the wise men who journeyed to Bethlehem. I give not because I want something in return but as an expression of love.

Besides generosity, one of the holiday’s chief appeals is hopefulness.

For North America, Christmas comes during a gloomy season that’s brightened by colorful decorations and colorfully wrapped presents.

Optimism is a uniquely American virtue. The settlers came here seeking opportunity. Regardless of their station at birth, America gave them a chance for a fresh start.

Like Hanukkah, Christmas urges us to have hope for the future. Even though things look bleak, God will make it turn out right in the end.

One of the most popular songs of the season, which came out during the depths of World War II, speaks to that. “Christmas Eve will find me where the love light gleams. I’ll be home for Christmas, if only in my dreams.”

With our economy in the doldrums, crime surging and enemies everywhere — like the Star of Bethlehem and the Hanukkah menorah — Christmas points the way to hope.

More than anything else that is what I wish for my country.

Don Feder is the communications director at the Ruth Institute and a good friend of Bill Donohue.

After Pope Francis and President Biden met recently, President Biden said that the pope called him a “good Catholic” and that he should “keep receiving communion.” The Vatican has not confirmed the veracity of Biden’s account.

Like everyone else, we at the Catholic League have no way of knowing whether Biden’s remarks are accurate. But from what we know about the Vatican’s handling of the meeting, and Biden’s long record of lying about many important matters, we are maintaining a healthy skepticism about the president’s rendition.

It is certainly in Biden’s interest to have everyone think that the pope encouraged him to keep receiving communion. This issue matters because it has troubled many American bishops; they met from November 15-18 to discuss it. Biden’s lust for abortion rights, for instance, is cause for grave concern.

One reason why we are skeptical of Biden’s account is that it seems to be at odds with the Vatican’s decision to deny media press coverage of the meeting. The White House was banking on a photo-op, knowing that the optics would serve the president’s interests. But they were stiffed the day before the meeting.

If it is reasonable to conclude that the Vatican did not want the appearance of being played by the White House—sending the message that this pro-abortion Catholic president is a model Catholic—then it appears contradictory to laud his Catholic credentials. More important, why would the pope inject himself into the controversy between U.S. bishops and the president, knowing that by doing so he would undercut the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)?

Then there is the issue of lying. That Biden is a pathological liar cannot be denied. Here are a few instances.

The first example looks like small potatoes, but when coupled with the other examples, it takes on significance.

In 1974, when Biden was a freshman senator from Delaware, he bragged how he hit a ball 358 feet at his second congressional baseball game on July 2nd. In fact, he went 0-for-2.

The year 1987 was not a good one for the presidential hopeful. David Greenberg, writing in Slate, a left-wing media outlet, recalled how Biden plagiarized a speech given by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

“Biden lifted Kinnock’s precise turns of phrase and his sequences of ideas—a degree of plagiarism that would disqualify any student for failure, if not expulsion from school. But the even greater sin was to borrow biographical facts from Kinnock that, although true about Kinnock, didn’t apply to Biden. Unlike Neil Kinnock, Biden wasn’t the first person in his family history to attend college, as he asserted; nor were his ancestors coal miners, as he claimed when he used Kinnock’s words.”

This was just the beginning of Biden’s lies. It was later revealed that he plagiarized from speeches given by Robert F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. The next day he admitted to telling more lies. He confessed to receiving an “F” in a law school course because he plagiarized five pages from a published article.

According to the Washington Post, Biden also told several lies about his academic credentials. He said that he graduated with “three degrees” from the University of Delaware. Wrong. He graduated with one degree. He said he won a coveted political science award at the university. He lied. He said he graduated at the top of his class at Syracuse Law School. He did not. He was 76th in a class of 85. He said he had a “full scholarship” at Syracuse. Another lie. He had a half scholarship.

Shaun King, an African American writer and civil rights activist, has tracked Biden’s civil rights record. Here is what he wrote last year about this issue.

“On two very important occasions, Joe Biden actually told the entire truth about his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. Nearly everything else has been a lie. I’ve counted at least 31 different lies he has told about being an activist, organizer, sit-in demonstrator, boycott leader, voter registration volunteer, Black church trainee and more in the Civil Rights Movement, but every time I dig, I actually find more interviews, more lies, more fabrications, more tales he told to voters, reporters, historians, and more (his emphasis).”

When an anti-Semite attacked the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, leaving 12 dead, Biden claimed he later visited the synagogue, saying he spoke to the people there. He lied. He was never there, as officials at the synagogue recounted.

In his first 100 days in office, the Washington Post listed 78 false or misleading statements he made.

Recently, several high ranking military officials said that Biden’s rendition of the advice they had given him on withdrawing from Afghanistan was patently untrue.

It is for these reasons that we are skeptical of Biden’s account of what the pope said to him at their meeting.

Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez is under attack by left-wing Catholics and outside activists for his stellar speech given in Spain on November 4th. They are particularly angered over his comments on contemporary social justice movements, which he properly labeled as “pseudo-religions.”

The petition portrays Gomez as being somehow indifferent to racial injustice. That is a lie. He has been an outspoken champion of racial equality; it’s just that he doesn’t toe the line as set by those who have a larger agenda.

What is really getting to these activists is Gomez’s appreciation for how Marxist-inspired movements wreak havoc, without doing anything positive for the dispossessed.

Anyone is free to disagree with Gomez’s address, but there is something unseemly about left-wing organizations launching a petition drive against him. Gomez, who is president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, should be commended, not condemned, for his courage to speak the truth.

Those who started the petition, Faith in Public Life and Faithful America, have both received funding from George Soros, the atheist billionaire who hates the Catholic Church. The former is a front group for agenda-ridden zealots; the latter is run by a rogue Episcopalian priest who mettles in the Church’s affairs.

We rallied our email subscribers to support Archbishop Gomez.

Many Catholics were dismayed, if not furious, when they learned of news reports indicating that Pope Francis told President Biden on October 29 that he was “a good Catholic” and “should keep receiving Communion.” The Vatican has neither confirmed nor denied this account. As we said when the news broke, we have good reasons to be skeptical of Biden’s rendition.

After taking another look at this issue, examining the exact words used by Biden—not relying on media interpretations of what he said—our skepticism is growing. The president was asked about this matter at two press conferences: one on October 29, and the other on October 31.

On October 29, Biden was asked, “Mr. President, did the issue of abortion come up at all?” The first words out of his mouth were, “No, it didn’t.” Then he contradicted himself saying, “It came up.” So which account is true?

After Biden said, “It came up,” he then said what the media widely reported. “We just talked about the fact that he was happy I was a good Catholic and I should keep receiving Communion.”

If the first version is right—abortion never came up for discussion—then it seems peculiar, to say the least, for the pope to tell him he should “keep receiving Communion.” What would be the context for such a statement, if not abortion? After all, the entire controversy is about Biden’s pro-abortion record, so it is hard to imagine the pope imploring him to “keep receiving Communion” absent any discussion of abortion. Are we to believe he said this out of the blue?

If abortion did come up, what did the pope say to him about it? Just recently Pope Francis said that “abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill.” Such an unequivocal remark suggests it is unlikely that the pope would discuss abortion without talking about it in such graphic terms. That would surely have made Biden uneasy, yet he did not appear to be that way when he spoke.

At the same press conference, Biden was asked, “Did you discuss the U.S. Conference of Bishops?” He answered, “That’s a private conversation.” This begs the question: Why would a discussion of the bishops’ conference be considered a private matter but not a conversation that affects him personally, namely his suitability to receive Communion?

It is entirely possible that Biden is lying.

After admitting that abortion never came up, he quickly pivoted. Why? Because he saw an opening, an opportunity to report to the press the most important thing he wanted from the pope—a chance to undercut those U.S. bishops who are deeply troubled about his pro-abortion record (they met from November 15-18 to discuss this subject). Having been denied the photo-op the White House desperately wanted, he needed to come away with something that served his interest. The Communion issue had to be in the forefront of his mind.

At the October 31st press conference, Biden was asked, “For these Catholics back home, what did it mean for you to hear Pope Francis, in the wake of this—in the middle of this debate, call you a good Catholic? And what did he tell you—should that put this debate to rest?”

“Look, I’m—I’m not going to—a lot of this is just personal,” Biden said.

But it wasn’t personal just two days earlier. In fact, he showed no hesitancy in getting the word out that the pope regarded him as such a good Catholic that he allegedly encouraged him to “keep receiving Communion.” What changed? Could it be that the Vatican contacted the Biden team and asked them to quash this issue, knowing that Biden’s account was not accurate?

Our incurious media are not asking these questions. That’s because they want to protect the pope and the president, both of whom they like.

There are too many unanswered questions to put this matter to rest. The unwillingness of the Vatican to either confirm or deny Biden’s account, and Biden’s inconsistent and implausible responses—only adds to the problem. Both sides do not look good.

In Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special “The Closer” he says “Gender is a fact. Every human being in this room, every human being on earth, had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on earth. That is a fact.” Chappelle is twice wrong, but that should not distract us from what he meant.

[What he is describing is not gender, which refers to socially learned roles appropriate for males and females, but sex. Ergo, it would be more accurate to say, “sex is a fact.” Also, some babies are born of a Cesarean section.]

Leaving aside linguistic technicalities, what Chappelle said is not only inoffensive, it is pedestrian. But in today’s world, where certain protected classes of people demand that the rest of us walk on eggshells—making sure we don’t offend their hyperinflated sensibilities—what he said has been roundly condemned as hate speech by LGBTQ purists and their ilk.

In other words, Chappelle is right to stick to his guns and not bow to their twisted understanding of sex. Sex is determined by nature, and nature’s God, and not by some ideological guru who insists that nature does not exist. News flash: The entire world is not a social construction.
GLAAD, the homosexual organization, is very upset with Chappelle. It declared that his “brand has become synonymous with ridiculing trans people and other marginalized communities.” The Human Rights Campaign, another homosexual outfit, told Chappelle that “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary.”

Netflix transgender staff members were so angered by what Chappelle said that they staged a walk out. They also drew up a list of demands they want the top brass to honor. Essentially, they want an end to any jokes that might offend them, which means they don’t ever want to be the butt of jokes again, not by Chappelle, not by anyone.

Netflix executive producer Jaclyn Moore quit her job after Chappelle’s special, “The Closer,” aired. “I won’t work for @netflix again as long as they keep promoting and profiting from dangerous transphobic content.” Meanwhile, the comedian Jaye McBride accused Chappelle of “punching down” with “mean” remarks. Additionally, Alyssa Milano said, “it is really important to hold people accountable.” and by that she meant that Netflix should discontinue Chappelle’s “hate speech” special.

None of these organizations and individuals should be taken seriously.

They’re all phonies. Their interest in objecting to bigotry never seems to include Catholics.

GLAAD has been bashing the Catholic Church for years. When Pope Francis came to the U.S. in 2015, it issued a “papal guidebook” advising the media on how to treat him and what words they should adopt, all of which were contentious. Whenever a parish or diocese seeks to operationalize Catholic teachings that it disapproves of, it slams the Church as bigoted. It has sought to cancel Bill Donohue on TV, and has given awards to patently anti-Catholic plays.

Human Rights Campaign has a “Catholic initiative” that, among other things, monitors Catholic schools that do not accept its idea of marriage. For example, when a Catholic teacher “marries” someone of the same sex, in clear violation of a contract he or she voluntarily signed, and is then terminated for doing so, it registers its outrage.

Moore likes to tweet about “pedo priests,” thus smearing all priests because of the behavior of a few miscreants. McBride has made many similar comments. Milano has overtly denounced her Catholic upbringing, explaining that her two abortions were “something that I needed.”

Netflix is also duplicitous. Its co-chief executive, Ted Sarandos, says the company is standing by its big investment in Chappelle—he is their long-time prize comedian—arguing that “The Closer” did not cross the line by inciting “hate or violence.” He is right about that, but there is more to this account.

In 2017, Netflix aired “F is for Family.” Episode One featured a husband who had just reconciled with his wife, thanks to Father Pat. He is shown pulling a crucifix out of his pocket, asking the Lord for strength while chanting, “vagina, vagina, vagina.” Episode Six showed their son masturbating while staring at a candle with an image of Our Blessed Mother. Further, Episode Nine depicted the priest—who of course is a homosexual—fondling Jesus’ body on a crucifix, saying, “Oh, you’ve got a swimmer’s body.”

Now Sarandos may not consider these scenes to be hate speech, however, many practicing Catholics would beg to differ.

Just last year Netflix aired “Cuties,” a soft-core child porn film. Critics hammered it for normalizing pedophilia. For instance, it showed a pre-teen girl taking pictures of her private parts before publishing them online.

This is not hate speech, but it is certainly irresponsible and exploitative, inviting sick men to practice their trade.

So what’s the answer? We need to lighten up, while also treating every segment of the population the same. Most of us know the difference between cracking a joke that stings and one that is patently offensive. No, not everything goes, but whatever the standard is must be uniformly applied.

Kudos to Chappelle for standing up to the sexually confused, especially the bullies among them.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who identifies as a Catholic, has yet to find an abortion he couldn’t justify. That is why his bishop, Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, recently said he will be denied Holy Communion in his diocese. Durbin was incensed.

He complained that “Other Catholics may share my point of view [on abortion]—statistics suggest they probably do—but they show up to Communion every week without any questions asked.” He added that “with very few exceptions, Communion is offered to anybody if the person believes that they [sic] are worthy of it.”

Durbin is right about the latter comment. Very few Catholics are denied Communion, but what he failed to say is that he is one of them. In 2004 he was denied Communion by Monsignor (now a bishop) Kevin Vann of Blessed Sacrament Church in Springfield.

So yes, Durbin is unique. Where he is wrong is in his assertion that he is just like those Catholics who voted for him and go to Communion without this being an issue.

Here is what the U.S. bishops have said about this matter. “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion…if the voter’s intent is to support that position.”

In other words, Catholics who vote for a pro-abortion politician because they like his pro-union record, or his position on other issues, are not “guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.”

Durbin is wrong to conflate his status as a senator—someone who votes on pro-abortion bills—with those Catholics who vote for him for reasons other than his support for abortion rights. In fact, the Catholic Church is very specific about the difference.

On November 24, 2002, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life.” Part II, Sec. 4, reads, “John Paul II…has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life (italics in the original).”

Congress is a lawmaking body and Durbin is a member of it. He is not analogous to a blue-collar guy who votes for him despite his lust for abortion. Therefore, he merits disparate treatment.

In the name of helping families, President Biden wants to reward many of those who broke into our country illegally by making them millionaires. However, American families that are living here legally and elect to place their children in religious child care centers have to wing it on their own.

On October 31, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked President Biden “Is it true we’re going to give $450,000 to border crossers who are separated?” Biden simply looked away and scratched his head.

On November 3, Doocy said to the president that news reports were surfacing that “your administration is planning to pay illegal immigrants who are separated from their families at the border up to $450,000 each, possibly a million dollars per family. Do you think that might incentivize more people to come over illegally?”

Biden took umbrage at Doocy’s comment, accusing Fox News of “sending that garbage out,” adding that “it is not true.” After rhetorically raising the question that Doocy asked, he flatly said, “That’s not going to happen.”

What Biden calls “garbage,” however, is the official policy of his administration. It’s just that he was the last to find out. Now, like the obedient soul he is, he’s on board.

On November 4, Doocy asked Karine Jean-Pierre, Deputy White House press secretary, about the $450,000 prize for illegal aliens. She said the president was “perfectly comfortable” with that decision. Doocy then asked, “what changed, from yesterday” when Biden said, “That’s not going to happen?” She skirted his question, choosing instead to blame Trump for creating this problem.

Biden’s professed interest in child care is well documented. Speaking of his big social spending bill, he said in August, “Child care is personal to me—that’s why I’ve put it front and center in my Build Back Better Agenda.” On October 26, he said of this bill, “Every American family deserves access to high quality, affordable child care.” This is a lie.

On pp. 1399-1400 of the 2,468 page Build Back Better Act, H.R. 5376, it addresses child care for religious entities. “A recipient of funds under this subsection may not use the funds for modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities that are primarily used for sectarian instruction or religious worship or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”

In other words, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Mormons who place their children in a child care center of their faith are not entitled to any assistance.

Due to pressure from religious organizations, it appeared likely that the wording of the bill would be changed to include them. Even so, we know that Biden wanted to exclude them.

The bottom line is clear. Bust into our country illegally and you stand to become a millionaire. Put your kid in a religious child care center, and you’re on your own. This is the face of social justice, Biden style.

The validity of a survey often turns on the precise wording of questions. Indeed, it is possible to construct two different sets of questions for the same respondents on the same subject and generate two different outcomes.

For instance, if the goal is to show how tolerant liberals are of diversity in education, it makes sense to ask questions about the demographic makeup of the faculty. If the goal is to show how intolerant liberals are of diversity in education, it makes sense to ask questions about the ideological makeup of the faculty.

If the survey was honest, it would include both sets of questions, then asking, which should matter more in higher education—the demographic or ideological diversity of the faculty?

The Pew survey, “In U.S., Far More Support Than Oppose Separation of Church and State,” is skewed to make liberals look more tolerant than conservatives.

For example, respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Cities and towns in the U.S. should be allowed to place religious symbols on public property OR Cities and towns in the U.S. should keep religious symbols off public property.”

The questions are disingenuous. It is illegal for cities or towns to place religious symbols on some public property venues, but not others, and it matters whether the municipality owns the symbols or whether some religious entity does. It may also matter whether the religious symbols have to be surrounded by secular symbols.

For instance, if the site of the religious symbol is near the seat of government, such as inside or outside city hall, they can only be erected if adorned by secular symbols. Why? Because otherwise the average person could conclude that the government is endorsing religion. If, however, the site is a public forum—a place such as a city park where freedom of speech is open to everyone—then no secular symbols need to be placed near the religious ones.

In other words, by asking whether a government agency can place religious symbols on public property, the question is skewed against doing so (even so, 39% said yes and 35% said no). It would have been more enlightening to ask whether private citizens should be allowed to place religious symbols on public property, especially in venues that are open to everyone.

Similarly, respondents were asked if teachers in public schools should be allowed to lead students in Christian prayers. This is a seriously skewed question.

By law, teachers cannot lead students in prayer, but it is legal for students to lead other students in prayer on school grounds. That, of course, was not what was asked. Also, there was no need to inject Christianity into the debate. Respondents could have been asked if they think teachers should allow students to open the day with a prayer (of their choosing). But that would get in the way of the narrative.

As always, Democrats, Jews and those with no religious affiliation are the least likely to support the public expression of religion (atheists are the most hostile); Republicans and Christians are the most likely to support it. The survey authors, of course, do not use terms such as “the public expression of religion”; they prefer phrases such as “separation of church and state.”

The term “separation of church and state” is itself in need of explaining. Religious bodies are given federal funds to run their charities. Is that a violation of church and state lines, and should that be illegal?

Pew says it is grateful to Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry, the authors of Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, for their input. It certainly shows.
Bill Donohue wrote about their book in the October issue of Catalyst. He has something in common with these men: He’s also a sociologist. However, Donohue sees the world through an entirely different lens.

To cite one example, they argue that if someone believes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are divinely inspired documents, that proves they are Christian nationalists. Tagging such people with this pernicious term is simply irresponsible. Indeed, it evinces an animus.

Pew has done very fine work, overall. This survey is not among its best.

The IRS has guidelines that tax-exempt organizations must follow regarding electoral politics. While those who work in the non-profit sector may address the issues, they are forbidden from endorsing candidates for public office.

No matter, Vice President Kamala Harris showed her contempt for these norms during the run-up to the November elections. She had videotaped a series of addresses endorsing Virginia gubernatorial Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe, using 300 black churches as her platform. Thus did she technically put these churches in jeopardy of losing their tax-exempt status.

The vice president did not mince words. “I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment.” After telling the congregations how to join his campaign, she said, “So please vote, Virginia. And elect Terry McAuliffe as your next governor.” It doesn’t get much more brazen than that.

Law professor Jonathan Turley also did not mince words. “If the White House participated in this plan to have direct politicking, they would have assisted in that violation. Now that puts them in a rather awkward position since their administration has to enforce this very rule.”

If Vice President Mike Pence had released videos to evangelical churches in the South last year urging voters to reelect Donald Trump, the Democrats would have gone crazy, no doubt launching another investigation, and the media would have been cheering them on from the get-go.

Though no one will say it, what Harris did was racist. Her choice of running the ads in black churches was exploitative—she knew she could get away with it—yet she cared not a whit if this triggered an IRS probe. She wasn’t going to get into trouble, and that is all that mattered to her.

Halloween is a time when children dress up as monsters and witches. It’s also a time when some adults get dressed up, but, unlike the children, they actually think they’ve adopted a new identity. To wit: CNN did a story about German Catholic women who dress up as priests and sincerely believe they’ve become members of the clergy.

As always, the wannabe priests are senior citizens. CNN described the protesters as “mostly gray-haired women.” At a rally, they were “singing along—at full pelt.” The protesting malcontents held signs, “Women, what are you waiting for?”

They are a rather motley crew. “Almost everyone is wearing a rainbow mask. One woman dressed as a clown sends a stream of giant bubbles into the air.” This isn’t a playground for pre-school kids—it’s a demonstration conducted by adult women.

No matter, CNN takes them seriously. It says they want to “modernize” the German Catholic Church. Indeed, it says these “feminists [are] trying to save the Catholic Church.” Save it or kill it?

CNN is badly informed. The data convincingly show that the more “modern” a religious body is, the more likely it is to wither and die. It is not the orthodox religious dioceses and orders of priests and nuns that are dying—it’s the more “relevant” among them. Indeed, the German Catholic Church is in trouble precisely because it is the most “modern” Catholic entity in Europe, if not the world. Ditto for its Protestant brothers.

A majority of Germans identify as either Catholic (22.6 million) or Protestant (20.7 million). While only 10 percent of Catholics attend church on Sunday, the figure for Protestants is barely 3 percent. In 2019, 272,000 Catholics left the Church; the number of Protestants who fled was proportionately greater, 270,000. Similarly, a Pew survey on this issue, published in 2019, found that “Germany’s share of Protestants has decreased at a faster rate than Catholics.”

The same pattern is also found in the U.S. In fact, the divide between the orthodox and the heterodox is evident across religions. It’s the mainline Protestant denominations that have witnessed the greatest decline, not the evangelical and fundamentalist communities. Orthodox Jews are growing; this is not true of Conservative and Reform Jews. In short, the more a major religion succumbs to the dominant culture, the more irrelevant it becomes to its flock.

It’s not hard to figure out. Why would a young Catholic girl, for instance, consider joining an order of nuns that is largely indistinguishable in dress, living arrangements and work from her friends who are married with a family? In other words, the more trendy a religion is, the less special it becomes.

CNN wrote this piece for one reason: it wants women priests. To that end, it wants to convince the public that the time has come for the Church to change. It could have done a similar story on the Mormons, the Orthodox churches, Orthodox Judaism, the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, Islam, and the Southern Baptist Convention—they all have an all-male clergy—but the big fish to fry is the Catholic Church.

This kind of media manipulation is not lost on most Americans. It explains why so many of them hold the profession of journalism in such low regard. They never seem to learn.