Bill Donohue

If professed vegetarians publicly criticized a vegetarian association for insisting that its members follow a vegetarian diet, no one would listen to them. Why is it that when a member of the Catholic clergy insists that his flock follow Catholic teachings he is criticized for doing so by professed Catholics? The difference is the media have a vested ideological interest in creating division in the Catholic Church.

Bishop Robert McManus leads the Diocese of Worcester, and has done so ably for nearly two decades. He recently issued a policy for Catholic schools that is consistent with Catholic teachings on sexuality, and for this he has been roundly criticized. The logic of his detractors is unpersuasive.

To begin with, the policy on how to deal with homosexual and transgender students is a model of fairness. The first policy initiative is a statement against bullying, harassment and violence. There is also a policy that calls for respecting modesty standards in language, appearance, dress, and behavior. Few find these policies problematic.

“Students may not advocate, celebrate, or express same-sex attraction in such a way as to cause confusion or distraction in the context of Catholic school classes, activities, or events.” This policy has angered some.

Also contentious in some quarters is the policy that insists that “All students are expected to conduct themselves at school in a manner consistent with their biological sex.” This holds for athletics, dress and uniform policies, dances, the use of changing facilities, showers, etc. In addition, all school records will reflect the student’s biological sex.

“In some quarters” these policies are contentious. Which quarters are they? They are most assuredly not among rank-and-file Catholics, the ones who go to Mass regularly and pay the bills. No, it is the dissidents. Not surprisingly, this includes DignityUSA; it has long been at war with Catholic teachings on a variety of issues. Self-identified gay men are also carping. Their fidelity is not to the Church but to a politicized gay agenda.

There are others who have literally gone off the rails. Guillermo Creamer Jr. is a candidate for Mayor of Worcester. No longer a Catholic, he accuses Bishop McManus of embracing “an outdated hate-filled rhetoric.” He cites not a single comment of “hate-filled rhetoric” voiced by the bishop. There aren’t any. He owes Bishop McManus an apology.

Others, such as a local Catholic teacher, David Palmieri, berates the bishop for his “no compromise” policies. Would this extend to the bishop’s statement condemning bullying, harassment and violence? Should he be willing to compromise on these acts as well? Similarly, when activist Charles O’Donnell calls out the bishop for issuing an “ultimatum,” should McManus be more conciliatory if gay students are beaten up?

Robyn Kennedy is running for a state senate seat. She accuses the bishop of not showing the “love and care” for students she expects. State Sen. Jason Lewis also calls on the bishop to “support the love and inclusion that the Catholic Church teaches.” Craig Mortley, a diversity specialist at a branch of the YWCA, says the Church “should be about creating a community of love.”

So where is the love for orthodox parents who pay to send their children to a Catholic school that flagrantly violates Catholic sexual ethics? Moreover, if “love” is all that matters, should the bishop allow a brother and sister who love each other, in an intimate way, go to a prom as a date?

Misplaced compassion is a serious problem in our society today, and it shines brightly when those who reject the teachings of the Catholic Church selectively invoke it to further their agenda.

Kudos to Bishop McManus. We need more bishops like him. Let him know you agree.

Contact Margaret Comptois at the bishop’s office: mcomptois@worcesterdiocese.org

Bill Donohue

The Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, under the leadership of Bishop Edward C. Malesic, has issued a policy for Catholic parishes and schools on sexuality and gender identity that is a model for all Catholic entities, nationwide. Predictably, LGBT activists and their supporters in the media and politics are unhappy, and some are seriously misrepresenting the policy.

In explaining his position, Bishop Malesic restated Church teachings on this matter. “The human person,” he said, “created in the image and likeness of God, deserves the utmost respect, for each person’s dignity is inherent and inviolable.” This set the tone for his policy.

Contrary to what some are saying, the policy does not forbid students who suffer from gender dysphoria—or confusion about their biological sex—from attending Catholic schools. None will be denied. But what will not be tolerated are public denunciations of Church teachings on sexuality. This would include strictures on homosexuality and gender identity. In other words, everyone is welcome to attend Catholic schools, but no one is allowed to publicly resist what the Church teaches.

Policy specifics include notifying parents if their child is experiencing gender dysphoria. Correct pronouns—those which reflect the biological sex of the student—must be used to describe students. Boys’ bathrooms are for boys, not girls, and vice versa. Sports competition allows only biological girls to compete against girls, not boys who think they are girls.

School functions, such as dances, must respect the biological differences between the sexes. Personal appearances and attire should also reflect these differences. No one may undergo sex-reassignment surgery. And all school records will mirror the biological sex of the student.

None of this should be considered controversial, but in some quarters it is.

Benjamin Huelskamp is an LGBT activist who maintains that “the majority of American Catholics are actually supportive of the LGBTQ community.” Wrong. They are not.

A Pew Research Center survey of Christians last year found that Catholics are considerably more likely to say that “society has become too accepting of transgender people” now than they were in 2017. A plurality of Catholics support requiring students to use the public bathrooms of their biological sex, and a plurality want to make it illegal to teach gender ideology in the schools. Six-in-ten want biological boys and girls to compete against those of their own sex, and not against each other. Almost two-in-three oppose adding new gender options to government documents.

The LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland issued a statement saying the Cleveland diocese’s policy used “harmful rhetoric towards the LGBTQ+ community.” This is a lie. It cited not one example.

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said that “the new policy forces LGBTQ+ kids to hide their authentic selves and attend school in fear of persecution of who they are.” This is also a lie. It should also be noted that the “authentic selves” of students is their biological sex, not some socially contrived notion of who they think they are.

We are delighted that Bishop Malesic is not shying away from this issue. By issuing a clear and specific policy on sexuality and gender identity he is doing Catholics in the Cleveland community a favor. Indeed, he is doing Catholics everywhere a favor.

Show your support for the bishop.

Contact his communications director, Nancy Fishburn: nfishburn@dioceseofcleveland.org

Bill Donohue

On September 12, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), ripped Americans who are in favor of school choice and parental rights, comparing them to segregationists. Even worse, she lashed out at Christians who support these initiatives. She made her remarks to Seth D. Harris, a senior fellow at the Burnes Center for Social Change at Northeastern University.

Weingarten said she got the idea that there is little difference between the segregationists of old and today’s promoters of school choice and parental rights from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the seriously disgraced far left-wing organization. She concluded that these Americans want to “divide parents versus teachers.”

Now it is well known that Catholics have long been the mainstay of the school choice movement; they are also among the most vociferous supporters of parental rights. Let’s be clear: this does not mean that anyone who opposes both of these causes is necessarily a bigot. But in Weingarten’s case, she took the next step: she engaged in Christian bashing.

After speaking at length, with utter contempt and derision, about those who are pro-school choice and pro-parental rights, Weingarten let her guard down and went right for the jugular. “They want to have, basically, a Christian ideology, their particular Christian ideology to dominate the country as opposed to those that was born on the freedom of the exercise of religion.”

The subject under discussion had nothing to do with religion, so it tells us volumes about Weingarten that she would indict Christians, without cause.

What she said just prior to her bigoted remark puts her animus against Christians in perspective. She had just commented that some parents want school choice because they want universal vouchers, and “others want it because they hate knowledge.”

So who is it that “hates knowledge?” Those Americans who are bent on shoving their “Christian ideology” down our throats. The context says it all.

In other words, taxpaying parents who believe that they should have the right to send their child to the school of their choice—which includes most African Americans—and insist that their rights as parents be respected by the state, are somehow seeking to impose a Christian ideology on the nation. To top it off, these same religious zealots “hate knowledge.”

Weingarten should resign. The hatred that she has for millions of school choice and parental rights advocates—especially those who are Christian—disqualifies her from serving in any public role.

Contact Andrew Crook, National Press Secretary at AFT: acrook@aft.org

Bill Donohue

The Arizona Diamondbacks will host a “Catholic Night” this evening at Chase Field. This is the first of its kind in Arizona, or in any other baseball park.

Last year, Catholics, and those from other faith communities, turned out in big numbers to attend the first “Faith and Family Night” game; another one was held last month. But the one tonight is different: it is a joint effort of the Diamondbacks and the Diocese of Phoenix. The home team is hosting the Houston Astros.

There are four levels of tickets, ranging from $24 to $46. The Diamondbacks have pledged $5 of each ticket will go to the diocese’s “Catholic School Support 365” program. It provides funding for Catholic families who need assistance to pay tuition due to a hardship situation—medical emergencies, lost jobs, death of a parent or sibling—allowing them to grow in their Catholic faith.

In June, we led a culture war against the Los Angeles Dodgers for honoring a vile anti-Catholic gay group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The message was delivered to Major League Baseball—Catholics are fed up being insulted by the elites. That is why events like “Catholic Night” are welcomed. It is a stark rebuke to religious bigots.

Congratulations to the Arizona Diamondbacks and to Bishop John Dolan of the Diocese of Phoenix. We hope other teams follow suit.

Contact Garrett King, who is responsible for managing this event for the team: gking@dbacks.com

Contact Brett Meister, Phoenix Diocese director of communications: bmeister@dphx.org

Bill Donohue

The National Railroad Museum in Green Bay, Wisconsin is hosting a Festival of Trees representing 66 organizations. Only six of the trees are sponsored by Christian groups; the others are sponsored by various businesses. Two of the trees have ignited a backlash: one by a Satanic group, and the other by an LGBT group.

The Satanic Temple of Wisconsin is featuring a tree with an ornament that says, “Hail Satan” (meant as a riposte to “Hail Santa”). There is also a depiction of Satan, as well as upside-down crosses. It says it does not believe in a “theistic” Satan, but much of what it says and does prove that it is Satan-friendly, to say the least.

The parent group of the Green Bay affiliate, The Satanic Temple (TST), is proud to be known as a champion of abortion-on-demand: it justifies abortion at any time of pregnancy and for any reason, seeing it as a source of liberation. It also raises money to further the cause.

When the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, returning the issue to the states, TST said “the abortion ban is inspired by a religious dogma that asserts that life begins at conception, which contravenes TST’s belief that non-viable fetal tissue is part of the pregnant person and is free to be voluntarily removed.”

What it calls “non-viable fetal tissue” is actually nascent human life. As such, the baby is independent of the life of the mother (TST chooses the term “pregnant person” to imply men can get pregnant, which shows its animus against science).

The conviction that life begins at conception may be shared by people of faith, but it is also grounded in biology. That is why it is laughable to read on the website of TST that “Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world, [and] one should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.”

It is not religious Americans opposed to abortion who are out of step with science: it is rabid anti-science abortion advocates like TST.

TST also says we should all demonstrate “compassion and empathy.” They must have given themselves an exemption: They feature a fundraising gimmick on their website named, “Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” in reference to the Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion overturning Roe. They also sell condoms with an image of all nine Supreme Court justices on it.

The Trans Christmas tree is less offensive, but it does have ornaments with the inscription “Drag Queen” and “Be Weird.” Atop the tree is an angel holding a rainbow flag. The Green Bay group that is sponsoring the tree says it stands for “non-binary, cross-dressing, transgender persons.” Its affinity with the National Railroad Museum was made clear when one of its most active members, Justin Tenpenny, was hired by the Museum to be its Marketing and Communications officer.

Perhaps the most disingenuous person involved in this anti-Christmas scam is Jacqueline Frank, the CEO of the National Railroad Museum.

When asked why she allowed the Satanists, she invoked the tired refrain of inclusion. According to a local Green Bay news source, she said she “would not reject an organization simply because it goes against certain values or ways of life, traditional or not.” Really? So if the Klan wanted to be included in an event honoring Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Frank would welcome them?

“I think there’s a lot to be said of being able to include everybody, to respect everyone and to promote dignity for everybody,” Frank said. How the dignity of Christians is being respected by allowing Satanists to defile Christmas needs to be explained.

It does not help Frank’s decision for her to say, “We’re not discriminating against anyone.” The issue is not discrimination—it is hostility to religion. And that is unconstitutional.

In the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman ruling, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that the Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any (my italics).”

There is no other way to interpret the TST anti-Christmas display at the Museum than to say that it is demonstrating hostility to Christianity.

Contact Frank: jdfrank@nationalrrmuseum.org

Bill Donohue

As I pointed out in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, the scandal in the Catholic Church mostly occurred between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. But don’t tell that to the Associated Press (AP). They have a vested ideological reason for continuing the myth that nothing has changed. Worse, they are now suggesting the Church is racist.

“In the US, Black Survivors Are Nearly Invisible in the Catholic Clergy Sexual Abuse Crisis.” This story, published November 29, is factually wrong. There is no “crisis” going on today. So the best the AP can do is to write a story on the situation in Maryland: some alleged victims from decades ago are coming forward seeking cash now that the statute of limitations has been lifted.

The latest data on the clergy sexual abuse found that between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022, there were 16 allegations made by minors during that time, seven of which were substantiated. That means that of the 52,387 members of the clergy, .013 percent of them had a substantiated allegation made against him. There is no institution in the nation where adults intermingle with minors on a regular basis which can match this outcome.

AP reported none of this. It could not. If it did it wouldn’t have a story. But since they can’t get the Church on this issue today, they’ve decided to play the racist card.

When I read this story, I wondered how the AP managed to come up with data showing a racist element in the abuse scandal. They didn’t. There aren’t any.

The AP admits that “The U.S. Catholic Church generally does not publicly track the race or ethnicity of clergy sexual abuse victims.” AP also struck out looking for data from the government. Referring to the report by the Maryland Attorney General’s office, it said it “leaves out any context about race.”

So if there are no data to support the AP claim that there is a “crisis” in the Church today, and there are no data to prove the Church is racist, what’s left to discuss? Anecdote. That’s it.

We learn about the plight of the Webster family where a young girl was abused by a priest. This is horrendous, but what does it have to do with the thrust of the AP story? The offense took place in 1993 and the priest was convicted and thrown out of the priesthood. Moreover, the Baltimore archdiocese wrote them a check for $2.7 million.

There is more to this story than contemporary anecdotes. The reporter alleges there was racism in the Church in Baltimore in 1829! What a shocker. That really proves the Catholic Church, unlike every other institution in American society, had a racial problem decades before the Civil War.

If the AP did a story on black victims of sexual abuse in the public schools in Baltimore today, it would have enough information to fill a local public library, but they wouldn’t go near it. Nor will they do a story on all the black families in Baltimore who favor school choice and would like to send their children to a Catholic school.

We’ve been tracking and writing about bias in AP stories for decades. What is so ironic is that we have data on them that they don’t have on the Catholic Church. But the nation’s largest wire service, which is funded by dozens of left-wing foundations, is rarely held accountable for its unprofessionalism.

Contact: Daisy Veerasingham, AP CEO: dveerasingham@ap.org

Bill Donohue

The Left is very good at making up bogeymen, and one of their favorites is Christian nationalism. The latest iteration of this madness is an article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion; a subsequent analysis of it was recently published in psypost.org. As a sociologist, I am particularly interested in this issue: sociologists are the ones most responsible for promoting the fiction that America is threatened by Christian nationalists.

The journal article, written by sociologist Fanhao Nie of the University of Massachusetts Lowell, claims that Christian nationalists are likely to have negative views of atheists. Had he inquired if atheists have negative views of Christians, in general, he would have found they do—the evidence is overwhelming. But that was not what he set out to do.

What exactly is Christian nationalism? Nie says it is “broadly defined as an ideology that calls for the integration of Christianity and American civic life.” We get the gist of it, but this is so elastic a definition that it might mean something as innocent as noting that our rights come from God. In fact, one of the sociologists cited by the author, Andrew Whitehead, has said exactly that.

When Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association (NRA), gave a speech on the Founding  documents, Whitehead, in a piece he co-authored, saw Christian nationalism written all over it. The NRA chief said our freedoms were “granted by God to all Americans as our American birthright.”

This is not the voice of a Christian nationalist—it is the voice of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. Our unalienable rights, he said, come not from government but from our “Creator.” Whitehead may not like this, but what LaPierre said is historically accurate.

“The genius of those documents, the brilliance of America, of our country itself,” LaPierre also said, “is that all of our freedoms in this country are for every single citizen.”

Most Americans would see this for what it is: an accurate and sober account. Some might even say it is pedestrian. But to those whose job it is to find—or invent—instances of Christian nationalism, this was like hitting the jackpot. The fact that LaPierre did not say that our freedoms are for Christians—he said they were “for every single citizen”—should have given Whitehead pause. After all, it seriously undercuts his position.

If Christian nationalism were the threat that those who promote this nonsense say it is, most Americans would oppose it. In fact, most never heard of it. In a survey released last year, Pew Research found that 54 percent never heard or read anything about it, and an additional 16 percent said they heard of it “a little.” Of the few who had heard of it,  more held an unfavorable view (24 percent) than a favorable one (5 percent).

There is a reason for this. Christian nationalism doesn’t exist, save for  faculty lounges, sociological circles and left-wing activist organizations. And it is they who have influenced those who hold a negative view.

The Pew story on this survey printed some of the comments made by those who had a favorable and unfavorable view of Christian nationalism.

Here’s a sample of those who hold a favorable view:

• “People who love God and USA.”
• “A society in which patriotism and religion are inseparably entwined doing the will of God in and for America and believing God is on America’s side.”
• “Values of society based on Judaic-Christian values and priorities.”
• “Religious people who love their country.”
• “A nation that espouses Christian principles and prioritizes the faith above secular humanistic principle that are more prevalent in the secular society of the U.S. today.”

Here’s a sample of those who hold an unfavorable view:

• “Attempting to use the government to impose an extreme, fringe version of Christianity on everyone in the nation, regardless of others’ religious views. They are no different than al-Qaida or the Taliban.”
• “Racist, misogynistic, White, older, retro group of people wanting to return the U.S. to a time when everyone ‘knew their place.’ Narrow-minded view that the Bible is key to life for everyone.”
• “Militant Christians openly attempting to install a right-wing Christian theocracy leading to a Christian ethno-state.”
• “It’s code used by extremists to indicate government for White Christians by White Christians.”
• “White supremacists and male superiority.”

All of those who offered a favorable view were Catholic or Protestant. All of those who offered an unfavorable view said they ascribed to no religion.

Regarding the latter, notice the hysteria. And the hate.

It is not those who are proud to live in a country founded on our religious heritage who are a threat—it is those who portray them as a threat. They are the real menace. Inventing bogeymen so as to trash patriotism and Christianity is a sick preoccupation of those on the Left. It’s time our side ripped the mask off these demagogues.

Bill Donohue

We’ve had it with atheist bullies. That’s why we are asking one of their most prominent groups to consider suing us. Here’s how this developed.

An atheist hate group from Wisconsin, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), registered a complaint about a nativity scene being displayed by the Toledo Fire Department in Toledo, Iowa, outside of Des Moines. The crèche has been a feature of the firehouse for about 20 years. City leaders initially gave in and removed the nativity scene.

Toledo Mayor Brian Sokol then decided to put the nativity scene back at the firehouse: secular symbols now surround the crèche. We commend him for doing so and we pledge to assist him if he is further badgered.

In their letter to Toledo officials, FFRF said the following: “Nativity scenes on public property are unnecessary, inappropriate and divisive. It is irrefutable that the nativity is a religious, Christian symbol. The best solution is to remove this nativity scene and discontinue hosting religious displays on public property.”

FFRF is wrong. This is pure intimidation. Nativity scenes on public property are necessary and appropriate at Christmastime, and the only people who think they are divisive are Christian bashers who specialize in dividing Americans.

It is entirely legal to display a nativity scene on public property; some conditions may apply.

The Catholic League erected its life-size nativity scene in Central Park on December 7; it will be up until after the new year. We get a permit from the City of New York’s Parks Department every year, and have had our nativity scene on display there since the mid-1990s.

We don’t have any secular symbols surrounding our display—no Jack Frost or reindeers. It is purely a religious expression. That is because Central Park is considered a public forum, open to all points of view.

If we were to display a nativity scene on or near City Hall, the seat of government, we would have to include secular symbols; otherwise it might give the impression that the government is endorsing Christianity.

Therefore, what Mayor Sokol has done is entirely constitutional. We  contacted his office today pledging our support. We notified the mayor’s office that if FFRF wants to sue, and he is unable to access pro-bono counsel, we will pay the legal bills to defend him in court.

If FFRF wants a showdown over this issue, let them sue the Catholic League for erecting its nativity scene in Central Park. Good luck with that.

Contact Amitabh Pal, FFRF’s communications director: apal@ffrf.org