Bill Donohue

President Donald Trump announced today that he is forming a new Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty. To accomplish this goal, he appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi to chair a task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias.”

“The mission of this task force will be to immediately halt all forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal government,” Trump said. He specifically cited the Department of Justice, the FBI and the IRS, but he also said the probe will extend to other agencies.

More than any other organization in the nation, the Catholic League has documented anti-Christian prejudice and discrimination. To cite one example, we have a very detailed list of abuses that took place under the Biden administration. We will be happy to share our work with Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The scourge of Christian bashing, which Catholics, in particular, have had to endure is astounding. While some Republicans have contributed to this plague, the overwhelming attacks on Christians have come from members of the Democratic Party. We have the evidence and we will make sure the Trump administration has it as well.

Bill Donohue

Pete Buttigieg, the former Secretary of Transportation, is known in LGBTQ circles as the self-described “Pronoun Warrior.” But now the homosexual politician has removed the “He/Him” pronouns from his social media account. This has gravely upset those who still live in the world of “They/Them/Theirs.” They have every right to be angry. What he has done is traitorous.

What broke? Buttigieg wants to be either the next governor or senator of Michigan. He is a native of Indiana but there is no future for the failed mayor of South Bend there, so he laid anchor in Traverse City, Michigan in 2022. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is term limited, and cannot run again in 2026. Senator Gary Peters has said he will not run again in 2026. So Buttigieg sees a few openings.

He could, of course, run for office by not abandoning his “Pronoun Warrior” reputation. But he is well aware that millions of Americans are turned off by this stunt. He also knows that Trump has tapped into this angst with great effect, constantly reminding voters that the Democrats are the “They/Them/Theirs” Party.

A recent New York Times/Ipsos poll provides further evidence that transgender politics is running out of steam. When respondents were asked what issues matter most to them, they said immigration, the economy and healthcare. When asked what matters most to Democrats, they answered abortion, LGBTQ issues and climate change. In other words, the Democrats are wildly out of touch with the average American.

Buttigieg knows this which is why he is downplaying his radical LGBTQ stance. But he can’t run from the past. For example, he still insists he is married to a man. That, however, is a legal fiction: his “marriage” may be recognized by the positive law, but it is not recognized by the natural law. To wit: a man can have a wife but he is denied by nature, and nature’s God, from having a husband. Similarly, two men cannot have a baby, though they may acquire a baby born as a result of a normal heterosexual union.

Just three years ago, CNN host Fareed Zakaria was blasted by left-wing pundits and activists for saying the Democratic Party is too obsessed with “pronouns.” The year before, Chasten Buttigieg, who still insists he is married to the former “Pronoun Warrior,” got ripping mad at those who refuse to respect the fabricated pronouns favored by the LGBTQ crowd. He went so far as to say that for these people, using the “wrong” pronouns can do great damage.

LGBTQ activists concur. The website gaythrive says “Misgendering someone (using incorrect pronouns) can cause distress and perpetuate feelings of exclusion.” It also says that “disrespecting someone’s pronouns can have profound emotional impacts.”

This raises the question: Now that Pete Buttigieg is running away from his “Pronoun Warrior” legacy, will he be so insensitive as to disrespect those who prefer to be identified as “They/Them/Theirs”? What about those who go by “Ze/Zir/Zirs,” or “Xe/Xem/Xir”? Both sets of pronouns are liked by those who don’t identify as either male or female. We also need to hear from his partner Chasten about this.

There is a sizable Muslim population in Michigan, and they are not exactly big fans of this insanity. Good luck trying to win their vote. Unlike many Christians, Muslims are not inclined to normalize abnormalities.

Bill Donohue

In violation of a court order, someone leaked some 300 email exchanges between the New Orleans Saints and the Archdiocese of New Orleans that show how the football team provided public relations advice to the archdiocese on cases of priestly sexual abuse. The emails were given to the Associated Press, the New York Times and the Guardian; other media outlets now have them as well.

This is a story that is largely contrived. No charges of illegal behavior have been made by anyone against any party to this story. Moreover, it is hardly breaking news that elites in one sector of society offer advice to elites in another sector of society. So what gives?

Mark Florio of NBC Sports aptly notes that “it appears that the violation [of the court order] was conducted to create maximum embarrassment for the Saints. Strategically, it’s smart. The Saints are hosting the Super Bowl on Sunday. The Monday morning of Super Bowl week traditionally becomes a perfect spot to drop a nugget that will get attention, since it’s usually slow. Until, of course, the [NFL] Commissioner commences his annual Super Bowl press conference.”

Commissioner Roger Goodell has already downplayed this “story.”

It is well known in New Orleans that its owner, Gayle Benson, is a devout Catholic who is on good terms with New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond. Indeed, it was Aymond who introduced Benson to her husband; he has since passed away. So it is to be expected that friends would do what friends do, and offer advice on how to handle a problem.

What prompted the email exchange was a news story in 2018 about a deacon and schoolteacher who had been accused of sexual abuse and was removed from ministry in 1988, yet was still involved at a New Orleans church. When Aymond found out he said he was “utterly surprised and embarrassed.” It was then that Greg Bensel offered to provide “crisis communications” to the archdiocese; he is the Saints senior vice president of communications. Subsequently, a 2020 lawsuit revealed that the football team offered public relations advice to the archdiocese.

Most of the accusations are about offenses that took place decades ago. We know from the most authoritative sources that the overwhelming number of cases took place between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, and that the offenders are either dead or have been kicked out of the priesthood. There are almost no cases of abuse taking place today, whether it be in New Orleans or anywhere else.

It should also be noted that the Associated Press is wrong to report that the offending priests were pedophiles. They were not. Over 8-in-10 were homosexuals, men who had sex with postpubescent males. Only 3.8 percent were pedophiles. The data from researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice are conclusive.

The one outstanding question in this instance is whether some names of the accused that were released by the Archdiocese of New Orleans in 2018 were removed from the list. The New York Times says “it is not clear if names were actually removed from the list.” James Gulotta, a lawyer for the Saints, says no Saints employee was involved in creating the list.

The big media have no business feeling emboldened about this story. Their record of covering up sexual abuse crimes has been well detailed (see my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes). Take the New York Times.

In 2017, when four female journalists accused Times reporter Glenn Thrush of sexual misconduct, there was no independent investigation; the probe was done in-house. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the paper, decided his behavior did not deserve termination. Instead, Thrush was allowed to undergo counseling. He still writes for the Times.

Yet when the Catholic Church does not act with dispatch, the editorial board slams them.

The same year that accusations were made against Thrush, three women accused Michael Oreskes of sexual harassment. Two of the alleged incidents occurred in the 1990s, when Oreskes was the Washington, D.C. bureau chief. At the time, Jill Abramson, who would later become the executive editor for the Times, was deputy to Oreskes. She admitted that she knew of his alleged offenses but did nothing to stop them.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if the mainstream media did a story on how deeply involved local and state public officials are in working with public school officials in handling cases of sexual abuse in the schools? It is well known that the teachers unions generously grease the Democrats.

So if the “story” on the Saints and the New Orleans archdiocese merited the front page in the New York Times, below the fold, a story of this kind surely deserves an above the fold spot, if not a spread.

We don’t have to wait and see—it will never happen.

Bill Donohue

J.D. Vance makes a commonsensical comment about a Christian notion of love and immediately he is subjected to condemnation. Here is what he said that has “progressives” so upset.

“There’s this old school—and I think it’s a very Christian concept, by the way—that you love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.”

He also said, “A lot of the far left has completely inverted that. They seem to hate the citizens of their own country and care more about people outside their own borders. That is no way to run a society.”

As we shall see, Vance was right about what he said about Christian love. Regarding his quip about the far left hating America, it does not need to be defended—it is axiomatic. Indeed, it is one of their most defining characteristics.

Father James Martin was one of Vance’s more prominent critics. He said Vance’s comment about love “misses the point of Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan.” But it is Martin who has missed Vance’s point: he never mentioned Jesus or the Good Samaritan. As he made clear when asked about his critics, Vance defended himself by referencing ordo amoris, or ordered love.

Vance was not taking issue with the biblical injunction to “love thy neighbor as thy self.” This obligation is found in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18), as well as in the New Testament (Mark 12: 28-34). He understands that our “neighbor” means everyone. He is simply offering a practical understanding of the locus of love: it should begin with our family, and then extend outwards.

The idea of “ordered love” is indeed a Christian conception of love. It was given to us by Saint Augustine. “Virtus est ordo amoris,” he wrote, which means virtue is the order of love, or love set in proper order. Vance is also right to say that this is an “old school” observation. In the First Letter to Timothy (5:8), it is written that “whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Vance said that “the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does [anyone] really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?”

Practically speaking, we are limited in the number of people we can be friends with, never mind love.

Anthropologist Robin Dunbar has done the most extensive work on this subject; his research includes hunting and gathering societies. He found that humans are capable of having 15 good friends, 50 friends, 150 meaningful contacts, 500 acquaintances and 1500 people that we can recognize. Therefore, loving thy neighbor is a tall order, one most likely to be achieved by loving our family members, and then embracing those outside our family unit.

Vance’s remark about the “far left” caring more about people they don’t know than their fellow Americans is incontestable. The champions of humanitarianism as identified by the “far left” are Rousseau and Marx.

Rousseau had five illegitimate children, refused to even give them a name, never mind support them. Marx impregnated his maid and made his colleague, Engels, assume paternity of his son, Freddy. But both of them proclaimed great love for mankind.

Rousseau and Marx set the table for left-wing Americans: they are the least generous persons in the nation, as measured by charitable giving and volunteering. The most generous are practicing people of faith. It’s not hard to figure out. The former believe it is the job of government to help the poor, not individuals. Religious Americans see it as their job.

Mother Teresa understood what Vance was saying; she also knew that people like Rousseau, Marx and their ilk were phonies. “It is easy to love those who live far away,” she said. “It is not always easy to love those who live right next to us.”

It may be that the reaction against Vance has less to do with what he said than it is does with who he is: he is a young convert to Catholicism, a conservative, and Vice President of the United States. Ergo, Christians on the left have their antennas in the stratosphere looking for anything he says that they can pounce on. They are off to a lousy start.