Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an Associated Press (AP) study of accused priests who are no longer in ministry:

The AP study of former priests who were credibly accused of sexual misconduct reeks of duplicity, and worse.

The nine-month investigation found nearly 1,700 “priests and other clergy members that the Roman Catholic Church considers credibly accused of child sexual abuse are living under the radar with little or no supervision from religious authorities or law enforcement….”

It would be more accurate to refer to the victims as minors, not children, since most of them were adolescents (e.g., victims of homosexuality, not pedophilia).

The thrust of the story is that once an accused priest is no longer in ministry, in many cases the Church no longer polices him. This is hardly unique: The AP reporters fail to mention a single institution in the nation, secular or religious, that monitors every former employee who has been accused of sexual misconduct. Importantly, this certainly includes the profession of journalism. But that is where the similarities end.

Unlike the public schools, for example, background checks for all new employees in the Catholic Church are routine. Therefore, the likelihood of the Church employing an accused sex offender is rare. This is not true elsewhere, especially in the public schools. And while in the last century, some bishops moved accused priests to another parish—this is no longer the case—this is still the norm in the public schools. How do I know? Because of studies done by the AP and USA TODAY.

In 2007, AP published a series of articles about sexual offenses in the public schools. It found that between 2001-2005, 2,570 educators had their teaching credentials revoked because of sexual misconduct. It detailed 1,801 cases of abuse: more than 80 percent of the victims were students, and most of the offenders were public school teachers.

What happened to them? “Most of the abuse never gets reported.” What about those who did not get their licenses revoked? They are the “mobile molesters,” teachers sent to another school or district, a practice so widespread that it’s called “passing the trash.”

In 2016, USA TODAY published its own series on abuse in the public schools. It found that “passing the trash” was still the norm: abusive teachers were able to move to new teaching jobs, or to other employment working with youth.

In other words, the molesting teachers not only were not monitored once they left the school, they found teaching jobs elsewhere.

Some might ask, “Haven’t some accused priests found employment as public school teachers, and in other professions, including jobs working with young people?” They have. Indeed, the AP story on the Church cites examples of this practice.

But why is this the fault of the Catholic Church? Why is this not the fault of the public school establishment, and other professions, for not doing a background check? Responsible parents do a background check on prospective baby sitters. What’s wrong with public school officials?

The USA TODAY report also found that most states (45 of them) refused to abide by a 2015 federal law requiring states to ban secret termination agreements, thus allowing accused molesting teachers to find another job without a problem. As important as anything, the study found that the federal government still “does not maintain a database of teachers who have sexually molested children.” By contrast, the Catholic Church keeps a record on accused priests.

The AP public school study touched on this issue as well. Here is an excerpt from the first of three stories.

“Too often problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district.” It offered a quote from Charol Shakeshaft, one of the nation’s top experts on this subject. “They might deal with it internally,” she said, “suspending the person or having the person move on. So their license is never investigated.”

The story continued. “Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported to the state departments that oversee teacher licenses. But there’s no consistent enforcement, so such laws are easy to ignore.” Shakeshaft attributes this outcome to school officials feeling embarrassed, wanting to avoid “the fallout from going up against a popular teacher.”

The AP story on the Catholic Church really starts to overheat when it says that “Priests and other church employees being listed on sex offender registries at all is a rarity.” Have the reporters lost their mind? These priests have been accused—they have not been found guilty!

How could they make such an irresponsible comment? There are only two plausible answers: their hatred of the Catholic Church is off the charts, or they are just plain stupid. No accused person is registered as a sex offender unless he has been convicted. On this score alone, the AP study on the Church deserves an “F.”

Is Charlie Rose a registered sex offender? How about Harvey Weinstein? Hundreds of such examples could be cited.

If the AP reporters focused their sights on the public schools, or on those in the media and Hollywood, they would have a whole lot more to chew on than zeroing in on the Catholic Church. But that wouldn’t win the applause of their colleagues. It’s so much more fun to nail an easy target, even if that target looks good by comparison with others.

Shame on the AP for playing politics with such a serious issue.

Contact the AP managing editor, Brian Carovillano: bcarovillano@ap.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an Episcopalian priest who is interfering in Catholic Church matters:

Religious leaders abide by an unspoken rule not to stick their noses into the affairs of another religion. This has been violated by Episcopalian priest Rev. Nathan Empsall. He is lecturing Catholics on the Church’s teachings on Holy Communion.

Empsall is an embarrassment. He heads an entity, Faithful America, that has a record of attacking religious liberty and free speech. It also seeks to create discord in the Catholic Church.

When a South Carolina priest, Fr. Robert Morey, recently denied Joe Biden Holy Communion because of his rabid advocacy of abortion rights, some Catholics disagreed with the priest’s decision. John Carr, director of Georgetown’s Catholic Social Thought and Public Life, failed to support the priest. That is hardly surprising—he is a man of the left. But at least he has a place at the table.

Unlike Carr, Empsall is not Catholic and should therefore mind his own business. Empsall is now launching a petition drive asking the priest’s bishop to direct Morey to apologize to Biden.

Empsall’s campaign is laughable. We will not respond with a counter-petition drive—as we did earlier in response to Empsall’s attempt to silence Attorney General Bill Barr—because it is not our mission to instruct bishops on what to say. But we will let Empsall, a tool of the left, know that he has crossed the line.

Faithful America has been asleep for years. If its fat-cat donors think they can jump start it by bullying Catholics, they are sadly mistaken. We will checkmate them any day of the week. Bet on it.

Contact Empsall: nathan@faithfulamerica.org

Recently, when the leader of the South Bay Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California learned that the city was sponsoring a Drag Queen Story Time event at the local public library, he protested. Pastor Amado Huizar, and his congregation, found it inappropriate to use taxpayers’ dollars to fund a Drag Queen Story Hour. The mayor sided with the LGBTQ activists.

Vandals subsequently trashed the church. “Lucifer” and other Satanic messages were spray-painted on the church, alongside sexual vulgarities. The police are investigating the incident as a hate crime. As of now, there is no direct evidence tying the two events, though obviously the pastor and his flock are suspicious.

Leaving aside the vandalism, the larger question is the propriety of using public funds to sponsor such events. This is now the subject of debate in conservative quarters. National Review author David French takes the libertarian position, arguing that Drag Queen Story Hour events should be protected by the First Amendment. New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari takes a social conservative position, saying they should not be protected. These kinds of debates are hardly new, but this latest one has sparked considerable controversy.

The stance outlined by French sees freedom of speech as an end. It is not.

The Founders saw the First Amendment provision on free speech as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. The end is the makings of the good society, a goal that is best achieved by allowing robust political discourse. This explains why the Founders opposed an absolutist reading of the First Amendment: not all exercises of speech are equal, and some are worthy of censorship. Indeed, the same Congress that passed the First Amendment in 1791, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, barring seditious speech, seven years later.

There are many exceptions to the First Amendment that make good common sense. We have laws against libel, slander, perjury, obscenity, incitement to riot, “fighting words,” speech which presents a “clear and present danger,” copyright infringement, racist notices put in homeowners’ mailboxes, harassing phone calls, false advertising, lying about one’s credentials when seeking employment, verbal agreements in restraint of trade, contemptuous speech in the courtroom, treasonous speech, lying on tax returns, solicitation of a crime, etc.

No serious person regards these expressions as contributing to the makings of the good society—they actually retard that end—which explains why their proscription is uncontroversial.

The mayor of Chula Vista, Mary Salas, defends the Drag Queen Hour by saying the event is not designed to “propagandize a lifestyle.” She is sadly mistaken. It is nothing but propaganda. Don’t take our word for it—read what the stated goal of the Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is at dragqueenstoryhour.org.

“DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.” By “gender fluidity” it is meant that sex is not an immutable characteristic. To put it differently, the LGBTQ goal is to teach kids that a person can switch sexes, being a boy today and a girl tomorrow, depending on one’s self-identification (and/or surgical changes).

DQSH focuses on children 3-8. Yes, there are readings, songs, and the like. There are also “dress-up” exercises aimed at celebrating “gender diversity and all kinds of difference[s].” To what end? The objective is to see that kids are “free from the constraints of prescribed gender roles. In other words, there’s no such thing as ‘girl clothes’ and ‘boy clothes,’ or ‘girl toys’ and ‘boy toys.’ DQSH teaches children that there are many ways to express themselves and their gender, and they are all OK.”

This is pure propaganda for the LGBTQ agenda. Of course they say there is no such thing as boy and girl clothes or toys—they teach that there is no such thing as a boy or a girl!

Teaching that gender is fluid is a lie. Gender is a sociological term that describes socially learned roles that are appropriate for boys and girls. Importantly, such roles take their cues from nature—their social construction is rooted in the biological differences between men and women.

For example, boys are more aggressive than girls, but not because they have been taught that way—they have more testosterone. Similarly, motherhood is not a cultural invention (as the president of Smith College maintains)—it is an expression of what nature ordains. Which explains why male and female attributes are so common in every society in the history of the world.

Most important, a free society depends on nurturing virtue, or good habits, all of which depend on inculcating a modicum of restraint. What does DQSH nurture? “DQSH teaches children to follow their passions and embrace gender diversity in themselves and others.”

That’s just what our narcissistic society needs more of—teaching kids to follow their passions. They do that quite well, thank you, without tutoring. What they need is the ability to harness their passions, directing their energy toward socially constructive ends. That takes discipline, a property not advanced by the devotees of Drag Queen Story Hour.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story by the Associated Press on the Catholic Church:

The Associated Press (AP) says it conducted an “investigation” of the way Catholic dioceses determine whether an accusation of sexual abuse by a priest is credible or not. It says it probed the diocesan review boards and consulted grand jury and state attorney general reports. On this basis it concluded that the review boards have failed.

It would be more accurate to say that AP has failed. It provided no data, just anecdotes. Where is the summary data combed from the diocesan review boards? Moreover, every anecdote that AP offers is critical of the Church. Did the reporters find no instances where the system worked well? How many were there? What criteria did they use to collect their information? Or did they simply report the most negative comments they could find?

Everyone has an opinion of his dentist. Some have good experiences and others do not. If we wanted to know how patients feel about their dentists we would want to interview a sample of them. Then we would offer a tally, broken down by how favorable their treatment was. That would be a real investigation.

This is not what AP did. It did not sample those who have gone before a diocesan review board to see how they rated their treatment. Which explains the lack of summary data.

When AP did an investigation of sexual abuse in the public schools in 2007, it published the evidence culled from its effort, and then peppered its probe with anecdotes. That is the way it is supposed to be done. But that is not what AP did in this report on the diocesan review boards. It did nothing but offer anecdotes, all of them negative.

If an investigation of dentists reported only the unfavorable accounts, would anyone conclude it was fair? That is why this AP investigation is farcical. There are many other holes in this report.

The report is critical of having defense attorneys who represent the Church on review boards. It suggests this could be a conflict of interest. It also objects to the boards operating in “secret,” and that they go by different names. Furthermore, it quotes those who were ill-treated by the board. Objections are also raised about having higher standards of proof for deceased priests accused of abuse.

If there is a single thread that is evident in all of these criticisms it is the assumption that the accusers are always right and that the Church should just accept what they say. Nowhere in this report of 4630 words is there even a hint that accused priests have rights. They are assumed to have none.

Sexual abuse does not take place in public, making determinations of guilt or innocence difficult. They are even more difficult when the alleged offense took place decades ago. They are next to impossible to resolve when the accused is dead. This never seems to cross the minds of the reporters.

Of course, the Church employs defense attorneys: the charges against the accused are serious and the accused has state and constitutional rights that must be observed. It is curious that neither AP, nor anyone else, ever raises conflict of interest issues with lawyers who make millions suing the Church, and who offer huge donations to professional victims’ groups, who in turn provide the attorneys with new clients.

Does AP know of any institution in the nation, religious or secular, that conducts investigations of accused employees in public? Are they not always done behind closed doors? Why, then, the jab at the Church for operating in “secret”? We don’t need any more stereotypes feeding the worst instincts of the Church’s enemies. And, yes, dioceses vary in the way they name their review boards. Only those with an animus against the Church would ascribe malicious motive to this unremarkable practice.

AP’s most extensive anecdote cites a middle-age man who was allegedly mistreated by the Church. But was he?

The review board in St. Petersburg, Florida ruled against him, saying it could not substantiate his story of being abused by a priest. He’s angry. So? Does he have a right to be? He complains that when he was questioned by the review board, the chairwoman interrupted him when he repeated himself. So what?

When he was asked to recall some specifics regarding the place of the alleged abuse and whether anyone else was there, he started to cry. So? Is this supposed to be proof that he is telling the truth? Why couldn’t it be read as an admission that his tale was coming apart? We don’t know. What we do know is that the accused can’t defend himself—he’s dead.

The AP report just assumes this alleged victim is telling the truth, providing zero evidence that the review board unjustly rejected his case.

If some review boards raise the bar on cases where the accused is deceased, asserting a higher level of proof, why is that unfair? Would it be fair to the priest’s siblings, or his nephews and nieces, that their brother or uncle—who cannot defend himself—was found guilty without clearing a high bar?

Finally, offering as proof testimony taken from grand jury reports is absurd. Grand juries hear one side of the story—the side of the accuser—and none of them is subjected to cross examination. Therefore, what is typically reported are truths, half-truths, and lies. It would be like releasing only the testimony of the accused who claims he is innocent without ever disclosing the accuser’s account. Everyone would see that as a game. It is also a game to focus on grand jury and state AG reports.

AP is capable of doing excellent work. This is not an example of it.

Contact Brian Carovillano, AP managing editor: bcarovillano@ap.org

Bill Donohue comments on the Sundance Film Festival’s latest attack on the Catholic Church:

Hollywood’s farm team, as represented by the Sundance Film Festival—the largest source of independent movie hopefuls—continues to mimic the all stars in Tinseltown by sticking it to Catholics. This year there are two nun-bashing movies to pick from.

“Novitiate” is a religious drama about nuns during the early-mid 1960s, when the Second Vatican Council was in session. The movie plays off the tensions between the more traditional Church and a new wave of reforms ushered forth by Vatican II. The Mother Superior at the Tennessee convent is described by one Variety critic as “brittle” and “sadistic”; another reviewer for the publication calls her “merciless.”

This just goes to prove, one more time, that Hollywood is utterly incapable of making a movie about traditional Catholics that is not wholly stereotypical. Now that Sony—a studio with a history of anti-Catholic films—has acquired the rights, look for us to say much more when this flick hits the big screen.

“The Little Hours” makes “Novitiate” look tame. It is trash, pure trash.

This film is set in medieval Italy, though none of the characters evinces an accent. Viewers are introduced to three young nuns, their Mother Superior, a priest, and a servant. Obviously, all are depraved, in one way or another.

The Los Angeles Times describes the movie as “a hotbed of horny activity,” featuring “a wicked trio of mean-girl nuns who drop more expletives than Hail Marys, get drunk on sacramental wine and think nothing of assaulting the hunky new handyman.”

Variety calls Sister Alessandra “a spoiled brat,” a victim of her rich dad who can’t afford to pay her dowry. Having found no suitor, she takes refuge in a convent, using her father’s influence to get accepted. Sister Fernanda is “the party girl,” a foul-mouthed queen always ready for a fight. One reviewer summed her up this way: “She’s a brooding, cunning, unrepentant savage of a Sister, quick to burst into tirades of profanity and violence.” Sister Genevra is the resident busybody, constantly sticking her nose in where it does not belong.

Father Tommasso is an alcoholic simpleton who is exploited by the nuns—they overhear each other’s sins while waiting to go to confession, and then recycle them when it’s their turn. Oh, yes, the good father has sex with the Mother Superior (played by an aging Molly Shannon). As expected, Mr. Handyman, who plays a deaf-mute, is seduced by the oversexed nuns.

This is so trite. We’ve been there before, but some can’t stop drinking from this well. Take Shannon. In a recent interview about the film, she bemoaned her years in Catholic school, recalling how she was programmed to think “how sex was so bad.” She now considers herself enlightened, though from the sound of things it is apparent that she is still working through her adolescent rage. Time to grow up, Molly.

Perhaps Sundance will host a film about all those sexually free souls who threw restraint to the wind. Many, however, are dead, and those who plundered on are not exactly beaming with joy. Not the kind of film that is likely to attract Sony. It prefers to deal with sadistic sisters. 

Contact Jared Hendler, director of marketing and communications:
Jared_Hendler@sundance.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the response of the United Nations to the Vatican’s new reforms governing sexual abuse:

The United Nations Human Rights Commission commended the Vatican for its new directives governing the sexual abuse of minors—the rules closely parallel those adopted by the bishops in the United States—but it could not stop there: it resorted to one of its typical lectures. It told the Catholic Church it must do better and needs to enforce its zero tolerance policy.

The timing couldn’t be better. Three days ago a report was issued by researchers at the University of Birmingham and Ontario University detailing U.N. employees who raped impoverished women in Haiti, fathering hundreds of babies.

The rapists are employed by the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Girls as young as 11 are forced to raise children by themselves, living in abject poverty. What did the U.N. “peacekeepers” give the girls whom they raped? Coins. As one of the victims put it, “They put a few coins in your hands to drop a baby in you.”

The U.N. has a lousy record dealing with the molesters it employs. In 2015, after the U.N. lectured the Vatican on this issue, I wrote to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the U.N., asking him “to do one of two things: a) either ensure that the United Nations’ policy on ‘zero tolerance’ against convicted sex abusers serving in peacekeeping missions is enforced immediately, or b) cease and desist from probing into alleged sexual abuse violations committed by those in the employ of the Holy See.”

I reminded the secretary general that the U.N. adopted a zero tolerance policy to combat sexual abuse in 2004, yet it was never enforced. “It is more than laughable—it is obscene—that U.N. peacekeeping members who have been convicted of sexual abuse are not even fined!” The following year I noted that the U.N. has no problem telling the Catholic Church that it needs to change its teachings on sexuality, though it never tells Muslims they need to change their Islamic teachings.

The U.N. needs to get its own house in order. It can begin by turning their criminals over to law enforcement. And the U.N. itself should make restitution to the girls whom their “peacekeepers” raped, as well as making provisions for their children.

Contact Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for Secretary General António Guterres: dujarric@un.org

Bill Donohue comments on the resignation of David Clohessy, executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP):

Just days after SNAP was sued by a former employee for accepting kickbacks from Church-suing attorneys, its leader, David Clohessy, quit.

He said he “voluntarily resigned” last month, but that is an incomplete, if not dishonest, account. Had it not been for a string of lawsuits and bad publicity, he would have stayed for years. He will now be remembered for running when the going got tough, leaving behind a shell of an organization that is broken both morally and financially.

Clohessy is a man who spent a good part of his adult life attacking the Catholic Church and lying about it. He worked with unseemly lawyers, manipulated the media, lied to reporters, and exploited the very people he claimed to help.

The latest lawsuit against Clohessy underscores what I have written about for years: SNAP is riddled with corruption. I will have much more to say about the latest lawsuit in coming days, showing how the accusations made by Gretchen Rachel Hammond are consistent with what I have said. It’s all coming together. SNAP is on its last legs.

Contact SNAP president Barbara Blaine: bblaine@SNAPnetwork.org

Bill Donohue comments on an attempt to force a Catholic judge to recuse herself from a case because she is Catholic:

Kathleen Oropeza is the president of Fund Education Now, a Florida activist group that is anti-school voucher, anti-charter schools, anti-testing, and pro-union. Her outfit has filed a lawsuit contending that the state constitution mandates “high quality” public education, and that funds distributed to other schools deprive public schools of the monies they need to succeed. The state circuit judge handling this case is Angela C. Dempsey, a Catholic. Oropeza wants Dempsey to recuse herself because of her alleged bias.

Oropeza’s claims are not only without merit—they smack of bigotry. Dempsey is being accused of supporting Catholic Charities, speaking at Catholic schools, and contributing to Catholic causes. Oropeza did not say whether Dempsey blesses herself with holy water while exiting church on Sunday (that would have been the real clincher).

Looks like Oropeza fails her own guilt-by-association test. For example, the case could be made that she should step down from running an education lobby. Why? Because she participated in the Save Our Schools March in Washington, and one of the key speakers at that event was Jonathan Kozol: he is an education guru who embraces the kind of indoctrination that Communist nations like China and Cuba have perfected.

Oropeza attended Orange County Public Schools and Florida State University. After trying to follow her logic, she has convinced me that the Florida education system is a mess. However, the remedy is not more funds for public schools, but less for them and more for Catholic schools.

Contact Kathleen Oropeza: kathleen@fundeducationnow.org