Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in the Washington Post:

An editorial in the November 13 edition of the Washington Post claimed that “high-level sexual misconduct and coverup in France shattered illusions of progress by the church toward establishing a culture of transparency and accountability in its hierarchy.”

The evidence? A retired cardinal and archbishop in France admitted to sexual misconduct with a teenage girl 35 years ago. Oh, yes, it was recently disclosed that allegations of abuse extending back decades were made about another French bishop; he was removed from his post.

There are over 5,000 bishops in the world and the Washington Post found two of them who were involved in sexual misconduct decades ago. The paper argues that this shatters “illusions of progress.”

What is really shattered is the credibility of its editorial board.

As I recounted in The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse, no institution has made greater progress in combating sexual misconduct than the Catholic Church.

In 2018, Jeff Fager of 60 Minutes was fired after CBS learned that the executive producer was a sexual predator. He would have been fired sooner had Washington Post editor Marty Baron not killed a story about his behavior.

The paper’s reporter, Irin Carmon, wrote about this in New York magazine. “The close relationship between the paper and 60 Minutes had something to do with it,” he said.

Prior to this, Carmon and Amy Brittain, the Post’s investigative reporter, spent four months doing a story on Fager, detailing how several women alleged that he sexually abused them. But Baron kept delaying the story and refused to speak with them.

Thus, it is galling to read the Washington Post accusing the Catholic Church of lacking transparency and accountability.

Sexual abuse should always be condemned, but when those doing the condemnation come to the table with dirty hands, they ought to shut their mouth.

Contact David Shipley, editorial page editor: David.shipley@washpost.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how some are trying to shift the terms of the debate on key issues:

In the wake of the midterm elections, some politicians who oppose the rights of the unborn, and who oppose parental rights, are trying to shift the terms of the debate. It’s a clever but ultimately failed tactic.

There are political, economic, social and cultural dimensions to practically every domestic and foreign issue. But that doesn’t mean there is no primary dimension. It depends on the issue.

War is primarily a political issue. The stock market is primarily an economic issue. The family is primarily a social issue. Religion is primarily a cultural issue.

Last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that “It’s so out of touch to imply that abortion isn’t an economic issue.” She added, “Few things impact one’s finances more than having a child.”

It appears she took her talking points from Planned Parenthood. On October 27, the Action Fund arm of Planned Parenthood issued what it calls “The Quickie,” which declared, “Abortion Is An Economic Issue.”

This is a losing strategy. No one denies that abortion has economic ramifications, but it is, and always will be, primarily a matter of science, of biology, in particular. Our DNA, which defines our unique personhood, is present at conception, not a day later.

It is true that this does not settle the debate. Ineluctably, there is the moral question: Should society recognize the rights of the unborn? But this, too, is not a matter of economics.

Rep. Eric Swalwell chose the same tactic—he tried to shift the terms of the debate—but he chose a different subject. He chose parental rights.

He said it was “so stupid” for parents to maintain that they should have a say in their child’s education. “Please tell me what I’m missing here. What are we doing next? Putting parents in charge of their surgeries? Clients in charge of their trials. When did we stop trusting the experts? This is so stupid.”

We haven’t stopped trusting the experts. It’s just that when it comes to children, their parents are the experts, not anyone else.

Parents are not demanding they have a say in teaching algebra. They are saying they have a role in determining their child’s character formation. They also object when teachers move from education to indoctrination.

To be specific, when teachers overstep their boundaries by seeking to indoctrinate children with radical ideas about sexuality, they need to be called out about it. Children do not belong to the state. And teachers work for the taxpayers.

Debates about public policy and pedagogy assume a certain measure of intellectual honesty. When the terms of the debate are shifted for entirely political reasons, no meaningful exchange is possible.

Those who play this game—and it is a game—know they cannot persuade the public on the merits of their argument, which is why they seek to change the subject. No one should fall for it.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on growing intolerance for free speech:

There have always been extremists on the right and the left who are completely intolerant, and while both sides need to be condemned, the real danger comes more from the left. Not because the right-wing extremists are less intolerant, but because those on the left are more numerous and they occupy the command centers of our culture.

I know from a lifetime of working with those in education, activist circles and the media just how intolerant the left can be. Indeed, I could fill a book with my personal experiences. They have kept me from getting jobs, and have tried to get me kicked out of jobs, including this one. They are masters of the politics of personal destruction.

More objectively, we have the wholesale attacks on free speech and the destruction of property conducted by the likes of Antifa, the urban terrorists. Let’s not forget about the Silicon Valley elites who gave us the cancel culture. We also have recent polling data that prove my point.

In 2020, a Cato survey found that 77 percent of conservatives, 64 percent of moderates, and 52 percent of liberals were afraid to say what they think. Why are conservatives the most afraid? It’s not because the moderates are guilty of creating a “chilling effect” on the free speech of conservatives. We know who the guilty are.

An even more recent survey, conducted in February, and commissioned by the New York Times and Siena College, found that only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely. It also revealed that 84 percent said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem.

As we shall see, Republicans and conservatives are the least likely to enjoy freedom of speech.

On several issues, respondents were asked, “Do you feel more free, less free, or as free as you did before to express your viewpoint in most situations on a daily basis today than you did 10 years ago?” What they found was striking.

When it comes to expressing yourself on politics, 28 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans said they felt more free; the figures for liberals and conservatives were 29 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

On the subject of religion, 33 percent of Democrats felt more free as compared to just 14 percent of Republicans; it was 32 percent for liberals and 18 percent for conservatives. We know from many studies that Democrats and liberals are much more likely to be secularists, therefore Republicans and conservatives, who are more likely to be religious, suffer the most.

The findings of the Catholic League survey, which were released in September, found that 62 percent of Catholics agree that “it is getting harder to practice your faith publicly in America.” While two out of three practicing Catholics (weekly and monthly churchgoers) say it is getting harder, even 58 percent of those who rarely or never go to church agree that it is.

When asked how free they are about discussing gender identity, the majority of Democrats (54 percent) said they felt more free today but only 20 percent of Republicans felt that way. Similarly, the figures for liberals and conservatives were 58 percent and 18 percent, respectively. That’s quite a difference. In other words, those who have the greatest reservations about gender identity are the most afraid of speaking their mind.

When asked about race relations, more than twice as many Democrats (37 percent) as Republicans (15 percent) felt they were more free to discuss this issue today than they were 10 years ago. This suggests that those who don’t follow the thinking set by elites on racial issues are seen as a problem.

None of this is hard to figure out. The ruling class has adopted the politics of the left, making it harder for conservatives and people of faith to speak their mind in public.

Further proof of the intolerant streak on the left can be ascertained by examining the responses to a question about the limits of free speech. “While I support free speech, sometimes you have to shut down speech that is anti-democratic, bigoted or simply untrue.”

The poll found that 4l percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans agreed with this statement; the figures were 39 percent for liberals and 25 percent for conservatives.

Notice that respondents were not asked if they supported the abridgement of speech for reasons that threatened public safety: the issue was speech that someone might object to, and that is a very different matter.

It is this kind of thinking that led the University of California, Berkeley, to recently create “Jewish-free zones” on campus, places where students can safely discuss support for Israel. That’s just how sick this state of affairs has become. This proves a point I have long made: there is more free speech allowed in neighborhood pubs than in neighborhood colleges and universities.

We are at a serious juncture in American history. If people cannot express their political views—especially on college campuses—the entire nation is at risk.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new poll:

A new CBS poll shows that 8-in-10 (79%) voters say things are “out of control.” This is alarming. It is wholly out of character for the American people to register such a high degree of consternation with the current state of affairs. Historically, it is in times of dire distress—a war or economic crisis—when sentiments are this extreme.

What’s going on? We get some idea of what’s driving this condition when we consider that the survey found that Republicans are winning those who say things are “out of control” by more than 20 points. It suggests that Americans trace our situation to decisions reached by Democrats.

It’s not hard to rattle off some contributing factors:

high rates of inflation
dwindling retirement portfolios
the energy crisis
a violent crime wave
a surge in fentanyl deaths
the supply chain monster
illegal aliens crashing our borders
a spike in the homeless population
a record number of mentally ill people walking the streets
the near universal embrace of critical race theory
a woke military
left-wing indoctrination in the classroom
high rates of anxiety, depression and suicides among youth
near total distrust of the media
parental rights under fire
children encouraged to question their sex
an emboldened and aggressive China

We’ve had many of these problems before, or problems similar to them, but what’s different this time is that many of these outcomes are a function of will: they have been intentionally generated. They are a matter of policy.

The pandemic proved to be costly, but few now think that shutting down businesses and schools, for as long as we did, was a smart move. When billions of dollars are suddenly added to the economy, high rates of inflation are unavoidable. The war on fossil fuels and the contrived demand for electric vehicles has also taken its toll.

Never before have we witnessed such a rash of pro-criminal legislation,  the result being a predictable jump in violent crimes. Our southern border problem could be drastically relieved if some very commonsensical remedies were employed, but it is obvious that this problem—like so many others—is by design. This is what the ruling class wants.

There is no legitimate reason why children should be told to question whether they are happy being a boy or a girl. A new poll reveals that 60% of Americans now say that encouraging children to “change their gender” is child abuse. Yet no one is held accountable. The medical profession has disgracefully endorsed this sick agenda.

Accountability is lacking across the board.

The average American works hard and cannot understand why this is happening. It is happening because our elites in government, the corporations, education, activist organizations, the entertainment industry and the media have decided to launch the “Great Reset.” In other words, they have decided the country needs a radical overhaul. This explains why they are bent on shoving their radical agenda down our throats.

They are the ones responsible for creating this “out of control” environment. Not until the vast majority of Americans stand up to this madness will matters change.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on white liberals and crime:

Paul Pelosi gets hit in the head with a hammer and everyone is going bonkers. Those who habitually condemn crime are not the hypocrites. No, that honor goes to those who hate cops, promote cashless bail, elect Soros-funded District Attorneys, want to defund the police and empty the prisons. And according to their ideological leanings, that makes them classists—they discriminate in favor of the upper class. Had Paul Pelosi been the mailman they wouldn’t have cared.

White liberals just don’t get it. Want proof? Read the latest Pew Research Center survey on violent crime.

When asked is violent crime very important in making your decision to vote in the midterm elections, 56% of whites said yes. The figure for Hispanics was 65%. For blacks, 81% say violent crime is a very important issue.

These results dovetail with who is the most likely to be a victim of violent crime. Blacks are victimized the most and whites the least. This is not due to racism: most of the victimizers of blacks are black.

The white liberals who work at Pew are among the clueless. They delight in telling us that recent data show no recent increase in violent crime  (though admitting that murder is increasing). Thus do they play into the narrative, promoted most visibly by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, that the perception of increasing crime does not match the reality of it.

This is all nonsense. Most white liberals do not know cops, much less speak to them. They should. They would learn that if cops do their job they may lose it, and if they don’t do their job they will keep it. That’s not an exaggeration.

Think of it this way. Let’s say a cop is three years from retirement (most are taking early retirement due to the anti-cop environment), and he comes home to his wife explaining that he was called on the carpet for a minor infraction while apprehending a dangerous criminal. Is she not likely to advise him to just look away the next time he sees trouble brewing? Why risk their livelihood?

That’s just how pro-criminal the criminal justice system is these days. During the 2020 riots, cops were told to stand down. Nothing has changed since. The number of arrests that are not made—but should be made—never show up in the official statistics, the data that so impress white liberals. In other words, less arrests may give the appearance of less crime, but they mask what is going on in the streets.

Moreover, in places like New York City there are no more undercover cops. The thugs know it, which is why they do what they do. They can get away with it. If they are caught, they are back on the street before the arresting officer completes the paper work. They then go back to doing  what they do.

Shooting victims are up 71% in New York City from 2019 to 2022, the years when Kathy Hochul was lieutenant governor and then governor. Larcenies are up 29%, murder is up 32%, felony assault is up 24%, burglary is up 49%, and auto theft is up 148%. Yet Ms. Clueless has the audacity to ask why crime is considered so important.

Hochul should go into black neighborhoods and berate them for being so hyper-sensitive about crime. In fact, she needs to look them in the eye and tell the 81% who say crime is “very important” to them that they are delusional. Then she needs to ride the subway at night all alone, without security detail.

Crime statistics are important, but they don’t tell it all. What is driving the fear these days is something which doesn’t show up in official statistics, namely the increase in totally random attacks.

People who are walking down the street minding their own business are having their faces ripped open with box cutters, for no reason whatsoever. We understand muggers who rob a woman’s purse. We understand gangs. We don’t understand total strangers pushing innocent people into oncoming trains.

Hochul should ask all those black New Yorkers who are now taking the Long Island Rail Road to work. Why did they switch from taking the subway? After all, the LIRR is so much more expensive. She has much to learn.

What happened to Paul Pelosi was despicable. What is happening every day to blacks is worse, and that is because the crime wave is a function of policy: The crime policies that white liberals have instituted are directly responsible for the spike in violent crimes.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on states that have abortion on the ballot:

In August, voters in Kansas turned back an effort to amend the state constitution: it would have declared there is no right to an abortion. Now voters in five other states will decide to expand or contract abortion rights.

Pro-life activists in Kentucky hope to do what the voters in Kansas decided against, making sure there is nothing in the state constitution that creates a right to abortion or requires government funding of abortions.

Voters in Montana will decide whether to legalize selective infanticide. To be specific, the ballot initiative states that infants born alive are legal persons and therefore cannot be denied medical care. It matters not a whit if the baby survived as a result of induced labor, cesarean section, attempted abortion, or some other means.

Voters in California, Michigan and Vermont will decide if they want to effectively ban all abortion restrictions.

California voters will decide if their state constitution should be amended to ensure that the state cannot restrict abortions for any reason. California bishops have spoken out against Proposition 1, saying it would provide for late-term abortions (which most Californians do not support). Gov. Gavin Newsom, who says he is a Catholic, spent $2.5 million over two weeks on ads imploring Californians to vote for the pro-abortion measure.

If Proposition 3 in Michigan succeeds, it means the evisceration of parental rights; it would invalidate state law and allow minors to get an abortion without the consent of one of their parents. It would also allow for abortion at any time of pregnancy and do away with all abortion regulations. Michigan bishops have branded it the “most extreme proposal” the nation has ever seen.

Vermont already has very liberal abortion laws. On the ballot is a provision, Proposal 5, that would ensure abortion-on-demand right up until the moment of birth. It wants to declare a state constitutional right to “personal reproductive autonomy.”

Do any of these laws matter? Absolutely. An analysis by the New York Times on October 31 found that there has been a 6% drop in abortions nationwide after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Thirteen states banned or severely restricted abortion; nine others added major restrictions. Some states witnessed an increase in abortion, as women seeking to terminate their pregnancy traveled from restrictive states to more liberal states.

Statistics can be cold. The 6% drop in abortions amounts to over 10,000 children who have been spared sudden death.

No state saw a more dramatic decline in abortions than Texas. Kudos to those men and women who stood up for the rights of the unborn. They are a role model for us all.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an ugly Halloween celebration:

Megan Fox and Machine Gun Kelly celebrated Halloween by bashing Catholicism.

In a photo they posted on social media, she is dressed like a stripper and he is dressed like a priest. As she kneels before him, he offers her what appears to be communion; he is standing up holding a glass of what appears to be wine.

This stunt was more than hate speech—it reveals what happens when the occult takes command.

When Fox and Kelly got engaged in January, they drank each other’s blood. Fox said that “we do consume each other’s blood on occasion for ritual purposes only.” She confesses to reading tarot cards and “doing all these metaphysical practices and meditations. And I do rituals on new moons and full moons and all these things.” There is no reason to doubt her.

The blood exchange at their engagement was special. “Let’s shed a few drops of blood and each drink it,” she told Kelly. “He’s much more haphazard and hectic and chaotic, where he’s willing to just cut his chest open with broken glass and be like, ‘Take my soul.’” Sounds like he’s a charmer.

Professor Giuseppe Ferrari, an authority on demonic possession, argues that drinking each other’s blood carries great significance. “There are those who try to turn people into vampires and make them drink other people’s blood, or encourage them to have special sexual relations to obtain special powers.”

Hollywood has long been home to the occult. New Age religions flourish there, as does depression and suicide. Scientology, Zen, TM, Kabbalah—paganism and pantheism—these are hot attractions. What they all have in common is a break with Christianity and Judaism. Those who dabble in the occult put a premium on making up their own rules and not being beholden to morally restrictive tenets. “Thou Shalt Not” is heresy.

These narcissists are totally deracinated people, all searching desperately for meaning, while always falling back on themselves. Which explains their condition.