Kyle Nazareth

Most readers have heard of grand old churches turned into party halls. Holy Cross in Indianapolis should not be one of them.

In 2024, St. Philip Neri parish assumed responsibility for the long-closed Holy Cross campus on the Near Eastside. After a thorough look at the structure, the parish reached a hard but responsible judgment: the church building is unsafe and prohibitively expensive to restore, and the only prudent step is demolition. Engineers point to serious deterioration, including rusted anchors and loosened stones. Repair estimates run in the seven to eight million dollar range. Meanwhile, the parish spends close to one hundred thousand dollars a year just to carry an empty, dangerous building. That’s money needed for ministry and for maintenance of St. Philip Neri’s own historic church.

Then Indianapolis City Hall stepped in. The Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission rushed an emergency designation that froze any removal of the structure. In April 2024, the Metropolitan Development Commission made that status permanent by a six-to-one vote. On October 1, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission denied the parish’s demolition request and reaffirmed the landmark status. Essentially, the City has the building in a legal straitjacket.

The activists’ pitch is distasteful but all too familiar. They say to sell, touting examples of churches repurposed as event venues and assure everyone that buyers are waiting. That glib advice ignores what Catholics know in their bones. A church that once housed the Blessed Sacrament is not just another piece of real estate. Once an intact church is sold, the parish loses control over what happens five, ten, or fifty years from now. The clergy at St. Philip Neri refuse to roll the dice on sacrilege. Removing the structure removes the risk; that’s stewardship, not stubbornness.

Let’s talk about fairness. The City wants a showcase without paying for it. It forbids the parish from abating a hazard, and then expects a small Catholic community to carry the bill indefinitely. St. Philip Neri is already caring for its own landmarked campus, which is older than Holy Cross and still serves the faithful. The parish is not a cash machine for municipal government’s whims.

The law backs common sense. The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibit government from piling substantial burdens onto religious exercise unless it uses the least restrictive means to serve a truly compelling interest. Forcing a parish to pour nearly six figures into a building it cannot safely use, while ignoring less restrictive options such as controlled deconstruction, recorded covenants on future use, or partial salvage, fails that test. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause likely points in the same direction.

There is also the Constitution’s protection of private property. The Fifth Amendment says government cannot load the cost of a public amenity onto one private owner without compensation. When regulation turns a private property into an unsafe, unproductive liability and the City refuses either to allow a remedy or to condemn the site, that is confiscation in practice. If the City truly wants a museum piece, it should buy one.

Now, St. Philip Neri intends to appeal the latest denial in November. The parish will continue to make its case through the proper channels, and it will do so as a matter of conscience. Holy Cross is not a canvas for event planners. It is a once-consecrated place that deserves a dignified end.

If you want to help, pray for the people of St. Philip Neri parish. Tell Indianapolis officials to respect religious liberty, safety, and basic fairness. A church is a sacred trust. Treat it that way.

Contact the City of Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission: PlannerOnCall@indy.gov

Bill Donohue

The average person is concerned about the environment, and opposes policies that needlessly damage it. But the average person is not an alarmist. This is not true of many climate activists: some are downright dishonest, making claims that are indefensible. Worse, they are rank hypocrites.

Just this week, a district judge in Montana tossed a lawsuit brought by left-wing activists who sought to check executive orders signed by President Trump on the environment. The activists claimed that Trump’s rulings escalate “climate-related dangers” to such an extent that they threaten the lives of the 22 children whom they are representing.

The judge said the courts lack the authority to block the executive orders. He also noted that what the plaintiffs really sought to do was to entice the court “to return the environmental policy of the previous administration.” That was a bridge too far.

None of this is of grave interest to the Catholic League. What does concern us is the duplicity of the plaintiffs.

They say they are interested in the protecting the lives of children, yet upon examination it appears that the two prominent public interest firms that are party to this lawsuit, Public Justice and Our Children’s Trust, have no interest in protecting the lives of unborn children—just kids who allegedly may die from global warming.

Public Justice claims to fight “purveyors of corporate corruption, sexual abusers and harassers, and polluters who ravage the environment.” Our Children’s Trust claims to be the “world’s only non-profit interest law firm dedicated exclusively to securing the legal rights of youth to a healthy atmosphere and safe climate, based on the best available science.” Their interest in saving lives, however, is drawn very narrowly.

In 2022, Public Justice issued a statement, “We believe the right to abortion is a fundamental, human right.” Nowhere does it even hint at any competing right on the part of the unborn. It decries what it says are “legal efforts to undermine abortion access for those who need it has effectively put millions of peoples’ rights, autonomy, health, and lives at risk.” What about the rights, autonomy, health and lives of children who are being killed in utero?

Our Children’s Trust has filed briefs condemning the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, making plain its total lack of interest in protecting the right to life of unborn children. It is also prone to hyperbole. To be specific, it cites in its lawsuit the testimony of a teenage hiker who claims Trump’s executive orders are a “death sentence for my generation.” The lead attorney opined, “Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future.”

Making unsubstantiated claims of this magnitude seriously undercuts the credibility of Our Children’s Trust.

Facts matter. Everyone knows that if a pregnant woman’s condition is not interrupted, she will give birth to the human being she has been carrying. That’s not a matter of religion—it’s Biology 101. It is certainly noble to want to protect the environment, but it is ignoble not to protect children in the womb. Indeed, that constitutes a real “death sentence,” not a fictional one.

Bill Donohue

Violence among transgender persons is a growing phenomenon, and it is being fueled by extreme left-wing ideologies. Their targets vary, but anyone who supports capitalism or Christianity is particularly vulnerable to their attacks.

There is no transgender bank or registry that collects data on their violent behavior, but reports from responsible journalists suggests that their behavior poses an existential threat to the social order. Here are just three prominent examples.

• In September, the person who admitted to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson, lived with his lover boyfriend, who was “transitioning” from male to female. Kirk was killed because he was an outspoken Christian conservative.
• In August, the person who killed two Catholic schoolchildren in Minneapolis, Robert Westman, was a man who falsely identified as a female. He hated Catholics.
• In 2023, the person who killed three children and three adults at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Audrey Hale, was a woman who falsely identified as a male. She hated Christians.

There are many more such instances of trans mass shooters. It is true that  most mass shooters are not trans persons, but that is of little relief; they make up about one-half of one percent of the population. What matters most is that a growing subset are being radicalized and drawn to violence.

Some of them initially get by the radar before the truth comes out. For example, Nicholas Roske is a violent left-wing activist who sought to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He also had three other Supreme Court judges on his list to kill. We didn’t know until recently that he is a trans person who falsely identified as a woman.

Violent trans persons have friends in high places covering for them.

When the New York Times ran a story on Audrey Hale they never disclosed that the Christian Covenant School killer was a woman. Instead, they presented her as Aiden Hale, the male name adopted by the female killer. They said Hale was “being treated for an emotional disorder,” making it sound as if she suffered from an anxiety disorder, not a mental illness. ABC news did the same, referring to Audrey as “Alec.”

Law enforcement is also capable of covering for trans killers. In March, seven people were indicted for torturing and killing a man who falsely identified as a female, “Sam” Nordquist. But because some of the suspects were themselves trans persons, no one was charged with a hate crime. Such is the politics of “hate crimes.”

There is plenty of politics involved in this issue, and it is the politics of left-wing extremists. For example, Denver Communists says, “Transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, and the gender binary are all connected and deeply embedded in capitalist ideology. LGBTQ+ oppression developed with the emergence of class societies and the nuclear family under capitalism.”

In truth, it is in socialist societies like Cuba where homosexuals and trans persons have to hide—otherwise they will be punished. In the Middle East, Muslim-run countries are not exactly beacons of capitalism, and they are known for throwing queers off of rooftops. By contrast, the median income of gays in America is higher than what heterosexuals make. And they’re oppressed?

Most Americans have never heard of the Socialist Rifle Association. It is a left-wing group of transgender and communist activists who specialize in firebombing Tesla dealerships and the like. They have falsely accused innocent persons such as Charlie Kirk with calling for the lynching of trans persons, inspiring haters to pick up their weapons.

Armed Queers SLC is another group of left-wing crazies. They like to feature flyers with a hammer and sickle and rainbow flags, thus showing their support for communism and the radical LGBTQ agenda. Of course, they find a way to blame capitalism, tagging it as a source of oppression.

Antifa is the most well-known violent left-wing group in the country. It is increasingly attracting trans persons and it fully supports their extremist causes. Andy Ngo, the courageous journalist who has tracked this group more than anyone, calls it “Trantifa,” giving recognition to the sexual, as well as the political, basis of this movement. He has been beaten badly by these thugs (they dress in black, wearing masks), just for doing his job.

In July, Benjamin Song, a member of the Antifa group Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club and the Socialist Rifle Association, led ten of his followers—eight of whom were trans persons—in an armed ambush at an ICE detention center in Alvarado, Texas.

Ngo blames the media for selling the idea that trans people are being subjected to genocide, when in fact they are the ones killing innocent Americans. He adds that they suffer from mental health comorbidities and many are sociopathic. That’s a sick stew.

Most Americans want to treat people fairly, even if they disagree with their politics or lifestyle. That’s commendable. But when mentally challenged trans persons adopt a radical agenda, and are willing to use violence to achieve their goals, they must be treated as domestic terrorists. Fortunately, President Trump recently declared Antifa to be such an organization. Now it’s time to apprehend them.

Bill Donohue

Transgender persons need all the help they can get, and it is the responsibility of those in government, healthcare and education to provide it. Regrettably too many of those who work in these professions are functioning more as enablers than helpers, thus postponing the day of reckoning. There is nothing normal about being transgender, and the data prove it.

There is much talk about transgender persons being the victims of violent crime. This is true. But what is not generally said is that more often than not the persons who are victimizing them are transgender. Over half (54 percent) of transgender and non-binary persons have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetimes. This is not a statistic from some conservative entity—the data are provided by the pro-LGBTQ organization, the Human Rights Campaign.

In the general population, 41 percent of women and 26 percent of men have experienced such violence. Transgender individuals are 2.2 times more likely to face physical violence and are 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual violence than normal persons, i.e. those who accept their sexual status (known in the literature as “cisgender”).

In short, it is not bored frat boys who are roaming the streets on a Friday night looking to beat up trans persons—they are doing it to themselves.

Another false narrative holds that whatever maladies trans persons have, it is due to transphobia, discrimination, and the like. This skirts the real issue: their condition is organic, a function of who they are. It is not normal to be in constant rebellion against one’s nature. Not to admit to this verity is to aid and abet their abnormal condition.

Transgender individuals are self-destructive. In a study published last year by public health experts on IPV among trans women in the San Francisco Bay Area, it was found that they suffer from inconsistent hormone use and non-prescribed hormone use. These bodily altering conditions carry serious health issues. Also, men who “transition” to women are more likely to be prostitutes and drug users. Not surprisingly, they suffer from abnormal rates of depression and are more prone to suicide.

Dr. Paul McHugh is the longtime psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Medical School. He knows this subject as well as anyone in the nation, having studied “people who claim to be transgender” for decades. His wording is precise: in reality, there is no such being as a transgender person. There certainly are those who claim this status, but the truth is there are males and females. That’s it. There is no third sex, or gender, never mind dozens of them, as some have absurdly claimed.

How, then, should we treat such persons? Gender dysphoria, the feeling that one belongs to the opposite sex, McHugh says, is similar to other “disordered assumptions about the body.” For example, he argues that it makes no sense to treat “obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction.” Similarly, treatment of trans persons should not be directed at the body. “The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it.”

In a famous Swedish study, which followed-up on those who underwent sex-reassignment surgery—over a thirty year period—it was determined that such persons “have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.” Their suicide rate does not increase in the early years following surgery, but ten to fifteen years later it does—it rose twenty times that of comparable peers.

If it’s not normal to reject one’s own sexual identity, it is even more abnormal to consider oneself as belonging to, at least in part, another species. Worse, this problem is growing.

The young man who assassinated Charlie Kirk, and his lover roommate, a trans person (he was “transitioning” from male to female), were both attracted to a “furry” subculture. Such persons believe they have human and animal traits. Many give themselves names, choose a species, and attend conventions with like-minded persons. Most of them are homosexuals.

According to Mary Rooke, who has researched the “furry” population, “Furry culture is overtly sexual. Online forums are filled with depictions of humans roleplaying as animals engaging in sexual activity. Still, what’s worse is that this subculture is a version of humanity that claims we are nothing more than animals, which also happens to be a core tenet of the Church of Satan.” In one survey of “furries,” it was found that 96 percent of male respondents and 78 percent of females reported that they viewed furry pornography.

Robert Westman, the man who killed two Catholic children in a Minneapolis church in August, was also a “furry.” A trans man, who falsely claimed to be female, had a furry girlfriend. He said she was the “root of my suffering” and a “catalyst” for the attack. He also regretted “experimenting” with his sexual identity.

Those suffering from gender dysphoria need the right treatment. What they don’t need is to be encouraged to think that the heart of their problems is external to them. That is a gross disservice to them and to society at large.

By and large, the media do not want to draw attention to how violent prone many trans persons are. It’s a cover-up, and it needs to end.

Michael P. McDonald

This Catholic League report details why the greatest child abuse scandal of our time—“transitioning” the sexual identity of minors—is so prevalent. It exists largely because of the policies adopted by elites in education and medicine. To read an expanded  version, click here.

Elite Education Organizations

American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

In 2022, the AAUP issued a statement saying “academic freedom cannot be understood to support misgendering—referring to someone using a word or pronoun that does not reflect that person’s gender identity—or otherwise serve as an excuse for transphobia or the diminishment of trans, intersex, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary persons and their lives.”

In 2025, it took a more aggressive position, warning of President Trump’s policies that sought to end transgender child abuse. It claimed his executive orders “all share a common aim: erasure.”

National Education Association (NEA)

In  2018, the NEA released a report, “NEA Guidance on Transgender Students’ Rights,” that was meant as a resource to teachers. It offered legal advice on how to best advance these rights.

In 2025, it condemned President Trump’s recent executive orders saying they were “attempts to dehumanize transgender, intersex, and non-binary people.”

Elite Medical Associations

American Medical Association (AMA)

In 2025, the AMA issued a document, “Transgender Individuals’ Access to Public Facilities,” that said that proper medical treatments for transgender persons include “gender-affirming hormone care, puberty suppression and/or gender confirmation surgeries.”

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

In 2018, the AAP called for “comprehensive gender-affirming and developmentally appropriate health care.” In 2025, a resolution entitled “Recognizing Transgender Patients and Providing Gender Affirming Care,” was ranked as the  most important priority for its members.

American Psychological Association (APA)

In 2024, it said that it “underscores the necessity for access to comprehensive gender-affirming healthcare for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary children, adolescents and adults.”

In 2025, it said that treatment for transgender youth “should aim to help children and adolescents explore and understand, rather than change, their gender identity.”

American Psychiatric Association (APA)

The APA defines gender-affirming therapy as “a therapeutic stance that focuses on affirming a patient’s gender identity and does not try to ‘repair’ it.”

In 2024, APA officials approved a document that “opposes the practice of ‘reparative’ or conversion therapies that are based on the a priori assumption that diverse sexual orientations and gender identities are mental illnesses.”

Elite Medical Schools

Harvard Medical School

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Mass General is the original and largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. It has a specialized gender-affirming care unit that “performs a variety of highly specialized gender-affirming surgical procedures tailored to meet the needs of transgender and gender-nonconforming patients.”

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

It has a clinic that “offers fully integrated and interdisciplinary expertise and clinical services” in a wide range of healthcare fields “designed to improve the health and well-being of gender variant, gender diverse and transgender youth and young adults.” These clinical services are available at the age of 5.

Stanford Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No (It seeks to comply with Trump Administration edicts.)

However, it continues to promote transgender ideology. Indeed, its Obstetrics and Gynecology claims “to be a leader in providing gender-affirming surgery.”

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No (It seeks to comply with Trump Administration edicts.)

However, it has a code of conduct that forbids “refusing to use the name or pronouns with which a person self-identifies” and “refusing to allow people to use single-gender facilities or programs most closely aligned with their gender identity.”

Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Columbia extols people to recognize “a person’s gender identity and using their correct pronouns” and demands the use of “gender inclusive language.” It has a section on youth and gender-affirming care for “children as young as 4.”

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

The UCLA Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery offers “a one-year fellowship focused on Facial Gender-Affirming Surgery.” It also gives these fellows some experience in chest and genital “reconstruction.”

Yale Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No (It seeks to comply with Trump Administration edicts.)

While Yale has scaled back its Gender Program more than any of the other top medical schools in the country, it still promotes transgender ideology.

Duke University School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Duke Health provides gender-affirming hormone therapy for children 16 and older. For younger children, Duke Health offers therapies to “delay puberty.”

NYU Grossman School of Medicine

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: Yes

Although NYU initially indicated it would comply with President Trump’s executive order preventing child mutilation, it has since reversed course.

Washington University of St. Louis

Offers “Gender Affirming Care” to Minors: No (It seeks to comply with Missouri law.)

While it stopped providing “gender affirming care” to minors in 2023, its transgender center continues to provide “gender affirming care” to adults with the promise of “using patient preferred names and pronouns.”

Paul Kengor

This article was originally published by The American Spectator.

Our intrepid progressives have tossed Christopher Columbus and his special day of remembrance to their ash heap of history. They have instead created something they find much more noble. They call it Indigenous Peoples’ Day. This day, they assure us, will allow Americans to honor better men, men who were not white European males who brought to this land disease, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, and whatever other litany they would like to cast at the feet of the villainous Columbus — the dreaded DWEM (Dead White European Male) that he was.

Resisting the revolutionaries’ new holiday gets increasingly difficult as they saturate our culture with it, much as they have with an entire Pride Month. Their presidents, including noted historian Joseph Robinette Biden (himself a descendant of DWEMs), has encouraged “the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”

Faithful liberals now officially recognize this day each year on their ideological calendar, and damned well try to ensure that the rest of us do as well. I’m sure they have the kids in their government schools dressing up as Seminoles and Eskimos today. They build teepees in kindergarten rooms and provide rubber tomahawks and cute little squaw dolls to the girls (and gender-confused boys).

Rather than resist the zeitgeist, dear readers, I’ve decided that every second Monday of October henceforth, I shall pause to remember this day at The American Spectator. Your editor shall not fail you. (For the record, in October 2022, I personally proclaimed here at The American Spectator that every second Tuesday of October henceforth be recognized as “Western Civ Day.” I am saddened to report that my idea has not caught on.)

Thus, for Indigenous Peoples’ Day last year, I wrote my inaugural piece, titled, “Indigenous Slavers: American Indians Who Whipped and Owned Blacks.” I there gave attention to the enslavement of black people by the five so-called “Civilized Tribes” — i.e., the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole Indians. These tribes owned thousands of black African slaves and were brutal slave masters. They were so dedicated to slave ownership that many sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. To this day, there are African American descendants of these slaves with lawsuits against these indigenous tribes seeking redress. (See my book, The Worst of Indignities: The Catholic Church on Slavery.)

These Indian slavers even defied the Emancipation Proclamation, continuing to subjugate black men, women, and children well after the white man had freed slaves. For instance, as noted by one scholar: “Even Emancipation and the end of the Civil War did not bring immediate relief to the enslaved living in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Although the Choctaw and Chickasaw sided with the Confederacy during the conflict, the United States considered them to be separate political polities; therefore, the abolition of slavery as stated in the Thirteenth Amendment did not apply in Indian Territory.”

Who Was Stand Watie?

In that same spirit, for this year’s Indigenous Peoples’ Day, I’m pausing to recall one Stand Watie (1806-1871). The powerful Cherokee leader likewise not only supported black enslavement but became a fearless Confederate general. He, too, resisted the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, he was the last Confederate general to surrender in the Civil War. He is often referred to as “The Last Confederate General.” Many articles use that exact title.

Watie was born in December 1806 on Cherokee Nation territory (present-day Georgia). He was there raised in a slave-owning family. He quickly rose up the ranks of the Cherokee leadership, and was respected and feared. When fellow Indians looked to preserve the institution of slavery and keep their black folk in shackles, they looked to Watie as a “gifted field commander and a bold guerrilla leader.”

As one historian writes at History.com: “When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Watie wasted no time in joining the Confederacy, viewing the federal government — not the South — as the Cherokees’ principal enemy. He raised the first Indian regiment of the Confederate Army, the Cherokee Mounted Rifles, and helped secure control of Indian Territory for the rebels early in the conflict.”

Watie was a force to be reckoned with. He and his Indian troops orchestrated savage attacks. They were notorious, prolific scalpers. They struck terror in the enemy.

When Gen. Robert E. Lee and his Confederate troops surrendered, Watie was fit to be tied. He would not surrender his blacks. Again, here’s an account at History.com:

Watie was so committed to the Southern cause that he refused to acknowledge the Union victory in the waning months of the Civil War, keeping his troops in the field for nearly a month after Lieutenant General E. Kirby Smith surrendered the rest of the Confederacy’s Trans-Mississippi Army on May 26, 1865. A full 75 days after Robert E. Lee met with Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Watie became the last Confederate general to lay down arms, surrendering his battalion of Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, and Osage Indians to Union Lieutenant Colonel Asa C. Matthews at Doaksville on June 23.

I’ve here quoted History.com as a reliable popular source on Watie, but it’s just one of numerous sources that could be cited. There are government historical websites, educational sites, archival libraries of various battlefields, Native American historical societies, plus articles at sources like History.net and RealClearHistory.com, with detailed accounts of Watie and his life.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry for Watie is fairly brief, but the Cherokee general was not some minor player. Indeed, as one piece at The History Reader puts it, “The War Had to Wait for Watie.” His obstinacy delayed the Civil War’s formal end.

Most Kids Won’t Learn About Watie

Stand Watie’s role in the Confederacy, stalwart support of slavery, and rebellion against black emancipation is known to those who bother to carefully, objectively study the history of the era. Of course, properly studying that history means being properly taught the history of early America, from its discovery by the great Columbus to the Mayflower to the American Founders to the Civil War. And that, pilgrim, is precisely the problem.

If you teach little Jimmy and Suzy about old Stand Watie, don’t expect their public-school peers to be learning the same. Expect the kids in the government schools and lousy universities to offer nothing but a blank stare if Jimmy or Suzy raise a hand to ask the teacher, “Hey, what about Stand Watie? Didn’t he and a bunch of other Indians own slaves and fight for the Confederacy?”

That would surely earn Jimmy or Suzy a quick denunciation as a “racist” or perhaps a “Christian nationalist.”

But fear not, Jimmy or Suzy, at least you’re getting an actual education. You’re getting a much fuller presentation of history, rather than a selective, politically correct, ideologically sanitized account. Such an education will teach you that the indigenous tribes of this land were not some perfect, pristine people living in peaceful harmony until the wretched Christopher Columbus marched in and ruined utopia.

General Stand Watie is a striking example of just that. We at The American Spectator remember him on this Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

Paul Kengor teaches at Grove City College, is the editor-in-chief of The American Spectator, and serves on the board of advisors of the Catholic League.

Bill Donohue

What if a bigot, armed with hundreds of explosives, were to turn up at the headquarters of GLAAD, the huge LGBTQ organization, on Transgender Day of Remembrance, and threatened to blow up the building and kill as many trans persons as he could? What if the target were a Detroit mosque on Eid-al-Fitr, the last day of Ramadan? Would this not be the lead story for days on end, until every detail was known?

Why, then, is there such a lack of curiosity about the mad D.C. bomber who showed up at a prominent Catholic church on October 5, threatening to kill Supreme Court members at a Mass they were expected to attend? Louis Geri ascended the steps at St. Matthew’s Cathedral carrying over 200 handmade bombs, including bottle rockets and Molotov cocktails.

What we know about him is practically nothing. Why is that? We know he was not targeting Catholic dissidents—like all the other would-be Catholic killers he was going after the faithful.

Police are in possession of a nine-page notebook that Geri had, expressing “animosity toward the Catholic Church, Supreme Court justices, members of the Jewish faith and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” After he was charged with a hate crime, most of the media put this story to bed.

Some of the D.C. media, including the Washington Post, have continued to cover this event, but the national media have not. This is true for print, electronic and internet media outlets.

Catholics, in particular, have a right to know what this madman has said about them and their religion. Jews also need answers.

Let’s face it. Transgender persons and Muslims are a protected class. Catholics and Jews are not. Nothing new about the media treatment of Catholics, but in recent times have they turned on Jews as well.

If the media do not press the police, they will still carry out their investigation, but they will be in no hurry to make public their findings. The media bias is palpable, if not deadly.

Bill Donohue

James Gunn is a Hollywood standout. He is a music composer, screenwriter and a director of TV shows and movies. He made it big in 2014 when his Guardians of the Galaxy debuted for Marvel Studios. More recently, he directed the latest Superman, and is the creator of the HBO Max series, Peacemaker. Given all of his artistic talents, it’s a shame he is so morally debased, possessing the maturity of an adolescent. He is also a phony.

In 2008, he commented on the portrayal of a monkey masturbating, splashing his semen into the face of a child. Gunn found it hysterical, saying it made him “extremely happy.” What also makes him happy was explained in a 2018 Daily Caller story on his antics. “Since 2008, Gunn has left a trail of racist, anti-semitic, homophobic and rape-related remarks on the social media platform.”

Gunn was in overdrive between 2008 and 2011. In 2009, he wrote, “The best thing about being raped is when you’re done being raped and it’s like ‘whew this feels great, not being raped!’” He bragged how much he enjoyed it “when little boys touch me in my silly place.” He also made sure to praise the well-known pedophilia organization, NAMBLA, which specializes in man-boy rape. “I remember my first NAMBLA meeting. It was the first time I felt ok being who I am.”

Gunn has since apologized several times for making these offensive remarks. In 2012, he boasted, “I’m an outspoken proponent for the rights of the gay and lesbian community,” adding that it “kills” him to think that some “might feel hurt or attacked by something I said.” He pledged to “do my best to make this world a better place for all of us.” He closed by saying, “I promise to be more careful with my words in the future.”

Gunn lied. He’s a phony. There have been no apologizes to veterans or Christians for saying that America is run by Nazis who love Jesus. That’s a running theme in his current Peacemaker series.

As a veteran and a Christian, I am not looking for an apology. It’s too late. He said years ago that he was going to be “more careful with my words in the future.” So that means either he’s (a) making an exception for veterans and Christians, or (b) he believes they deserve it. Makes no difference in the end—his moral compass is shot.

Contact Ashley Mokma, VP Media Relations for Peacemaker: Ashley.Mokma@wbd.com

Bill Donohue

The Free Press enjoys a stellar reputation for accuracy. That is why I was shocked to read an incredible article by Laurie P. Cohen on the Catholic Church. It is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces I’ve read on the subject.

[Some of what I have to say can be found in my book, The Truth About Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, published in 2021 by Ignatius Press.]

Though one would never know it from reading this article, the vast majority of clergy sexual abuse cases took place between 1965 and 1985 (see the John Jay College for Criminal Justice reports). The most common abuse was touching over a victim’s clothing. Between 1950 and 2002, four percent of the priests had an accusation made against him, and the majority had one alleged victim. A total of 149 priests (3.5 percent) were responsible for 26 percent of all the allegations. Moreover, almost all the offending priests are either dead or have been removed from ministry.

The latest data, collected between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, show that two clergy members out of a total of 48,176 had a substantiated case of sexual abuse made against him by a minor. That’s a whopping 0.004 percent.

Cohen makes a big deal about the Catholic Church taking advantage of bankruptcy laws to mitigate its problems. That’s what Chapter 11 affords, and that is why it is a conventional option for institutions of every kind. Bankruptcy proceedings are designed to allow institutions to keep its doors open and pay creditors over time. Should the Church be held to a different standard?

Cohen mentions several times that Chapter 11 filings result in “pennies on the dollar” for victims. What makes this claim so astounding—did anyone edit this hit job?—is that it is undercut by Cohen’s own words. She cites a lawyer, Kathryn Robb, saying, “The survivors are getting pennies on the dollar and are being dragged through a process that takes four or five years.” In the very next sentence, Cohen acknowledges that one alleged victim was “awarded $11.5 million in the 2007 jury trial.” That’s a lot of pennies.

Cohen contends that by filing Chapter 11, the Diocese of Rockville Centre undermined the purpose of the Child Victims Act, which, she says, was intended to offer financial settlements to victims. The reality is that the Child Victims Act was never intended to bring about justice to minors who were abused, unless the abuser was a Catholic priest. That is why the Catholic League fought these proposals for over a decade—they never applied to the public schools (where child rape is extant).

When this law was finally passed in 2019, it did allow all victims to sue—it established a one-year “look back” provision that allowed victims to sue regardless of how long ago the alleged offense took place—but it was clear from the marketing copy of various lawyers’ and law firms’ websites that they were only interested in attracting victims of priestly abuse. I called one of them and said I was abused by a rabbi and was told they had no interest in helping me!

Non-biological live-in partners are the most likely to abuse a minor, but no one goes after them. Why? There’s no money in it. But there is money—and ideological satisfaction—in going after the Catholic Church. If the goal were justice, this shouldn’t count. Indeed, if the goal were justice, why hasn’t any state gone after the public schools? They don’t because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects them from getting fleeced. Add to this the trial lawyers and the teachers’ unions—both are an arm of Democratic Party—and it is obvious why the public schools get a pass.

Cohen is obsessed with Msgr. Alan Placa, a well-known Long Island priest. In 2002, he presided over the funeral Mass of Rudy Giuliani’s mother. After he was accused of being a molester, he was investigated by the Diocese of Rockville Centre and the charges were not deemed credible. Then the Vatican got involved, and the tribunal also cleared Placa of all wrongdoing. So why is Cohen harping on this? Does she have evidence to the contrary? Accused priests are entitled to due process, just like everyone else.

Cohen treats steeple-chasing lawyers Mitchell Garabedian and Marci Hamilton as heroes. They are anything but.

Father Charles Murphy of the Boston archdiocese was twice sued by Garabedian. When both accusers dropped their suits (in one case even family members said the offense was bogus), an archdiocesan investigation was launched. Six months later, Murphy was exonerated. He died in 2011, a broken man. Brian McGrory, editor of the Boston Globe, ripped Garabedian for what he did, calling it a “disgrace.”

When I read this story, I called Garabedian to see if he had any regrets in pressing charges against Father Murphy. He went ballistic, screaming like a madman. This is the same lawyer who spoke at a “victims’ meeting” in 2011 saying, “This immortal entity, the Catholic Church, should be defeated. We must stand up and defeat this evil.”

More recently, Garabedian tried in vain to nail the former bishop of the Brooklyn Diocese, Nicholas DiMarzio. He made a big splash in 2019 going public with his charges, but waited two years before he filed suit. Bishop DiMarzio was investigated by New York lawyers, underwent a two-year Vatican investigation and was cleared of all wrongdoing. He also passed a lie detector test. But this is what Garabedian does—his hatred of the Church is off-the-charts.

Hamilton’s animus against religious freedom allows her to oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the seminal 1993 law signed into law by President Bill Clinton. She falsely accused Cardinal Timothy Dolan of hiding $55 million from victims when he was the Bishop of Milwaukee and has never apologized. In 2016, she told the press that the U.S. bishops pay my salary. I emailed her on May 5, 2016 calling her a liar. She never responded.

Cohen tries to make hay out of the legal dispute between the Archdiocese of New York and Chubb Insurance company. Chubb is reneging on its obligations by refusing to cover claims made by alleged victims; it was subsequently sued by the archdiocese. Chubb is making the remarkable accusation that the archdiocese “expected or intended” the sexual abuse that allegedly occurred in the lawsuits filed against it.

The mask is off. Chubb has now descended to the gutter, arguing that the New York Archdiocese actually intended for minors to be abused by priests. This is the kind of anti-Catholicism we would expect from the Klan, not a prominent insurance company.

So where’s the proof? There isn’t any—this vicious tale is made up out of whole cloth, just because Chubb doesn’t want to pay up. And guess who is on the side of the archdiocese? Victims, their lawyers and politicians who have previously been critical of the Church. Now they are furious with Chubb. But no mention of this by Cohen.

There have been two scandals related to the issue of clergy sexual abuse. Scandal I has to do with the internal affairs of the Catholic Church and the environment that facilitated it. Scandal II is the creation of many parties, including the media, the entertainment industry, advocacy groups, victims’ activists and their lawyers, state attorneys general, and others. They are bent on milking this issue, and distorting the record, so as to stick it to the Catholic Church.

What Cohen wrote exemplifies what Scandal II is all about. Shame on The Free Press for publishing this screed.

Bill Donohue

We don’t have to speculate what New York City would look like if Zohran Mamdani were to become its next mayor. He’s just a more extreme version of former Mayor Bill de Blasio. Indeed, de Blasio’s staff is already working for Mamdani. Another good comparison is Portland, Oregon, home to rabid socialists.

De Blasio and Mamdani have a lot in common: they are both Marxist millionaires. When de Blasio was mayor, he said, “our mission is to redistribute the wealth.” In response to critics who warned there isn’t enough money to do what he wants, he said, “There’s plenty of money in the city—it’s just in the wrong hands.” But the rich aren’t stupid: they left in droves, taking their tax base with them.

The New York Times is no longer a liberal newspaper—it’s been in the radical left camp for quite some time. But even it is worried about Mamdani. On the front page of the October 6 edition, there is a news story on how Mamdani-like policies have been tried in Portland. The results are a disaster.

“Portland’s business community is warning that a war on capitalism and an exodus of job creators could send the city spiraling.” The word on the street about the socialist experiment is numbing. “Too extreme. Too inexperienced. An absolute disaster.” The radical policies have yielded “boarded-up storefronts, open-air drug use, homeless encampments and explosive protests.” The Times reporter took a walk downtown and found it “was nearly empty” and “tents dotted the sidewalk.”

Does Mamdani want to destroy New York City? He says he wants to improve it, but his policies, which mimic what de Blasio did and what Portland has done, would do the opposite, and no one would suffer more than minorities (not surprisingly, they voted for Cuomo in the June primary).

White racists would love to keep minorities down, and there is no better way to succeed than by denying them a quality education. White racists would also love to see a crippled police force, ensuring that violent criminals control the streets in minority neighborhoods.

Why has Mamdani adopted the urban policies favored by white racists? Does he hate African Americans and Hispanics that much? Apparently so.

Mamdani did not go to the local public elementary school. He went to the Bank Street School (it costs $66,000 a year today). He also went to one of the most elite public high schools, the Bronx High School of Science. Now he wants to ban all elite schools, citing his interest in “equity education.” De Blasio did the same thing: he sought to ban these schools (Asians stopped him), but not until after his son and daughter graduated from one of these elite institutions.

Mamdani, following de Blasio, is determined to condemn minority students to the worst schools in the city. Black and Hispanic parents want charter schools and school choice, but the former mayor, and the would-be mayor, despise these schools, thus putting them on the side of white racists.

Every survey shows that blacks and Hispanics want more police, not fewer. Mamdani disagrees. That’s because he hates the cops. He says “the NYPD is racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety.” Moreover, “there is no negotiating with an institution this wicked & corrupt.”

White racists like it when the cops are disabled and criminals run free. What better way to do this than by defunding the police and abolishing the prisons? Mamdani has said exactly that. He has also said he wants the police not to intervene in “domestic violence”—that should be done by others, such as social workers. Good news for wife beaters.

Prostitution and open-air drug markets are destroying a section of Jackson Heights today. No matter, Mamdani wants prostitution legalized and drug havens expanded. If a police officer is found to “disrespect” the rights of hookers and druggers, Mamdani does not want the police commissioner to handle these matters: he wants a Civilian Complaint Review Board—stacked with his anti-cop allies—to adjudicate.

Mamdani’s vision for blacks and Hispanics is not ambiguous. They should not be allowed to escape the worst public schools, and they should also not be allowed to escape living in high crime neighborhoods.

Make no mistake, no Klansman could do a better job of keeping them in their place.