Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the problem of white liberal racism:

It is now considered a truth of the highest order that the United States is irredeemably racist. This has been the steady drumbeat of reporters and commentators for months on end. The villains, of course, are white people. However, thanks to Robert P. Jones, we can rest assured knowing white Christians are the real devil.

Jones has a problem with white people, especially white Christians. This is so notwithstanding the fact that he is both white and Christian. I erred: Let me take back the word “notwithstanding.” It would be more accurate to say, “owing to the fact.”

Jones, who is the CEO and founder of Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), is not alone. It has become fashionable these days for white liberals to partake in public mea culpa exercises. These mass confessionals are designed to purge the mind and soul of any vestige of white guilt and white privilege. In the case of Jones, he has assumed a different posture. He has decided to put himself on a moral perch. Sitting high above the deplorables, he delights in chastising white Christians for inventing and sustaining racism.

A few years ago, Jones published The End of White Christian America. Fortunately for him, he was wrong: the bad guys are still around. I say “fortunately” because the stubbornness of white Christians not to fold has allowed him to roll out his new book, White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity.

Just in time for his new book, Jones has a piece posted on the nbcnews website titled, “Racism Among White Christians Is Higher Than Among The Nonreligious. That’s no coincidence.” Is this true? No it is not. So how does he come to this conclusion? He does so on the basis of his “Racism Index,” a politically contrived measure predetermined to elicit the desired response.

This is an old game. Jones has a Ph.D. in religion; mine is in sociology. His lack of training in the social sciences is painfully obvious. His made-up scale, what he calls his “Racism Index,” is anything but scientific. To say that his formula is tendentious would be a gross understatement.

Jones cites research conducted by PRRI that convinces him that white Christians (evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics) “are nearly twice as likely as religiously unaffiliated whites to say the killings of Black men by police are isolated incidents rather than a pattern of how police treat African Americans.”

Regrettably for Jones, the white Christians are right.

Michael Tonry, a researcher whom no one would consider a conservative, came to a surprising conclusion in his book Malign Neglect. “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.”

Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen, who have sterling liberal credentials, found that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites for longer terms.

In 2016, Harvard professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. led a team of researchers to study this issue. They examined more than 1,000 police shootings in 10 major police departments in three states. “On the most extreme use of force—officer-involved shootings—we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.” The black economist admitted, “It is the most surprising result of my career.”

In 2019, social scientists from Michigan State University and Arizona State University reported on the results of their two-year study. “When adjusting for crime, we find no systemic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects.”

In other words, the white Christians came to the right conclusion and the unaffiliated were wrong in their understanding of the way the police interact with blacks.

Here’s another one of the measures used by Jones to indict white Christians. “Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Blacks to work their way out of the lower class.” White Christians were more likely to disagree with this statement than the unaffiliated. This is considered to be further proof of their inherent racism.

The problem with this position—blaming slavery and discrimination for the existence of a large black lower class—is that it does not explain why, as far back as 1965, half of blacks in the United States had already made their way to the middle class. Those stuck at the bottom could not logically be explained by referencing slavery and discrimination when, in fact, the 1960s saw an explosion in civil rights legislation. Something else was going on.

That something else was the creation of the welfare state and the crackup of the black family. Dependency did more to harm blacks from becoming upwardly mobile than Jim Crow laws ever did. The refusal of white liberals to acknowledge this verity is alarming.

Why the reluctance to state the obvious? That’s easy. White liberals are the ones who crafted the welfare laws and lobbied hard to get blacks on the welfare rolls.

The raw truth is that white liberals, not white Christians, are responsible for the white-black divide. As Thomas Sowell points out in his new book, white liberals have resisted every school choice initiative, including charter schools.

Yet it is precisely in charter schools and Catholic schools where lower-class blacks have found a lever to ascend to the middle class. Similarly, the sight of white liberals, who live in tony neighborhoods, leading the charge to defund the police, is nauseating. This is the kind of effort we might expect from the Ku Klux Klan.

Blaming white Christians for the problems of black Americans is not only unsupported by the empirical evidence, it is a dodge. It is white liberals who have worked overtime to keep blacks down. They need to get out of the street, repent, and undo the damage they have done.

Contact Jones’s media staffer, Jordun Lawrence: press@prri.org

On September 23, 2015, Pope Francis canonized Junípero Serra, the 18th century Spanish priest who courageously defended the human rights of Indians in North America.

A week later the New York Times maligned St. Serra in a front-page story by Laura M. Holson, “Sainthood of Serra Reopens Wounds in Colonialism in California.” She said that “Historians agree that he [Serra] forced Native Americans to abandon their tribal culture and convert to Christianity, and that he had them whipped and imprisoned and sometimes worked or tortured to death.”

This was a bald-face lie. As we will show, the newspaper’s response to Bill Donohue’s criticism was astoundingly unconvincing. Now this same accusation appears in a New York Times online opinion column by Elizabeth Bruenig, “American Catholics and Black Lives Matter.”

Bruenig writes that Serra’s “eager participation in the conquest of North America” included “torture, enslavement and murder of some of the Native Americans he intended to convert.” Note that she embellishes the lies that Holson told.

On the same day that Holson’s news story was published in the newspaper, September 30, 2015, Donohue emailed her the following: “You said that ‘Historians agree’ that Fr. Serra had Indians ‘tortured to death.’ I have done research on Serra and written about him, yet I know of no historian who makes such a claim. Please name them. I can name many who never made such a claim.”

When Holson did not respond, Donohue contacted the “Corrections” section on October 1 asking for a correction; He also contacted the public editor.

“This is a serious issue: when a reporter blithely says that ‘Historians agree,’ readers take it that there is at least a consensus among historians about the subject. But such is not the case on this issue. The only persons given to such an accusation are radical activists, not professional scholars.” Donohue even emailed a list of “the most authoritative books on Fr. Serra” and pointed out that not one of the authors whom he cited ever accused Serra of torture.

After a week went by, with no response, Donohue wrote the newspaper again and asked if someone could “name the historians who say Fr. Serra tortured Indians.” Finally, he received a response from Gregory E. Brock, Senior Editor for Standards at the New York Times.

Brock said the editors had discussed Donohue’s complaint but were waiting for Holson to return from Oregon (she was doing a story about a shooting) before contacting him. Fine. Then Brock got specific. His response is a gem.

“Certainly you have very strong views on this issue and have written extensively about it. But after many discussions, a review of past Times coverage and other resources, I agree with Ms. Holson’s editors that ‘historians’ is accurate, and therefore no correction is required.

“At one point you sent us a list of books you considered to be ‘the authoritative books on Fr. Serra.’ Ms. Holson had already reviewed the writings of some of the historians you cited in that list.

“If I thought having an extended conversation on this would help, I would be happy to. But after re-reading your correspondence, I cannot think of anything we could do or say that would convince you that our coverage was fair and complete—or that the reference to ‘historians’ is accurate.”

Brock ended by saying, “rest assured that your points have been thoroughly reviewed and a great deal of time has been put into making this decision.”

Here is how Donohue responded.

“Thank you for taking my complaint seriously. I have just one question: Who are the ‘historians’ who claim that Fr. Serra tortured Indians?”

This was the end of the correspondence. They were caught in a lie and did not have the courage to admit it. And now they are smearing St. Serra again.

To read Donohue’s account of the saintly priest, “The Noble Legacy of Fr. Serra,” and the exchange that he had with the Times in 2015 visit our website, catholicleague.org.

We sent this news release to the paper’s news and opinion editors.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court:

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has won over the American people and, as we shall see shortly, a majority of the senate. Women are particularly admiring of her, and Catholic women see her as a role model. About the only ones unhappy with her are left-wing atheists, and a few others. The few others includes the editorial staff of the National Catholic Reporter. It has come out formally against Barrett, asking the senate to reject her. Fortunately, no one on the senate knows who they are.

The Reporter is a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-women’s ordination newspaper that is partly responsible for the clergy sexual abuse scandal. It is mostly read by ex-Catholic faculty who condemn the Church’s teachings on marriage, the family, and sexuality. Lots of ex-priests and ex-nuns like it as well. It makes them feel validated.

Why doesn’t the Reporter like Barrett? She should “have phoned the White House and asked not to be considered for the nomination.” This is the kind of comment we might expect from a child. Why should she have done what no other nominee to any federal post would ever conceive of doing? Because the senate hearings are too close to the election.

The Reporter needs to hire some non-sexist men and women. Either that or fold. Only sexists would express their anger at Barrett’s “adoring look” at the president. Worse, they said it was feigned: they wrote that Barrett gave President Trump “the required adoring look.” The sexists would never make such a remark about a male nominee to the high court.

Everyone with an IQ in double digits knows that climate change is a contentious issue. Everyone but the sages at the Reporter. For them, there is nothing to debate—it’s a slam dunk. Indeed, no debate should be allowed. That’s another reason they hate Barrett, who acknowledged it is a controversial matter. Her independence of mind is not something the dissidents can appreciate.

The Reporter is furious that Barrett will replace the “brilliant scholar,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is not Ginsburg’s alleged brilliance that they like: it’s her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage record they like. Ginsburg was also a pro-affirmative action judge who never hired a black person to work for her (until she was seated on the Supreme Court). She also got confirmed despite wanting to lower the age of consent for sexual crimes and advocating the legalization of prostitution.

Finally, the “Catholic” newspaper is livid over the prospect of having six Catholics on the high court (that’s if we count Catholic dissident Sonia Sotomayor). Imagine a Jewish newspaper saying there are too many Jews on the high court (we had three up until Ginsburg died)? No, only alienated Catholics would make such an argument.

Judge Barrett is a stunningly courageous and erudite woman who makes Catholics proud. And that is one more reason why the National Catholic Reporter does not want her on the bench. Too late for that—we’re just shy of winning.

Contact Reporter CEO, Thomas Fox: tfox@ncronline.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the need to claim AOC as Catholic:

There isn’t much left of the Catholic Left these days. Jealous of the success that EWTN has had for decades—there is no TV station run by Catholic dissidents—and outclassed by Catholic conservative writers and speakers, there is a pressing need for them to find a public person they can anoint as one of their own. They have found such a person in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Or at least they think they have.

The latest attempt to rescue AOC from her inveterate secularism is the National Catholic Reporter. The New York congresswoman is said to credit her Catholic faith for her positions on climate change and healthcare. But is she really a Catholic?

“I consider myself Catholic,” AOC said.

That is not how Catholics speak of themselves. They simply say they are Catholic. Indeed, it is not how most people articulate any of their multiple identities. Imagine someone saying, “I consider myself to be Irish,” or “I consider myself to be an author.” Why the need to hedge? There is nothing subjective about being Catholic, Irish, or an author. You either are or you are not.

Ironically, AOC’s tentativeness is warranted. For example, she did not tell the reporter that she has been a Catholic all her life; rather, she said she “grew up in the Catholic faith” (while noting her mother is not Catholic). More important, to what extent does she take her moral cues from her Catholic background?

Over the summer, the National Catholic Reporter ran an article they knew was false. “AOC is the Future of the Catholic Church.” Fallen away Catholics are a reality, and they may play a role in shaping the culture, but they are certainly not the future of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, the best the author of this propaganda piece could do was to say that after listening to an address AOC gave on the House floor, she was “struck by how often it referenced Catholic values.” The subject of AOC’s speech was the need to respect women. Fine, but there is nothing inherently Catholic about that stance; even non-believers agree. Moreover, it was not AOC who credited her Catholicism for her view—it was the author. This shows how desperate Catholic dissidents are in their search to find someone to carry their banner.

The Catholic Left wants the public to think that AOC’s Catholicism is evident in her social justice positions. But how kind was AOC to the poor when she fought an attempt by Amazon to set up shop in her district? Because of her effort, an estimated 25,000 to 40,000 jobs were lost.

How kind is AOC to the poor by consigning them to failed public schools? She is opposed to all school choice initiatives, except for those that touch her personally: She bragged about getting her Goddaughter into a charter school.

The poor are the ones most affected by crime, and they are not proponents of defunding the police. AOC is. In fact, she wants to abolish the prisons. Just whose neighborhoods does she think the felons will repair to once released?

Children are among the most vulnerable Americans. AOC says we have too many of them. That is why last year she raised the question, “Is it okay to still have children?” This sheds great light on her enthusiasm for abortion rights.

Social justice crusaders are supposed to be judicious in their approach to minorities. Yet AOC is a strong ally of Linda Sarsour, a vicious anti-Semite. More recently, just a few months ago AOC ripped Father Damien, the 19th century priest who gave his life serving lepers on the Hawaiian island of Molokai. She said this heroic priest was guilty of patriarchy and white supremacy.

If AOC is the best the Catholic Left can do in their quest to find a leader, they are in serious trouble. They may “consider” AOC to be a Catholic, but we are equally free to consider their campaign a ploy.

Contact National Catholic Reporter CEO, Tom Fox: tfox@ncronline.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a pro-Christmas ad that has been nixed by elites:

The Catholic League became the latest victim of the cancel culture when education elites refused to run an ad with a pro-Christmas message. This is a story that should upset all Americans, not simply followers of the Catholic League. Everything that follows is documented.

In early September, I asked the policy staff to research the nation’s leading elementary and secondary school publications and organizations. The goal was to send its subscribers and officials a short ad on the legal issues governing Christmas celebrations in the schools. By reaching a wide audience, it was hoped that we might persuade some in the education establishment to allow more Christmas events this year.

In late September, we sent the ad that I wrote to the marketing and advertising departments of Education Week, the National Association of Education, Scholastic magazine and the American School Board Journal. None of the four got back to us. Education Next offered us a spot in its quarterly publication, but that was not practical given our desire to affect decision making in time for Christmas celebrations. One publication, Education Leadership, simply rejected the ad.

On September 29, we received promising news from the American Association of School Superintendents and Administrators (AASA).

“The content of your E-blast is subject to AASA review and approval. We often have minor feedback once the team reviews, so I would anticipate a round or two of edits before the message deploys. We will ensure ample time to do so and we have never had an instance when E-blast was prevented from deploying on schedule.”

I asked our director of communications, Mike McDonald, to contact the agent at AASA and ask whether we could pay the fee by credit card, and what the chances of it being accepted are. “To pay via credit card, I will send you a payment link. As far as the ad goes, we only invoice when ads run, so yes, your ad has been approved and will not be rejected.” (My italics.)

The ad was scheduled to be digitally distributed on November 13. But on the afternoon of November 6, we received the following email. “I am very sorry to share this news, but, per our Media Kit, AASA has rejected your ad for the DEDICATED EBLAST on November 13, 2020. I regret to share we are officially cancelling this contract for that reason.” (All the emphasis is in the original.)

We asked our members in October to pay for the ad, which they did, anticipating its publication. I will explain to them in the December issue of Catalyst, our monthly (ten times a year) journal, what happened. The Catholic League has been officially cancelled by the public school establishment.

Having spent 20 years in education, teaching every grade from the second through graduate school, I am not shocked by the outcome. As I have said on many occasions, there is more free speech allowed in local pubs than there is on local college campuses.

The schools are quick to celebrate the alleged achievements of Muslims and so-called Indigenous peoples, but they want nothing to do with celebrations of Christians, and this certainly includes Christmas. So the censorship continues.

To read the ad the education elites cannot stomach, click here.

Contact Daniel A. Domenech, executive director, AASA: ddomenech@aasa.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story by the Associated Press about the way lay Catholics allegedly responded to Archbishop Gomez’s statement on Joe Biden:

Most of the news stories on the alleged widespread division in the ranks of the Catholic laity are bogus. How do I know? Because most writers, and many pollsters, fail to disaggregate on the basis of religiosity. To be exact, those who do not make a distinction between practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics are intellectually dishonest. Lumping them together yields a distorted profile of the Catholic community.

Virtually all polls that disaggregate on the metric of religiosity have long found that most non-practicing Catholics reject Church teachings on life, ordination, marriage, the family, and sexuality. To what extent can they be called Catholic? If their views are practically indistinguishable from non-observant Americans, why are they not classified as secularists?

This is not a new phenomenon, but it is already clear that if Joe Biden is elected president next month by the Electoral College, this issue is going to escalate in the media.

A clear case in point is the November 18 AP story by David Crary, “Catholics Divided as Bishops Examine Biden’s Abortion Stance.” While Crary properly notes that Catholics split the vote on Trump-Biden (50% to 49%, respectively), he makes the point that there is an alleged Catholic divide over comments recently made by Archbishop José Gomez, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Gomez told his fellow bishops that Biden’s record on many policy positions, such as abortion, is problematic: it posed a “difficult and complex situation” for the Church. According to Crary, Catholics are “sharply divided” over Gomez’s remarks.

Crary cites no evidence, save for a few comments made by so-called progressive Catholics. He provides no survey data. That is because most Catholics—you can take it to the bank—have no idea what Gomez said, and this includes real Catholics (i.e., those who are practicing). So why the need to make up a controversy when there isn’t any?

Here’s what’s going on. Catholics who reject Church teachings on the aforementioned issues are all ginned up these days, hoping to press the bishops to fall in line with Biden (or at least not to challenge him.) That’s what this is all about. Just consider the comments made by left-wing Catholics.

David Gibson of Fordham’s Center on Religion and Culture says, “The USCCB leadership simply can’t embrace the idea of engagement and goodwill that Pope Francis has asked of them.” It apparently does not occur to Gibson that it is Biden, not the bishops, who can’t embrace many central teachings of the Catholic Church, and it is that—not episcopal recalcitrance—that is driving this issue. If only Biden would obey.

Natalia Imperatori-Lee, who teaches religious studies at Manhattan College, also blames the bishops. She says, “they’d like to start an antagonistic relationship” with Biden. The truth is that Biden is at war with the Catholic Church: He opposes teachings on abortion, marriage, sexuality (he is a big transgender fan) and religious liberty. That’s the cause of the antagonism. Her attempt to portray Biden as the victim is risible.

Thomas Groome of Boston College blames Gomez for his “dreadfully unfortunate” address. Spoken like a true dissident. Crary also quotes Jamie Manson, another dissident—she is now the head of an anti-Catholic and pro-abortion letterhead (Catholics for Choice)—lashing out at Gomez for his “condescending remarks.” Practicing Catholics would be more inclined to see his statement as unpretentious, even humble, like the man himself.

Left-wing Catholics cited by the media are not representative of Catholics found in the pews. Indeed, they are more closely aligned with secularists. This is a shell game, designed to shape public opinion with a false narrative. Biden is the problem, not the bishops.

Contact Crary: dcrary@ap.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an attack on the U.S. Bishops:

The National Catholic Reporter has been a fraud since its inception in 1964. Shortly thereafter, local Ordinary, Bishop Charles Helmsing of Kansas City-St. Joseph, ordered it to stop identifying itself as Catholic. It has been insubordinate ever since.

Now, pleased to have a pro-abortion president in the White House who identifies as a Catholic, it is waging war against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), singling out its president, Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez, for special rebuke. For the Reporter, the bishops were too kind to President Trump (who did more to advance religious liberty than any president in American history), and they are too critical of President Biden.

The National Catholic Reporter is now asking Pope Francis to investigate the USCCB. What it really wants is to silence Archbishop Gomez.

The Catholic League stands proudly with Archbishop Gomez and all his fellow bishops at the USCCB. They are not being hoodwinked by the White House occupant who wears his “devoutness” on his sleeve while thumbing his nose at the pope and the bishops. As for the Reporter, it bears as much resemblance to Catholicism as the Mafia does.

Contact Heidi Schlumpf, executive editor at the Reporter: hschlumpf@ncronline.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on guidelines issued by the Diocese of Sioux Falls on sexuality:

The Diocese of Sioux Falls has issued a policy on human sexuality that is fair, yet firm, and in complete agreement with Catholic moral theology and social teachings. Bishop Donald E. DeGrood has the wisdom and courage not to duck the hard questions that such a policy entails, especially these days.

In a time when sexual engineers in government, the schools and the healthcare industry are busy promoting the virtues of sexual reassignment surgery for young people—all in the name of transgender rights—it is refreshing to see a senior member of the Catholic Church directly confront the mythologies that gender ideology entertains.

More important, Bishop DeGrood has alerted school administrators, teachers, coaches and guidance counselors of their obligation to remain faithful to Catholic teachings in a time when those who do so are subjected to insult and abuse.

“All persons have inherent human dignity and are thus deserving of innate respect as a person. Bullying, harassment, or threats or acts of violence against any student based on that student’s perceived sex, same-sex attraction, or perceived gender identity, will not be tolerated.”

Those are the first words of the policy on human sexuality. They reflect the centrality of Catholic teachings on the human person, and they make clear that while transgender ideology will not be countenanced, no student, regardless of his sex or perceived sex, will be treated unfairly.

Unfair critics of this policy will seize on some of the more specific parts of it. “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.” Similarly, “Students may not advocate, celebrate, or express transgenderism in such a way as to cause confusion or distraction in the context of Catholic school classes, activities or events.”

Other parts of the policy that will be criticized by some include the following. “Students are to wear only those uniforms and conform to all dress codes in accord with his or her biological sex.” Boys can only use bathrooms for boys. Ditto for girls. Everyone will use the correct pronouns when referring to boys (“he,” “him,” etc.) and girls (“she,” “her,” etc.). Boys cannot play girls’ sports, and vice versa.

Bishop DeGrood’s commonsensical policy is accompanied by a well-written letter he released on August 4. “Some people have come to accept transgender ideology out of a wish to express affirmation or tolerance for others. Insofar as this is motivated by the innate desire to love others, it contains a seed of goodness. But at the same time, there are serious concerns around what transgender ideology claims or teaches.”

The next sentence is critical. “Given the relatively brief period it has been part of our human experience,” he says, “there is also a seeming lack of regard for transgenderism’s consequences for individuals and the human family.”

Yes, transgenderism is an ideology: it is a pernicious set of ideas that denies the biblical truths about male and female.

The bishop pulls no punches about it. Gender ideology “asserts that men can become pregnant and women can become fathers. It also teaches that a person might not be a man or a woman at all but might be a blend of both, or neither. It variously asserts that one’s gender might be wrongly ‘assigned’ at birth and also that it may be ‘fluid’ and change throughout one’s life.”

Not only does this mean the adoption of a distorted vocabulary to refer to transgender persons, the bishop says, it may mean “using surgery or drugs to ‘affirm’ one’s asserted transgender identity. These can include powerful drugs to stop normal pubertal development in adolescents, hormones to spur the development of cross-sex secondary sexual characteristics in post-pubescent aged youth or adults, and/or surgeries to one’s face, torso, or reproductive organs to give the appearance of being the opposite sex.”

The wording is precise and a much needed antidote to the reigning madness on this subject.

Kudos to Bishop DeGrood. Not only is his policy a model for every diocese, it is a model for every school in the nation, public or private. Let him know your support.

Contact Renae Kranz, director of communications: rkranz@sfcatholic.org