Part 7 of Catholic coverup: If you tell the truth, prepare to be punished

Judge for yourself: Defenders of defamatory historian deflect from facts and give him institutional protection.

As we see these days, sometimes entrenched institutions don’t welcome challenge. If someone points out serious errors made by one of their members, they attack the bearer of truthful news rather than call for the privileged offender to correct his ways.

Aging Missouri historian James Hitchcock, Ph.D., has enjoyed this kind of privileged protection. The recent annual issue of the Catholic Social Science Review (CSSR) for 2022 provided an example of how this works. It’s not the first time that he was shielded by others from facing responsibility over his defamatory writing in a book published in late 2016.

I had admired Hitchcock for decades, until I discovered in 2017 that he inexplicably slammed me with a passel of falsehoods in the book — including falsely characterizing me as a bad Catholic — then he never explained or defended any of them to me. He falsely said I minimized the pro-life movement and promoted pro-abortion politicians.

Earlier this year, beginning on March 27, I wrote a six-part series at Substack.com about the deception against me in Hitchcock’s Abortion, Religious Freedom, and Catholic Politics, and how he was promoted and protected, including by the “global Catholic network,” EWTN, based in Irondale, Ala. EWTN President Doug Keck had described Hitchcock as “an old friend of EWTN,” whose book was available through the EWTN catalogue, during a chummy half-hour interview to promote and sell it. This was in my Substack installment that was posted May 1, 2022, “Part five: A modest writer battered in a David and Goliath face-off. Goliath is angry.”

Now I see it’s time to return to my series and write part seven.

It turns out that Hitchcock is listed on the advisory board of the Catholic Social Science Review, so he’s one of the social scientists’ own to protect, too.

Hitchcock’s book peppered with serious errors against me was distributed internationally. Although he and I had a professional connection from decades earlier, I had no idea he was writing the book until I accidently discovered it online a half-year after its publication. Later, I learned that the CSSR had published a favorable book review of his Abortion, Religious Freedom, and Catholic Politics in 2017. In mid-2020 I asked to respond in the pages of the CSSR, but my proposal wasn’t welcomed.

My records show that the editor-in-chief, Msgr. Robert Batule, didn’t reply to my emailing him. The book reviewer, Ryan Barilleaux, Ph.D. (also a member of the CSSR advisory board), expressed no desire to update the CSSR’s readership by publishing the fact that he had lauded a defamatory book. In a 2021 email to me after I listed some of the Hitchcock book’s numerous serious errors, Barilleaux said: “Your dispute is with Prof. Hitchcock, not with me. I think that, if you believe that he has misrepresented your views, you should present your evidence (as you did in your last message) in the appropriate forum. I ask only that you not misrepresent me: I was a book reviewer, not the author or a publisher's fact-checker.”

I already had been “present[ing my] evidence” for four years to the appropriate people, but they only ducked, like Barilleaux, rather than calling the institutionally protected Hitchcock to account, even though he drew them into his web of deceit.

Did these people prefer to be gulled by Hitchcock rather than call on him to man up?

Even after I entered a confidential settlement in late 2021 concerning the Hitchcock book’s defamation, Barilleaux brushed that fact away. If the Alamo had been as impregnable, that Texas fortress never would have fallen.

Stephen Krason, Ph.D., is president and chairman of the board of directors of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, and also publisher of the CSSR. I had admired his work even before he became a columnist for The Wanderer, a national weekly Catholic newspaper for which I wrote for decades. It was founded back in 1867. Interestingly, The Wanderer is one of two national Catholic newspapers that Hitchcock is at war with in his book. The other is the liberal National Catholic Reporter. Was he as free with his falsehoods against others as he was with me?

In an Aug. 10, 2021, email to Krason, I updated him about my emailing to editor-in-chief Batule “more than a year ago but did not receive a response. I addressed a book review by Dr. Barilleaux that unfortunately accepted as fact a number of outright falsehoods by Dr. James Hitchcock. Dr. Barilleaux's review concluded that both The Wanderer and National Catholic Reporter ‘often portrayed the stakes in political events as the only things that matter; as if there is nothing beyond this world. That kind of thinking cannot be called Catholic, regardless of whether it comes from the “left” or the “right.” Professor Hitchcock’s study details how two leading Catholic lay publications have let ideological considerations triumph over authentic Catholicism in the post-Roe era. It is a valuable document that helps to explain the current situation of Catholics in American politics’.”

I noted to Krason that I, Duggan, boldfaced these phrases, to emphasize them to him.

We writers for The Wanderer thus are indicted for having thinking that cannot be called Catholic, and of letting ideological considerations triumph over authentic Catholicism — even though Hitchcock helped to make his case with falsehoods against me. I am not named in the Barilleaux book review. However, anyone who decides to read the book after being influenced by Barilleaux’s warm approval will see me repeatedly victimized by falsehoods. Might one argue that Barilleaux gave his blessing to lies, even though he hadn’t realized he was doing so when he wrote the review?

Well, if a cashier accidentally gave you a $100 bill when she meant to give you $1, may you keep the unintentional result, or are you bound to go back and correct the transaction when the wrong is called to your attention?

After my Aug. 10, 2021, email to Krason noted above, he replied later that morning to express reluctance to intervene in the workings of the CSSR, despite being its publisher. In part he wrote, “I do want to note that I have made a firm point, as SCSS president, of not interfering with editorial judgments or judgments about accepting publication proposals of the editor-in-chief of the journal. I think that to be doing that would cause many problems.” He also said, “I appreciate your regular writing in The Wanderer.”

However, the fact that I entered the confidential settlement later in 2021 apparently persuaded him of the gravity of the situation. After I informed Krason of it, he invited me to write a brief article. After he received it from me, he emailed on Dec. 29, 2021: “I wanted to let you know that I sent the statement that you wrote about James Hitchcock and the review of his book in the 2017 Catholic Social Science Review onto Msgr. Robert Batule from the Rockville Centre Diocese, who's the current editor of the Review (he wasn't the editor in 2017). I urged him to publish your statement in the 2022 issue, which I believe I told you would come out early next fall. Of course, as the editor of the Review it is understood that he makes the final decision about what is to be published in each issue. Thank you for taking the time to write up the statement that you did, pointing out the problems with what Hitchcock wrote.”

The aim of my article wasn’t to raise a wider problem. I described some of Hitchcock’s many errors. I didn’t cast aspersions on Barilleaux’s writing style or motives or conduct or approach or thinking or even mention his name (although someone in the editorial process put a footnote referencing the book review at the end of my article). I didn’t attack the CSSR. I didn’t go over arguments about the two Catholic newspapers Hitchcock attacked.

My article was published beginning back on p. 217 in the journal’s 2022 issue and was titled merely, “Statement.” One enigmatic word. However, to my surprise, it turned out that reviewer Barilleaux had been given my article before publication so that he could comment on it on the pages after mine, beginning on p. 221. It wasn’t sufficient for the CSSR to allow me to correct serious factual errors. Now I had to be taught a lesson for daring to criticize Hitchcock. Barilleaux’s article was titled, “Response to Statement of Dexter Duggan.”

I merely had been trying to put some facts on the record, but now the misled book reviewer was tipped off so he could get in some whacks at my effort.

Strangely, Barilleaux’s first paragraph said: “I begin by thanking Msgr. Batule, editor of this journal, for giving me the opportunity to respond to Mr. Duggan’s statement. I also thank Dr. Stephen Krason, president of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, for including me in his exchanges with Mr. Duggan.”

Barilleaux already was well aware of my objections to the Hitchcock book — as he himself admits — because I had emailed with Barilleaux directly, listing a number of the serious errors. I wonder at his opening his “response” here with thanks to Krason. There was no secret comment I made to Krason that impinged on what I wrote openly to Barilleaux.

Rather than, say, lamenting that he had been gulled by Hitchcock, Barilleaux went on for more than two pages to defend his review, saying he stood by it and brushing aside the serious nature of a confidential settlement over a defamatory book. Why was Barilleaux so concerned to affirm his review when I merely pointed out errors Hitchcock made to advance his point?

Repeating his view of the Catholic newspapers, Barilleaux wrote, “All of these things are true, even if Prof. Hitchcock made (what I believe are unintentional) inaccurate claims about things Mr. Duggan wrote.” Barilleaux still regards Hitchcock as “a scholar with a distinguished reputation.”

Hitchcock is on the advisory board of the CSSR, as is Barilleaux. Rather than Barilleaux having to “believe” whether Hitchcock’s mistakes are unintentional, why not get in touch with him and ask for explanations?

“Unintentional” inaccurate claims? Please review the list of some errors below along with the book page numbers. If their volume and gravity are merely unintentional, I wonder at what Hitchcock could devise if he set out to be malicious. If they’re unintentional, why has Catholic scholar Hitchcock never once defended, explained or even acknowledged them to me in five years — even after I told him that his book legally had been determined to be defamatory? Is this the kind of thing that Hitchcock just takes in stride? Is this what Barilleaux takes in stride?

Nearing his conclusion, Barilleaux writes, “I am sorry if anyone read my review as supporting an attack on Mr. Duggan, because it was not that in any way. I wish Mr. Duggan well. To be honest, I do not recall from my reading of the book any individual author mentioned.”

Because the book index lists me on 20 pages, perhaps Barilleaux was less than attentive in his reading of a book that, in my softcover edition, has a total of 227 pages including the introduction, notes and index.

Moreover, he repeatedly says that Hitchcock’s view of the newspapers accords with his own. Did Barilleaux thereby suspend some critical faculties in reaching his evaluation of the book?

Finally, considering his very negative view of The Wanderer as a purveyor of wicked views (allegedly embracing conspiratorial economic theories, demonizing Israel, rekindling ethnic rivalry, rejecting an ecumenical pro-life approach), perhaps we should credit Barilleaux with remarkable tolerance for belonging to an organization whose own president, Krason, is a Wanderer columnist.

When the book was published, Hitchcock predicted that Donald Trump would destroy the pro-life movement. Does Barilleaux agree — especially after President Trump’s three Supreme Court nominations?

One of these Society of Catholic Social Scientists’ webpages says: “Through a collegiality of Catholic scholars, professors, researchers, practitioners, and writers, the SCSS brings rigorous, credible scholarship to political, social and economic questions. SCSS members approach their work in both a scholarly and evangelical spirit. They are expected to strictly observe the highest scholarly and professional requirements of their disciplines as they examine their data in light of Church teaching.”

Sometimes observed more in the breach?

Does the collection of falsehoods below sound like unintentional errors by Hitchcock in his book, as Barilleaux believes? Supposedly just citing articles I wrote for The Wanderer, Hitchcock concocts incidents, misrepresents facts, misattributes the statements of other clearly identified people directly to me, and falsely casts me as a seriously sinful Catholic.

p. 62: Hitchcock: “In 2013 (Sept. 19), Duggan said ‘McCain is like a mad scientist …. The best that can be said for McCain is that he is unstable, irrational, and incredibly vindictive’.”

In fact, this is a portion of a direct quotation by plainly identified Arizona conservative activist Rob Haney, not me, way down in the 30th paragraph of an article, so Hitchcock had to be well aware of the context by the time he read this far (if, indeed, he read it on his own instead of maybe using someone else’s inaccurate notes).

Directly before Haney’s quotation is a quotation by a conservative activist defending McCain’s motivations that Hitchcock ignores. This quotation wouldn’t support Hitchcock’s position that The Wanderer is one-sidedly against McCain. (P. 57, Hitchcock: “…The Wanderer also did all in its power to discredit the Republican Party in general and Senator John McCain in particular.”)

p. 68: “Duggan regretted (July 24, 2008) that McCain had been endorsed by Arizona Right to Life and claimed that McCain had a record of opposing Arizona political conservatives.”

Instead of an opinion article just giving my thoughts, I factually reported on the internal debate by Arizona Right to Life PAC officials themselves about whether they would endorse McCain, whose pro-life political record was imperfect. As for Hitchcock’s verb saying I “claimed” McCain had a record of opposing Arizona political conservatives, I reported actual instances of this in the same story, but Hitchcock ignores them.

p. 68: “In 2009 (Aug. 6) Duggan placed his hopes in either conservative Democrats, a possible third party, or Sarah Palin.”

This completely garbles an article where I quote from a Washington Times report about Palin’s own plans. Although Palin explicitly is reported to be eager to campaign for Republicans, independents, and even Democrats who share her values, Hitchcock omits the reference to helping Republicans. Hitchcock is manipulating the evidence to suit his claim, noted above, that The Wanderer is biased against Republicans.

p. 68: “Duggan (June 5 [2008]) asked whether, if McCain picked a pro-life running mate, it would only [emphasis added] be ‘to lure conservative voters to elect an administration dedicated to undermining their cause’.”

In fact, I am reporting a range of observers’ speculations. I also note, in the very same sentence, speculation that “a dedicated conservative activist and pro-lifer like [Bobby] Jindal could enhance the ticket by influencing McCain to the right.” Hitchcock craftily omits the portion of the sentence that disproves his assertion.

p. 69: In a barrage of ugly falsehoods, Hitchcock alleges that I am a “Paleoconservative” who worried over Reagan Democrats “precisely because they made abortion their primary issue and were oblivious to ‘true conservatism’.” Others and I allegedly “decried” the betrayal of conservative principles that the Reagan Democrats’ presence in Republican ranks facilitated. I “scarcely acknowledged … embarrassing facts” about U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whom Goldwater supported. We Paleoconservatives wanted “to persuade pro-lifers to transcend their narrow outlook and support a wider agenda.” I “seemed to regard immigration as the most important issue of the campaign” and I “considered the pro-abortion Goldwater worthy of unqualified support.” On the same page, Hitchcock describes Goldwater as “fanatically pro-abortion.”

For a practicing Catholic such as myself to treat a “fanatically pro-abortion” politician as “worthy of unqualified support” would be a grave sin. Hitchcock had taught both at a Catholic university and a Catholic seminary. Did he not understand the gravity of his defamatory accusation published in a supposedly scholarly book? Yet he tossed the falsehood around while offering no proof.

Both Hitchcock and I had been contributing editors at the National Catholic Register in the early 1980s and he was well aware of my pro-life advocacy, yet he completely ignores that fact in this book. Do we see the record being rewritten maliciously?

p. 154: “Duggan reported (Jan. 27 [2010]) that Tea Partiers and other true conservatives in Arizona were ecstatic over newly elected Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts.” Hitchcock immediately adds, “(Brown was pro-abortion.)”

I covered no such gathering of pro-abortion Arizona “true conservatives,” so there was no “ecstatic” reaction of theirs to report. Also, there was no Jan. 27 hardcopy issue of The Wanderer in 2010. I did cover an official Republican Party meeting for the Jan. 28, 2010, Wanderer where a Democratic pro-abortionist was criticized, but Hitchcock omits this.

p. 161: “Looking to the 2014 election, Dexter Duggan, as he had done in 2012, at first enthusiastically proposed Santorum for president (Wanderer, Oct. 31, 2013) but only a week later (Nov. 7) could see no acceptable Republican candidate.”

There was no presidential election in 2014, so I could not have been anticipating Rick Santorum – or anyone else – in such a race.

My Oct. 31, 2013, story had absolutely no statement that I was “enthusiastically propos[ing] Santorum for president.” Instead, the story was about the release of a Christmas movie from Santorum’s Texas entertainment company and was headlined, “’Tis The Season -- Rick Santorum Rings Out Word Of Christmas Movie.”

The Nov. 7 story didn’t say that I “could see no acceptable Republican candidate,” but instead concluded by quoting a GOP political strategist saying, “Let’s be hopeful for our potential heroes, but wait until they’ve proven themselves a few times first before conferring full hero status on them.” This story also noted that “new, proudly conservative Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) basically hasn’t disappointed traditionalist voters in any important way so far.”

pp. 163-64: Hitchcock mentions the series of videos by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) in 2015 documenting abortionists selling babies’ body parts.

Although I did weekly front-page articles as the shocking video revelations continued, Hitchcock entirely ignored them. Instead, he immediately devoted six paragraphs to others’ reactions to the videos, including defenders of Planned Parenthood. Hitchcock already alleged my uninterest or adversary view toward the pro-life movement (p. 69 being an example), so it behooves him to present evidence in my favor here. But he completely fails to do so.

To demonstrate examples, here are just four of the headlines on my CMP articles on Page One: “Planned Parenthood’s War On The World – As Tragedy Deepens, Can Elitists Awake From Their Nightmare?” (July 30, 2015); “Crunchy PP Creates Its Own 9-11 – Newest Video Shows So Much Horror As Morality Is Crushed” (Aug. 6, 2015); “As Groups Fight to Suppress Videos – Abortion Shocker Shows ‘Good Germans’ Now ‘Good Democrats’” (Aug. 13, 2015), “Seventh Planned Parenthood Video – Removing Live Baby Brain Made Procurement Worker Quit” (Aug. 27, 2015).

p. 170: “At the very moment the [U.S.] House was passing the bill [to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal provisions of Obamacare], Duggan (Jan. 7 [2016]) denounced [U.S. House Speaker Paul] Ryan for not having done so….”

Hitchcock is so confused. My article was about the Omnibus spending bill passed by Congress before Christmas 2015, not legislation in January 2016. It was headlined, “Elite’s Bipartisan Festivity: Ryan And Pelosi Celebrate Christmas With Herodian Budget Deal.” I wrote this story on Dec. 27, 2015, so I couldn’t have written it “at the very moment” the House voted on a different bill in the new year, on Jan. 6, 2016.

p. 170: “Duggan (Wanderer, Nov. 19 [2015]) considered [Paul] Ryan too compromising on the immigration issue...."

Plainly identified former California GOP Congressman Robert Dornan, not I, is commenting on various political topics including Ryan’s attitude toward illegal immigration. Dornan says he is hopeful Ryan will change his stand.

p. 170: “Duggan recalled the power of the Tea Party (June 25 [2015]) and predicted its resurgence….”

My story (“Obamatrade’s Conga Line – Have Elite Party Leaders Finally Misstepped Too Far?”) made no predictions about a Tea Party “resurgence.”

p. 170: “Near the end of the year (Dec. 3), Duggan briefly wondered if the Tea Party still had an impact, and two weeks later reported that it was still strong in Arizona.”

The Dec. 3, 2015, story, about 1,500 words long (that’s “briefly”?), reported a discussion by Tea Party members themselves, not me. “Two weeks later” would be the Wanderer of Dec. 17, 2015. There was no article by me reporting that the Tea Party “was still strong in Arizona.”

Why Hitchcock’s adverse interest in the Tea Party? Because he doesn’t regard it as a group that prioritizes the pro-life cause, so my reporting on it shows my minimizing pro-lifers, in his eyes (see p. 69).

p. 170: “He [Duggan] predicted (Dec. 24 [2015]) that McCain would be defeated for renomination by discontented conservatives.”

In fact, the prediction was not by me but by two plainly identified young political strategists speaking in Phoenix in December 2015 about disgust with the established political system.

pp. 170-71: “As Duggan was giving Trump his qualified endorsement, Trump expressed his newly discovered opposition to abortion but at the same time reaffirmed his overall support of Planned Parenthood.”

Hitchcock fails to provide any citation here that I gave my endorsement, much less if Trump still expressed overall support for Planned Parenthood. Like many other pro-lifers, I had had questions about the sincerity of Trump’s profession of pro-life beliefs during his run for the 2016 nomination, although favorable signs were to emerge.

p. 172: Hitchcock says the name of passionately pro-life presidential candidate Rick Santorum “went unmentioned” in 2015 in The Wanderer, “except in one last-page article by an unfamiliar writer (June 11).”

A quick online search in Wanderer archives reveals that Santorum was mentioned in eight articles in 2015, usually briefly, but also including a prominent three-column-wide story I wrote on p. A3 in the Oct. 15, 2015, issue, with Santorum’s name in the “kicker” part of the headline (“Santorum Urges Making Difference”). Hitchcock omits my story.

As for the June 11 Santorum story by “an unfamiliar writer” supposedly on the “last page,” that article was written by Ben Johnson, of the well-known LifeSiteNews.com, that stretched across the top half of the back page (p. A8) of the first section of a two-section newspaper. It wasn’t a half-hidden article on the final page.

p. 172: Hitchcock said that in a May 21, 2015, article, “Duggan … appeared to agree” with columnist Pat Buchanan on foreign policy, particularly with Buchanan’s opposing continued Republican support of Israel. Hitchcock said I praised U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s anti-interventionism.

My article said nothing whatever about opposing support of Israel. I covered a speech by Rand Paul at Arizona State University in which he said, “I am a Reagan Republican, through and through… Reagan believed in peace through strength. Reagan didn’t believe intervention was always the answer.” As is often the case, Hitchcock inexplicably thinks that if I cover someone else’s talk, report a statement, or do an interview, I am thereby praising or favoring that person or even just simply stating my own thoughts.

p. 172: “At first (Apr. 16 [2015]) Duggan seemed to favor Cruz for president, but by the late summer (Aug. 13), he thought the idea of a third-party candidate (presumably Trump) was appealing.”

My April 16 story (“Political Researcher Offers Idea For Winning Team in 2016”) is about a talk given by New Zealand conservative activist Trevor Loudon. Deep within the story I reported that Loudon was impressed by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. At no point in this story did I write of my own preferences for candidates. As for a supposed Aug. 13 story where I thought the idea of a third-party candidate appealing, there was no such story.

p. 172: “Blacks too, Duggan said (Dec. 17 [2015]), were opposed to immigration and would flock to Trump’s banner.”

In fact, black activist Ted Hayes was making a speech on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Aside from putting Hayes’ words in my mouth, Hitchcock didn’t even quote this 27th paragraph of my story accurately. It said, “U.S. blacks ‘are moving toward Donald Trump’ because they recognize ‘he’s speaking more to our interests’ on the 14th Amendment, Hayes said.” (Moving toward Trump, not flocking.) Also, Hitchcock misrepresented Hayes’ reference to illegal immigration as being only about “immigration.” Hitchcock had to read all the way down to the 27th paragraph to find this particular remark, so he should have been perfectly aware of the actual context. The story is so plainly about Hayes’ speech, not my thoughts, that one wonders: Is Hitchcock capable of reading English?

p. 172: “…Duggan (Jan. 7 [2016]) thought conservative Republicans were so outraged at party leaders that they might even vote Democratic.”

In fact, Arizona GOP conservative activist Rob Haney was quoted here, not I — in the 46th paragraph of a 48-paragraph story about Congress’ Omnibus spending bill. Once again Hitchcock has read deeply into a story to find a quotation that he proceeds to