Bill Donohue

On June 14, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a report on boarding schools for Native American children, some of which were run by the Catholic Church. From 1869 to the 1960s, the government removed thousands of these children from tribal lands and placed them in boarding schools. The express purpose was to assimilate them into American society.

There were more than 500 of these schools, more than 80 of which (16 percent) were Catholic-run. According to an investigation by the Washington Post (WaPo) at least 122 priests, sisters and brothers who were assigned to these schools were later accused of sexually abusing these children.

The report by the USCCB and the report issued by the Washington Post agree on some matters but differ on others. The bishops’ report includes an apology for inflicting a “history of trauma” on Native Americans, but the findings of the newspaper’s probe are much more critical.

The WaPo report was based in interviews with more than two dozen Indian board school attendees who claimed they were abused physically, sexually or emotionally in these boarding schools, three-fourths of which were run by the government. Oral histories, court documents, lawsuits, diaries, correspondence and the like were examined.

WaPo says it relied on information taken from the ProPublica database. This is the same organization that was mentioned by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito when he was setup by a left-wing woman posing as a conservative; she surreptitiously taped him. He named ProPublica as the source of the hit jobs, mentioning their efforts to smear his Catholic colleague, Clarence Thomas.

I have had my own problems with ProPublica. In 2020, it issued a report, jointly done with the Houston Chronicle, that contended that the Catholic Church did not keep tabs on priests that it threw out of the priesthood. Guilty as charged! As I said at the time, neither does the media or any other organization. So what? Perhaps ProPublica expects the Church to stalk its dismissed employees.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say the methodology is acceptable. What exactly did WaPo find? Serious questions are extant.

The report cites a Department of Interior report from 2022 that investigated conditions in government-run boarding schools; it did not probe the ones operated by the Catholic Church. That report mentioned the word “Catholic” twice, both times in passing, having nothing to do with abuse.

More important, the timeline of the investigation under review extends back to 1869, so the kind of record keeping that lends itself to conclusive results is simply impossible. The WaPo report, which claims “pervasive” abuse in Catholic-run boarding schools, readily confesses that “lists of accused priests are inconsistent and incomplete, and many survivors have not come forward. Others are aging and in poor health, or, like their abusers, have died.”

Instead of admitting that this is a clear shortcoming, the journalists conclude this means that “the extent of the abuse was probably far worse.” Really? Let’s face it—they could have come to a very different conclusion. Precisely because the record-keeping was found wanting, it is hard to know the truth. It is even possible that good data would reveal how small this problem was. But such considerations would have gotten in the way of their narrative.

WaPo cites Rev. Mike Carson, who worked on this issue for the bishops, and he “also noted a likely dearth or records.” Similarly, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland acknowledges that given the situation, “I doubt that you could find a lot of Catholic records or federal government records about abuse and neglect toward the students.” Even in cases where, for example, the Jesuits kept tabs on alleged cases of abuse, WaPo quotes them as saying the list “does not imply the claims are true and correct or that the accused individual has been found guilty of a crime or liable for civil claims.”

There are other problems that should have given the journalists pause. In several parts of the report, they admit that the alleged victims whom they spoke to “kept secret” what happened. That being the case, how can Church officials be blamed? Indeed, after detailing one case of alleged abuse, they write that “It is unclear whether church officials were aware of the abuse at St. Mary’s at the time.”

Then there is the issue of the accused denying that they committed the offense. For instance, Sr. Sigfrieda Hettinger denied in 2015 that she  abused a boy decades ago. “I loved them all. I never hurt them at all. I never touched them at all.” She died in 2016 at age 87. Was she telling the truth or lying? We don’t know. But in such cases, fairness dictates that we have to assume she was innocent.

There is another issue that needs to be addressed, one that is not discussed by the WaPo authors. They cite a Jesuit priest, Rev. Edmund J. Robinson, who was a serial offender. Could it be that a small number of priests were responsible for a disproportionate number of cases?

We know from the John Jay studies on this issue nationwide that between 1950 and 2002, 149 priests (3.3 percent) who had more than ten allegations of abuse were responsible for abusing 2,960 victims, thus accounting for 26 percent of all the allegations. As I said in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, this means that “a very small percentage of accused priests are responsible for a substantial percentage of the allegations.”

The same may be true in the case of the Indian boarding school story.

Moreover, WaPo journalists offer no comment on something that should have concerned them. Why is it that when the federal government commissioned a study of this issue in 1928, this report “chastised the schools for the mistreatment and malnourishment of students,” but never said a word about physical or sexual abuse? Was it a cover up? Or was there nothing to report? It seems plausible that a probe that took notice of “mistreatment” would have cited serious cases of abuse.

The credibility of the WaPo authors is seriously undermined by their decision to cite the Catholic Church’s legacy of abuse in Canadian boarding schools for indigenous peoples. That story has positively been proven to be a hoax. It does not help their cause to say that Pope Francis apologized for what happened—he did so before the story was proven false.

In 2021, the Catholic Church was accused of creating “mass graves” for indigenous children in the residential schools. But it didn’t take long before it was totally debunked. In 2022, Jacques Rouillard, professor emeritus in the Department of History at the University of Montreal, questioned, “After seven months of recrimination and denunciation, where are the remains of the children buried in the Kamloops Indian Residential School?”

A second round of accusations emerged in the summer of 2023 when excavations of the “mass grave” began. In August, the National Post reported that “No evidence of human remains has been found during the excavation of a Catholic church basement on the site of a former Manitoba residential school.” Again, the body count was zero.

There is also the matter of the scope of the WaPo investigation. Why didn’t they investigate the boarding schools run by the government? After all, they operated most of them. Are they content to rely on the Department of Interior study? Similarly, they mention that several Protestant denominations also operated these schools. Why were none of them probed?

As I have pointed out many times, wherever adults regularly interact with minors, unfortunately we find abuse. So why is it that time and again, the public schools get a pass, Hollywood gets a pass, etc.? Why is it always the Catholic Church that is the source of investigation? Isn’t this religious profiling? And wouldn’t that suggest that bigotry is at work?

By contrast, the USCCB report has two mentions of “violence” and six mentions of “abuse,” but none have anything to do with wrongdoing on the part of the Church.

The bishops’ report rightfully cites heroes such as Dominican Fr. Bartolomé de Las Casas, the sixteenth century defender of human rights for Indians, and St. Junípero Serra, the eighteenth century missionary who was canonized by Pope Francis for his courage in calling out colonizers for their mistreatment of Native Americans.

There is not a single person, from any other religion, who did more to champion the rights of Indians than these two priests.

The bishops’ report does not sanitize anything. It admits that many Native Americans feel abandoned by the Church, citing a “lack of understanding of their unique cultural needs.” Hence, the apology. But the report also notes the “joy,” as well as the “sorrow,” that so many experienced. It also makes note of the many wonderful priests and nuns who did yeoman work among indigenous Catholics.

The motive to assimilate Native Americans was noble, though looking back it from today’s vantage point it may seem overbearing. But it is important to acknowledge, as the bishops’ report does, that in places like Alaska, “many Church-run boarding schools were created to shelter youth who were orphaned during epidemics or whose parents were experiencing illness or dire poverty and could not care for them.”

Moreover, “Many Native alumni of those boarding schools who are still living today express gratitude for the care and educational opportunities they received from the men and women religious who administered mission schools.” Similarly, it bears noting that many of these indigenous peoples “willingly embraced the Gospel when missionaries offered it to them.”

In fact, many tribes “requested Catholic missionaries.” Let’s also not forget that “Many early Indigenous converts to Catholicism faced persecution and even martyrdom for their belief, either within their own communities or from others outside their communities.”

We shouldn’t have to rely on Catholic sources to highlight the great work done by the missionaries. This is a matter of history, not religion. But the animus against the Church today is palpable, especially in elite quarters.

It is important that the truth be told. The WaPo report contains some disturbing information, and undoubtedly instances of abuse occurred. But when the data are incomplete, it’s time to tap the brakes and not come to condemnatory conclusions.

The issue of abuse must also be put in context. If corporal punishment was commonplace at the time, why should we be horrified to learn that it  existed in Catholic institutions? It must also be asked how common was abuse within the Native American community? Not to ask questions like these reveals a bias, thus further undercutting the credibility of those pointing fingers.

I am sending a letter, and this commentary, to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. They are interested in having a federal commission do a more thorough investigation of the assimilative polices of Indian boarding schools. It’s time they raised issues that seem to have escaped the WaPo journalists, as well as many others.

Bill in the News (The Right Take): Bill discusses Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis, on “The Right Take with Mark Tapson.” To listen click here.

Bill in the News (The Todd Starnes Show): Bill discusses Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis, with Todd Starnes. To listen click here. (Bill begins at the 1:42:50 mark)

Bill Donohue

The term “equity education” is a misnomer: it has nothing to do with fairness. Rather, it has everything to do with dumbing-down academic standards. It also carries racist undertones.

From as long as most New Yorkers can remember, high school graduates had to pass Regents exams to receive a diploma. But in the name of “equity education,” they are doing away with it. Soon students will be able to graduate by showing “knowledge and skill” in seven areas, including something called “cultural competence.” If this sounds like another diversity and inclusion game, it’s because it is.

The education gurus promoted this idea worked on the New York State Blue Ribbon Commission on Graduation Measures, and made their recommendation to the New York State Education Department. So reassuring to know it is a “blue ribbon” panel. Their idea of academic excellence is to water-down standards: proficiency in math and science are no longer required.

Why the change? The savants will tell you it has to do with “equity.” In actuality, it has to do with racism. Liberal white racism.

In 2020, 71 New York City schools had English Language Arts proficiency rates below 20 percent and 100 had math proficiency rates below 16 percent. That put them among the 250 lowest-scoring schools in the state.

Instead of demanding more from all students, regardless of race, the education establishment is bent on lowering standards. The reason we are lowering standards is because we are lowering expectations, and the reason for that is because too many educators have given up on black students. Instead of helping them to clear the bar, they lower it.

Black students can learn as well as white students. But they have to be challenged, and they have to go to schools that insist on traditional educational norms. For example, black students who attend New York City charter schools outperform black students in traditional New York City public schools by 35 points in math and 23 points in English.

Seattle was one of the first to experiment with “equity education.” Math courses were replaced with classes on “power and oppression.” Guess what happened? Math scores crashed. That’s because students were taking “math ethnic studies,” meaning they had to explain how math is “used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.”

This insanity lasted a few years before even the liberals in Seattle said “enough is enough.”

If white liberals were not so eager to throw in the towel, they would not be giving up on black students. Ditto for black leaders such as New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman. He was the founding principal of a New York charter school, and his black students excelled. Now he wants to do away with charters, consigning these students to schools that are so bad that those who teach in traditional public schools more often send their children to a charter or private school.

We need to get over the image of white racists being red-necked hillbillies. Today they often wear suits and dresses, and typically have some alphabets after their name.

Bill Donohue discusses the decline of Western culture and his new book Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis. To watch, click here.

Bill in the News (Catholic Connection): Bill discusses Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis, with Teresa Tomeo. To listen click here.

Bill Donohue

In his eighteenth century classic, Letters from an American Farmer, J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur said he had never seen such assimilation as in America. The French writer said our ability to “melt” disparate peoples into a new man was remarkable and unparalleled. Thus was the idea of a “melting pot” born. What he said is nicely acknowledged in our national motto, E pluribus unum, “out of the many one.”

That was then. Now we are a badly divided people, and most of the reasons for our predicament are not an accident: they represent the logical consequences of a series of policies and programs, many of which originated at colleges and universities; they are designed to divide us.

From multiculturalism, which teaches hatred of western civilization, to the promotion of mass migration, which makes mince meat out of the “melting pot” ideal, we are nation divided; it is evident along racial, ethnic, religious, class and sex lines.

In June, Pew Research Center released survey results that show the effects of the culture war on politics. The differences between Biden and Trump supporters are vast.

“Someone can be a man or a woman even if that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.” This question, which is biologically illiterate—no one “assigns” our birth (it is determined by our father)—is seen by Biden supporters as true. But not for Trump supporters. Six-in-ten of Biden’s fans (59 percent) believe this to be true, but only one-in-ten (9 percent) of Trump’s fans believe it makes sense.

“The criminal justice system in this country is generally not tough enough on criminals.” Only a minority of Biden enthusiasts (40 percent) agree, but most of those drawn to Trump (81 percent) agree.

“Society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority.” A mere 19 percent of Biden supporters agree with this statement, as contrasted to 59 percent of Trump supporters.

Whether the question is how much slavery still explains racial inequality (Biden fans think it does) or America’s openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as nation (Trump fans are not buying it), the chasm is wide.

There is also a lot of hatred. I use the word intentionally. I am not talking about people disagreeing—that is commonplace—I am talking about hatred.

I have met a lot of conservatives who say they hate so-and-so (a public figure) because he is a liberal. In some cases, I know the person rather well, and while I may have sharp disagreements with him, I know him as a friendly and honest person. So I reply by saying, “Do you know him personally?” Of course they don’t. That gives me an opportunity to defend my characterological assessment, insisting on drawing a difference between disagreeing with someone and hating him.

Those who love Biden hate Trump, and vice versa. The hatred of Trump, often called “Trump derangement syndrome,” is so bad that 86 percent of Biden’s biggest supporters, as reported in a recent Rasmussen survey, approve the Justice Department’s authorization of “the use of deadly force” in retrieving documents at Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago.

It is interesting to note that most Democrats disagree that we are not tough enough on crime, yet believe that Trump should be subjected to a raid where deadly force is authorized—for an alleged crime of a non-violent nature. The hatred runs deep.

What’s driving these outcomes? As I show in my new book, Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis, the divisions we are seeing are ultimately traceable to a conflict between a religious vision of man and society and a secular one.

The data show conclusively that when it comes to religiosity, or beliefs and practices, Republicans are clearly more likely to say that religion is important to them. Not so for Democrats—they are the Party of secularists. To show how this plays out, consider the Pew question on marriage and the family.

Democrats do not agree that “Society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority.” But why? Secularists see such a conviction as an anathema because it challenges their belief in autonomy. That which might interfere with career goals is not an option, and in any event it smacks of patriarchy. It also carries a religious meaning, and that is taboo.

Now it may be that for any particular individual, making marriage and the family a priority is to interfere with his or her personal goals, at least at that time. But the question wasn’t about the respondent’s personal life; it was about what is in the best interests of society. To those fixated on themselves, which is more common among secularists, that is not a viable choice. They are drawn to thinking in terms of me, not we.

This, too, shall pass. But in the meantime, that which divides us remains real. It is also eating away at our social fabric.

The following letter by Catholic League president Bill Donohue to Rep. James Comer, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, explains why he wants the FBI to authorize the release of the “Nashville Manifesto” kept by mass murderer Audrey Hale.

June 17, 2024

Hon. James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6143

Dear Chairman Comer:

As president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, it is my job to combat anti-Catholicism. I am writing to you because you are in a position to inquire why the FBI is stopping the public release of documents pertaining to the mass shooting in Nashville, Tennessee on March 27, 2023. That is when a 28-year-old female, Audrey Hale, shot and killed three children and three adults at Covenant School.

Hale, who falsely identified as a male, kept a journal, more commonly known as the Nashville manifesto. Nashville Police Chief John Drake said after the shootings that “There’s some belief that there was some resentment for having to go to that school.”

Covenant is a Christian school. The police said that the school and the church were both targeted. Hale once attended the school and reportedly disparaged her parents for not supporting her “transition.”

On April 24, 2023, I issued a news release asking, “So where’s the manifesto? Who’s holding it back? What’s driving this decision?” Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett said at that time that it was the FBI that was holding it back. He was right.

We now know that it was the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit that “strongly discourage[d]” the Metro Nashville Police Department from releasing the manifesto. It said it represents a “legacy token” that could be exploited by other mass murderers.

I am a sociologist who has taught courses on criminology and written extensively about it. Moreover, in my role as a Catholic civil rights leader, I have investigated, and written about, the extent to which a strong anti-Christian animus is prevalent among transgender persons.

Accordingly, it is imperative that Christians learn if Hale’s offenses were in any way driven by hatred against them. The police have admitted that she planned her attack “over a period of months.” Indeed, they said her crimes were “calculated and planned.” Given that she gave great thought to what she was planning, it would be instructive to know what she had to say about Christians. Moreover, the Daily Wire recently obtained selections from her journal entry that expressly show a strong hostility to Christianity.

As I pointed out last year, the FBI elite have had their reputations sullied by probing innocent traditional Catholics. “Given this situation,” I said, “are we to believe that if a crazed Catholic were to blow up an abortion clinic, killing six people, and law enforcement found a manifesto detailing his motive, that the FBI would censor its release? Or would it be more likely to make it public?”

Please do what you can to have the FBI release Hale’s manifesto. Christians should not be kept in the dark, especially when the contents of her journal may reveal information that is threatening to them.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

President

cc: Rep. Tim Burchett

Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary

Bill in the News (Faith and Freedom with Shemane): Bill discusses Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis, on “Faith and Freedom with Shemane.” To listen click here.

Bill Donohue

Rachel Levine, President Biden’s assistant secretary of health, should be celebrating Father’s Day—he has two children—but he won’t be. That’s because he thinks he is a woman. But he didn’t celebrate Mother’s Day either. Why would a parent not celebrate one of these two days?

Rachel was born Richard Levine. Even though virtually all of the mainstream media falsely refer to him as a she, he knows he’s a man and he knows he fathered two children. But he doesn’t like it when people tell him the truth. He prefers it when they lie.

Four years ago, a Pittsburgh-area lawmaker wished him a Happy Father’s Day. That didn’t sit too well with Rachel or his friends. Cora Brna, a transgender advocate, said, “It’s just hateful. It’s disguised as a joke, but it’s not funny.” But why is it “hateful” to congratulate a father on Father’s Day?

Rachel was raised in Boston by two lawyers. He attended an elite all-male Hebrew school. After graduating from Harvard he went to Tulane Medical School. He didn’t “transition” until he was in his fifties, after seeing a therapist. Did he finish the job and have his genitals cut off? He won’t say.

When asked by Sen. Rand Paul at his confirmation hearing, the senator asked if he believed minors should be able to “amputate their breasts or amputate their genitalia.” He wouldn’t say. The best he could do was to say the issue is “very complex.” He did not indicate why a question about self-mutilation was complex, especially given that those undergoing the knife are children.

It needs to be added that the Biden administration and the National Education Association are both on record saying that minors should be able to “transition” behind the backs of their parents.

For more on this subject, and many other issues, see my new book, Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis. It will be published by Sophia Institute Press on June 18 and is available now for pre-order at Amazon.