Notorious Anti-Catholic Bigot George Will Ups His Game In Latest Abuse Screed

George Will : anti-Catholic atheist

Unhinged atheist George Will

Well-known atheist pundit George Will has never hid his hatred for the Catholic Church, but in a recent piece in the Washington Post, Will goes so far off the rails that one wonders if his famous intellect is now faltering.

Will gets it flat wrong

Indeed, the very first sentence of Will's article is an outright falsehood, beginning with this whopper:

"Horseplay," a term used to denote child rape, is, says Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, part of a sinister glossary of euphemisms by which the Catholic Church's bureaucracy obfuscates in documents the church's "pattern of abuse" and conspiracy of silence "that goes all the way to the Vatican."

In truth, in Shapiro's 1,100-page press release, released under the guise of a "grand jury report," the words "horseplay" or "horse play" are referenced a total of three times. And never is it used as a "euphemism" for child rape. Never. Will and Shapiro just made that up.

Will then goes on to claim that there is still somehow a "crime wave" of sex abuse in the Church today.

Well, no, there isn't. As we have already reported, in 2017 (the most recent year of data), there were a whopping three priests in the United States (out of about 40,000) merely "credibly accused" of contemporaneous abuse of a minor. Compare that to Chicago Public Schools, a single district in one city, where officials have investigated 430 reports that school employees have sexually abused, assaulted or harassed students since only 2011.

Smearing the innocent with a government press release

Will is evidently quite impressed by the Pennsylvania grand jury report. Yet rather than being indicative of any current problem, the report was actually one of ancient history, as more than half of the accused priests named in the report were already long dead. Indeed, one of the named priests in the report was born in 1869 (four years after the Civil War ended), and another was born in 1893 (around the time the electric light bulb was catching on).

Msgr. Thomas Benestad

George Will smears innocent priest
Msgr. Thomas Benestad

The untold story about the Pennsylvania report is how utterly corrupt and dishonest the whole thing was.

Will claims that the Shapiro's report contained "credible reports about a boy being raped and then forced into a confessional to confess his sin. Or a boy having his mouth washed out with holy water after oral sex."

"Credible"? Not even close. The priest in the story about "a boy having his mouth washed out with holy water after oral sex" is Monsignor Thomas Benestad. Shapiro's report chastised the Church because it "elected to rely on Benestad's word rather than the word of the victims." Well, yes, and for good reason. Benestad's case was thoroughly examined by a former FBI agent who determined it to be totally bogus. Sources also tell us that Benestad's male accuser was a criminal with incarcerations in multiple states and has been diagnosed with mental illness.

And that wild story about a boy being raped in a confessional? Will likely refers to the case of Fr. Stephen Flohr, who died in 2007 completely unblemished, without a single charge against him in over four decades in ministry. Yet after he died, an anonymous male accuser came forward with a bizarre claim that no reasonable person would believe. Yet Shapiro included Fr. Flohr in his bogus report even though Flohr is obviously unable to now defend himself.

To be charitable, Will is soon approaching 80 and might be losing his once mighty grip. But shame on the editors at the Washington Post for publishing his factually challenged screed against the Church.

[HT: Catholic League.]


  1. LLC says:

    Well said. The fact that Mr. Will praises the Netflix movie "Spotlight" as "excellent" indicates how little he values facts. Interestingly enough, when addressing cases of alleged abuses on campuses, Mr. Will wrote that "…when [colleges and universities] make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate”. Apparently, in such cases the victims shouldn’t be so promptly and indiscriminately believed. Truth be told, Mr. Will is also of the opinion that sexual abuses "should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and not be adjudicated by improvised campus processes", or, if I may add, sensationalistic journalists. While this should be the norm, he seems to believe that the alleged abuses perpetrated by some clergy are better addressed by Grand Juries. Again, double standard.

    • peoples clown says:

      Yes, indeed, LLC! Comrade commissar will, and comrade commissar Shapiro, are working hard to unveil lies and untruths, in a new, novel way. As the goal, is to destroy the church anything, and any lie strategy goes! Without a doubt they have Friday night home screenings of "spotlight". As movie watchers,, there are endless themed movies of the David and Goliath genre. In these cases the church is not " Goliath"! 

  2. Jim Robertson says:

    Peoples' Cluck, George Will is a POS. And he always has been. He's never met a war of imperialism he didn't like.

    The church can not be destroyed according to it's supposed founder, The big J.C..

    Isn't J.C.'s word enough for you?

    Your church could have solved this abuse issue ages ago by calling the police when crimes were uncovered. The fact that they didn't and criminally protected perpetrators while at the same time endangering more Catholic children is the reason nobody trusts you now.

    The criminal does not get to set his own punishment. Quit whinning and just do the right thing.

    • peoples clown says:

      JR – wow! We agree about commissar will! See! No, the church won't be destroyed, but terrible damage is being done to it! The human race probably, won't be destroyed by abortion, though, not sure, but great destruction is being done. When the Muslims invaded north Africa, christian for centuries, It was terribly damaged! Not destroyed! We must Be aware as to what's really happening in the west. If not, like abortion, they will "sneak" it by! The bolsheviki, in the soviet union, murdered millions, destroyed churches, etc. but they could not destroy the church! Look at it now! I guess as its said "the blood of the martyrs, is the seed of the church! 

    • peoples clown says:

      JR, Dan – abuse is a large "issue" (a new religion as well?) In societies where money can be made from it! Both you have "tunnel vision" in that it doesn't stop the mission of the church! (I.e. ask the mother Teresa nuns if the dying in the streets of India care about sex abuse, and I'm sure you'd get an interesting reply!)( or a starving person in Africa, that just received food from catholic charities)

    • LLC says:


      “…George Will is a POS” = classy as always. I never understood the need for swearing in support of one’s viewpoint. Perhaps it is meant to mask a deficient proper vocabulary.

      “He's never met a war of imperialism he didn't like” = not the topic of this post; furthermore, what is a “war of imperialism”? The US do not constitute an Empire, as generally defined.

      “The church can not be destroyed according to it's supposed founder, The big J.C” = correct. Glad to see that you have kept up with the assigned readings.

      “Your church could … [] … the reason nobody trusts you now” = while there is some truth in this statement, the overall argument is so absurdly simplistic that a correct answer would require much more time and space. Few points:

      “ages ago” = when and by who? Since this issue is linked to a human disfunction that has always existed, it’s not possible to completely eradicate it. It is agreed upon that some clergy didn’t act promptly to address it (and there are reasons for it, not last the involvement of the now defunct CCCP empire – but it’s a story for another time).

      “The fact that they didn’t” = it should be “the fact that they didn’t always”.  You do not know how many times it has been actually done. Unfortunately, good news does not always make the first page. Incorrect bad news, always.

      “criminally protected perpetrators” = since you can’t prove the criminal intent, this is libel. Second, when the bulk of the accusations came to the light, the praxis was to try to “cure” the priests, based on a very much incomplete and naïve understanding of their behavioral disfunction. It is easy for you to retroactively say what should’ve happened. As reported by TMR, new abuses have almost completely disappeared in the Church (unlike from all others organizations – but they still don’t get the necessary air time). Now the Church is dealing with the past ones. Slowly? Perhaps.

      “the reason nobody trusts you now” = incorrect. “Nobody” is an absurd concept, to start. Second, the main reason is the biased way the media keep portraying the issue, which is, incidentally, the topic of this blog.

      “The criminal does not get to set his own punishment” = nor does the alleged victim. So quit whining and do the right thing.

      Lastly, unless you have anything to say about this post specifically, please leave room for those who do.

    • Dan says:

      Hey Clown, Maybe you should try some Bible "vision":

      "On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prohesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name [Catholic exorcisms], and do many mighty works in your name? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' " Matthew 7:22-23

      In other words, you can brag all you like about all the good your Church has done, and it will not compensate for all the horrific sins against innocent children the Church has kept secret until now. And by the way, I have terrific peripheral vision and a full view of what your Church is up to.

  3. Otto says:

    This is the problem with the "believe all victims" narrative that has become popular. It turns the system into "guilty until proven innocent" and prevents us from critically analyzing the claims against the accused. A better rule would be "listen and investigate" but if you stand for even that moderate position you will be accused of enabling abuse.

    • LLC says:


      Well said. Incidentally, this also the result of the predominantly visual way most people perceive news today, compared to the written word of just few decades ago. It has been said that Nixon would’ve won all the debates with Kennedy, had not been for the television. The emotions created by an image completely and indiscriminately overpower the mental exercise necessary to process a written article. As a result, the vast majority of the public today stops at the sensationalistic title instead of reading the article with an open mind. Indeed, listen and investigate (or trust but verify) should be the norm behind every piece of news and every investigation.

    • Dan says:

      Keep blaming the news or the media. The media didn't molest children, young boys, little girls, seminarians or nuns. What percentage of priests and bishops were investigated and found guilty and spent serious time in prison? Let's not forget all those in secret Church files, those who died and were never punished and those sent to Rome to be protected indefinitely. When is the Church going to start sending every criminal clergy member to the proper authorities? No more in house phony courts, fake committees, fantasy tribunals or worthless pope / bishop summits. The public, and especially the victims, are not fooled by your many words, false humility and useless apologies terribly lacking in any real positive action.

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey dummies. If the church really thought these claims were untrue. Why don't they and their insurors take it to trial? Because both of them know it's true. The only ones who don't are still in the pews, tugging their forelocks and pretending they are the real victims.


  5. malcolm harris says:

    JR on March 21st, has raised a good question. By asking why the Church and it's insurers don't take more of these cases to trial . He argues that this is because they know the accusations are true?. Hence the out-of-court settlements, something the 'yahoo chorus'  has seized upon as an admission of guilt?. Well ….the real reason is that they have been advised by lawyers…. they are likely to lose… if they fight in court. The comment from LLC, also on the 21st, has basically explained why this derangement has come about. Because the mainstream media has created such a widespread prejudice that it is very difficult for a Catholic cleric to get a fair trial. That is why Cardinal Pell was convicted….it wasn't a fair trial. As there was  no compelling evidence that a crime had been committed in the first place.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm says, "That is why Cardinal Pell was convicted….it wasn't a fair trial. As there was no compelling evidence that a crime had been committed in the first place."

      This is awful strange for you to claim, Malcolm, when Pell's lead lawyer argued that this was "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating….". This being the case, maybe the six year sentence is just a wee bit too soft. Give him life so he won't have the opportunity to go near or touch another child ever again.

      P.S. Love to see that Pell is right there in the middle of "comPELLing". Guilty beyond doubt!

    • LLC says:


      Very funny! If grammar and spelling were used to dispense judgments of guilt, you would be considered a defenDANt as well…

    • Dan says:

      If we're to "dispense judgments of guilt" based upon one who minimizes, make excuses for, deceives or lies for convicted pedophile bishops, then you would have to be considered a heLLCat, aka, she-devil.

      Card pell isn't "guilty beyond doubt" because his name appears perfectly centered in the word comPELLing. He's guilty beyond doubt because of several indiscretions in his past with young boys and the fact that his lead attorney stated such an inflammatory statement regarding how he defines pells actions (plain vanilla sexual penetration) with children. Guilty beyond doubt!!

      If you have nothing compelling to add to this conversation, then you should allow some other Catholic to try to explain away the lead attorneys horrible description. Just sayin'.

    • Dan says:

      And believe you me, I don't think any of this is "Very funny!"

  6. Dan says:

    Any Catholics who believe that the Church was naive, unaware or lacking any common understanding of the severity of the crime of pedophilia and the danger these priests were to reoffend, needs to read the warnings of Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald in 1947, founder of the Servants of the Paraclete. If you're going to try to convince us that so-called holy men were to stupid to know the evil they were committing and bishops, unlike most adults, thought these men were still qualified enough to return to teaching and serving mass, then I'd have to say that your Church is run by a hierarchy of people lacking any guilt, with severely seared consciences. An organization disqualified to ever think they are the One Holy True Church of the Living God.

    Google – Bishops were warned of abusive priests | National Catholic Register

  7. LLC says:


    this is an old article. Nothing in it is new (well, maybe for you it is). I also wonder if you read it in its entirety. From your post, it doesn't seem like. But, again, you were probably the Monday morning quarterback of choice in your high school lacrosse team.

    1947 was the year of foundation of the Order, not when the warnings were written. Not that history and dates are of any importance…

    As a suggestion, when you start a sentence with “If you're going to try…”, the second half of that sentence should be somehow related to the content of the first part. In your case, it’s a non-sequitur. Just sayin'.

    Incidentally, thank you for capitalizing Father. Your keyboard must've emitted sparks and sulphur vapors (or was it you?).

    Finally, please stay on topic, or leave room for those who have something pertinent to say.

    • Dan says:


      In almost every paragraph you seem to think it wise to take sarcastic little shots at the opposition and yet believe others have no right to respond with a retort. Do you find it hard to understand, "You reap what you sow?"

      I'll be glad to explain to you how the second half of the sentence does relate to the first half. Supposed Godly bishops would have to be lacking any guilt and possess severely seared consciences to believe that priests who were sexually immoral child molesters would ever be qualified to teach the flock or serve mass. Likewise the priests should also realize they shouldn't be near the communion table after committing such evil immoral sexual acts against innocent children. That's Biblical and I'll let you look that one up for yourself. Guilty as charged with no chance of repentance based on their severely seared guilty consciences. 

      You are correct that the Order started in 1947. The second paragraph states" Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paraclete, an order established in 1947 to deal with problem priests, wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood should be laicized immediately." He wrote of "his frustration and disdain for priests 'who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys and girls.' " Calling them "devils and the wrath of God is upon them and if I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary layization [sic]." It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat – - but even an island is too good for these vipers of whom the Gentle Master said were better they had not been born – - this is an indirect way of saying damned, is it not?" So don't think you can nitpick regarding the date or claim "an old article" or "Nothing…new", as if that negates the fact that early on the bishops and pope were well warned that this could turn into a terrible "scandal". Quit making your weak excuses, claiming the bishops were "naive" or it's the medias fault. What kind of leaders would protect or make excuses for and secretly shuffle pedophile or pederast priests. Surely not Godly or Christian men. 


    • LLC says:


      “In almost every paragraph you seem to think it wise…” = nope; I do not seem. I do. It is fun and you are a real easy target. Furthermore, do not put together words just for the sake of it. Keep it simple. Articulated sentences do not suit your style.

      “yet believe others have no right” = never said anything of the sort. I said, verbatim, “It ain’t working”, for two reasons: 1) I do not care, and 2) you and JR are really (really) bad at it.

      “I'll be glad to explain…” = nope, you did not explain. If you say, “If you are going to try…”, the second part should start with “you” again as the subject or, at least, the object. You simply put two sentences together with the incorrect IF…THEN structure.

      “Supposed [] serve mass” = actually, there is another possibility. The Bishops did exactly what was recommended at that time by professionals, and then tried to give the priests a second chance. By the time it was clear that it wasn’t working, much more damage and pain had already been caused.

      “Likewise the priests [] children” = who ever said they didn’t? God’s voice, as our conscience, actively reminds us of what’s right and what’s wrong. That doesn’t mean that men always listen to it. Do you always do the right thing, even after having fallen before?

      “Guilty as charged with no chance of repentance based on their severely seared guilty consciences” = interesting concept. Where is it in Scriptures?

      Yes, this is an old article, and there’s nothing new in it. Except, maybe, for you.

      “as if that negates the fact that early on the bishops and pope were well warned that this could turn into a terrible "scandal" = never said anything of the sort. I simply said that you were probably the greatest Monday morning quarterback of your Lacrosse team in high school. ‘nuff said.

      “Quit making your weak excuses” = never made excuses for anyone; the guilty priests and bishops will be judged according to their own acts by God. Not by the media, and surely not by you.

      “Naïve” = never said anything of the sort. You are the one who said it.

      Now, unless you have something to say about Mr. Will (the topic of this post), this is my last response to you. I am not particularly interested in wasting time bringing a mule to the water.

    • Dan says:

      Thank you, Grammar Nazi. Without all your unsolicited advice, I would be one dumb Christian American. 

      "Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teaching of demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." 1 Tim 4:1-3

      "Having lost all sense of shame, they have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity, with a craving for more." Epesians 4:19

      What could be more "deceitful" and "demonic" than the molesting of innocent children and the secretly hiding and shuffling of the perpetrators, so they could continue in their malfeasance. Men with seared consciences coddled and protected by hypocritical liars.

    • peoples clown says:

      Dan – what about your "bathroom mirror" relationship?

  8. peoples clown says:

    Looks like nick sandman, Covington catholic h.s. is now suing CNN! There are many "next in line" as well! This is great news!!!! Maybe comrade commissar will, and comrade commissar Shapiro can be sued as well!! Maybe the state of Illinois, as well, having most on their "hit list" as being deceased, and only one, credible!

    • Dan says:

      Clown, I'm glad you think that a ridiculously greedy Catholic is something to applaud. Those kids were mimicking the Indian and the smirk on Sandman's face didn't look to me like something meant to defuse the situation.

      Since you think that 250M and 275M is a fair request, then maybe each victim of the perverts from your Church should be asking for a minimum of 1 billion per offense as a jumping off point. How can Catholics be so greedy and even commended for it? Ridiculous!

    • peoples clown says:

      Dan – the Covington actually had something done against them, despite nick Sandman's "face crime" or "smirk crime"!

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Dan I'm so glad of your common sense around this abuse issue. You are completely right on, on this subject.

    These three attack ad hominem they never settle for plain truth because they'd rather believe abusers than victims, their own Catholic children.

    The Catholic church will go on but never the same because of what they have actually done. The true belevers will die off only to be replaced by a very few people. More church's will close because of what the church actually did to its own.

    Abortion has been around forever.

    Long before Jesus showed up (if he ever did)

    The church needs an issue so abortion is it. Nobody likes abortion and if you teach kids about real contraception, they have far less abortions because they are told about ways to not get pregnant.

    Contraception is also not taught by the Church. So the Church is responsible by supporting ignorance for far more abortions that never needed to happen, by not supporting contraceptives. (Maybe they need more kids to screw.).

    The Church knew exactly what it was doing supporting priests over children harmed. They just don't want to pay for what they've done.