CBS, quite like the other broadcast networks, is not known for taking the side of the U.S. bishops. But now that Donald Trump is president, things are changing.

On the January 26 edition of the CBS show, “Face the Nation,” Margaret Brennan grilled Vice President J.D. Vance for being oppositional to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Clearly taking the side of the bishops, she pressed Vance, who is Catholic, on why the Trump administration would disagree with the bishops on the issue of sending law enforcement into schools and churches to round up illegal aliens who have committed violent crimes. Vance stood his ground, arguing that the roundup is exactly what the public wants Trump to do.

[Note: The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits anyone from knowingly harboring an undocumented immigrant “in any place, including any building.”]

We have been following CBS for decades, and this stance is certainly “breaking news” to us. We can’t remember when CBS has been so supportive of the bishops on any issue. But we do have a file on its Catholic-bashing reporting over the years.

More important, there is no record of Brennan, or any CBS journalists, ever trying to pin the Biden administration’s policies against the bishops, even though it was led by a “devout Catholic.”

Five months into Biden’s term, we issued a 12-page-report, “President Biden’s Policies: Departures From Catholic Teachings.” Our report of June 15, 2021, which listed one example after another, was sent to every bishop in the nation.

At the end of Biden’s term, when Vice President Kamala Harris was selected to challenge Trump, we issued a 22-page-report, “Harris and Trump On Religious Liberty,” comparing Trump’s first term to the Biden-Harris years. Released on May 2, 2024, we found that much of the Biden administration’s record was at odds with the policies of the bishops’ conference, yet the media were wholly disinterested in reporting on this.

Among the issues that the Biden team differed with the bishops were abortion; transgender policies; school choice; neutering faith-based programs; the Department of Justice probe of Catholics; singling out pro-life Catholics for breaking the FACE Act; forcing Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgery; and support for the Equality Act (which would gut religious liberty).

CBS showed no interest in doing a story on any of these policy differences.

In violation of a court order, someone leaked some 300 email exchanges between the New Orleans Saints and the Archdiocese of New Orleans that show how the football team provided public relations advice to the archdiocese on cases of priestly sexual abuse. The emails were given to the Associated Press, the New York Times and the Guardian; other media outlets now have them as well.

This is a story that is largely contrived. No charges of illegal behavior have been made by anyone against any party to this story. Moreover, it is hardly breaking news that elites in one sector of society offer advice to elites in another sector of society. So what gives?

Mark Florio of NBC Sports aptly notes that “it appears that the violation [of the court order] was conducted to create maximum embarrassment for the Saints. Strategically, it’s smart. The Saints are hosting the Super Bowl on Sunday. The Monday morning of Super Bowl week traditionally becomes a perfect spot to drop a nugget that will get attention, since it’s usually slow. Until, of course, the [NFL] Commissioner commences his annual Super Bowl press conference.”

Commissioner Roger Goodell has already downplayed this “story.”

It is well known in New Orleans that its owner, Gayle Benson, is a devout Catholic who is on good terms with New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond. Indeed, it was Aymond who introduced Benson to her husband; he has since passed away. So it is to be expected that friends would do what friends do, and offer advice on how to handle a problem.

What prompted the email exchange was a news story in 2018 about a deacon and schoolteacher who had been accused of sexual abuse and was removed from ministry in 1988, yet was still involved at a New Orleans church. When Aymond found out he said he was “utterly surprised and embarrassed.” It was then that Greg Bensel offered to provide “crisis communications” to the archdiocese; he is the Saints senior vice president of communications. Subsequently, a 2020 lawsuit revealed that the football team offered public relations advice to the archdiocese.

Most of the accusations are about offenses that took place decades ago. We know from the most authoritative sources that the overwhelming number of cases took place between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, and that the offenders are either dead or have been kicked out of the priesthood. There are almost no cases of abuse taking place today, whether it be in New Orleans or anywhere else.

It should also be noted that the Associated Press is wrong to report that the offending priests were pedophiles. They were not. Over 8-in-10 were homosexuals, men who had sex with postpubescent males. Only 3.8 percent were pedophiles. The data from researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice are conclusive.

The one outstanding question in this instance is whether some names of the accused that were released by the Archdiocese of New Orleans in 2018 were removed from the list. The New York Times says “it is not clear if names were actually removed from the list.” James Gulotta, a lawyer for the Saints, says no Saints employee was involved in creating the list.

The big media have no business feeling emboldened about this story. Their record of covering up sexual abuse crimes has been well detailed (see my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes). Take the New York Times.

In 2017, when four female journalists accused Times reporter Glenn Thrush of sexual misconduct, there was no independent investigation; the probe was done in-house. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the paper, decided his behavior did not deserve termination. Instead, Thrush was allowed to undergo counseling. He still writes for the Times.

Yet when the Catholic Church does not act with dispatch, the editorial board slams them.

The same year that accusations were made against Thrush, three women accused Michael Oreskes of sexual harassment. Two of the alleged incidents occurred in the 1990s, when Oreskes was the Washington, D.C. bureau chief. At the time, Jill Abramson, who would later become the executive editor for the Times, was deputy to Oreskes. She admitted that she knew of his alleged offenses but did nothing to stop them.

It should also be said that Protestant, Jewish and Muslim groups are not averse at seeking to access the PR services of blue chip firms. There is nothing wrong with any of this.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if the mainstream media did a story on how deeply involved local and state public officials are in working with public school officials in handling cases of sexual abuse in the schools? It is well known that the teachers unions generously grease the Democrats.
So if the “story” on the Saints and the New Orleans archdiocese merited the front page in the New York Times, below the fold, a story of this kind surely deserves an above the fold spot, if not a spread.

We don’t have to wait and see—it will never happen.

American culture is going through one of its periodic changes. One good change is the decision of corporations to drop their DEI policies. They are divisive and ineffective. Worse, they create a hostile environment for some workers, including Christians.

The Catholic League staff acquired the email addresses of the top officials in 552 companies listed by the Human Rights Campaign in its 2023-2024 “Corporate Equality Index” report; all have DEI policies. We wrote to all of them, asking the CEOs to follow the lead of some prominent corporations and abandon these policies. We cited research that proves what a disaster they are.

It is not enough for major changes to be made in the political arena. We need to make changes in the business community and in the culture as well.

DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies are dying. This became inevitable once the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions in 2023. Subsequently, the corporate elite began to reconsider the wisdom of keeping their DEI policies. Pressure from advocacy groups, such as the Catholic League, added to the momentum. Most important, President Trump is currently busy putting the final nails in the coffin.

Killing DEI is not enough. We need to know why these policies were implemented in the first place, and why they failed.

DEI was born of cultural Marxism, white guilt and elite cowardice.

Cultural Marxists believe that progress is best achieved by identifying the oppressors and the oppressed, and then establishing polices that punish the former and reward the latter. White heterosexual male Christians are the oppressors. The oppressed are their mirror opposite. In real life, this means that poor white guys from the hills of West Virginia are the bad guys, and rich black lesbians from Hollywood are the good guys.

This may sound unfair, but not to cultural Marxists. They know they are right because they can chart their taxonomy on the blackboard and in the corporate board room.

White guilt plays a major role. Now it is not normal for anyone to be ashamed, or feel guilty, about the color of his skin. Such a pathology must be taught. In this case, those who indoctrinate their subjects with white guilt are mostly wealthy white liberal parents, teachers and activists. It makes them feel virtuous to assume a high moral mantle upon which they can lecture.

Elite cowardice is also important. The ruling class is easily intimidated by current fashions, so much so that they would rather not confront cultural bullies before standing fast. Hence, the creation of DEI offices. The potentates decided that at least it keeps the barbarians at bay.

DEI was dead on arrival for a much more significant reason: America is not a racist country.

Indeed, there is no nation on earth where men and women of all races, ethnicities, religions, classes and sexual persuasions are able to climb the social mobility ladder easier and more quickly than in the USA. Migrants know this to be true—which is why they keep on coming—even if wealthy white liberals do not.

To see a real-life example of the almost total absence of racism, consider sports.

People of all races and ethnicities partake in collegiate and professional sports, and whenever a fight breaks out between opposing team players, the melee that ensues is purely along team lines, not racial lines. Black, white, Hispanic and Asian athletes rush to defend their teammates who get into a fight with the other team. We never see black guys from one team joining with black guys from the other team to beat up white players; the obverse is also true. Teams matter. Race does not.

Similarly, there is great camaraderie between team players of all races and ethnicities. Black and white players congratulate each other and support each other in a myriad of ways, both on and off the playing field. In many ways, they are a role model for those who want to envision what a post-racial, or color blind, society looks like.

Some years ago a friend of mine went to a Mets game and witnessed an unusual event.

Before the game began, a famous black player from the San Francisco Giants walked by two New York City policeman (one was white, the other black). The black cop asked the player to sign a mini baseball bat that he had. He did. Then the white cop asked him to do the same. He was told no. The black player explained that the black cop was his “brother.” The black cop quickly smashed the bat on the railing, breaking it in two. He pointed to his fellow officer and said to the player, “He’s my brother.”

Every decent person wants racial justice. But flawed policies that serve a noble cause are not virtuous, and when the outcome actually exacerbates matters, they must be condemned. In short, when it comes to behavioral outcomes, results matter more than intent.

On January 23, Bill Donohue wrote a letter to all Montana lawmakers protesting a bill that would vitiate the seal of the confessional. On January 29, the bill was tabled by the legislators. A more serious case then emerged in Washington. Below is an excerpt of Donohue’s letter to the state’s lawmakers.

The issue of the sexual abuse of minors is a serious one, and efforts to combat it are meritorious. But good intentions are not enough. Public policy must also be judged on what it yields. If it does not correct the problem, and indeed creates new ones, then it is flawed. This is true of Senate Bill 5375 and House Bill 1211.

These bills would remove the clergy exemption from reporting information about child abuse learned in the confessional. Not only would they do nothing to curtail child abuse, they would eviscerate the priest-penitent privilege.

State encroachment on religious liberty is proscribed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it must be weighed against the right of the state to protect children from abuse. Balancing these vital interests can be done. Indeed, it was done last year when a compromise was proposed: The priest-penitent privilege would remain, but if the priest learned that a child was in imminent danger, he had to contact the authorities. This bill passed in the Senate but languished in the House. Now the Senate is going along with the House version.

This begs a series of questions.

What broke? Where is the evidence that the compromised bill is inadequate? For that matter, where is the evidence that child molesters—in any state—report their crimes to priests in the confessional? We have been studying this issue for decades but we can’t name a single instance where this has happened. If any lawmaker has evidence to the contrary, you have an obligation to make it public. If not, what exactly are you trying to do?

Similarly, does any lawmaker really think that if priests have to choose between violating their vows and abiding by the strictures in this bill, they would choose the latter? If so, they need a reality check. A priest who breaks the seal of confession would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. They would rather go to jail before doing so.

State Sen. Noel Frame says she is sympathetic to religious lawmakers who have a hard time dealing with this issue, but she also knows that “far too many children have been victims of abuse—the Legislature has a duty to act.” She’s right.

This begs another round of questions.

What exactly have Washington lawmakers done about child sexual abuse? As a sociologist who has written a book on this subject, I can tell you that the most likely persons to abuse a child are live-in boyfriends. Has anyone done anything about this? What about the sexual abuse of minors in the public schools? Now there is a rich subject.

In 2022, under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights studied all 50 states and found that in 2017-2018, only three states had more sexual assaults per 1,000 students than Washington. When it comes to rape or attempted rape per 1,000 students, only six states had a worse record.

Last year the Seattle Public Schools agreed to pay $16 million to a former student who said that the district failed to protect her from being sexually assaulted by two coaches. How could this possibly happen?

Now we have learned that House Democrats have introduced a new bill that would withhold notifying parents about the sexual assault of their child in school for up to 48 hours. In doing so, this bill directly overturns a parental rights bill that the voters previously approved. Worse, these same lawmakers have taken steps to permanently negate the will of the people. What’s going on? There seems to be more interest in defending the rights of assailants than there is the welfare of the child or the rights of their parents.

Those who are lobbying to promote the House and Senate bills include the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The former is a shell of what it once was, having been shown by the courts to be a total fraud. The latter is one of the most anti-Catholic atheist organizations in the nation. So these are the kinds of people some lawmakers are listening to?

There is time to reconsider this bill. Please do so.

Bill Donohue

Having authored a Ph.D. dissertation, two books, and a monograph on the ACLU, I am convinced that most of its board members and senior officials harbor a deep animus against religion. Nothing bothers them more than Christianity, especially Catholicism. This is much more than a phobia: religion is seen as a threat to liberty.

Two recent cases demonstrate this verity.

The ACLU and the American Humanist Association are bent out of shape because a West Virginia agency, the state Water Authority, has authorized a grant to a Catholic school, the College of St. Joseph the Worker, in nearby Steubenville, Ohio. The purpose of the loan is to enable the college, which specializes in developing “a solid foundation in the skilled trades,” to provide for services, such as training tradesmen, that are consistent with the mission of the state agency.

The issue is whether this violates the West Virginia Constitution.

The ACLU says it does, saying that “to force the taxpayers of West Virginia to fund its [the college’s] mission is wholly inappropriate and unconstitutional.” Similarly, the American Humanist Association says that “no one should have to pay taxes to fund someone else’s religion.”

Case law makes it clear that religious institutions may receive public funds when the purpose is not to advance religion, but to provide for services that serve the public weal. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students who attended religious schools (in this instance they were Catholic schools) could receive public transportation without violating the Constitution. The high court ruled that the law had a “public purpose,” which was the safety of the students.

In the 1970s, the courts ruled that it was constitutional to provide religious schools with textbooks. Again, this served a public purpose. The courts, however, have been so inconsistent in their rulings in these matters that no wonder the ACLU exploits any opening it sees. For example, it is legal to give textbooks to Catholic schools but not maps. Incredulously, it was decided that the books serve the students but the maps serve the school. This led Daniel Patrick Moynihan to quip, “What about an atlas—a book of maps?”

The bottom line is: The West Virginia Water Authority is not funding religious instruction at the College of St. Joseph the Worker—it is funding secular services that have a public purpose. It has every right to do so.

In an even more bizarre case, the ACLU of Massachusetts is challenging a decision made by the mayor of Quincy to erect two statues of Catholic saints outside the Quincy Public Safety Building. Mayor Thomas Koch chose St. Florian and St. Michael the Archangel; they are the patron saints of firefighters and police officers, respectively. The ACLU says the two ten-foot-tall bronze statues violates separation of church and state.

The ACLU is well aware that religious statues adorn many buildings in the nation’s capital, including the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the Lincoln Memorial and other public buildings. Even in Massachusetts, the Boston Public Library features the outstanding work of John Singer Sargent: his religious murals, including  “Madonna of Sorrows,” are classic. At the State House there are statues and paintings of famous Christians, clergy and laity alike.

But none of this is enough to allay the fears of the ACLU. In fact, its objections to the statues make my case: religion drives the ACLU crazy.

In the ACLU’s letter to Mayor Koch and the Quincy City Council, it said that “we note that the contemplated statue of Saint Michael is not only troubling…it depicts a figure stepping on the neck of a demon. Such violent imagery is particularly abhorrent in light of the murder of George Floyd and other acts of police brutality throughout the country.”

In other words, the revered saint who battled Satan and who is known as the guardian prince of Israel—he stood ready to defend God’s chosen people—reminds the ACLU of a serial violent criminal who resisted arrest and was subdued by the cops; he had four times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. Maybe if Saint Michael had been depicted as engaging in dialogue with the Devil, instead of crushing his head, the ACLU would have applauded.

The ACLU’s idea of religious liberty is to allow Black Muslims in prison to huddle together “in prayer,” outside the purview of guards, so they can plan an insurrection. But when it comes to Christian iconography on public buildings, its tolerance for religious liberty runs out.

Furthermore, its idea of separation of church and state is so extreme that it not only opposes public funds to a Catholic entity that services a public  need, it has gone to court seeking to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exempt status.

It boils down to this. The Founders believed religious liberty was integral to the makings of a free society; the ACLU believes it impedes it.

Bill in the News (First Things): …. At the same time, Donohue is fully aware of the damage that the Charter’s implementation has wrought on Catholic priests in the United States: “The average detainee in Guantanamo Bay has more rights than the average accused priest in America does today.” READ MORE HERE

Bill Donohue

 [Note: We run this article each year in honor of St. Patrick]

The heroics of St. Patrick are not appreciated as much as they should be. He is the first person in history to publicly condemn slavery, and one of the first leaders to champion the cause of equal rights.

There is much to celebrate on March 17. Fortunately, his writings, though slim, are eye-opening accounts of his life: Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus and Confession reveal much about the man. Along with other sources, they paint a picture of his saintliness.

Patrick was born in Britain in the 4th century to wealthy parents. It is likely that he was baptized, though growing up he did not share his family’s faith. He was an atheist.

When he was 15, he committed what he said was a grave sin, never saying exactly what it was; it appears it was a sexual encounter with a young girl. No matter, it would haunt him throughout his life.

At age 15 or 16 (the accounts vary), Patrick was kidnapped and enslaved by Irish barbarians. They had come to plunder his family’s estate, and took him away in chains to Ireland. While a slave, he converted to Christianity, praying incessantly at all hours of the day. After six years, he escaped, and made his way back home.

His family thought he was dead, and with good reason: no one taken by Irish raiders had managed to escape and return. St. Patrick biographer Philip Freeman describes how his family received him, stating “it was as if a ghost had returned from the dead.”

After he returned home, he had a vision while sleeping. He felt called to return to Ireland. This seemed bizarre: this is where he was brutalized as a slave. But he knew what Jesus had commanded us to do, “Love thy enemy.” He was convinced that God was calling him to become a missionary to Ireland. So he acted on it, despite the reservations of family and friends.

Patrick became a priest, practiced celibacy, and was eventually named a bishop. Contrary to what many believe, he did not introduce Christianity to Ireland, nor was he Ireland’s first bishop. But he did more to bring the
Gospel to Ireland than anyone, converting legions of pagans, especially in the northern parts of the island.

His missionary work in Ireland has been duly noted, but his strong defense of human rights has not been given its due.

No public person before him had denounced slavery, widespread though it was. Jesus was silent on the subject, Aristotle thought it was a natural way of life, and neither master nor slave saw anything fundamentally wrong with it. Patrick did.

Though he did not invoke natural law specifically, he was instinctively drawn to it. He taught that all men were created equal in the eyes of God, and that the inherent dignity of everyone must be respected.

Patrick did more than preach—he lashed out at the British dictator, Coroticus, harshly rebuking him for his mistreatment of the Irish. In fact, Patrick found his Irish converts to be more civilized than Coroticus and his band of thugs.

Patrick was way ahead of his time in the pursuit of human rights. Not only were men of every social status entitled to equal rights, so were women. In his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, he scolds “the tyrant Coroticus—a man who has no respect for God or his priests.” More important, he made a startling plea: “They must also free Christian women and captives.” His reasoning showed the power of his faith when he said, “Remember, Christ died and was crucified for these people.”

He did not mince words. “So, Coroticus, you and your wicked servants, where do you think you will end up? You have treated baptized Christian women like prizes to be handed out, all for the sake of the here and now—this brief, fleeting world.”

What makes this all the more dramatic is the way the pagan world thought about women: the idea that women were equal to men was totally foreign to them. But the women understood what Patrick was saying, and gravitated to him in large numbers. The Christian tenet that all humans possess equal dignity had taken root.

Did the Irish save civilization, as Thomas Cahill maintains? Freeman thinks not—”it had never been lost.” But everyone agrees that had it not been for St. Patrick, and the monasteries that followed, much of what we know about the ancient world would not exist.

Indeed, it is difficult to fathom how classical Greek and Roman literature would have survived had it not been for the Irish monks who attracted students from many parts of Europe. They are responsible for preserving the great works of antiquity. And all of them are indebted to St. Patrick.

It is believed that he died on March 17, sometime during the second half of the fifth century. That is his feast day, the source of many celebrations in his honor. His impact extends beyond the Irish and the Catholic Church—human rights are a global issue—making him a very special person in world history.

Bill Donohue sent the following letter today to the parties noted.

March 14, 2025

Jelani Jefferson Exum
Dean, St. John’s Univ. School of Law
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, NY 11439

Dear Dean Jefferson Exum:

A recent incident was brought to my attention about the conduct of one of your law school students, Vishai Balani. He is alleged to have attacked Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, on X (since removed). On February 22, he said Dolan was “a bootlicking disgrace with your nose up Donald Trump’s ass.” He also used derogatory language to smear New York City Councilman Robert Holden and New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino. (See the enclosed.)

I have spent many years in higher education, and have written several books on civil liberties, so I am well aware that student speech is given wide protection. I am also aware that with liberties come responsibilities, and this is especially true of Catholic institutions of higher education.

St. John’s Law Mission Statement says the school strives to foster an “equitable” environment where “respect for the rights and dignity of every person” is maintained. The Student Code of Conduct proscribes  “verbal,” as well as “physical action,” saying they are “inconsistent with the Core Values of St. John’s University.”

Regarding the Core Values, the Code says that “Students are required to engage in responsible social conduct and to model good citizenship in any community. Students shall not engage in any conduct that reflects a failure to live up to the expectations of all St. John’s students.” It ends by being specific: “Any behavior (verbal, written or physical) that abuses, assails, intimidates, demeans, and/or victimizes.”

It seems plain that Vishai Balani has violated these norms. How you handle instances like this is not my business. But as president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, it is my business to combat attacks on individual Catholics and the institutional Church. Accordingly, I am asking that you take this situation seriously.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

cc: Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York
Fr. Brian Shanley, O.P. president of St. John’s Univ.
Jack Flynn, Director of Student Conduct
Councilman Robert Holden
Councilwoman Vickie Paladino

Bill Donohue

On March 28, a Kansas-based group, the Satanic Grotto, is planning to hold a “Black Mass” on grounds surrounding the Kansas State Capitol in Topeka. The event was originally scheduled to be held at the Statehouse, but Kansas Governor Laura Kelly succeeded in getting it moved outdoors.

She insists that she has “a duty to protect protesters’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, regardless of how offensive or distasteful I might find the content to be.” Not so fast.

The Satanic Grotto has admitted that the purpose of the “Black Mass” is to engage in blasphemy targeted at Catholics. On Facebook, it says, “We will be performing rites to the Black Mass and indulging in sacrilegious blaspheme [sic]. God will fall and Kansas will be embraced by the black flame of Lucifer.”

While it is true that blasphemy is generally seen as protected speech under the First Amendment, in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Chief Justice Warren Burger explicitly said that the Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility to all (my italics).”

Here’s where the “Black Mass” gets problematic.

Every Christmas season, the Catholic League receives a permit from the New York City Parks Department to display a nativity scene on public property. But not just any public property: we are allowed to do so because it is erected in Central Park. Central Park is considered a public forum, a place where freedom of expression carries no appearance of government endorsement.

Importantly, we do not apply for a right to display our crèche near City Hall, because to do so might give a reasonable person the impression that it has the tacit endorsement of government. This is the way the First Amendment is interpreted today.

Ergo, for the government of Kansas to allow an event on the grounds of the statehouse—the express purpose of which is to insult Catholics—might give the impression that it is endorsing this sacrilege. It would  therefore be party to the kind of “hostility” to religion that the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional.

The most practical way to handle this is to revoke the permit and allow the Satanic Grotto to reapply, choosing a public forum, not government property.

We are contacting the governor and all state lawmakers.

Contact the governor’s chief of staff, Will Lawrence: [email protected]