Bill Donohue

The “fact checkers” at the Associated Press, CNN, the Washington Post and WCBS radio (NY) are claiming that former president Donald Trump was wrong to say in the debate that not only do late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions still occur, babies are being killed after an abortion, and that the Democrats support it. They are wrong. Trump is right. Here are some facts they overlook.

• 1977: Dr. C. Everett Koop, later U.S. Surgeon General, told the American Academy of Pediatrics, “Well, you know that infanticide is being practiced right now in this country…I am concerned that there is no outcry…I am concerned about this because when the first 273,000 German aged, infirm, and retarded were killed in gas chambers there was no outcry from that medical profession either, and it was not far from there to Auschwitz.” He titled his speech, “The Slide to Auschwitz.”
• 1995: Partial-birth abortionist Dr. George Tiller said, “We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years.”
• 1997: Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted on national TV that he “lied through [his] teeth” when he “just went out there and spouted the party line” about how rare partial-birth abortions are.
• 2001-2003: Illinois State Senator Barack Obama opposed bills that would have mandated that a child born alive as a result of a botched abortion be given medical care.
• 2003: The U.S. Senate voted 64-33 to outlaw partial-birth abortion. Of the 33, 29 were Democrats, 3 were Republican, and 1 was an Independent.
• 2007: Senator Joe Biden, who voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion in 2003, changed his mind and said the ban on killing a baby who is 80 percent born is “paternalistic.”
• 2019: The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute admits that at least 12,000 late-term abortions take place annually in the U.S.
• 2019: New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo signs a bill that removes legal penalties to any medical staff personnel who intentionally allow a child born as a result of a botched abortion to die.
• 2019: Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said that if a mother sought to abort her baby, but the baby was born anyway, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and her family decide, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” He added that the baby would be “kept comfortable” before they put him down or let him die.
• 2019: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a law that would have required children born alive who survived an abortion to be treated like any other human being.
• 2019: The Born-Alive Infant Abortion Survivors Protection Act was blocked by Senate Democrats Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren; all were presidential candidates.
• 2019: The Washington Post conceded that at least 10,000 late-term abortions take place each year.
• 2023: All but two congressional Democrats voted to kill the Born Alive-Infant Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

It’s time the media stopped lying and covering up for those who support late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions and infanticide.

Bill Donohue

The Gay Pride Parade in New York City is this Sunday. It is worth recalling what happened thirty years ago when gays came from around the world to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall riot. Here is what we said.

Two gay rights marches took place on June 26th. The legal march on First Avenue was festive and without incident. When the marchers passed in front of the Catholic Center on 55th St., there were no anti-Catholic gestures or catcalls. The same was not true of the illegal march on Fifth Avenue.

The demonstrators on Fifth Avenue were vulgar, both in word and in deed. In front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, they bellowed four letter words, pointed their middle finger at the Cathedral and laid down in the street. Amidst the vulgar chants were dozens of bare breasted women, as well as a dozen or more fully naked men and women. Some were dressed as cardinals, priests and nuns, while others wore satanic dress. Almost all showed some sign of disrespect as they passed the Cathedral, especially the contingents from Act Up and Pagans and Witches.

Dr. William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League, had this to say about the event.

“What happened on Fifth Avenue on June 26th was in stark contrast to the respectful and legal demonstration on First Avenue. Those who marched on Fifth Avenue showed no respect for the law, engaged in the most vile anti-Catholic behavior and jeopardized the public safety of all New Yorkers. Led by Act Up, the gay radicals once again showed their anarchists’ stripes by flaunting a court order not to march.  As a result, those who may have needed the services of an ambulance, fire truck or police car were unnecessarily placed at risk. But none of this seemed to matter, not even to those normally accustomed to editorializing about health and safety issues.

“The degree of anti-Catholic bigotry that was vented in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral could not have been outdone by the Ku Klux Klan. Filled with hate, the demonstrators conducted themselves in a manner that gives new meaning to the term blasphemous.  They also showed how very different they really are from all other protesters: only gay events inspire marchers to undress. And their mockery of the one institution that has done more to service AIDS patients than any other in the city of New York shows how irrational this segment of the gay population is.

“In addition to the vengeful Fifth Avenue protesters, criticism must also be made of Mayor Giuliani, Police Commissioner Bratton and the media. The mayor and police commissioner allowed a court order to be disobeyed, thus signaling a collapse of authority. The media failed to report the Catholic-bashing that took place outside of St. Patrick’s Cathedral. If the identical behavior had taken place outside an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, it is doubtful that the disrespect would have gone unreported.”

Bill Donohue sent the following letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas:

June 25, 2024

Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Mayorkas:

It was recently reported that internal files from the “Homeland Intelligence Experts Group” were made public, and although the Group is now defunct, the contents of the second batch of documents secured by America First Legal are disturbing. This advisory panel was under your watch, which explains why I am writing to you.

The Group included former CIA director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. They indicated that when seeking national security information, when all else fails the Department of Homeland Security should look for “indicators of extremists and terrorism.”

“If you ask researchers to dive into indicators of extremists and terrorism, they might indicate being in the military or religious. This being identified as an indicator suggests we should be more worried about these. We need the space to talk about it honestly.”

The Group then added a third indicator of domestic terrorism, saying, “Most of the Domestic Terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president,” meaning supporters of Donald Trump.

I know this group has since been disbanded, but the documents that were collected are extant. It is important that all documents pertaining to this issue be made public. What is your Department doing with these records? Have they been given over to some other committee or advisory group? Where is the evidence that being in the military, being religious and being a supporter of Donald Trump is a threat to national security?

I ask these questions because according to these criteria, I check all three boxes.

• On August 28, 1970 I was honorably discharged from the United States Air Force.
• On July 1, 1993 I began my tenure as president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.
• On February 13, 2016 Donald Trump tweeted, “Nice column [in Newsmax] by Bill Donahue, head of Catholic League. He’s a blue collar New Yorker and gets it.” In a second tweet, he said, “A very big thank you to Bill Donohue, head of The Catholic League, for the wonderful interview on CNN and article in Newsmax! Great insight.”

This begs the question: Am I on a watch list? My family, friends and Catholic League members would like to know if I may be considered a domestic terrorist.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

cc: America First Legal

Bill Donohue

On June 14, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a report on boarding schools for Native American children, some of which were run by the Catholic Church. From 1869 to the 1960s, the government removed thousands of these children from tribal lands and placed them in boarding schools. The express purpose was to assimilate them into American society.

There were more than 500 of these schools, more than 80 of which (16 percent) were Catholic-run. According to an investigation by the Washington Post (WaPo) at least 122 priests, sisters and brothers who were assigned to these schools were later accused of sexually abusing these children.

[Note: This is an abbreviated version of a longer piece on this subject and does not address the bishops’ report; to read it click here.]

The timeline of the investigation under review extends back to 1869, so the kind of record keeping that lends itself to conclusive results is simply impossible. The WaPo report, which claims “pervasive” abuse in Catholic-run boarding schools, readily confesses that “lists of accused priests are inconsistent and incomplete, and many survivors have not come forward. Others are aging and in poor health, or, like their abusers, have died.”

Instead of admitting that this is a clear shortcoming, the journalists conclude this means that “the extent of the abuse was probably far worse.” Really? Let’s face it—they could have come to a very different conclusion. Precisely because the record-keeping was found wanting, it is hard to know the truth. It is even possible that good data would reveal how small this problem was. But such considerations would have gotten in the way of their narrative.

WaPo cites Rev. Mike Carson, who worked on this issue for the bishops, and he “also noted a likely dearth of records.” Similarly, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland acknowledges that given the situation, “I doubt that you could find a lot of Catholic records or federal government records about abuse and neglect toward the students.”

There are other problems that should have given the journalists pause. In several parts of the report, they admit that the alleged victims whom they spoke to “kept secret” what happened. That being the case, how can Church officials be blamed? Indeed, after detailing one case of alleged abuse, they write that “It is unclear whether church officials were aware of the abuse at St. Mary’s at the time.”

WaPo journalists offer no comment on something that should have concerned them. Why is it that when the federal government commissioned a study of this issue in 1928, this report “chastised the schools for the mistreatment and malnourishment of students,” but never said a word about physical or sexual abuse? Was it a cover up? Or was there nothing to report? It seems plausible that a probe that took notice of “mistreatment” would have cited serious cases of abuse.

The credibility of the WaPo authors is seriously undermined by their decision to cite the Catholic Church’s legacy of abuse in Canadian boarding schools for indigenous peoples. That story has positively been proven to be a hoax. It does not help their cause to say that Pope Francis apologized for what happened—he did so before the story was proven false.

There is also the matter of the scope of the WaPo investigation. Why didn’t they investigate the boarding schools run by the government? After all, they operated most of them. Are they content to rely on the Department of Interior study? Similarly, they mention that several Protestant denominations also operated these schools. Why were none of them probed?

As I point out in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse, wherever adults regularly interact with minors, unfortunately we find abuse. So why is it that time and again, the public schools get a pass, Hollywood gets a pass, etc.? Why is it always the Catholic Church that is the source of investigation? Isn’t this religious profiling? And wouldn’t that suggest that bigotry is at work?

It is important that the truth be told. The WaPo report contains some disturbing information, and undoubtedly instances of abuse occurred. But when the data are incomplete, it’s time to tap the brakes and not come to condemnatory conclusions.

The issue of abuse must also be put in context. If corporal punishment was commonplace at the time, why should we be horrified to learn that it  existed in Catholic institutions? It must also be asked how common was abuse within the Native American community? Not to ask questions like these reveals a bias, thus further undercutting the credibility of those pointing fingers.

I am sending a letter, and this commentary, to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. They are interested in having a federal commission do a more thorough investigation of the assimilative polices of Indian boarding schools. It’s time they raised issues that seem to have escaped the WaPo journalists, as well as many others.

Contact WaPo’s Investigions Editor: peter.wallsten@washpost.com

Bill Donohue

The term “equity education” is a misnomer: it has nothing to do with fairness. Rather, it has everything to do with dumbing-down academic standards. It also carries racist undertones.

From as long as most New Yorkers can remember, high school graduates had to pass Regents exams to receive a diploma. But in the name of “equity education,” they are doing away with it. Soon students will be able to graduate by showing “knowledge and skill” in seven areas, including something called “cultural competence.” If this sounds like another diversity and inclusion game, it’s because it is.

The education gurus promoted this idea worked on the New York State Blue Ribbon Commission on Graduation Measures, and made their recommendation to the New York State Education Department. So reassuring to know it is a “blue ribbon” panel. Their idea of academic excellence is to water-down standards: proficiency in math and science are no longer required.

Why the change? The savants will tell you it has to do with “equity.” In actuality, it has to do with racism. Liberal white racism.

In 2020, 71 New York City schools had English Language Arts proficiency rates below 20 percent and 100 had math proficiency rates below 16 percent. That put them among the 250 lowest-scoring schools in the state.

Instead of demanding more from all students, regardless of race, the education establishment is bent on lowering standards. The reason we are lowering standards is because we are lowering expectations, and the reason for that is because too many educators have given up on black students. Instead of helping them to clear the bar, they lower it.

Black students can learn as well as white students. But they have to be challenged, and they have to go to schools that insist on traditional educational norms. For example, black students who attend New York City charter schools outperform black students in traditional New York City public schools by 35 points in math and 23 points in English.

Seattle was one of the first to experiment with “equity education.” Math courses were replaced with classes on “power and oppression.” Guess what happened? Math scores crashed. That’s because students were taking “math ethnic studies,” meaning they had to explain how math is “used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color.”

This insanity lasted a few years before even the liberals in Seattle said “enough is enough.”

If white liberals were not so eager to throw in the towel, they would not be giving up on black students. Ditto for black leaders such as New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman. He was the founding principal of a New York charter school, and his black students excelled. Now he wants to do away with charters, consigning these students to schools that are so bad that those who teach in traditional public schools more often send their children to a charter or private school.

We need to get over the image of white racists being red-necked hillbillies. Today they often wear suits and dresses, and typically have some alphabets after their name.

Bill Donohue

In his eighteenth century classic, Letters from an American Farmer, J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur said he had never seen such assimilation as in America. The French writer said our ability to “melt” disparate peoples into a new man was remarkable and unparalleled. Thus was the idea of a “melting pot” born. What he said is nicely acknowledged in our national motto, E pluribus unum, “out of the many one.”

That was then. Now we are a badly divided people, and most of the reasons for our predicament are not an accident: they represent the logical consequences of a series of policies and programs, many of which originated at colleges and universities; they are designed to divide us.

From multiculturalism, which teaches hatred of western civilization, to the promotion of mass migration, which makes mince meat out of the “melting pot” ideal, we are nation divided; it is evident along racial, ethnic, religious, class and sex lines.

In June, Pew Research Center released survey results that show the effects of the culture war on politics. The differences between Biden and Trump supporters are vast.

“Someone can be a man or a woman even if that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.” This question, which is biologically illiterate—no one “assigns” our birth (it is determined by our father)—is seen by Biden supporters as true. But not for Trump supporters. Six-in-ten of Biden’s fans (59 percent) believe this to be true, but only one-in-ten (9 percent) of Trump’s fans believe it makes sense.

“The criminal justice system in this country is generally not tough enough on criminals.” Only a minority of Biden enthusiasts (40 percent) agree, but most of those drawn to Trump (81 percent) agree.

“Society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority.” A mere 19 percent of Biden supporters agree with this statement, as contrasted to 59 percent of Trump supporters.

Whether the question is how much slavery still explains racial inequality (Biden fans think it does) or America’s openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as nation (Trump fans are not buying it), the chasm is wide.

There is also a lot of hatred. I use the word intentionally. I am not talking about people disagreeing—that is commonplace—I am talking about hatred.

I have met a lot of conservatives who say they hate so-and-so (a public figure) because he is a liberal. In some cases, I know the person rather well, and while I may have sharp disagreements with him, I know him as a friendly and honest person. So I reply by saying, “Do you know him personally?” Of course they don’t. That gives me an opportunity to defend my characterological assessment, insisting on drawing a difference between disagreeing with someone and hating him.

Those who love Biden hate Trump, and vice versa. The hatred of Trump, often called “Trump derangement syndrome,” is so bad that 86 percent of Biden’s biggest supporters, as reported in a recent Rasmussen survey, approve the Justice Department’s authorization of “the use of deadly force” in retrieving documents at Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago.

It is interesting to note that most Democrats disagree that we are not tough enough on crime, yet believe that Trump should be subjected to a raid where deadly force is authorized—for an alleged crime of a non-violent nature. The hatred runs deep.

What’s driving these outcomes? As I show in my new book, Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis, the divisions we are seeing are ultimately traceable to a conflict between a religious vision of man and society and a secular one.

The data show conclusively that when it comes to religiosity, or beliefs and practices, Republicans are clearly more likely to say that religion is important to them. Not so for Democrats—they are the Party of secularists. To show how this plays out, consider the Pew question on marriage and the family.

Democrats do not agree that “Society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority.” But why? Secularists see such a conviction as an anathema because it challenges their belief in autonomy. That which might interfere with career goals is not an option, and in any event it smacks of patriarchy. It also carries a religious meaning, and that is taboo.

Now it may be that for any particular individual, making marriage and the family a priority is to interfere with his or her personal goals, at least at that time. But the question wasn’t about the respondent’s personal life; it was about what is in the best interests of society. To those fixated on themselves, which is more common among secularists, that is not a viable choice. They are drawn to thinking in terms of me, not we.

This, too, shall pass. But in the meantime, that which divides us remains real. It is also eating away at our social fabric.

The following letter by Catholic League president Bill Donohue to Rep. James Comer, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, explains why he wants the FBI to authorize the release of the “Nashville Manifesto” kept by mass murderer Audrey Hale.

June 17, 2024

Hon. James Comer
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6143

Dear Chairman Comer:

As president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, it is my job to combat anti-Catholicism. I am writing to you because you are in a position to inquire why the FBI is stopping the public release of documents pertaining to the mass shooting in Nashville, Tennessee on March 27, 2023. That is when a 28-year-old female, Audrey Hale, shot and killed three children and three adults at Covenant School.

Hale, who falsely identified as a male, kept a journal, more commonly known as the Nashville manifesto. Nashville Police Chief John Drake said after the shootings that “There’s some belief that there was some resentment for having to go to that school.”

Covenant is a Christian school. The police said that the school and the church were both targeted. Hale once attended the school and reportedly disparaged her parents for not supporting her “transition.”

On April 24, 2023, I issued a news release asking, “So where’s the manifesto? Who’s holding it back? What’s driving this decision?” Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett said at that time that it was the FBI that was holding it back. He was right.

We now know that it was the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit that “strongly discourage[d]” the Metro Nashville Police Department from releasing the manifesto. It said it represents a “legacy token” that could be exploited by other mass murderers.

I am a sociologist who has taught courses on criminology and written extensively about it. Moreover, in my role as a Catholic civil rights leader, I have investigated, and written about, the extent to which a strong anti-Christian animus is prevalent among transgender persons.

Accordingly, it is imperative that Christians learn if Hale’s offenses were in any way driven by hatred against them. The police have admitted that she planned her attack “over a period of months.” Indeed, they said her crimes were “calculated and planned.” Given that she gave great thought to what she was planning, it would be instructive to know what she had to say about Christians. Moreover, the Daily Wire recently obtained selections from her journal entry that expressly show a strong hostility to Christianity.

As I pointed out last year, the FBI elite have had their reputations sullied by probing innocent traditional Catholics. “Given this situation,” I said, “are we to believe that if a crazed Catholic were to blow up an abortion clinic, killing six people, and law enforcement found a manifesto detailing his motive, that the FBI would censor its release? Or would it be more likely to make it public?”

Please do what you can to have the FBI release Hale’s manifesto. Christians should not be kept in the dark, especially when the contents of her journal may reveal information that is threatening to them.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

President

cc: Rep. Tim Burchett

Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary

Bill Donohue

Rachel Levine, President Biden’s assistant secretary of health, should be celebrating Father’s Day—he has two children—but he won’t be. That’s because he thinks he is a woman. But he didn’t celebrate Mother’s Day either. Why would a parent not celebrate one of these two days?

Rachel was born Richard Levine. Even though virtually all of the mainstream media falsely refer to him as a she, he knows he’s a man and he knows he fathered two children. But he doesn’t like it when people tell him the truth. He prefers it when they lie.

Four years ago, a Pittsburgh-area lawmaker wished him a Happy Father’s Day. That didn’t sit too well with Rachel or his friends. Cora Brna, a transgender advocate, said, “It’s just hateful. It’s disguised as a joke, but it’s not funny.” But why is it “hateful” to congratulate a father on Father’s Day?

Rachel was raised in Boston by two lawyers. He attended an elite all-male Hebrew school. After graduating from Harvard he went to Tulane Medical School. He didn’t “transition” until he was in his fifties, after seeing a therapist. Did he finish the job and have his genitals cut off? He won’t say.

When asked by Sen. Rand Paul at his confirmation hearing, the senator asked if he believed minors should be able to “amputate their breasts or amputate their genitalia.” He wouldn’t say. The best he could do was to say the issue is “very complex.” He did not indicate why a question about self-mutilation was complex, especially given that those undergoing the knife are children.

It needs to be added that the Biden administration and the National Education Association are both on record saying that minors should be able to “transition” behind the backs of their parents.

For more on this subject, and many other issues, see my new book, Cultural Meltdown: The Secular Roots of Our Moral Crisis. It will be published by Sophia Institute Press on June 18 and is available now for pre-order at Amazon.

Bill Donohue

Pope Francis is obviously worried about “fags” in the seminaries, and even in the Vatican.

On May 28, it was reported that in a private meeting with 250 Italian bishops the week before, the pope said he opposed having openly homosexual men in the seminaries. He said the seminaries were already too full of “frociaggine,” or “faggotry.” After being criticized, the Vatican said the pope “extends his apologies.”

Now the Italian news agency, ANSA, is reporting that when the pope met privately with priests at the Pontifical Salesian University in Rome on June 11, he said, “In the Vatican, there is an air of ‘faggotry.’”

The use of the gay slur is not the real issue, though it is surprising to hear the pope speak this way twice within three weeks, and just two weeks after his apology was issued for the first infraction. The real issue is the prevalence of homosexuals in the seminaries and in the Vatican.

As I recount in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, the damage that homosexuals—not pedophiles—have done to the Catholic Church cannot be overstated. They are responsible for 81 percent of all the cases of the sexual abuse of minors from 1950 to 2002; almost all of the males were postpubescent.

Pope Francis didn’t need the data to know that homosexuals have taken over too much of the Catholic Church. He has previously spoken openly about the “gay lobby” and the “gay mentality” in the Church.

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”—the pope strongly disagreed. “In the consecrated life and in the priestly life, there is no place for that kind of affection,” the pope said. He also warned priests against aligning themselves with the “gay movement.”

Pope Benedict XVI has also warned of the damage that homosexuals have done to the priesthood. This explains why he said that those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should not be ordained. Pope Francis has continued this policy.

It is not just Pope Francis who has expressed concern about the number of homosexuals in the Church. Father Andrew Greeley said in 1989 that “Blatantly active homosexual priests are appointed, transferred and promoted. Lavender rectories and seminaries are tolerated. National networks of active homosexual priests (many of them administrators) are tolerated.” In 2000, he testified that seminary professors “tell their students that they’re gay and take some of them to gay bars, and gay students sleep with each other.”

In 2002, Bishop Wilton Gregory (now a Cardinal) said, “One of the difficulties we do face in seminary life or recruitment is when there does exist a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexual men think twice” about joining the priesthood. He said it is “an ongoing struggle” and that the Church must be careful not to be “dominated by homosexual men.”

Pope Francis is clearly worried that there are still too many homosexuals in the priesthood. Calling gays “fags” should not mask what is bugging the pope. His critics are trying to divert attention from the real problem.

Bill Donohue

On June 14, Pope Francis is scheduled to meet 105 comedians from 15 countries. Americans who have been invited include Jim Gaffigan, Conan O’Brien, Chris Rock, Tig Notaro and Whoopi Goldberg. The meeting is being arranged by the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education and the Dicastery for Communication. Their goal is to “establish a link between the Catholic Church and comic artists.”

Perhaps it would be good to vet these comedians before introducing them to the pope. Then again it may not matter.

We have nothing to say about Jim Gaffigan or Chris Rock. But the others have said things about Catholics that should have been picked up by the members of these two dicasteries.

Stephen Colbert has compared the Eucharist to Doritos. “I know the Eucharist is usually bread, but through transubstantiation it becomes the Body of Christ, so I honestly don’t understand why Jesus can’t be a Dorito?” He has mocked Catholic objections to President Obama’s plan to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plan. “Catholic groups are forced to provide contraceptives, but the pope wants his hat to be the only thing with a reservoir tip.” His show also depicted a priest distributing condoms instead of the consecrated Host.

Jimmy Fallon has smeared priests. “A priest in Italy has developed a new app that will let priests say Mass on their iPods. Yeah, altar boys are quickly learning the difference between itouch and bad touch.”

Conan O’Brien has portrayed all priests as molesters. “Kids can opt out of fondling by texting #nothanks to the Vatican.”

Whoopi Goldberg, who has had 6 or 7 abortions (she is not sure), has made a slew of attacks on priests, and has ripped Pope John Paul II for rejecting homosexuality and abortion. “Who the f**k is the pope to judge people like that?”

Tig Notaro claims she married a woman in 2015 and it was blessed by a deacon. She said of Jesus that he “was a woman and her pantsuits would blow your feeble-f**king minds.”

Some of those who serve on the dicasteries that invited these people are known to us.

On the Dicastery for Culture and Education are Jean-Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg, and Cardinal Joseph Tobin, archbishop of Newark.

Hollerich has said that the official Catholic teaching on homosexuality is “no longer correct.” Cardinal Tobin agrees, saying the language is “very unfortunate.”

On the Dicastery for Communications is Cardinal Marcello Semeraro. Serving as a Consulter is Father James Martin.

Cardinal Semeraro, who was recently appointed by the pope to serve on the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a preface to a book by a priest called, Possible Love: Homosexual Persons and Christian Morality.

Father James Martin, who is the poster priest for the LGBT cause, rejects the term “intrinsically disordered” to describe homosexuals, saying it makes them feel “subhuman.”

When all of these people meet, it makes us wonder who will have the last laugh.