Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.

Why Are Billion-Dollar Companies Hysterical Over the Texas Pro-Life Law?

COMMENTARY: Businesses are making a lot of money, directly and indirectly, from the availability of the abortion license.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

This was originally published in the National Catholic Register

Several high-tech firms strongly oppose Texas’ new pro-life heartbeat law. The Match Group, which owns apps including and Tinder, announced that it will offer travel assistance to their Texas-based employees who “need to seek care outside Texas.”

Salesforce, a billion-dollar company, announced that it would assist with relocation for any of its 2,000 Texas-based employees who choose to leave the Lone Star State. I think these companies are driven by more than ideologically driven posturing. I think we are seeing something deeper at work. U.S. society, including the economy, has reorganized itself around the ready availability of abortion. Businesses are making money, directly and indirectly, from the availability of the abortion license.

Match Group CEO Shar Dubey revealed more than she knew when she stated, “The company generally does not take political stands unless it is relevant to our business.” Of course, abortion is relevant to their business. The Match Group owns both and Tinder, as well as several others. presents itself as a tool for finding a lifelong soulmate, whereas Tinder is an unapologetic casual sex app.

The Sexual Revolutionary ideology teaches that casual sex is a private recreational activity, with no social consequences worth thinking about. Without the ideology of the Sexual Revolution that sex is an entitlement, there would literally be no demand at all for the casual sex apps. Without abortion as a backup plan for contraceptive failure, the demand for sex apps would go down. Simple cause and effect thinking.

The businesses that are making money from the Sexual Revolution have always been counting on the Sexual State to create the social climate that allows them to thrive. They are upset because the state is no longer protecting them and their profits.

A defender of the Match Group might claim that these dating apps could make money just on the “marriage market” side of their business. Possibly but not likely. The Sexual Revolution’s toxic ideology has completely disrupted the courtship process. Dating apps have come into existence in part to fill the void that the Sexual Revolution itself created. Let’s be clear: The Match Group is not promoting “love.” It is promoting its own profit.

Meanwhile, Salesforce, the billion-dollar sales-management software company with 56,000 employees worldwide, also spoke out against the Texas law. Salesforce announced that it would assist with moving expenses if any of its Texas-based employees chose to relocate. Commentators have expressed concern that “it’s going to be a real recruitment challenge to get people to move to Texas ... this certainly is a signal, especially to women in leadership, that this might not be the state for them.”

Like Match Group CEO’s Shar Dubey, Salesforce, which recently acquired communications management portal Slack, has revealed more than they probably realized. Some people, men and women alike, may indeed make their job location decisions based on the availability of abortion in case they think they need one. People generally think they need an abortion because they had sex when they were not prepared to deal with one natural consequence of sex, namely a baby.

When you stop and think about it, this is a very odd thought process. If you don’t want the baby, don’t have sex. Pretty simple cause and effect thinking. If you bang your head against the wall, you get a bruise. You don’t blame the wall, or demand padding on every wall in sight. An intelligent person refrains from banging their head against the wall. Engaging in sexual activity is not a medical necessity for anyone at any time. No one has ever died from not having sex.

So why don’t people just refrain from having sex if they don’t want the life-creating and life-changing consequences of the sexual act?

I will give you two reasons. First, we have all been subjected to a staggering amount of “messaging” to convince us that sex without a baby is the norm, while sex with a baby is somehow exceptional. But no amount of propaganda can change the fact that sex frequently does make babies. Every known society has made provision for this connection, by placing various social, cultural, and legal restraints on sexual activity. Our era is the only society in human history that has ever attempted to completely sever this connection between sex and babies.

The second reason people find it so hard to “just say No” to sex is that sexual activity is addictive. Most adults are aware of this fact, once they think about it. Part of the addictive experience is that we think we’re going to die without the drug or experience that produces the “rush.” But that is our brain tricking us. You won’t actually die. People can live without sex. They do it all the time.

Thinking you might die without sex is a big red flag for addiction. Organizing your life around being able to get that rush is also a big red flag.

The Match Group makes money helping its potential customers find that next sexual “high.” Salesforce takes for granted its potential employees want that next sexual “high.” It goes without saying that an unwanted baby messes up that “high.” Without abortion as a backup plan, these companies would have to seriously revise their business plans. Sell something else to someone else. Find someone else to hire.

And that is why these companies are so upset about the Texas abortion law.


Government’s Back-to-School Grooming

by Martina Moyski • • August 28, 2021

As parents are revving up for the school year, the government is spoon-feeding LGBT propaganda to children. Church Militant's Martina Moyski unpacks the "Back-to-School" video luring schoolchildren into the LGBT web.

Suzanne Goldberg, acting assistant secretary for the Department of Education: "I join my colleagues in wishing you all the best for an enriching and fulfilling school year!"

Framed as a benign welcome-back message, the video is anything but. Three government officials smile while they normalize a dangerous — and immoral — LGBT lifestyle for K–12 schoolchildren.

Assistant attorney general Kristen Clarke: "We know that many school administrators ... are doing their best to make schools ... welcoming places for all students. ... We also know that's not the reality for all transgender students, including ... some of you."

The Biden-appointed secretary of Health and Human Services, Rachel Levine (a biological man posing as a woman), directed students to learn more about how to be like him and how to report anyone who doesn't approve.

Dr. Rachel Levine: "I want you to know I have your back too."

Appropriating the tone of a concerned parent, one official, a self-avowed lesbian, reassured students of the State's unwavering support.

Goldberg: "But we also want you to know that the Department of Education and the entire federal government stand behind you. Your rights at school matter. You matter."

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the pro-family Ruth Institute says the State wants every child to see it as protector, not the "people who gave them life, their parents." More parents are opening their eyes to the dangers behind the smiles and virtue signaling of school officials, turning to homeschooling and protecting children from a sinful and unhappy life.

The LGBT movement presents itself as weak and oppressed, but it wields enormous political power, remaking laws and education. Case in point, the Arcus Foundation, a pro-gay nonprofit, was founded by homosexual billionaire Jon Stryker.


US Government Sends a Not-So-Friendly Back-to-School Message

This article was originally published in the National Catholic Register.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently released a special “Back to School” message on its YouTube channel. Why, you may ask, is the Department of Justice, the top law enforcement establishment in the most powerful country in the world, producing a back-to-school message?

They are welcoming the “transgender students.” Superficially, it looks warm and friendly. But beneath the surface lies a masterpiece of sexual-revolutionary propaganda: This is the Sexual State at work.

It begins harmlessly. Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Suzanne Goldberg smiles into the camera and assures us that lots of kids have anxieties about a new school year. After establishing this rapport with the viewer, she continues, “If you are transgender, perhaps you’re worried about simply being accepted and safe and treated with respect as you head into the new school year.” As if this is an obvious issue in schools festooned with “Safe Space” stickers and trans-supportive signage.

Likewise, Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Civil Rights Division starts off nicely enough, acknowledging that “many schools are doing their best to make schools safe and welcoming places for all students, including LGBTQI students.” But then the tone darkens. That is not the case for everyone, she intones, “including, perhaps you.”

With this phrase, this high-ranking official of the federal government is making an alliance with the student: “In some places, people are putting up obstacles, to keep you from playing on the sports field, accessing the bathroom and receiving the supportive and life-saving care you may need.” In other words, “all those terrible people who oppose our agenda are threatening your health and well-being.”

Then the hammer drops: “We’re here to say that is wrong. It is against the law.” In other words, the Department of Education and the entire federal government stand behind you. The video tells students where they can file a complaint.

Some students who adopt a transgender identity are on the autism spectrum. Many adolescents feel out of place and socially awkward. When they “come out” as trans, they suddenly have friends and support. Now, they learn that the federal government “has their back.”

Many public and private schools have GSAs, defined originally as “Gay Straight Alliance,” but more recently defined as “Gender and Sexuality Alliances.” In many schools, these clubs have more posters and promotions on the school grounds than any other club.

Who exactly, then, is likely to file a complaint?

Perhaps a child in a state that is trying to resist the trans-juggernaut by passing laws allocating bathroom use and athletic participation according to the sex of the body. The self-identified trans kid who makes a complaint can become the focus of a test case. Maybe some rural schools somewhere are still “holding out” against the gender ideology. The federal government can step in and get the school district in line with a lawsuit or even the threat of a lawsuit.

The schools are often more supportive of the child’s desires than their parents. The schools assist the child in obtaining medical interventions designed to change or disguise the sex of the body. Parents already fear losing a child to child protective services over these issues. The child filing a complaint to the federal government can bully the parents into submission.

Speaking of bullying, Dr. Rachel Levine, Department of Health and Human Services assistant secretary for health, had a lot to say about bullying in this video. Levine assumed the persona of a woman, even though he still remains a biological man. I wonder if he is equally concerned with all forms of bullying. Kids on the autism spectrum get bullied over their social awkwardness and other symptoms. That is why they sometimes feel better temporarily when they decide to label themselves “trans”: The kids at school fawn over them.

How about the kids who get bullied for their religious beliefs? Or their appearance? What about the girls who feel manipulated into sexting their boyfriends and then get taunted when those boys show the photos all over school? How about the female students who feel unsafe sharing a restroom with male students who claim to be female? None of these children receive a video message from the Department of Justice promising to protect them.

One thing is for sure: The Sexual State will not allow parents, states and localities to make their own decisions, pass their own laws, or adapt to the wishes of their own people. The Sexual State, captured by ideologues, is here to enforce the brave new world where no one is bound by the sex of their bodies.

The Justice Department is telling the American public: No debate is permitted on gender ideology. We have framed and answered all the questions to our satisfaction.

This video is a clear message of Radical Individualism with a Capital R and a Capital I: “You are whomever you want to be.” That’s the appealing side of Individualism. “You will have no permanent connections with any other human being. The state will see to that.” That is the dark side of Individualism.

The state will come between children and their parents. The state will come between the local school board and the community it is pledged to serve. The state will come between the child and his own gendered body, if the child so wills it, even temporarily.

This video sends an unmistakable message from the Sexual State: “We intend to enforce our ideology, like it or not. We stand ready to use children as enforcers. We want children to rat out their parents and their teachers. They cannot trust the adults who are part of their lives, such as their teachers or pastors. They cannot trust the people who gave them life, their parents. We want every child to see us and us alone, as their savior and protector.”

Make no mistake. The “transgender movement” is not a grassroots movement. This “movement” is the artificial creation of the elites, who have captured the power of the state to remake the world in their own image and gender-fluid likeness. Without the full force of the federal government crushing dissent, this movement would have no legs. Period.

Welcome back to school.

Andrew Cuomo Case Proves That #MeToo Is Not Enough

COMMENTARY: The only way to make the workplace, the movie studio, the sports arena and even the Church free from sexual misdeeds is to reject the toxic ideology of the sexual revolution once and for all.

This was originally published in the National Catholic Register by Jennifer Roback Morse.

I feel like I’ve written this column before. Yet another prominent man has fallen from public grace because of predatory sexual behavior. This time, it is New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who resigned amid charges of sexual harassment.

I wrote a version of this column about then-Cardinal McCarrick and Harvey Weinstein. I wrote another version about Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein and Theodore McCarrick. “What is the point you think you have to keep making?” you might ask. Just this: The #MeToo movement is not enough. Holding particular powerful men to account for their sexual misconduct is not enough. The only way to make the workplace, the movie studio, the sports arena and even the Church free from sexual misdeeds is to reject the toxic ideology of the sexual revolution once and for all.

The New York Attorney General’s Office issued a 165-pagereport last week charging that the outgoing governor “engaged in conduct constituting sexual harassment” against at least 11 women. Debra Katz, the attorney for one of Cuomo’s accusers, stated that his resignation is “a testament to the growing power of women’s voices since the beginning of the #MeToo movement.”

I do not agree with this assessment. The #MeToo movement is wimpy. A few high-profile cases of predatory men being publicly shamed and punished is not enough.

Neither is gender politics, pitting men and women against each other according to a “feminist” script, an authentic solution to this problem. The difficulties of proving the charges, the pain of enduring the harassment in the first place, the long-term trauma often comes along in the aftermath of sexual victimization: Women should not have to put up with all of this. Women are suffering far more than a few successful lawsuits or criminal indictments can repair. Besides, the purely “man vs. woman” “feminist” storyline cannot make sense of the numerous male victims of homosexual predation.

No, the real problem is the sexual revolution itself. I will give you a short statement that encapsulates the philosophy that I believe is responsible for the sexual havoc in our lives.

Reproductive health can be defined as a state of well-being related to one’s sexual and reproductive life. It implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.

“What is the problem with this statement?” you might ask. Doesn’t everyone support “reproductive health”?

Here is the problem: This statement and others like it never tell us who is responsible to provide everyone the “satisfying and safe sex life” that we are all supposedly entitled to. When pressed, the advocates of “reproductive health” say this applies to consenting adult partners.

But “consent” is too thin a defense against sneaky and manipulative behavior. The appearance of “consent” can be manipulated. This part of the #MeToo movement is profoundly true. The “consent” caveat is just not enough to rescue this definition of “reproductive health.”

Who believes they are actually entitled to a “satisfying and safe sex life”? The rapist, that’s who. This idea of sexual entitlement provides cover for predators and disarms victims. (Come to think of it, I’ve written that column before, too. The poor girls who had their lives ruined on PornHub couldn’t bring themselves to criticize pornography. They wanted to be considered “sex positive.”)

By the way, where did this definition of “reproductive health” come from? Surely this is some kind of straw man argument that was cooked up in a fit of exasperated exaggeration.

I found it on the United Nations Population Fund FAQ page: “What is reproductive health?” The original document helpfully refers back to Paragraph 7.2 of a “U.N. Programme of Action,” adopted in Cairo in 1994, and never, as far as I know, amended on this particular point.

Behind documents like this lies the philosophy of the sexual revolution created by people such as Alfred Kinsey and Wilhelm Reich. Kinsey famously authored statistical studies of sexual behavior purporting to show that “everyone is doing it.” This was supposed to cure people of their sexual inhibitions and hang-ups.

Wilhelm Reich was an Austrian doctor of medicine and psychoanalysis. He wrote the book The Sexual Revolutionin 1936. He came up with the idea that sexual activity was necessary to a healthy life, even for children. He taught that sexual taboos were more psychological harmful and dangerous than any problems that unlimited sex itself might cause.

This philosophy has given us a generation of sex addicts and predators. The #MeToo movement, like many others in today’s world, would like to be against sexual predation and still remain “sex positive.” They want to accept the premises of the sexual revolution but draw a line against non-consensual, predatory sex. We have enough experience to show that this line will not hold. The revolution creates incentives and excuses for predation. We cannot invent enough punishments after the fact to protect women, and even men, from sexual predation.

Soon-to-be former Gov. Cuomo is accused of creating a “toxic workplace.” But, actually, the sexual revolution created the toxic workplace. The sexual revolution issued hunting licenses to predators.

Too many men have internalized the revolutionary message that they are entitled to have sex as often as they choose, with whomever they choose. Until that changes, we are going to continue to have these problems. Shameless men will continue to prey upon vulnerable women and men under their power.

That is why the #MeToo movement is not enough.

Andrew Cuomo Was the Poster Thug for the Sexual Revolution


Will Cuomo go to jail like Al Capone or O.J. Simpson for one of his lesser crimes?

This article was originally published in the Streamby Jennifer Roback Morse and John Zmirak.


It would have been fun to watch Andrew Cuomo fight impeachment, clinging to power by fair means and foul. The spectacle would have highlighted the incoherent, hysterical moralism of our cynical ruling class. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, elites claim vast, exalted rights for human beings, and pontificate about “justice.” On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and weekends, the oligarchs treat people like lab rats or veal calves. We’re finding out even now about intact unborn babieswith hearts still beating getting delivered to NIH-funded research labs. Thanks for greenlighting that, Dr. Fauci! It confirms our level of trust in you.


But alas, that impeachment is not to be. The governor who left empty beds on theUSS Comfort and at Samaritan’s Purse, while dumping hundreds of COVID patients on helpless residents of nursing homes, killing thousands still uncounted (since his office refused to count them) is out of politics. And why? For getting what women used to euphemistically call “handsy” or “fresh.” In reality, his harassment of women employees was simply Cuomo acting on his real beliefs about human dignity, instead of the boilerplate Woke-speak he uses when the microphones are switched on.


Entitled Men, Gaslit Women

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was credibly accused of creating a “toxic workplace.” But actually, the Sexual Revolution created the “toxic workplace.” The Sexual Revolution, in effect, issued hunting licenses to predators. This poisonous ideology created a sense of entitlement among powerful men. They have internalized the Revolutionary message that they are entitled to have sex as often as they choose, with whomever they choose.

The New York Attorney General’s office issued a 165-page reportlast week charging that the governor “engaged in conduct constituting sexual harassment.” The report also concluded that the governor’s office “contributed to the conditions that allowed sexual harassment to occur and persist.”

In other words, the harassment was systematic. The governor’s office enabled his misconduct.

A Generation of Addicts

The Sexual Revolution has given us a generation of addicts. How else can you describe Cuomo’s behavior? “Compulsive” seems too mild a term. Any attractive woman who came within his reach was fair game.

But it was the Sexual Revolution that led to a climate where so many powerful men are caught up in scandal. This toxic ideology led to a culture where powerful men can’t keep their hands to themselves.

Numerous politicians and entertainers have been credibly charged with harassment or even assault. President Bill Clinton was impeached for an affair with an intern who was decades his junior. Former U.S. Senator Al Franken was forced to resign from Congress. Harvey Weinstein fell from the pinnacle of Hollywood’s powerful elite to convicted sex offender.

Porn: A Training Program for Harassers

Pornography also plays a role in this problem of widespread sexual harassment and assault. The Sexual Revolution gave us the pornography-saturated culture in which we live today. A regular porn theme is that any woman is ready to have sex at any time with men she barely knows. Maggie Gallagher wrote about this way back in the late 1980s, in her classic Enemies of Eros. The Sexual Revolution enshrined as our cultural norm the urges of some 16-year-old boys. Much of the inchoate anger of subsequent feminism was a misguided reaction by women to that grotesque culture shift.

The Andrew Cuomo scandal ought not to end here. It could well result in criminal charges, even jailtime. The governor pontificated about saving his elderly mother, Matilda, while sentencing thousands of locked-in veterans and grandmas to death by COVID. He might finally meet some rough approximation of justice. Remember how Al Capone only went to prison for tax evasion, and O.J. Simpson for stealing sports memorabilia? (Better still, his own memorabilia!)

Before Cuomo disappears into the dustbin of history, we must confront the Sexual Revolution. The idea that sex is an entitlement will continue to create predators like Andrew Cuomo, regardless of what happens to the New York governor.

Nobody Cares About the Victims

Cuomo lit up the Empire State Building pink to celebrate legalizing partial-birth abortion in New York. Men like him will keep on legislating the Sexual Revolution. Neither the politicians nor the other Revolutionaries care about its costs.

Neither Cuomo nor self-proclaimed defenders of blacks worry that a higher percentage of black babies are aborted than born in New York City. Nor about the percentage of fatherless boys and girls that keeps right on spiking, with all the pain and chaos that often causes. Neither Cuomo nor the “feminists” seem upset that the Manhattan Planned Parenthood "clinic” has had 32 emergencies requiring ambulances over the past 5 years.

No, the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the Revolution. And the Revolution is always about power. The Sexual Revolution is all about the power of adults to live only for themselves and to have the sexual fulfillment that Andrew Cuomo seized — with both hands.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives. The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization, leading an international interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. He is co-author with Jason Jones of “God, Guns, & the Government.”


Transgender Agenda on Trial

This article was posted August 5, 2021, at Church Militant.

Stepping between parents and their children is a hallmark of the transgender agenda. But one organization that offers legal services is fighting back to protect the natural order. Church Militant's William Mahoney recently spoke with one of the attorneys.

The Child and Parental Rights Campaign, or CPRC, is a nationwide group founded to "respond to a radical new ideology." One example of the CPRC's work is found in a case where one parent wants a child to transition, while the other does not.

Mary McAlister: "We represent the parent who does not. [We] try to uphold them and empower them and represent them in court so that they can have their rights asserted to not put their child through all of this horrible transition."

The transgender agenda has infiltrated everything from child protective services to schools. But the CPRC is there, empowering parents against this infiltration at every level.

McAlister: "The schools are conspiring with these gender ideologues and encouraging children to hide these things from their parents."

And while groups like Planned Parenthood endlessly lobby for deviant public policies to benefit financially, the CPRC is there fighting for legislation that benefits children and their parents.

McAlister: "And so we've worked with legislators when they've attempted to pass these laws that will ban the treatment of children. ... And we've had some bills that have been passed that we've worked on."

The pro-family group is endorsed by many board-certified medical and mental health professionals from coast to coast.

Attorney McAlister, who recently spoke in July at the Ruth Institute's 2021 Survivors' Summit, explained the new group is looking forward to its first victory in court. For more information on the CPRC, visit

Christian Pastor Walter Hoye Warns of the Wages of the Sexual Revolution

by Kathy Schiffer

This article was first published at National Catholic Register on August 2, 2021.


“The sexual revolution has completely destroyed the black family.” That’s the sober message from Rev. Walter Hoye, founder of the Issues4Life Foundation and the California Civil Rights Coalition, and co-founder of the National Black Pro-life Coalition. Hoye was the recipient of the “Witness of the Year” Award at the Ruth Institute’s 2021 Survivors’ Summit.

Ordained in the Baptist church, Hoye left the ministry in 2010 to pursue full-time pro-life work. His strong pro-life witness had attracted the attention of Americans the year before, when he was sentenced to 30 days in jail in Oakland, California. His supposed “crime” was praying on public property outside of an abortion business while holding aloft a sign that read:

“Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you.”

Hoye’s prison sentence could have been reduced to probation and he could have been released, had he agreed to stay at least 100 yards away from the abortion facility where he had been arrested; but he refused to comply, standing firm in his defense of the unborn.

The Register talked with Rev. Hoye about his ongoing pro-life efforts, the effect of the sexual revolution on the black community, and about the Survivors’ Summit, which took place July 16-17 in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Hoye described the Survivors’ Summit, which focused on how people in the medical, legal and therapeutic professions could resist the progressive push by the culture, as “a transcendent, fundamental experience in accord with the all-powerful reality of truth.”

He recalled in particular the moving presentation by Walt Heyer, who underwent radical surgery and lived for eight years as a transgender woman before detransitioning in 1991. “He described the actual physical damage he has suffered as a result,” Rev. Hoye said. “Not a video, not a brochure ... but an actual person. The same with the other presenters who were there. Jennifer Morse brought in the witnesses who proved the point.”

The Sexual Revolution: An Ongoing Threat for Black America

Speaking about the African-American community, Hoye was not optimistic regarding the future for Black Americans — largely because of the deleterious effects of the sexual revolution.

“Margaret Sanger is probably smiling in her grave,” he said. “Abortion exists because of Black America.”

In its earlier days, Planned Parenthood was less taciturn about their population control goal than they are today. As evidence of the abortion giant’s early transparency, Hoye had in his file Planned Parenthood pamphlets dating to 1964 and 1969 that acknowledge that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. In 1967, he said, it became legal to end the lives of the unborn in the states of California, Colorado and Mississippi. Just six years after that, Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, legalizing abortion in all 50 states.

While Hoye has devoted much of his career to fighting abortion, he was equally concerned about the state of marriage in the Black community. “If you go back to the early 1960s,” Hoye remarked, “families were about 70% to 80% intact — that is, with Mom, Dad and children. Back then, everyone did what they were supposed to do. A man was expected to marry a woman, put a ring on her finger, get a job, raise his children, build a family.”

“But a lot of things happened between then and now,” he said. “We no longer believe that if I do what the Bible tells me to do, then God will bless me and I will be successful.”

Hoye cited two trends which have devastated the Black community: the decrease in marriage and stable families, with the corresponding decline in fertility; and the surge in abortions. “People come to California,” he said, “because of the welfare benefits. If you’re a single woman, you get more money if you don’t marry.”

Read the rest of the article here.


Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill’s Resignation: Reflections on Deflections

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, originally published in the National Catholic Register


The reaction to the “Grindr-gate” scandal has been most instructive. The Catholic website The Pillar presented evidence to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops alleging serial sexual misconduct by Msgr. Jeffery Burrill, who was at the time the general secretary of the conference. Run by canon lawyers-turned-journalists Ed Condon and JD Flynn, The Pillar reported to have used commercially available signal data from the location-based Grindr “gay hook-up” app to show that Msgr. Burrill had used this app on a regular basis. The Pillar’s report did not include accusations Msgr. Burrill engaged in sexual misconduct with minors.

Some commentators seem more concerned about possible journalistic misconduct by Flynn and Condon than the genuine sexual misconduct of Msgr. Burrill. Flynn and Condon invaded Msgr. Burrill’s privacy, they say. Flynn and Condon are guilty of a homophobic anti-gay witch hunt, they say.



In my opinion, this controversy presents, in miniature, one of the time-honored tactics of the sexual revolution. When things go wrong for the revolution, deflect, deflect, deflect. It also shows that the sexual revolutionary ideology drains every last bit of compassion out of those who embrace it.

AreThe Pillar’s allegations true? And if so, are the allegations important? The method by which the evidence was obtained, the character and motives of the investigators, these questions may be important at some point. But whatever significance they may have, they fade in comparison to the overarching questions of the truth and importance of the allegations.

No one, to my knowledge, has denied The Pillar’s findings. Msgr. Burrill apparently used the Grindr app on a “near daily basis.” Bishop William Callahan of La Crosse, Wisconsin, Msgr. Burrill’s bishop, stated in a letter to the priests of La Crosse, “The media reports establish no facts in truth about Jeff’s behavior either innocent or not.” Condon and Flynn admit as much in their article.

So what? What exactly does any reasonable person think he was doing with the men he met on Grindr, which bills itself as “the world’s largest social-networking app for gay, bi, trans and queer people”? Presumably, Msgr. Burrill was performing homosexual acts with these men, acts which the Catechism describes as “acts of grave depravity. … Under no circumstances can they be approved” (2357).

This is a logical inference from the evidence The Pillar produced. No one, including Msgr. Burrill, has denied it.

I’ve seen this tactic before. When my friends at Mass Resistance wrote The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, no one denied the truth of the evidence presented in the 600-page book, with more than 1,800 footnotes. You might think that people who care about the young people considering homosexual activity would want them to be fully informed about these risks. You would be mistaken.

Instead of confronting the evidence of health risks, psychological harms and domestic violence, the Revolutionaries made noise designed to change the subject: “The book is homophobic.” They invoked the crown jewel of deflection tactics, “Mass Resistance is a hate group.”

Smear the author. But never, never engage in an honest assessment of the facts and their significance.

On to our second question: Is it important that a high-ranking official in the Catholic Church bureaucracy was habitually using the Grindr app? Far from keeping the vow of celibacy he voluntarily took when he became a priest, allegedly he was routinely breaking it. Having sex with strangers on a “near daily basis” is not a “normal variation of healthy human sexuality.” Such a man is not in command of himself.

Sexual addiction is a problem for anyone, male or female, gay or straight. Sex addiction would certainly be a problem for a priest, especially a priest who “held a critical oversight role in the Catholic Church’s response to the recent spate of sexual abuse and misconduct scandals.”

Jesuit Father James Martin claims he knows “hundreds of gay priests.” Perhaps he knows some who are living chaste and holy lives. Perhaps some are quietly “partnered.” I wonder whether he would admit to knowing any who are living desperate lives of compulsive sex with strangers.

Some of The Pillar’s critics, including Father Martin, went so far as to claim that The Pillar engaged in a “witch hunt” against gay priests. This charge is a masterful instance of deflective propaganda. Since there really are no such thing as witches (all enlightened people agree on that), anyone who “hunts” for witches is searching for a mythical creature. The phrase suggests, without explicitly saying so, that raising questions about the conduct of homosexual men in the clergy is unjustified and irrational. Witch hunters can be safely dismissed as deranged, unhinged and certainly more dangerous than the “witches” they are hunting.

Unfortunately for the Grand Gay Narrative, there actually are homosexual men in the clergy. Some of them are compulsive and narcissistic. Some are predatory. Each cause problems for the Church. But the label “witch hunt” deflects attention away from offenses and focuses attention instead on the people who try to stop them.

Predators and their enablers in the Church use similar tactics to protect themselves from accusations of sexual abuse. Discredit the people calling attention to the problem, even when the predator has confessed. Claim the victim label for themselves. Show zero compassion for the actual victims.

The Pillar’s charges are important. The privacy issue is secondary. I admit to being creeped out by the ways our cellphones can be used to spy on us.

This profound problem cannot be solved on a case-by-case basis. The government can spy on us. Big Tech is selling our data right and left, literally. China’s “social credit” system uses cellphone technology in its surveillance of its citizens. These are much more dangerous people than investigative reporters. This situation requires far-reaching governmental policies, probably international policies. It is unseemly to single out Flynn and Condon’s important investigation.

In the meantime, Flynn and Condon acted within the law as it exists right now. They uncovered a serious problem: a possible sex addict running the USCCB, wherein his duties included official responses to the McCarrick scandal.

Defenders of the sexual revolution, please stop changing the subject.


SOCE Efforts Decrease Suicide

This was originally published on, by William Mahoney, Ph.D.

The Vatican, prelates, and priests are adding confusion on top of confusion by rejecting therapy for those who freely want to work through their same-sex attraction. Some pro-LGBT clerics and nominally Catholic groups are even claiming such therapy increases suicidal ideation and attempts to kill oneself. But Church Militant's William Mahoney spoke with one expert who flips this narrative on its head.

Dissident pro-homosexual groups like New Ways Ministry are celebrating the Vatican's rejection of therapy. Often referred pejoratively as "conversion therapy," more objective scientific literature often calls such therapy "SOCE" — sexual orientation change efforts.

And, of course, just last week, pro-LGBT Jesuit James Martin tweeted, "Did you know that in the US alone ... LGBT youth who had conversion therapy were more than twice as like [sic] to have attempted suicide?"

Fr. Paul Sullins: "SOCE doesn't make persons more suicidal. In fact, it does just the opposite. It reduces suicidality a lot, and in certain measures, it reduces the suicidality by about 15 times: They're about 15 times less likely to make a suicide attempt."

Martin first referenced Netflix'sPray Away, which he describes as "an important new film about the dangers of so-called conversion therapy."

The Jesuit then cited the "twice as likely" statistic based on a study that has been used to enact legal bans on SOCE, but Fr. Sullins explained that study is itself flawed.

Fr. Paul Sullins:

In this study, they just looked at persons who had SOCE and then their lifetime rate of suicidality. And you can apply the same argument there. You can say maybe it isn't the SOCE that made them suicidal. In fact, they went to SOCE because they were more suicidal. And that's exactly what I found. Sixty-five percent of the suicidality expressed by SOCE participants happened before they went to the SOCE.

The attempt of Vatican officials, New Ways Ministry, Martin and the gang to cancel SOCE, along with the political Left, is not only based on flawed research, it's dangerous.

Fr. Paul Sullins:

It's not only that SOCE's not harmful, the truth is it's very helpful. And by banning this type of therapy, making it unavailable to sexual minority persons who are struggling with their identity, they're going to end up bringing about the very result that they claim they want to prevent by banning SOCE.

Vatican officials and men like Martin are rejecting SOCE in the name of "accompaniment."

But by embracing flawed research and false narratives, their efforts are not only increasing the risk of spiritual death by blessing sin, but also the risk of physical death by suicide, possibly accompanying some to their graves.

Church Militant spoke with Fr. Sullins on Saturday at the2021 Survivors' Summitwhere he was a speaker.


Fighting for the Family

This article was posted on July 20, 2021, at Church Militant.

While anti-family forces ramp up their efforts, pro-family forces must ramp up theirs. To that end, experts at a pro-family conference this weekend in the Pelican State discussed the ongoing war in the sexual revolution. Church Militant's William Mahoney has a few highlights from the event.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse: "The purpose of the summit for survivors of the sexual revolution is to try to enlist more people in pro-family activism."

The overarching theme of the 2021 Survivors' Summit in Lake Charles, Louisiana, was established in the opening presentation titled "Understanding the Global Sexual Revolution and Confronting the Sexual State."

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse:

The Ruth Institute has a dream that every child be welcomed into life in a loving home with their own mother and father married to each other, so that every child can have a relationship with his or her own parents unless some unavoidable tragedy takes place to prevent it.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, who gave the opening talk, is the founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which hosted the event.

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith coalition equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse: "It's the same playbook for how they push out junk science to make a point that isn't true. And we have here in the room people with expertise who are in a position to refute that stuff."

Opening talks on Friday were followed by a fourth annual awards dinner that honored Sharon Slater as activist of the year, Katy Faust for her book of the year, Them Before Us, and Baptist pastor Walter Hoye as witness of the year.

Hoye was arrested in 2009 and sentenced to 30 days in prison for standing on the sidewalk near a Planned Parenthood abortuary in California with a sign, "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help."

Hoye gave the keynote address: "Black and Pro-Life in America."

Pastor Walter Hoye: "Black Americans are facing irreversibility. ... We came from big families, but that's not true anymore. And it's at the point now where we're getting to the point where we're going to be facing irreversibility."

Medical experts included the president of the American College of Pediatricians, a representative of the Catholic Medical Association and executive director of the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs.

There were also legal experts, therapists and personal survivors of the sexual revolution like Walt Heyer, a man who once lived as a woman.

Walt Heyer: "We are so reluctant to be bold and be truthful about the fact that no one can change their gender, there are no transgenders, nobody transitions. Gender dysphoria is only a symptom of something deeper; it's not a diganosis."

The Ruth Institute will be publishing the presentations and panel discussions in the coming weeks.

In the coming days, Evening News will offer highlights of the Ruth Institute's Survivors' Summit, as well as discussions with featured speakers.


Support the Ruth Institute