Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a Catholic League survey:

The Catholic League commissioned McLaughlin & Associates to do a national survey of Catholics. From September 3-12, they polled 800 Catholics in an online survey. What follows is an abbreviated analysis of what will appear in the October edition of our monthly, Catalyst. To read the longer version now, click here.

I had a hand in framing several of the questions; I put my sociological training to good use. Too often pollsters ask questions designed to elicit a response that dovetails with their own political leanings. Our survey asks a number of questions that other surveys of Catholics would never ask.

How accurate is the survey? If all Catholics were asked to respond, there is a 95% chance that the results of this survey would not be off by more than 3.4%, (higher or lower). Unlike other polls of Catholics, we made sure to include Hispanics (they were 35% of the respondents); we paid extra to have the answers of those who responded in Spanish translated. In short, we are proud of the scientific nature of the poll.

The numbers presented have been rounded and may not equal 100%. Here is a selection of some of the findings.

When asked how important your Catholic faith is in your life, 9-in-10 said it was important. One of the most encouraging findings was the large number of Catholics who rarely or never attend church who said that their Catholic faith was important to them: 78% said it was!

Are the news media biased against Catholics? A majority (57%) agree that it is, and only 31% disagree.

Does this matter? Yes. It no doubt helps to explain why 62% of Catholics agree that “it is getting harder to practice your faith and express your faith publicly in America.”

Is the Catholic Church an important voice of morality in America? You bet it is: 75% say it is. This includes 86% of weekly and 74% of monthly churchgoers; almost 7-in-10 (68%) of who those who rarely or never go to church also agree.

When asked if the Catholic Church should speak out more on moral issues, the results were auspicious: by a margin of 74% to 19%, respondents answered affirmatively. This is good news for those clergy members who may have been intimidated from speaking out more—the laity want you to speak out more!

More good news: 73% of Catholics identify as personally pro-life; 23% say they are pro-choice (most of them say their faith is not important to them).

When asked to agree or disagree about the propriety of the government forcing Catholic doctors and Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or sex-transition services against their will, 72% said the government should not do so; 19% disagreed. Even seven-in-ten (69%) of those who rarely or never go to church say the government should not do so.

Respondents were asked about gay and transgender issues. “While it is wrong for small businessmen to refuse services to gays, they have a religious right not to provide services that force them to approve of same-sex marriage.”

“The Catholic Church should continue to teach that there are only two sexes, male and female, and should not change its teaching.” Six-in-ten (59%) agreed and a third (32%) disagreed.

October 11 marks the 60th anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II. Did the Church go too fast or too slow in making changes, or were the changes just about right? There was no majority answer: 20% said the changes were too many and too fast; 37% said too few and too slow; 28% answered just about right.

The survey found that 66% of Catholics said that whether they agreed with most positions in the Catholic Church, or differed on some issues, the Church should not change its principles because of public opinion; only 27% said it should modernize. Even 55% of those who rarely or never go to church say the Church should not bend to what is popular!

I wanted to take it a step further. “If the Catholic church did NOT change its positions as many have suggested, how would that affect your commitment to the church?”

Those who said they would be “more committed” totaled 29%; 41% said they would be “as committed.” Which means that 70% of Catholics either would be more committed, or as committed, to the Church if it did not make the changes that many say it should make. Only 7% said they would be less committed.

The extent to which Catholics—even the non-practicing ones—find their faith to be important, is great news. That they also want the Church to speak up more on moral issues is something that cannot be punctuated enough.

Most impressive is the degree to which Catholics admire the constancy of Catholic teachings, even if they may not always agree with everything the Church teaches—they do not want it to cave into public pressure. This needs to be taken to heart by the laity and clergy alike. Most polls would never tap this subject.

Overall, the results were promising. They stand in stark contrast to the spin that critics of the Church continue to master.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on media coverage of the pope:

Most of the mainstream media like Pope Francis, and they are especially fond of quoting his remarks on social justice, war, climate change, and other issues dear to the liberal-left.

When he speaks on subjects of a more conservative nature, or he lashes out at left-wing Catholics, they don’t say a word. This is intentional: the media don’t want to shore up the pope’s resolve to continue to stress these issues, and they don’t want to jeopardize his standing with liberal Catholics (many would not be happy with his comments defending traditional moral values).

On July 21, Pope Francis had harsh words for the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Germany. He chastised them for moving the Church too far to the left. Almost all the American media ignored it. A week later, aboard the papal plane, he did so again. Again, it merited almost no coverage.

The latest media blackout took place this week.

On September 15, aboard the papal plane on his way back to Italy from Kazakhstan, the pope was asked about the “moral degradation” of the West. He said, “It is true that the West, in general, is not at the highest level of exemplarity right now.” He added, “The West has taken wrong paths.”

When asked specifically about Western countries supporting euthanasia, he said, “Killing is not human, period. If you kill with motivation, eventually you will kill more and more. Let’s leave killing to the beasts.”

Pope Francis was also asked to comment on the loss of faith in countries such as Germany, especially among youth. He replied, “It is true that the spirit of secularization, of relativism, challenges these things; it is true. What you have to do, first of all, is to be consistent with your faith.”

This interview with the pope was covered by ABC News, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. They ran stories on his remarks about conditions in Nicaragua, China, Russia and Ukraine. Not one of them mentioned anything about his comments on the moral degradation of the West or the relativism evident in Germany.

When it comes to traditional moral values, Pope Francis often sounds very much like his predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Hence, the media blackout. But when he speaks about issues that are important to the liberal agenda, he is given much play.

If the media weren’t so manipulative, it would garner more support, but reporters have long decided that advancing their “progressive” agenda is more important. No wonder they are held in such low regard. Last year, a Gallup poll revealed that “Americans’ Trust in Media Dips to Second Lowest on Record.” Just deserts.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Indiana University’s endorsement of a pervert:

What’s wrong with child molestation? The question needs to be asked because the tolerant ones in higher education seem to like it, otherwise they wouldn’t be defending the architect of the sexual revolution—and known pervert—Alfred Kinsey.

Last week Indiana University, home to The Kinsey Institute, honored the zoologist turned sexpert by erecting a large bronze sculpture of him on the Bloomington campus, marking the 75th anniversary of the institute. As will be made clear, the man was a sado-masochistic, child-abusing, voyeuristic pervert who had sex with men and beasts.

Kinsey became quite a star after World War II when he published two tomes on the sexual practices of men and women. According to Dr. Judith Reisman, who wrote prolifically about Kinsey, in the course of his research he sexually abused over 300 children. Kinsey biographer James H. Jones, who received high marks from Kinsey’s followers, admitted that children were masturbated and penetrated by at least one pedophile.

One of Kinsey’s informants, “Mr. X,” kept a record of his sexual achievements. When he wasn’t busy sexually abusing children (600 boys and 200 girls), he managed to find the time to have intercourse with seventeen blood relatives, including his own grandmother.

In a review of the 2004 movie, “Kinsey,” New York Times critic Caleb Crain wrote that Kinsey gathered data on “attempts to bring to orgasm boys between the ages of 2 months and 15 years, in some cases over a period as long as 24 hours.”

When asked about this, Reisman condemned Kinsey for his criminal behavior. “When you rape children, it’s still a crime. And if you solicit it, and if you support it, it’s still a crime.” The real story is: Why didn’t everyone else condemn him?

Kinsey hated Christianity, spending his entire life trying to get back at his Methodist family, especially his father. According to Joseph Epstein, Kinsey was so enamored of his hedonistic beliefs that he blamed Christianity, not libertinism, for the breakdown of the modern family. Furthermore, he labeled celibacy, delayed marriage and asceticism as “cultural perversions,” but not pederasty.

In describing Jones’ biography on his subject, Crain notes that “Kinsey had had affairs with men, encouraged open marriages among his staff, stimulated himself with urethral insertion and ropes, and filmed sex in his attic.”

Speaking of the film, Crain says “the most controversial scene in the movie is Kinsey’s infamous meeting with a sexual omnivore, whose history of sexual encounters with men, women, boys, girls, animals and family members took 17 hours to record.”

No wonder anthropologist Margaret Mead, who had an affair with her equally famous colleague, Ruth Benedict, and an adulterous relationship with anthropologist Edward Sapir, said that in Kinsey’s view there was no moral difference between a man having sex with a women, or a sheep.

True to form, a year or so before he died in 1956, Kinsey circumcised himself with a pocketknife.

To this day, many pedophiles and intellectuals adore Kinsey. Here is how the nation’s most prominent homosexual child molesting organization, NAMBLA, remembers him on its website (note: there are no organized heterosexual groups dedicated to child rape). The following is a quote from Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.

“When children are constantly warned by parents and teachers against contacts with adults, and when they receive no explanation of the exact nature of the contacts, they are ready to become hysterical as soon as any older person approaches, or stops and speaks to them in the street, or fondles them, or proposes to do something for them, even though the adult may have had no sexual objective in mind (my emphasis).”

In other words, men who fondle children are not a problem—those who object are. Which explains why Kinsey wrote, “The current hysteria over sex offenders may very well have serious effects on the ability of many of these children to work out sexual adjustments some years later….”

Those who defend Kinsey without knowing about his perverted history are an embarrassment—there is no excuse for their ignorance. Those who know about it and still defend him are moral monsters.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the declining Catholicity of Catholic colleges and universities:

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a “stay” stopping a New York trial court from ordering Yeshiva University to approve a LGBT student group on campus; Yeshiva is an Orthodox Jewish university that seeks to adhere to the Torah.

This raises the question: How are Catholic colleges and universities dealing with the LGBT agenda?

There are approximately 230 Catholic institutions of higher education in America, and according to New Ways Ministry, a dissident Catholic group that rejects the Church’s teachings on sexuality, more than 130 have yielded, in one way or another, to LGBT demands. Here are ten examples.

Boston College

“Student Outreach and Support Services supports gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning students and their allies….”

“Horizon is a group where gay, bisexual, questioning, trans*, queer, genderqueer, and/or other male-identified students can discuss and seek support in a safe space.”

“Prism is a group where gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning, trans*, queer, genderqueer, and/or other female-identified students can discuss and seek support in a safe space.”

“Pronoun Display and Name Guide – An easy how-to guide for how to add your pronouns to Canvas and Zoom.”

DePaul University

“The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Queer, Asexual and Ally (LGBTQA) Student Resource Center at DePaul University exists to promote, foster and support a campus environment that is inclusive of people from all sexualities and gender identities.”

“The Annual Drag Show is organized by Spectrum DePaul, an LGBTQ student org on campus.”

Fordham University

“Promote an understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of our lesbian, gay, transgender, questioning (LGBTQ) students that is rooted in Jesuit tradition….”

“The Department of Political Science voted unanimously to adopt the Chosen Name/Pronoun policy confirming that any students who wish to be identified by a chosen name can contact their faculty members via email and request their chosen name and pronoun be used.”

Georgetown University

“The LGBTQ Resource Center, serving lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning individuals, is the first such Center of its kind at a Catholic/Jesuit institution in the country.”

“While on campus, students may elect to use a chosen name other than their legal name.”

“Georgetown University provides housing to undergraduate students without regard to, and does not discriminate against, on the basis of…gender identity or expression, genetic information….”

Holy Cross

“We strive to provide a safe and affirming community for all LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic) individuals. The + is used as a wide signifier of inclusion….”

“The Chaplains’ Office and Counseling Center are excited to invite… students who identify as trans, gender non-conforming, non-binary, genderqueer, genderfluid, agender, questioning, and other members of the community to attend a weekly LGBTQIA+ support group.”

Loyola Marymount University

“Lavender Graduation is an [sic] cultural celebration that recognizes LGBTQIA+ students….”

“You now have the option to add a chosen name, your preferred gender, and pronoun identity to your Personal Information page in PROWL….”

St. John’s University (New York)

“St. John’s University enables students to use a Preferred Name where possible in the course of University’s business and education.”

“Gender-inclusive housing (GIH) is a living option in which two or more students share a bedroom, suite and/or apartment inclusive of their gender identity, sex or gender expression.”

St. Louis University

“Free to {Be} is a student group centered around queer and trans+ students of color (QTSOC).”

“The SafeZone Competency program strives to shed light on the systemic use of heteronormativity and cis-normativity….”

Saint Xavier University

“In addition to the chosen first name, students, faculty and staff may select their personal pronouns from the lists provided in their directory preferences.”

“Personal Pronouns: He/His; She/Her/Hers; They/Them/Theirs (Singular); Ze/Hir/Hirs.”

Santa Clara University

Rainbow Resource Center Mission Statement: “We advocate for those who self-identify within the wide spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities/expressions and educate the whole program within the context of Jesuit values.”

“Students who wish to update their preferred name should click on the Student Profile tile in their eCampus record….”

Pope Francis has addressed the fiction that we can change our sex, calling it gender ideology. He has specifically said that it is “demonic.”

It would be instructive to know what the presidents of these queer-friendly Catholic colleges and universities would do if they learned that these LGBTQIA+ organizations held a forum to denounce the pope for his remarks.

None of what these Catholic schools are doing is required by law—Title IX provides for religious exemptions. It is all voluntary. This is the state of Catholic higher education in America today.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on college graduates:

Surveys on a range of issues show that college students and graduates are by far the most likely to succumb to current superstitions.

Up until just recently, it would never occur to a pollster to survey the public on whether or not men can become pregnant. But we are witnessing lightening change in our culture, thanks to the savants who man (is that offensive?) higher education. As it turns out, white, college-educated female Democrats are the most likely to believe that men can become pregnant, with 36 percent answering affirmatively.

Similarly, only now are pollsters asking if someone can change his sex.  Almost 4 in 10 (38 percent) believe this is possible. Who are the most likely to believe this superstition? Those with a college education or more: 45 percent believe this to be true.

What else is going through the minds of college-educated people these days? Do they believe that some UFOs are actually alien spacecraft? The gap is closing between those who are college graduates, those with some college, and those with no college; indeed it is statistically insignificant.

In the two-year period between August 2019 and July 2021, among those with a college degree, the figures jumped from 27 percent believing this to be true to 37 percent; among those with some college, the figures went from 40 percent to 49 percent; among those with no college, the figures were 35 percent in 2019 and 39 percent in 2021.

What are college graduates reading that makes them so superstitious? Not much. The largest decline in the number of books read is posted by college graduates. Between 2002-2016, there was a 2.6 percent decrease in the average number of books read among all adults; the percent decrease for college grads was 6.5. Why read books when social media is so exciting?

College students are another breed altogether. A survey released a year ago found that 77 percent said the pandemic heightened their levels of emotional distress and anxiety. That explains why they love masks—it gives them a sense of security.

The poll found that 70 percent of college students who were enrolled at institutions that did not have mask mandates said they planned to wear a face mask on campus anyway. While they would say that their fondness for masks helped them deal with their anxiety, a more sober analysis might reveal that it was symptomatic, if not a cause, of it.

College kids are not happy campers. Almost 80 percent supported Black Lives Matter, the rip-off entity that did absolutely nothing for blacks but much for its operatives, while sowing the seeds of division nationwide. No wonder that college graduates, who have benefited the most from America, are also the least patriotic, as reported by Gallup.

It’s hard to dislodge superstitions. It’s particularly hard when those promoting them have academic titles.

Let’s not forget who else believes that men can become pregnant and women can become men: The President of the United States. Indeed, his  administration will punish you if you disagree (e.g., HHS guidelines forcing Catholic doctors and hospitals to perform  sex-reassignment surgeries).

Current superstitions are not only chic in the White House, those who work for Biden are prepared to punish Catholics who do not swallow their moonshine.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on reaction to the death of Queen Elizabeth:

The reaction of left-wing professors and pundits to the death of Queen Elizabeth is exactly what we would expect. They are filled with hate and rage. Here are ten examples.

“I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating. That wretched women and her bloodthirsty throne have f***ed generations of my ancestors on both sides of my family, and she supervised a government that sponsored the genocide my parents and siblings survived. May she die in agony.” Carnegie Mellon University professor Uju Anya

“Why are American news networks dedicating all of this time to Queen Elizabeth’s funeral? I think it’s a good question. I think there is a weakness in the American character that still yearns for that era of hereditary privilege, which is the very thing that we escaped from.”
MSNBC political analyst Richard Stengel

“We should not romanticize her era.” The queen put a “stolid traditionalist front over decades of violent upheaval,” and her image helped to “obscure a bloody history of decolonization.” “She was, of course, a white face on all the coins, notes and stamps circulated in a rapidly diversifying nation.”
Harvard professor Maya Jasanoff

“Journalists are tasked with putting legacies into full context, so it is entirely appropriate to examine the queen and her role in the devastating impact of continued colonialism.”
Atlantic writer Jemele Hill

“As the first generation of my family not born in a British colony, I would dance on the graves of every member of the royal family if given the opportunity, especially hers.”
Rhode Island School of Design professor Zoé Samudzi

“The British Empire was a colonizing empire. Which made her a colonizer Queen. Part of her legacy is that colonization. It is the atrocities that were committed in the name of Queen or country during the colonizing period.”
MSNBC pundit guest Shola Mos-Shogbamimu

“The way I wish newspapers would write: ‘Colonizers lost one of their most beloved foot soldiers as Queen Elizabeth II, 96, mostly known for f***sh** and racism.’”
Huff Post pundit Stephen Crockett Jr.

“Black and brown people around the world who were subject to horrendous cruelties and economic deprivation under British colonialism are allowed to have feelings about Queen Elizabeth. After all, they were her ‘subjects’ too.”
Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah

“Remember that you do not have to be ‘respectful’ today for a person running an institution that killed millions of people abroad and which, until recently, banned Black people from working around the Queen.”
Digital Media pundit Heidi Moore

“Telling the colonized how they should feel about their colonizer’s health and wellness is like telling my people that we ought to worship the Confederacy.”
University of Michigan professor Ebony Thomas

These people are badly educated. The Queen had nothing to do with any of the alleged crimes they attribute to her. Furthermore, the human rights record of many former British colonies makes England’s rule look angelic. Yet none of these writers ever have anything to say about that, anymore than they do when black men kill black men and women. That’s because their inherent racism does not allow them to treat Africans and African Americans as equals.

None of this invective is really aimed at Queen Elizabeth. It is what she symbolizes that gets their goat, and that, of course, is Western civilization, the font of liberty and equality. It was the Europeans—not those from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia—who gave us the human rights principles that have allowed us to move forward, despite obvious past failures to achieve them.

None of these human rights achievements would have been possible absent our Judeo-Christian heritage. This is one more reason the queen’s harshest critics have become so deranged—they hate our heritage, and they especially loathe Christianity.

God bless Queen Elizabeth and the civilization she represented for so many years.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains why he is not going to contact Tennessee public officials about an anti-Catholic event on the campus of Tennessee Tech University:

Kudos to the president of Tennessee Technological University, Philip Oldham, for taking a strong stand against an anti-Catholic event that took place on his campus. I wrote the letter that follows yesterday afternoon and it was scheduled to be sent this morning. Now the only person whom we are contacting is the president.

The letter explains what happened and what we were planning to do. Oldham issued a statement that was posted last night on wsmv at 11:05 p.m. denouncing the event. Here is part of what he said.

“I do not feel the activities in the video represent Tech’s values, and I do not condone explicit activity where minors are present. I am also offended by disparaging mockery toward any religious group.” He went on to say that “As of now, all public events scheduled on campus by those sponsoring organizations are cancelled pending a review.”

President Oldham has acted responsibly, which is why I am tapping the brakes. But Catholics should know what we were about to do.

September 9, 2022

Dr. Philip Oldham
President
Tennessee Technological University
1 William L. Jones Drive
Campus Box 5007
Cookeville, TN 38505-0001

Dr. Katherine Williams
Dean of Students
Tennessee Technological University
RUC, Room 230
Cookeville, TN 38505-0001

Dear President Oldham and Dean Williams:

In my role as president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, I am charged with the goal of combating discrimination against Catholics and defamation against the Catholic Church. Sadly, an event took place this year on your campus, two days after the start of classes, that was flagrantly anti-Catholic.

On August 20, Upper Cumberland Pride presented “DRAG at the Backdoor.” The drag queen show at the Backdoor Playhouse featured a performance by a man whose stage name is Witchcrafted (his real name is Joshua Lancaster) that was totally indefensible.

He came on stage dressed as a Friar, making the Sign of the Cross. He then proceeded to take off his religious garb, wearing what appeared to be a corset and striped tights. The YouTube video that is posted online shows young people, including children, throwing cash at him as he paraded about the stage.

Backstage Playhouse bills itself as an organization that fosters “creativity, critical thinking, excellence, and professionalism through the integration of courses, productions, workshops, and other activities.” Why, then, would it be home to an anti-Catholic event?

Nothing can be done to undo the damage already done to Catholic sensibilities. But it is not too late to see to it that it doesn’t happen again.

The next drag queen performance featuring Witchcrafted is September 24. It is being sponsored by TN Tech Lambda and Tech Players.

I spent 16 years as a college professor and 20 years on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars. I have wide tolerance for academic freedom and artistic expression, but I also have no tolerance for those who abuse these rights by intentionally, and obscenely, insulting people of faith. I also object when children are being exploited by sexual activists.

Tennessee Tech is a state-funded university, and as such is expected to abide by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the majority in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), said the U.S. Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any” (my italics). That would seem to include trashing Catholicism the way Witchcrafted did.

Justice demands that Witchcrafted be disinvited from performing on September 24, and that this kind of bigoted stunt not be repeated by anyone. That way we won’t have to revisit this issue again, opting for a different strategy.

I am copying senior government leaders so that they can monitor what happens next. I trust that this ugly chapter can come to an end now.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

cc: Gov. Bill Lee; Sen. Marsha Blackburn; Sen. Bill Hagerty; Members of the Tennessee House Subcommittee on Higher Education; Members of the Senate Standing Committee on Education

Catholic League president Bill Donohue wrote the following letter today to Inspector General Michael Horowitz asking for an investigation of a Department of Justice official who evinces an animus against religious liberty organizations:

September 8, 2022

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Inspector General Horowitz:

I am writing to you in my role as president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. I would respectfully request that you conduct an investigation into the religious bias as evidenced by Eric P. Bruskin, assistant director of the commercial litigation branch of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Division.

Bruskin’s decision to malign a prestigious law firm that specializes in the defense of religious liberty is troubling, especially to those of us who work in the same field.

It seems clear that he has violated DOJ strictures mandating that “employees should not make comments that can be perceived as showing prejudice based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other protected basis.” Religion has long been acknowledged as a protected class.

Bruskin recently had an exchange with a former colleague, Jason Weida, regarding a social media post that Weida made about Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), one of the nation’s most prominent defenders of religious liberty. Weida spoke favorably of an attorney at ADF, Matt Sharp, and of his own work defending parental rights in Florida. This led Bruskin to question Weida about his attendance at an ADF conference.

“Jason, this is a hate group,” Bruskin said in a LinkedIn post. “You’re speaking at a conference for a hate group. Are these the beliefs you hold? If so, then it’s time we end our professional association.”

Not only is ADF a respectable organization that has won the plaudits of many legal scholars, the term “hate group” should be reserved for terrorist groups like the Klan and Antifa. Most important, it is one thing for partisan activist entities to label ADF a “hate group,” quite another when someone in a senior DOJ position does.

I hasten to add that I am not writing on behalf of ADF. But you should know that the Catholic League has filed an amicus brief in support of an important case before the U.S. Supreme Court, 303 Creative v. Elenis; ADF is lead counsel. It concerns a Colorado web designer who is challenging a state law requiring her to violate her religious beliefs about marriage.

This needs to be said because according to people like Bruskin, this would mean that the Catholic League qualifies as a “hate group” as well. We are not about to wait until some DOJ figure like Bruskin thinks he can abuse his office by targeting us.

The animus that Bruskin harbors for religious liberty organizations puts him in violation of DOJ rules, making him unfit for service. Hopefully your probe will validate my concerns.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

cc: Attorney General Merrick Garland; Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Chuck Grassley; ADF president Michael Farris; ADF Senior Counsel Matt Sharp; Jason Weida; Eric Bruskin

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Biden’s appointment of John Podesta:

Never before in American history has there been a president of the United States who has worked harder to oppose Catholic teachings on marriage, the family, abortion, school choice, conscience rights, and the wellbeing of children (e.g., transgenderism) than President Joe Biden. Now he has added to his legacy by appointing a man to a senior position in his administration who is a confessed enemy of the Catholic Church, John Podesta.

On the Friday afternoon before Labor Day weekend, Biden appointed Podesta to oversee his climate policies. Podesta started in the job on September 6.

Podesta served as chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and was chairman of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid in 2016. He founded the far-left Center for American Progress, and has now come out of retirement to man this new post.

Podesta is not merely someone who disagrees with the Catholic Church’s teachings on many issues—he has actively sought to subvert it. We know this because of the Wikileaks revelations made public in 2016.

In 2012, Sandy Newman, founder of the left-wing group, Voices for Progress, asked Podesta for advice on how best to “plant the seeds of the revolution.” The revolution he sought was to sunder the Catholic Church.

“There needs to be a Catholic Spring,” Newman told Podesta, “in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.” (The reference to a “Catholic Spring” in the Church was an allusion to the “Arab Spring” freedom movements in the Middle East.)

Podesta’s reply was priceless. “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this.” He added, “Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

The Catholic League fought Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United, both funded by George Soros, tooth and nail for years, exposing them as the fraud that Podesta admitted they were. From the get-go they were nothing but Catholic front groups for those who wanted to take down the Catholic Church from within.

In 2010, Catholics in Alliance closed its doors and ceased to exist, though it gave the appearance of hanging on. In 2013, the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status for failing to file a 990 form for three consecutive years. It was the final nail in the coffin for this dummy Catholic letterhead.

Catholics United hung on for a few more years, and finally went under after the Wikileaks emails went public indicting Podesta and others who conspired with him against the Catholic Church. Podesta, along with Hillary Clinton communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, both claimed that they could not be anti-Catholic because they identified as Catholic.

Here is what I said on October 17, 2016, about that line of defense. “Bigotry is determined by what is said and done,” I said at the time, “and does not turn on biographical data. For example, putting a swastika on a synagogue is no less anti-Semitic if done by a Jew. Similarly, making anti-Catholic statements, or engaging in anti-Catholic conduct, is no less anti-Catholic if done by a Catholic.”

It was also revealed that both Podesta and Palmieri ridiculed News Corps CEO Rupert Murdoch, and Wall Street Journal managing editor Robert Thomson, for raising their children Catholic.

Biden has to know about Podesta’s anti-Catholic record, but it matters not a whit. Nor does it matter to the media. Yet if a Republican president hired a man who deliberately set out to undermine Islam, he would never get away with it.

This latest chapter in Biden’s antipathy for Catholicism makes mince meat out of his professed “devout” Catholic status.

Contact White House Secretary: Karine.Jean-Pierre@who.eop.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Pennsylvania  gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro:

On the website of Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro it boasts that when he was Attorney General of the state he “exposed the Catholic Church’s decades-long cover up of child sexual abuse, identifying over 300 predator priests and thousands of victims and spurring investigation across the United States.”

This is a distorted account of Shapiro’s shameful grand jury investigation of Catholic priests. (For more on this subject see my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse.)

Shapiro convinced the media that he found evidence of 301 priests who abused more than 1,000 children over a period of seventy years. This is thrice false (1) not all the alleged offenders were priests (2) most of the alleged victims were adolescents, not children, and (3) the report was not evidentiary—it was investigative—meaning that the accused priests were never given the opportunity to rebut the charges.

Importantly, nothing could be done about most of those who were actually guilty. Almost all the accused were either dead or had been thrown out of the priesthood. No wonder Shapiro was able to prosecute only two priests. He knew this from the get-go, but he used the report to push for a suspension of the statute of limitations.

Shapiro misused the grand jury for political purposes, and now he is at it again.

Alan Dershowitz understands what a grand jury is supposed to do. “The grand jury has a specific function. It’s supposed to only indict or not indict. Indeed, prosecutors generally don’t issue reports for that reason because they only hear one side of the case. They don’t hear the other side. There’s no cross examination of witnesses. That’s why it is regarded as wrong for prosecutors to issue reports.”

It is precisely because grand jury reports are not factual that the Catholic League filed an amicus brief challenging the right of the Pennsylvania grand-jury report to make public the names of eleven priests who claimed that doing so would violate their reputational rights as guaranteed by the state constitution.

On December 3, 2018, our case, handled by Pittsburgh lawyers from Jones Day, won: the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in our favor. In November 2019, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court task force, which had been empanelled two years earlier, vindicated our effort: it recommended abolishing grand jury reports altogether.

Even those of a more liberal bent, such as former New York Times reporter Peter Steinfels, took apart the grand jury report piece by piece. To declare, as the report said, that “all victims were brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church officials who preferred to protect the abusers and their institutions above all” was unconscionable. He called it “grossly misleading, irresponsible, inaccurate, and unjust.”

Steinfels also referred to the report “as a weapon in the debate over this issue,” citing its “ugly, indiscriminate, and inflammatory” rhetoric and unsubstantiated charges, “to say nothing of the evidence the report ignores.” He concluded that this was “truly unworthy of a judicial body” that is “responsible for impartial justice.”

What is particularly galling about Shapiro is his total disinterest in prosecuting sexual molesters in the public schools. That’s where this problem has been the most serious. Yet he has never once shown any interest in holding teachers and administrators accountable for their delinquency. This kind of bias—one standard of justice for priests and another for educators—is despicable.

Shapiro’s handling of the grand jury report on Catholic priests was disgraceful. That he is now using it as a campaign weapon makes him all the more contemptible.