Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Catholic Church’s response to slavery:

As Black History Month comes to a close, the subject of slavery has been discussed in many forums. In some cases, treatment of the Catholic Church’s role has been misrepresented.

Slavery is one of the most ubiquitous and historically accepted institutions in history. There is not a place on the globe where slavery did not exist, and protests against it have been extremely rare. The Hebrews, Greeks and Romans saw nothing wrong with it, and neither did the Africans, Chinese and Japanese. Aristotle thought slavery was a normal way of life.

It is important to recognize that, notwithstanding the American experience, slavery has almost never had anything to do with race: people of the same race, ethnicity, tribe, or clan enslaved each other. Moreover, it was not uncommon for former slaves to enslave others. That slavery still exists today in parts of Africa (which did not make it illegal until the 1980s) is proof of its tenacious legacy.

If slavery was considered normal throughout most of history, when, and for what reasons, was it finally seen as objectionable? We can credit Western civilization with that honor: It was the first civilization to condemn slavery. The driving force behind it was Christianity.

The first person in history to condemn slavery publicly was Saint Patrick. A former slave himself, he enunciated the wisdom of natural law without specifically invoking it. All men were created equal in the eyes of God, he said, and should therefore be treated as equals in law. It was this quintessentially Catholic concept—all humans possess equal dignity— that eventually proved to be triumphant.

In antiquity, slavery was so common that Pope Pius I in the second century and Pope Callistus I in the third century were slaves. It wasn’t until the fourth century that a bishop rejected slavery, and that was Gregory of Nyssa.

In practice, the Church’s opposition to slavery began with its objections to the inhumane treatment of slaves; only later did it condemn the institution itself. But by protesting maltreatment, it did more to lay the groundwork for the eventual demise of slavery than any other institution, secular or religious.

Given the Church’s role in opposing slavery it was troubling to read a recent Washington Post article posted online by Shannen Dee Williams, a professor of history at Villanova University. Apparently unaware of Saint Patrick and Gregory of Nyssa (who later became a saint), she claims the Church played “the leading role” in the history of slavery. She even goes so far as to say that the Catholic Church was “the first global institution to declare that Black lives did not matter.”

This is not simply an example of shoddy scholarship—it is a vicious lie. To make her case, she cites papal bulls by Pope Nicholas V in 1452 and Pope Alexander VI in 1493 as evidence that “the Catholic Church authorized the perpetual enslavement of Africans and the seizure of ‘non-Christian lands.'” This account is seriously flawed.

Nicholas V’s “Dum Diversas” was a response to those who sought “to extinguish [the] Christian religion.” The pope argued that the King of Portugal had a right to protect his people and to hold in “perpetual servitude” the Saracens (Muslims) and pagans who threatened Christianity. The pope did not make a sweeping statement about enslaving Africans, as Williams contends.

Pope Alexander VI’s “Inter Caetera” awarded colonial rights over newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal. Nowhere in his papal bull does the pope even mention slaves or slavery. For Williams to imply otherwise is scurrilous.

Had Williams dug a little deeper she would have cited Pope Paul III’s decision to forbade slavery in the New World under penalty of excommunication. This was in 1537, at a time when no other leader, secular or religious, was denouncing slavery. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI also condemned slavery, but it was Pope Leo XIII in 1888 who took the most authoritative steps to abolish this institution.

It was the Catholic Church’s teaching on natural law—all humans possess equal dignity and equal rights—that proved to be determinative in the end. Aristotle may be the father of natural law but he thought it was normal for slaves to obey their masters. The Church disagreed. It invoked natural rights—our equal rights come from God, not government—thus making the case to undermine slavery.

An honest historical account of the role played by the Catholic Church in ending slavery is not being taught in the schools, at any level. This has less to do with scholarship than it does politics.

To cite one example, how many college students are aware that the first prominent sociologist in American history, George Fitzhugh, was known as a progressive and a strong defender of slavery? In the 1850s, he maintained that because blacks were intellectually and morally inferior to white people, they could never successfully compete with whites in a capitalist society and were therefore better off as slaves. This is what happens when natural law and natural rights are jettisoned.

It is time for those in education, and for the publishers of elementary and secondary textbooks in history and the social sciences, to render an accurate depiction of the Catholic Church’s role in ending slavery.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on accusations of sexual harassment against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo needs to step aside immediately pending an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. In doing so, he would simply be taking the same medicine he has prescribed for the Catholic Church.

If a priest is accused of sexual misconduct, the Church’s zero tolerance policy insists he must step aside pending an investigation. Initially, this policy was directed at offenses committed against minors. However, in 2017 and 2019, Pope Francis said that zero tolerance must also be applied to sexual offenses committed against “vulnerable adults,” defined, in part, as those in a state that “limits their ability” to “want or otherwise resist the offense.”

According to allegations made by Lindsey Boylan, she would qualify as a “vulnerable adult.” The former high-ranking official in the Cuomo administration has accused the governor of a series of sexual offenses, ranging from unwanted sexual touching to kissing her against her will. She has also accused him of intimidation, thus underscoring her vulnerability. “He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences.”

Boylan claims that other women have also been sexually harassed by Cuomo. We know that Karen Hinton, for instance, a former Cuomo aide, has accused him of “penis politics.” This would seem to bolster Boylan’s point that Cuomo “created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected.”

What makes Boylan’s accusations so rich is that in 2018 Cuomo said, “There must be zero tolerance for sexual harassment in any workplace, and we can and will end the secrecy and coercive practices that have enabled harassment for far too long.”

In 2019, he signed legislation to combat this problem. “There has been an ongoing, persistent culture of sexual harassment, assault and discrimination in the workplace, and now it is time to act.” He even lowered the bar as to what constitutes sexual harassment.

“By ending the absurd legal standard that sexual harassment in the workplace needs to be ‘severe or pervasive’ and making it easier for workplace sexual harassment claims to be brought forward,” he said, “we are sending a strong message that time is up on sexual harassment in the workplace and setting the standard of equality for women.”

In light of what Boylan said he did to her, her allegations meet this test.

Cuomo denies the charges and should be treated as an innocent man. It must be said, however, that he has a history of not affording a presumption of innocence to others accused of sexual offenses.

When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice, the judge was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of a sexual offense that he allegedly committed when he was in high school. He denied the charge. But that didn’t stop Cuomo from calling her a “sexual survivor,” even though not a single witness came to her defense. “To Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and all survivors of sexual assault,” Cuomo said, “we believe you and we will fight for you.”

We can only imagine how Cuomo would react if I said, “To Lindsey Boylan and all survivors of sexual assault, we believe you and we will fight for you.”

For many years, Cuomo has treated accused priests the same way. When has he ever stood up for their due process rights? Two years ago, after making sweeping accusations against the Catholic Church, he closed his remarks by saying, “You can’t get a resolution without the truth and there are so many people and so many institutions that just don’t want to hear the truth.”

Well, Gov. Cuomo, it’s time for you to take another dose of your own medicine. The public wants to know the truth about the charges levied against you. You can facilitate this process by taking a leaf out of the Catholic Church’s playbook and step aside pending a probe of your alleged sexual offenses.

Contact Cuomo’s press office: Press.Office@exec.ny.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an attempt to spin the criticism of Xavier Becerra:

Given his anti-Catholic record, it is no surprise that Xavier Becerra’s nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is in trouble. Trying to rescue him is Sister Carol Keehan, the former head of the Catholic Health Association of the United States.

NBCNews online picked up an op-ed by Keehan alleging that Becerra is a victim of anti-Catholicism. Though she deplored those who were “attacking his Catholicism,” she failed to offer a scintilla of evidence. The best she could do was to cite a remark by Senator Mitch McConnell last month noting that Becerra’s healthcare experience was limited to suing those “who dare to live out their religious convictions.”

McConnell’s observation was correct. The Senate Minority Leader was referring to Becerra’s role in crafting the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), a central part of which is the HHS mandate forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plan. That is what he was referring to, and there is nothing bigoted about it.

Keehan adores Becerra so much that she says his character “is rooted in his Catholic upbringing and values.” Really?

• When Becerra voted as a congressman against a ban on partial-birth abortions—the child’s skull must first be crushed—was that an example of his “Catholic upbringing and values”?
• When Becerra voted against a ban on transporting minors seeking an abortion to states with relaxed abortion laws—a form of human trafficking—was that an example of his “Catholic upbringing and values”?
• When Becerra voted against a bill that would criminalize the killing of unborn babies during the commission of another crime, was that an example of his “Catholic upbringing and values”?
• When Becerra, acting as California Attorney General, sought to put crisis pregnancy centers out of business, was that an example of his “Catholic upbringing and values”?
• When Becerra brought felony charges against those who filmed Planned Parenthood officials trafficking in aborted baby parts, was that an example of his “Catholic upbringing and values”?
• When Becerra said that the conscience rights of Christian business owners who objected to paying for birth control in their healthcare plans need not be respected, was that an example of his “Catholic upbringing and values”?
• When Becerra relentlessly pursued the Little Sisters of the Poor, trying to force them to violate Catholic teachings, was that an example of his “Catholic upbringing and values”?
• When Becerra co-sponsored the Equality Act—the most radical assault on Christianity ever broached in the Congress—was that an example of his “Catholic upbringing and values”?

Becerra is no victim of anti-Catholicism. In fact, he is a master sponsor of it.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Amazon’s latest free speech victim:

Ryan T. Anderson was recently named president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a respectable conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. He is a brilliant social commentator who spent several years at The Heritage Foundation. One of his books, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement,” is no longer available on Amazon. That’s because it is a critical analysis of this phenomenon.

If Anderson is too controversial for Amazon, then it is only a matter of time before Pope Francis is censored. That actually would be great—it’s time the cancel culture mavens had their tyrannical powers blow up in their faces.

Available on Amazon is a book, “San Giovanni Paolo Magno,” authored by Father Luigi Maria Epicoco and Pope Francis, that was published last year in Italian. In it the pope condemns gender theory—the idea that men and women can switch their sex—as “evil.” The pope made it clear that he was not referring to “those who have a homosexual orientation.” Rather, he was referring to “an attack on difference, on God’s creativity, on man and woman.”

Is Amazon going to censor this book? If so, where will it stop? If not, why not?

This was hardly the first time Pope Francis denounced gender ideology. In 2015, he called this novel idea “ideological colonization,” saying that it preys on children. Indeed, he said it was analogous to “the Hitler Youth.” In 2014, he went further, arguing that “Gender ideology is demonic.”

Now if these remarks by the Holy Father were to appear in a book, would Amazon carry it?

The appetite for censorship on the left is at a fever pitch. Those responsible for this assault on free speech need to be subjected to much greater scrutiny on the part of Congress than has been true to date.

Contact Mary Kate McCarthy, corporate communications at Amazon: mkmcc@amazon.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains why the Equality Act is flawed:

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Equality Act is “about ending discrimination”; President Joe Biden agrees. That may be its intent, but its effect is to promote the most comprehensive assault on Christianity ever written into law.

This explains why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been fighting this proposed law for years. Most recently it said the Equality Act “would discriminate against people of faith.” The Catholic League and many other civil rights and religious organizations have also sounded the alarm.

The Equality Act has two major goals: it would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity to the definition of sex; it would also undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by allowing gay rights to trump religious rights.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was primarily motivated by a desire to end racial segregation. It banned discrimination based on race, sex or national origin. That was it. It said absolutely nothing about sexual orientation, and it certainly didn’t address transgender rights—it wasn’t even a concept in the 1960s. Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to this law not only violates the intent of the legislation, it unduly burdens   houses of worship and other religious organizations.

In order to end racial segregation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act banned discrimination in public accommodations. Blacks had historically been denied services in many public facilities, ranging from diners to hotels. The Equality Act goes way beyond this, so much so that it disfigures the meaning of this historic 1964 law.

The Equality Act not only covers homosexuals and transgender persons, it expands public accommodations to include consumer services such as healthcare. In practice this would be a disaster. It would mean, for example, that healthcare providers would be forced to provide hormone therapies and surgical procedures that are required to change the physical characteristics associated with sex changes.

One does not have to be a Catholic healthcare practitioner to register moral and religious objections to this “healthcare” initiative. Will anyone be allowed to voice objections to these procedures, pointing out the long-term physical and mental problems associated with sex reassignment? What about parents who learn that their child wants to switch his or her sex? Will their rights be respected or eviscerated?

It has become increasingly clear that the expansion of rights to transgender women—really biological males who identify as female—has come at the expense of rights for biological females. Take sports.

Boys and men would be allowed to compete in sports with girls and women, thus unfairly altering women’s athletics. Females would also lose their privacy rights. These biological males can use the locker rooms, restrooms and shower facilities that have always been reserved for females. None of this has anything to do with why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. There are other problems with this bill that alone should be enough to stop it from ever becoming law.

In 1993, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); it was signed by President Bill Clinton. This was a major victory for religious liberty. But now Pelosi and Schumer regret their vote, even to the point of supporting the Equality Act, knowing full well that it exempts itself from RFRA! This is perverse. There could be no more serious undercutting of religious liberty than what they are proposing.

It would mean that Catholics, evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Muslims and many other religious communities could not raise religious liberty objections to any of the aforementioned rights of transgender women. In effect, religious entities would be secularized.

For example, if the Equality Act were to become law, Catholic foster care programs would be shut down. They would either have to agree to allow two men to adopt children—a clear violation of Church teachings—or lose federal funding. This is the kind of “gotcha” type element that makes this bill so pernicious.

Currently, Catholic hospitals can legally refuse to perform abortions. Under the Equality Act, they would either lose federal funding or be forced to get into the abortion business. That is because refusing abortion services would be declared “pregnancy” discrimination.

Without the religious liberty protections afforded by RFRA, virtually every religious institution—from houses of worship to schools—would be expected to fall in line with this radical legislation. Catholic schools, for instance, would be expected to change their teachings on sexual ethics to suit the radical LGBT agenda.

It is hard for the public to understand, especially Catholics, why such allegedly “devout Catholics” as Biden and Pelosi would want to champion such patently anti-Christian legislation as the Equality Act.

We are contacting the entire Congress. You can help by contacting the following:

Megan Miller: megan.miller@mail.house.gov

Michelle Altman: michelle_altman@lankford.senate.gov

Miller works for Rep. Steve Scalise, the House Majority Whip who is organizing Republican opposition to the bill. Altman works for Sen. James Lankford; he has been a consistent critic of the bill.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the growing tension between President Biden and the bishops:

President Biden has been in office for just over a month and already he is on a collision course with the bishops. It reached a new level today when he issued a statement endorsing the Equality Act; next week it will be voted on in the House and will also be reintroduced in the Senate.

Biden sees the Equality Act as granting “dignity and respect” to everyone, making sure that “America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all.” He says it is needed because “LGBTQ+ Americans” have been denied “full equality.”

This is a dishonest account. If the bill were as benign as Biden says it is, why would the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop’s (USCCB) be so adamantly opposed to it? The bishops have not been fooled. The Equality Act is, without a doubt, the most radical assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy rights ever packaged into one bill.

When Archbishop José Gomez, chairman of the USCCB, warned in November that some of Biden’s policies were troubling, he explicitly mentioned “the passage of the Equality Act.” As the bishops have previously noted, it could gut the autonomy of Catholic hospitals, especially with regards to reproductive issues. It could also be used to compel Catholic schools to grant boys access to the locker rooms and shower facilities of girls.

Of course, Biden never mentions such matters. His speechwriters are masters of spin.

Gomez said the Equality Act poses “a serious threat to the common good,” but that wasn’t the worst of it. What made it really treacherous was its endorsement by a Catholic president. The chairman of the USCCB rightly observed that “it creates confusion among the faithful about what the Church actually teaches on these questions.”

Biden’s statement today promoting the passage of the Equality Act means that the collision course with the bishops has reached its destination. Biden has formally triggered the crash.

I will have more in the way of detailed objections to the Equality Act next week.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the nomination of Xavier Becerra to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services:

President Biden’s worst nominee for a Cabinet post is Xavier Becerra to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). On February 23, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions will conduct a hearing on his nomination. The man is a menace to life and liberty and has no business serving in this capacity.

Here are 16 reasons why Becerra should not be confirmed.

Beginning of Life

1) It would be impossible to find a more enthusiastic advocate of abortion-on-demand. While a majority of Americans support legal abortion, it does so with important qualifications: it does not support abortion for any reason and at any time during pregnancy. As such, Becerra is out of the mainstream. Indeed, he is an extremist. That is why he secures a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood and a 0% score from National Right to Life.

2) Becerra’s lust for abortion even allows him to support partial-birth abortion, a practice which allows the abortionist to crush the skull of a baby who is 80% born so that the child can exit the woman’s birth canal.

3) For all the talk about allowing pregnant women the right to choose, Becerra is on record seeking to prevent them from choosing life. To be exact, when he was the California Attorney General, he lost in the U.S. Supreme Court in his attempt to effectively close down crisis pregnancy centers across the state.

In 2016, in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, the high court ruled against his mandate forcing abortion-alternative centers to post a message saying the state will pay for a woman’s abortion. This not only negated the reason these centers were founded, it constituted “compelled speech,” and was therefore unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In short, Becerra’s idea of freedom to choose is limited to choosing abortion over adoption.

4) If someone who assaults a pregnant woman winds up killing her unborn child, that would seem to make him a criminal. But not to Becerra. As a congressman, he voted against a bill that would criminalize the killing of an unborn child during the commission of another crime. According to Becerra, the unborn child has no rights that the law needs to respect.

5) Though it is hard to believe, there are underground railroads run by abortion extremists that literally transport minors to states where they can easily get an abortion. This is a particularly obscene form of human trafficking that makes even pro-abortion politicians wince. Not Becerra. He voted against a ban on this hideous practice.

6) Becerra proved himself to be a pro-abortion zealot once again when he brought charges against pro-life activists who went undercover to film Planned Parenthood officials trafficking in aborted baby parts. He brought felony charges against them. His decision was so radical that even the abortion-rights Los Angeles Times criticized him for “disturbing overreach.” In 2017, a judge dismissed 14 of the 15 charges as legally insufficient.

Genetic Engineering

7) Embryonic stem cell research, unlike other kinds of stem cell research, is a life and death issue. Science tells us that nascent human life is evident at the embryonic stage, making it impossible to do embryonic stem cell research without killing the embryo. This does not matter to Becerra, which explains his vote in Congress to approve it.

8) Human cloning is an issue that most lawmakers and judges have declined to address. Their reluctance is grounded in the moral and legal dilemmas associated with making a genetically identical copy of a human being in the laboratory. Becerra, however, is different. When he was in Congress, he approved human cloning for research purposes.

End of Life

9) It makes sense that if someone does not value innocent human life at its beginning that he would not value it at its end. Becerra is a classic example of this mentality. When he was Attorney General in California, his strong support for doctor-assisted suicide won him the kudos of the most radical proponents of this cause.

Religious Liberty

10) Conscience rights are at the very heart of religious liberty. To put it mildly, Becerra is not a fan. When those who owned Hobby Lobby were pleading their case, invoking their conscience rights as grounds for objecting to paying for birth control in their healthcare plan, Becerra maintained that such rights should not matter. He said it was one thing to hold to religious beliefs, quite another to act on them. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court did not ratify such contorted logic and sustained the conscience rights of the business owners.

11) Few Attorneys General in the United States fought more ferociously to deny the Little Sisters of the Poor their religious rights than Becerra. The nuns objected to being forced to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization in their healthcare plan. At every stage, Becerra hounded them. He even filed lawsuits against the Trump administration for shielding the nuns from the HHS mandate passed under the Obama administration.

12) Should a baker be forced against his will to make a wedding cake for two men planning to marry? The owner did not object to selling his products to gay men. What he found objectionable, on religious grounds, was being ordered to inscribe a wedding cake for two homosexuals; to do so would force him to affirm their status. Becerra said too bad for them—their religious convictions should be overridden. This explains why he filed an amicus brief on the part of the gay men. But once again, he lost.

13) Practicing Catholics, among others, do not believe that people of the same sex should be adoptive parents. Anyone is free to disagree, but respect for the diversity that Catholicism affords suggests that Catholic foster care agencies should be entitled to practice what they preach. Becerra disagrees. He is so wedded to the LGBT agenda that as California Attorney General he even supported a law to deny California public agencies, public universities and boards the right to fund work-related trips to states that respect the religious liberty interests of foster care agencies.

14) In January 2017, at his confirmation hearings as California Attorney General, Becerra stunned lawyers when he said that it was one thing to respect the religious rights of individuals, quite another to extend these rights to organizations. Thus did he try to marginalize houses of worship, faith-based organizations and religious non-profits. It doesn’t get more absurd, or constitutionally wrongheaded, than this.

15) The Equality Act is not law but it is strongly supported by Biden. If passed, it would be the most serious assault on religious liberty ever enacted. As a congressman, Becerra was a co-sponsor of this bill. In the name of abortion and LGBT rights, it would not only devastate the autonomy of Catholic hospitals, it would ensure that boys who claim to be girls could compete against biological girls in sports. It would even allow them to shower with girls. When religious liberty objections are made, Becerra dismisses them outright.

16) Over the past year, California Governor Gavin Newsom imposed the most draconian Covid-19 restrictions on houses of worship in the nation. His limitations on occupancy have been so severe as to abolish the rights of churchgoers. Becerra, of course, was delighted to enforce these strictures.

For all of these reasons, it would be hard to think of a more unfit person in the United States to serve as Secretary of HHS than Xavier Becerra. His positions on life and religious liberty make him an outlier and should automatically disqualify him from serving in this capacity.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the death of Rush Limbaugh:

No talk-show host, on radio or TV—liberal or conservative—has ever had as much public impact as Rush Limbaugh. His voice was a gift from God and his daily presentations and musings were classic. He did not need prepared scripts: his commentary was fluid, coherent and persuasive. Indeed, he captivated his audience in a way no one else ever has.

Rush was also a good friend of the Catholic League. His kind remarks about our work, and his decision to interview me for his monthly newsletter (April 2014) is an honor that I will always treasure.

We have lost a titan. Sad to note but there is no one who can fill his shoes. God bless Rush Limbaugh.

The good news is that his passing on Ash Wednesday will invite us to remember him every Lenten season.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Biden’s human rights record so far:

Today marks President Biden’s first month in office. One of the main interests we have at the Catholic League is tracking how various administrations handle the issue of human rights. Though it is very early in his first term, some things are becoming quite clear.

President Biden used his first day in office to discuss human rights. However, he did not speak to this issue in a broad manner; rather, he limited his discussion to the rights of homosexuals and transgender persons. This tells us a great deal about his priorities.

The following are indicative of Biden’s fixation on the LGBT agenda:

• On Inauguration Day, President Biden signed an executive order requiring all federal agencies to expand discrimination protections to include sex and gender. He said that “children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.” In doing so he affirmed his administration’s decision to allow biological males to compete against girls in athletics, and to share shower facilities with them.
• President Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he was committed to taking numerous steps to prioritize the rights of what he called LGBTQ persons abroad. Before his confirmation, Blinken vowed to fill an LGBTQ envoy at the United Nations as well as to allow U.S. embassies abroad to fly the LGBTQ pride flag.
• President Biden signed an executive order on February 4 to increase the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. As part of this order, his administration will give greater access to asylum for refugees based on their sexual orientation and gender.
• In a speech to the State Department on February 4, President Biden said his administration will “reinvigorate our leadership on LGBTQI issues and do it internationally.” He did not explain what the “I” means.
• That same day, Biden issued a memorandum saying he wanted to “lead by the power of our example in the cause of advancing the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world.” He did not explain what the “+” means. No matter, he made it plain that his interest in this subject extends far beyond efforts to combat discrimination. He wants an activist campaign that encourages foreign aid programs abroad to promote the agenda of the LGBT community. This directive could potentially limit the federal funding that religious organizations receive.

In contrast to Biden’s obsession with the rights of sexual minorities is his total disinterest in the rights of Christians. We researched his directives and executive orders on the human rights of Christians, especially abroad. We couldn’t find any.

Yet there are multiple reports, issued by prominent human rights organizations, on Christian persecution throughout the world that have recently been released. In particular, the report by Open Doors, “2021 World Watch List,” and Freedom House, “The Battle for China’s Spirit,” are rich with detail.

Here are some of their key findings:

• The persecution of Christians is on the rise. For example, in 2020 more than 340 million people faced maltreatment, victimization and oppression for their faith in Christ. A total of 4,761 Christians were martyred. Every day, on average, 13 Christians were killed, 12 churches or Christian buildings were attacked, and 12 Christians were unjustly arrested or imprisoned.
• The Middle East, Africa and China are the regions where there is the most persecution of Christians.
• The leading causes for the persecution of Christians are repressive regimes, leftist or communist ideologies, weak states and Islamism.

[To read an excellent overview of Christian persecution abroad, written by our director of communications, Mike McDonald, click here.]

It is unsettling to read how Biden is handling the issue of human rights. Indeed, it raises several questions.

Why would our second Catholic president totally disregard the human rights abuses suffered by Christians abroad? He must know, or should know, that Christians are being slaughtered and unjustly imprisoned in record numbers—they are not the victims of mere discrimination in the workplace.

Why are the rights of LGBT people given preferential treatment over Christians and other people of faith? Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims and observant Jews would love to know.

Just as disturbing is the determination of the Biden administration to impose radical secular Western values on parts of the world that do not share our libertine vision of sexuality.

Whatever happened to respect for diversity? Aren’t we supposed to respect the cultural norms and values of other peoples? Why are we engaging in ideological imperialism, shoving our twisted ideas of sexuality down the throats of Africans, Asians, and Muslims?

Biden’s selective interest in human rights is disturbing. It also suggests that the rights of Christians at home—such as the Little Sisters of the Poor—count less than the rights of males and females who are sexually confused. To put it mildly, our “devout Catholic” president has gotten off to a bad start on human rights.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Biden’s faith-based programs:

President Trump and President Biden could not be more different when it comes to religion. Trump never gave the impression that he was a deeply religious man; Biden has. But Trump delivered on religious liberty, passing many key policies and appointing religion-friendly judges. Biden, on the other hand, is content to check his religion at the church door.

Biden’s decision to appoint Melissa Rogers to head the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is telling. She will also serve as senior director for faith and public policy in the White House Domestic Policy Council. He could not have chosen a more seasoned secularist to steer these faith-based entities.

Rogers may be a Baptist, but it is her secular vision of faith-based programs that will direct her decision-making. This not a matter of speculation. This is her second appointment as director of faith-based programs: Obama chose her to head this initiative in his second term. So we know what we are getting.

When Rogers worked in the Obama White House, her idea of reaching out to faith communities was to invite the Secular Coalition of America to the White House. She welcomed the professional atheists in the name of religious pluralism. As I previously said, this was “akin to welcoming racists in the name of racial harmony.”

The clash between religious liberty and the LGBT agenda is well known. It is fair to say that we would not expect an LGBT activist to champion the cause of religious liberty. Nor would we expect a religious leader to champion the LGBT cause. That’s what makes Rogers special. She sides with the homosexual agenda against people of faith.

Does this mean that Rogers would ban Orthodox Jews from exclusively hiring their own to run their day-care centers? Yes it does. Does this mean that she opposes Catholic foster-care programs from following Catholic teachings when deciding whom to place children with in adoptive settings? Yes it does.

Rogers doesn’t miss any salient issue. For example, she wants to ban “government-sponsored religious displays.” Not sure whether she would approve of the Catholic League’s display of a life-size nativity scene in Central Park. After all, it is on public property.

Biden obviously shares Rogers’ secular vision, which is why he went back to the well and brought her on board again. In doing so, he is right in step with his previous boss, President Obama. Three months into his first term, the Obama advance team told Georgetown University that the president would not speak there unless they put a drape over religious symbols. Then there was the serious debate over whether to display a manger scene at Christmastime in 2009.

These anecdotes are revealing, but it was secularization of faith-based programs that angered religious leaders. Matters got so bad that on January 15, 2010, I released a statement, “Time to Close Faith-Based Programs.” On June 24, 2011, after another round of dumbing-down the religious element of these programs, I issued another news release calling to “Shut Down Faith-Based Programs.”

President Biden has a right to appoint whomever he wants to command his faith-based programs. But in choosing Rogers the “devout Catholic” has sent an unmistakable message to people of faith: You lose.

Contact Catherine M. Russell, Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel: catherine.m.russell@who.eop.gov