Bill Donohue

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment rights of a Colorado woman, Lorie Smith, must be respected when it comes to forcing her to express beliefs that are contrary to her conscience. This is a great victory for free speech and freedom of religion. Catholic League submitted an amicus brief in this case.

Our brief was prepared by Kathleen A. Gallagher and Russell D. Giancola of Gallagher Giancola LLC, a Pittsburgh-based law firm. They argued that “it is clear that the First Amendment provides dual protections for religious expression (or non-expression) in its guarantees of free speech and free religious exercise. This reality compels the conclusion that religious speech enjoys the highest constitutional protection.”

The judicial merits of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act were at stake. It would compel Smith to design a website that celebrates same-sex marriage. Smith had never refused to service anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, or any other demographic factor. But she drew a line when it came to compelling her to violate her Christian beliefs.

Smith was sincere. “As a Christian who believes that God gave me the creative gifts that are expressed through this business, I have always strived to honor him in how I operate. Because of my faith, however, I am selective about the messages that I create or promote.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the high court, said, “The First Amendment protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”

The decision rebuked the dissenters, saying that when someone’s speech is found objectionable, “the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment.”

We are delighted with this outcome, and we are just as delighted to have played a role in it.

Bill Donohue

More than 30 congressional Democrats who call themselves Catholic issued a robust defense of abortion-on-demand on June 24 claiming their position is entirely in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church. They know this is not true.

“The Statement of Principles,” led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade. The statement contains at least four egregious falsehoods.

First, the Democrats claim that in the Dobbs decision “the Justices stripped women of their right to abortion and escalated an ongoing reproductive healthcare crisis in this country.” That is a lie. The Supreme Court declared there was no federal right to abortion. It did not outlaw abortion in the United States; it left that decision up to the states.

Second, the Democrats are playing the typical pro-abortion game of interpreting survey data that validates their position. They claim that 68 percent of Catholics support “the legal protections for abortion access enshrined in Roe” and 63 percent “think abortion should be legal in most cases.”

A survey of Catholic voters taken a year ago by RealClear Opinion Research found that 82 percent support some restrictions on abortion. Roe effectively permitted abortion through term, and thus did not reflect the thinking of most Catholics, or, for that matter, most non-Catholics. In a Tarrance Group poll released a few weeks ago, 77 percent of all voters support at least some prohibitions on abortion.

Third, the Democrats falsely argue that their pro-abortion stance is consistent with the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on conscience rights. It is not. The statement quotes the Catechism as saying, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

That is a selective reading of paragraph 1790. The statement never mentions the next sentence: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” Shortly thereafter (1792), it explains that among the expressions of ignorance is an “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy” and a “rejection of the Church’s authority.”

And, of course, the pro-abortion Democrats did not quote what the Catechism says about abortion (2271). “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Fourth, the Democrats invoke “separation of church and state” by claiming that Catholics cannot “impose our religious beliefs and customs on others who may not share them.” That’s true, but it has nothing to do with abortion. Opposition to abortion is grounded in science, as well as in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

It is science that tells us that human life begins at conception—at the very moment when the DNA that makes us unique individuals is present. Therefore, it is preposterous to assert that the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are identical to the scientific evidence, somehow violate the First Amendment.

It cannot go without saying that abortion is regarded by the Catholic Church as “intrinsically evil.” Now if self-described Catholics want to defend it, they should cease claiming that their position is authentically Catholic. It manifestly is not.

Contact: Becky Salay, chief of Staff to DeLauro: rebecca.salay@mail.house.gov

Bill Donohue

Rabbi Aryeh Spero passed away on June 25. I knew him for decades and consider him to be one of the most brilliant and bravest men I have ever known. Kind and thoughtful, he was a stalwart in the conservative movement. He was also a good friend of Catholics.

Aryeh was often called “America’s Rabbi.” He founded the Caucus For America, which is “dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the historic and unique American culture and civilization.” He was also the spokesman for the Conference of Jewish Affairs and was a founding Advisory Board Member of CASEPAC.

In 2015, Aryeh published Why Israel Matters to You, a fictional account of a young man who learned how important Israel is for every American. In 2012, he authored Push Back: Reclaiming the American Judeo-Christian Spirit, a work that astutely analyzed current conditions, offering cogent recommendations.

In 1979, he was the first rabbi to publicly endorse Ronald Reagan for president. In 2020, he offered his blessings to Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention.

As an Orthodox rabbi, Aryeh took great umbrage when a gay rabbi who claimed to be Orthodox held a same-sex ceremony in 2011. Aryeh was one of 100 distinguished Orthodox rabbis to register his objections.

Ever the activist, in 2019 Aryeh led a sit-in at Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office. He did so in response to Pelosi’s warm embrace of anti-Jewish Democrats, Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib. Pelosi had bowed to the two bigots by watering down a statement condemning anti-Semitism. Always fair-minded, Aryeh argued that it was hardly an expression of anti-Semitism to criticize George Soros, the atheist billionaire donor to left-wing causes.

Aryeh and I worked together on many campaigns. Whether it was condemning anti-American zealots, or those with an animus against Jews or Christians, he was always ready to join the next culture war battle. In 2014, we issued a joint statement supporting the NYPD and condemning anti-police agitators.

Like most who take their religion seriously, Aryeh was not offended by Christmas celebrations. Indeed, he loved them. In 2017, he blasted the ACLU, saying, “America needs Christmas as a public expression: not only for its magic and delight, but as a testament to the Judeo-Christian roots upon which this country was founded.”

When the media and many activists, including conservative Catholic notables, turned on innocent Catholic white boys from Covington Catholic High School, falsely portraying them as racists, Aryeh came to their defense. “This is a contrived and false episode pounced on by people who hate religious white Catholics and are always on the look-out to demonize Catholics. These people are bigots.”

In 2020, Aryeh and I released a statement to the media commenting on the decision by WarnerMedia to pull “Gone With the Wind” from its HBO Max package because of “racist depictions.” If it were opposed to “anti-Catholic depictions” as well, we said, “it would have shut down Bill Maher’s HBO show years ago.”

A man like Aryeh doesn’t come around too often. It was my pleasure to have known him. Our prayers are with him, his wife Beth, and their sons.

Bill Donohue

It is hard to say what motivates the Biden administration more: the radical LBGT agenda or abortion. Both are representative of the radical left’s obsession with sexuality—one queer, the other straight—and both are way out of touch with the sentiments of most Americans.

Saturday is the Women’s March. It has become an annual event run by people who cannot define who a woman is. So we really can’t be certain if real women, as opposed to men who pretend to be a woman, will be marching. After all, even the men will be wearing dresses. The march is about one goal: aborting children. More about the main event shortly.

On Thursday, June 22, the honor of celebrating abortion rights this year goes to the First Lady, Jill Biden. She is expected to put her Ed.D. to good work by deciding who should speak first (her degree, unlike a Ph.D., is in administration, not research).

On Friday, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will participate in an event that includes the Democratic National Committee and the nation’s largest pro-abortion organizations: EMILY’s List, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Harris will speak in North Carolina with Doug Emhoff, a person who identifies as a man, a.k.a. her husband.

These gatherings are a lead-up to the Women’s March, which this year centers on the Supreme Court decision that overruled Roe v. Wade last year. At the march on Saturday, all of the aforementioned organizations will be there, along with the ACLU (formerly a free speech organization) and others cut from the same cloth. They will walk from Union Station in Washington, D.C. to the Supreme Court.

It remains to be seen how the marchers will behave, but if the past is any guide, expect there to be trouble. These are usually hate-filled events.

The first Women’s March took place on January 20, 2017, the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. As I said at the time, “Some critics are calling this an anti-Trump rally.” I disagreed, saying, “It is a protest against the American people who voted for Donald Trump. In short, it is a protest against democracy.” At the march were ten organizations that have a history of promoting anti-Catholicism.

The Women’s March in 2018 gave due recognition to street walkers, or what the organizers called “sex workers.” It was reported by Yahoo that the focus was on “the rights of prostitutes, adult-film stars, strippers, and other sex workers as an issue.” Assumedly, that included pole dancers. News stories did not mention whether Hunter Biden was in attendance.

The 2019 march blew up when the anti-Jew crowd assembled. Hosting the likes of Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian Jew basher, and others—all of whom adore Louis Farrakhan, the black anti-Semitic bigot—forced EMILY’s List and the National Council of Jewish Women to bolt.

The 2020 Women’s March was aimed at Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. The women’s rights organizers took a page from the playbook of misogynists by making it clear that they would prefer a man who shared their position to a woman who did not. In fairness, the marchers wore face masks (it was during Covid), though they could have done a better job at social distancing (many were holding hands).

In 2021, coat hangers were all over the place. The organizers went on record saying there is nothing dangerous about women using coat hangers to rip their baby from their womb. “We do not want to accidentally reinforce the right wing talking points that self-managed abortions are dangerous, scary and harmful.” That should end the debate.

The violence that marks abortion also marked the Women’s March in 2022. There were actually two events—May 3 and May 14—and both were in reaction to the leak of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Pro-abortion protesters attacked the police in some cities, none worse than in Los Angeles: a bloody scene took place when cops were belted with rocks and bottles. “EAT THE FETUS” was scrawled on the stairs at LA City Hall.

Given the Women’s March penchant for vulgarity, bigotry, misogyny, and violence, this year’s event should be interesting to watch. Whoever chose the Biden administration to host this year’s celebration of abortion made a good choice—they have no rival.

Bill Donohue

We live in a postmodern world where people make up their own idea of truth. It’s delusional. People are entitled to their own opinion, but there is only one truth. And in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, I amassed over 800 footnote citations telling the truth about how the scandal unfolded. The role of homosexuals was central.

But living in a state of denial about this verity is commonplace, and not simply among secularists. High-ranking officials in the Catholic Church are just as guilty.

The National Catholic Reporter, which contributed to the scandal by giving succor to dissident and twisted seminarians and priests, published an article on this subject, trotting out all the old canards. It begins by quoting Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Parolin, who is not a social scientist, said to link homosexuality to clergy sexual abuse is a “serious and scientifically untenable association.” He said, “Homosexual orientation cannot be considered as either cause or aspect of the person.” He’s wrong.

There is a reason why the Catholic Catechism teaches that homosexual inclinations are “intrinsically disordered.” It does not say that about heterosexual inclinations, and that’s because men and women are naturally ordered toward each other. It is this attraction of people of the opposite sex that allows for procreation.

Does a homosexual inclination, or orientation, cause the sexual abuse of minors? Not directly. But then again mono-causality is an anomaly. Is there is a link between a homosexual orientation and the sexual abuse of minors? Of course. How else to explain why homosexuals are more likely to abuse minors than heterosexuals, in and out of the priesthood?

We know that 81 percent of the molestation of minors has been the result of priests hitting on adolescent boys (pedophilia is rare). The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which did two big studies on this issue, provided the data. The Reporter says that the researchers “found no correlation between homosexual identity and the sexual abuse of minors.” That’s correct. But that finding is next to meaningless.

Notice the key word “identity.” Now ask yourself, “If an adult man has sex with a postpubescent male—that is defined as homosexuality—why would it matter if he does not consider himself to be a homosexual?” His perception does not change objective reality.

To put it differently, if most of the priests who had sex with a male adolescent considered themselves to be straight, would that mean that the clergy sexual abuse scandal was driven by heterosexual priests? Only a fool would conclude as such.

Maltese Archbishop Charles Scicluna, who is also living in denial, is quoted as saying, “We don’t have categories of people. I would never dare to indicate a category as a category that has a tendency to sin.” This is nonsense.

Most street crime is committed by young men from fatherless homes. Fatherless homes are a category of people; not to discuss their role in accounting for violent crimes would be delinquent. Similarly, since homosexual priests commit most of the sexual abuse of minors, it would be delinquent not to discuss their role.

It was not very helpful of the Reporter to cite Pope Francis as being in their corner. Not quite.

If Pope Francis did not believe there was a link between a homosexual orientation and sexual molestation, why did he second the position of Pope Benedict XVI in barring men with “deeply-seated homosexual tendencies” from the priesthood? It’s because they are the problem, that’s why.

The pope has also spoken about the “gay mentality.” He doesn’t talk about the “heterosexual mentality.” He has repeatedly warned about the “gay movement” and the “gay lobby.” Every honest person knows why.

Similarly, when a bishop told the Holy Father that it was no big deal that several priests in his diocese were homosexuals—it was just an “expression of affection”—he strongly disagreed. “In the consecrated life and in the priestly life, there is no place for that kind of affection.” Well said.

If there is no direct cause between being a homosexual and molesting minors, why are homosexuals overrepresented in committing these crimes? Between the independent variable, being a homosexual, and the dependent variable, the molestation, there is an intermediate variable that explains the relationship: emotional and sexual immaturity.

We’ve known, at least since Freud, that many homosexual men are psychosexually stunted—they tap out in their adolescence—and it is this immaturity that attracts them to adolescents. Some, though not most, homosexual men express their immaturity by molesting minors. It is this that accounts for their role in the sexual abuse of minors.

We will never cure this curse in the Catholic Church unless we come to grips with the disastrous role that immature homosexual priests have played in generating the scandal. As Catholics, we are called to pursue the truth. It’s time more did so.

Bill Donohue

When men with fake female breasts appeared half naked on the White House South Lawn on June 10, President Biden’s press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said the crude stunt—in full view of children—“was not a normal thing that has happened under this administration.” It took her three days to say this.

While it may not be normal for this to happen at the White House, it is not unusual for gay and trans persons to engage in obscene activities, even to the point of going fully naked in public at LGBT celebrations. It’s been going on for decades. In short, why was the White House surprised that some would act up, even at a presidential event?

At the largest White House Pride event in history, Biden was not only there, he had a video prepared for the outing. “Happy Pride Month! Happy Pride Year! Happy Pride Life!” It doesn’t get more effusive than this.

Biden told the LGBT attendees that they were some of the “bravest and most inspiring people” he has ever known. One of those “brave and inspiring” persons was a man who calls himself Rose Montoya. After posing for a picture with the president, he exposed his large fake female breasts. He could be heard saying, “Are we topless at the White House?”

The Sunday before the White House Pride party, West Hollywood featured the California Pride parade. It was advertised as a “family-friendly” event. Brad Polumbo, a gay writer, said onlookers “were treated to a public sex display during the event’s parade.” To be specific, “a man clad in ‘dominatrix’ gear choked and whipped another man, scantily clad, to a cheering audience.”

The venerable Washington Post loves stuff like this. “Yes, Kink Belongs at Pride,” the headline said. The author added, “And I want my kids to see it.” Not to be outdone, she celebrated “the fact that her elementary school teacher saw a man in a ‘leather thong’ get ‘spanked playfully by a partner with a flog.’”

Meanwhile, the august New York Times, which is now a quasi-gay newspaper, was touting to its readers the best gay and trans books for summertime reading. But they weren’t just books that had gay and trans characters. No, the headline boasted, “Six L.G.B.T.Q. Graphic Novels for Your Pride Month Reading List (my italic).” Was it really necessary to say the books contained “graphic” material? Everyone knows that’s  what the target audience demands.

Every year San Francisco hosts the Folsom Street Fair, usually at the end of September. The big gay event typically features fully naked men in the street beating each other with chains and other metal devices. This goes on every year.

In 2012, San Francisco got so upset with naked men sitting next to children in public places that they banned nudity in public. But they made one exception: homosexuals were permitted to go naked at the Folsom Street Fair and other events. So even their elite friends admit there is something weird and impulsive about these people.

It’s what they do. It’s who they are.

These gay and trans persons prove every year that they are not like the rest of us. In fairness, they are also not like most members of their so-called community, but I hasten to add that they are not a tiny minority, either. Not a gay pride parade goes by without some men wearing underwear or jock straps—if that—making these parades fundamentally different from the myriad of racial and ethnic parade celebrations that take place across the country.

No matter, why anyone should be shocked in 2023 about behaviors like these is the real story. But it looks like the White House is the last to get the memo.

Bill Donohue

Today we are contacting all 30 owners of Major League Baseball (MLB) imploring them not to repeat the Dodgers stunt; we are also contacting  Rob Manfred, the Commissioner of MLB. Here is the text of my remarks:

Dear MLB owner:

The decision by the Los Angeles Dodgers to invite, disinvite, and reinvite a vile anti-Catholic group resulted in horrendous PR for the team, a large protest before the game, a no-show at the award ceremony, and a decline in attendance (there were three-and-a-half thousand less at this “Pride Night” game as compared to last year’s one).

The central takeaway could not be more clear: just play baseball, stay out of politics, and never again honor an anti-Catholic group (or any bigoted entity). As we have seen with the blowback against Bud Light, Target, and now the Dodgers, Americans are fed up with being insulted and manipulated by elites. Getting back to basics is not only easy, it is non-controversial. This is a no-brainer. Please do so.

Sincerely,

William Donohue

President

Contact Manfred: rob.manfred@mlb.com

Bill Donohue

Over the past several weeks, the Catholic League blanketed Los Angeles notables asking them to spread the word to their constituents not to attend the “Pride Night” game on June 16 that was slated to honor the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a viciously anti-Catholic group of drag queens. We also took out 50 radio ads on KABC making the same request.

I am happy to say that our effort paid off. There was almost no one in the stands when the “Sisters” received their award. And the few who were there booed. This is a sweet victory.

In terms of attendance at the game, we won on that score as well. There have been four Friday night home games since mid-April, and the average attendance was 50,592. At last year’s “Pride Night” game at Dodger Stadium, 52,505 fans showed up.  But at last night’s “Pride Night” game, the attendance was 49,074.

We conducted a mass mailing to over 300 Catholic parishes in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. We also contacted Catholic schools and universities; residences of priests and brothers; endowments, foundations and trusts; retreat houses; hospitals and healthcare systems; seminaries; convents and residences for women; Hispanic leaders; and leaders in non-Catholic religions.

As we said in our KABC radio ad, “We are not asking Catholics to boycott all games. Just this one. By doing so, we will send an unmistakable message that bigotry against Catholics should not be tolerated.”

If there is one takeaway from our campaign that should not be lost on Catholics it is that tactics matter. The idea of boycotting all Dodgers games was never a credible goal.

What happened on June 16 is a cultural marker. Just like Bud Light, Target and other establishment organizations that have laid anchor with extremists, the Dodgers—and Major League Baseball in general—found out that the elites do not have the last word. The people do. In the end, indecency and bigotry were defeated.

Bill Donohue

The Los Angeles Dodgers has a code of conduct for fans that is being violated not only by some attendees, but by the team itself. To be specific, giving an award tonight to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is an expressed violation of this policy.

Among the 19 rules governing fan behavior, the last one is key.

“Any conduct or attire (including caps, face coverings, etc.) that includes any content (such as words, photos, drawings, artwork, or other designs) deemed by the Dodgers in their sole discretion to be obscene, profane, vulgar, indecent, violent, threatening, abusive, prejudiced against any individual or group (e.g., because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation), or which encourages or promotes illegal behavior, is prohibited. Content that is not overtly in violation of the foregoing, but is suggestive of prohibited content, is similarly prohibited (my emphasis).”

Any fair-minded person who has read the report I have written on the “Sisters” must acknowledge that they have routinely smeared Catholic nuns, and have viciously trashed the Eucharist, the heart of the Catholic religion. In other words, these “fans” are an express violation of the code of conduct. Worse, they are being honored for doing so by the Dodgers.

Let’s be clear: The Los Angeles Dodgers is an organization that glorifies bigotry, making a mockery of their professed interest in tolerance and inclusion. Their “code of conduct” is a scam.

Bill Donohue

It all began May 16. That was the day we launched a massive email campaign asking our followers to contact Rob Manfred, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, protesting the decision by the Los Angeles Dodgers to honor the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence on “Pride Night” June 16. The very next day, the Dodgers pivoted and disinvited the bigots. Then they pivoted again, reinviting them.

Over the past five weeks we have been relentless in our quest for a boycott of the June 16 game. We disseminated a report I wrote on the anti-Catholic antics of the “Sisters” wide and far, including a mailing to over 300 parishes in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

Our boycott will not extend beyond Friday night. We chose one game for one reason: Prudence dictates that we can’t get fans to boycott all Dodgers games. But we may be able to persuade them not to attend the June 16 game.

This is our “Last Call” to all of those key players in the Los Angeles area that we have contacted over the past several weeks. We are contacting all of them again.