Bill Donohue

Jaden Ivey, a professional basketball player for the Chicago Bulls, has been put on waivers after he made a series of alleged anti-LGBTQ comments, as well as remarks critical of abortion and Catholicism. To read what he said, click here.

The issue that has garnered most of the attention were his LGBTQ  statements. They shouldn’t have. While his comments were inelegant, they were entirely defensible, especially from a Christian perspective. Being against abortion is also defensible. Catholics are understandably upset when they hear Protestants say their religion is “false”—it is pure ignorance—but it is not likely Ivey would have been sanctioned had he only said that.

Ivey’s biggest mistake is not what he said—he did not make slurs against gays the way other professional athletes have—but that he went on a rampage, relentlessly creating discord with his team. That’s where he crossed the line. He engaged in lengthy rants on three occasions online in one week. Thus did he become a divisive force, jeopardizing team unity. Had he not spoken a word, but simply whistled in the locker non-stop while game plans were being discussed, sanctions against him would be justified.

It’s too bad Ivey didn’t say these things on just one occasion. If he had, and the Bulls still put him on waivers, that would have made them the guilty party. To put it differently, if players cannot express their biblically grounded convictions in public, the bad guys are the censors, not the players.

This needs to be said because the NBA, the NFL and MLB have drifted into left-wing territory in recent years, evincing an intolerance for free speech and a preference for politically correct messaging. Indeed, this problem surfaced in responses made about Ivey’s speech.

Mike Vrabel, the coach of the New England Patriots football team, responded to a tweet from one of his players, TreVeyon Henderson, who defended Ivey. All he did was quote Matthew 5:10, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Vrabel somehow found fault with this unexceptional statement, saying that he likes Henderson, and that his players should be “able to express what they believe.” Not really. “I also wanna make sure that they’re educated. We want to be inclusive.”

He sounds like a woke robot. Indeed, his remark smacks of thought control. So nice to know that Vrabel wants to make sure his players are “educated.” Meaning, of course, that they must learn to think like him. It doesn’t get more condescending than this.

It is also offensive for him to declare that “We want to be inclusive.” Who’s the “We,” and who appointed him and others to set these kinds of goals? It’s also phony. Vrabel’s inclusive tent obviously doesn’t apply to Ivey, who has been summarily excluded because of his “uneducated” comments.

Apparently, Ivey is beset with multiple problems, and he needs to deal with whatever is ailing him. The dons of professional sports are also in need of a corrective—they would benefit by freeing themselves from the left-wing ideologues that surround them.

Bill Donohue

Islamists, or Muslim extremists, are on the war path again slaughtering Christians in Nigeria during Holy Week. It is an annual event, though most people don’t know anything about it. As usual, when Muslims wantonly kill Christians, it’s either ignored or lied about. None of this is a mistake.

On Palm Sunday, more than two dozen Christians were massacred by jihadists. It occurred in Jos, a Christian city in Plateau state, Nigeria. According to International Christian Concern, at least 30 people were killed. Besides the BBC and the New York Times, most of the mainstream media did not cover it.

Last year on Palm Sunday in Nigeria, at least 54 Christians were massacred by Islamists in the village of Zikke, near Jos. Over 100 households were destroyed and the entire village was displaced. In 2024, more than 1,300 Christians were killed in Plateau state alone: the majority were non-combatants—more than 500 women and 260 children were wiped out, leaving 30,000 displaced.

The barbarians are mostly associated with Boko Haram, Islamic State West African Province (ISWAP) and Fulani militants. They are responsible for killing thousands of Christians and destroying hundreds of churches. This has been going on in earnest since 2009 when Boko Haram went on a rampage slaughtering innocent Christians.

What has the United Nations done about this? It engages in “diplomatic mediation.” Swell. And what does it do when the next round of massacres occur? It engages in more “diplomatic mediation.” Worse, it refuses to call a spade a spade, eschewing any condemnation of Muslim extremists. It says the situation in Nigeria is “complex.”

The New York Times is working from the same playbook, branding the situation there “complex.” It goes beyond the dodging of the U.N. by criticizing those “who have falsely claimed that there is a Christian genocide happening in Nigeria.” This has also become the favorite talking point of the mainstream media.

Where is the evidence that a Christian genocide is not taking place in Nigeria? The Times provides a link to a story it ran in January claiming that “Spotty research from a Christian activist has been used by Republican lawmakers to justify U.S. intervention in the country [Nigeria].”

In fact, this news story should be studied in journalism classes as a classic case of how “spotty research” is done. It focuses on the comments made by one guy, a screwdriver salesman, who argues that Christians are being singled out for slaughter. This is a red herring.

No serious scholar leans on anecdote for evidence. What about the annual reports on human rights in Nigeria released by Freedom House, Aid to the Church in Need, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, U.S. State Department and Open Doors?

Regarding the latter, the Times blithely refers to it as “a Christian advocacy group whose data has [sic] been cited by Mr. Trump.” Does that make it invalid? Talk about “spotty research.” Moreover, the paper never has a problem citing reports issued by George Soros-funded entities.

Those who are closer to the problem are not fooled. In 2022, Aid to the Church in Need said the situation in Nigeria “clearly passes the threshold of genocide.” In 2025, local leaders who witnessed the slaughter during Holy Week said it was “a targeted act of genocide against the Christian community.”

After a truck ran over a gathering of Christians on Easter Monday last year, killing six people, the initial police report said it was due to “faulty brakes.” “However,” as one reporter put it, “an investigation has now confirmed what the participants already knew—that the driver, named as 28-year-old Usman Mohammed, had deliberately plowed into the marchers.”

The governor of Plateau state, commenting on what happened during Holy Week in 2025, called it “genocide.” So did the president of International Christian Concern. He said the massacre was not a random event. He called it a “calculated” attack by the Fulanis to “erase Christians from their homeland.” He was explicit. “They roll in with AK-47s, machetes and gasoline, and no one’s stopping them.”

Christians in Nigeria should not have to endure Easter every year—they should be celebrating it. There is nothing complex about what they are facing—it’s the most violent expression of anti-Christian bigotry imaginable.

Bill Donohue

This year was the first time Zohran Mamdani observed Ramadan as New York City Mayor, and now he is about to observe Passover, Good Friday and Easter. However, this is not the first time he has done so as a public official (he was previously a New York State Assemblyman).

We checked his record and compared it to how his predecessor, Mayor Eric Adams, treated these key religious days. The differences are stark.

Ramadan

Adams

He attended Ifar events and issued tributes to Muslims.

Mamdani

He attended more than a dozen events this year, claiming on the last day of Ramadan that this day is “For All of Us.” Thus he invited non-Muslims to celebrate Ramadan. There is no record of him being that inclusive to Muslims, asking them to consider Passover or Easter as a day they should celebrate, nor does he invite them to observe Good Friday.

At a press conference marking the start of this month-long Muslim period, he said, “Ramadan is my favorite month of the year.” If this is true, it is of recent vintage.

For example, he confessed in 2018 that it was the first time he celebrated Ramadan in years. Curiously, the next year he announced his candidacy for office: in 2020 he was elected to the New York State Assembly. This gave him the appearance of being an authentic Muslim. Yet his bona fides do not extend to respecting Islamic teachings on abortion, same-sex marriage and the LGBTQ agenda.

Passover

Adams

He attended speaking engagements and issued celebratory tweets to the Jewish community.

Mamdani

Last year, he commemorated Passover by speaking to Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, a far-left organization that was condemned in 2022 by the Anti-Defamation League as being “out of touch” with the Jewish community. He exclaimed, “No Fascists, No Pharaohs.”

Good Friday

Adams

He typically spoke about the crucifixion of Christ and the need for redemption and reform.

Mamdani

There is no evidence he has ever addressed this day.

Easter

Adams

He usually addressed themes of rebirth and renewal.

Mamdani

In 2024, he said, “Happy Easter.” In 2025, he said nothing.

We would expect a Muslim public figure to recognize Islamic religious days more than Jewish or Christian holy days. But Mamdani politicized Passover last year (the way he recently politicized St. Patrick’s Day), and his terse treatment of Christian religious days is appalling.

We will be watching how Mamdani treats Passover, Good Friday and Easter. Will he mimic Adams or his old self?

Bill Donohue

Sarah Mullally has her hands full. The newly installed Archbishop of Canterbury is facing turmoil in her church, much like that of other mainline Protestant denominations in North America.

Mullally, who was a nurse before she was ordained an Anglican priest, took over as archbishop after her predecessor, Justin Welby, resigned following his handling of a sexual abuse case. She inherits a church that is torn over sexual issues.

She is also faced with a sharply declining Anglican population, especially among young people. Catholics in England now outnumber Anglicans among the Gen Z population (those born between 1997 and 2012) by a margin of more than 2-1. The problem is not limited to youth. Overall, attendance at Anglican services are declining; they are increasing among Catholics.

In the United States, none of the mainline Protestant denominations are in good shape. The Episcopal Church had made sharp cuts in its headquarters staff. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has also laid off many senior officials from its national staff. The United Methodist Church has undergone a major schism, cutting its number of bishops. All have seen sharp reductions in attendance at weekly services, though that appears to be stabilizing.

The Catholic population in the United States has grown by 40 percent in the past 40 years, mostly because of increases in the South and West. Of the top ten gainers, six are in Texas or California.

Younger dioceses such as Fresno and Atlanta are doing very well, while older dioceses like Pittsburgh and Milwaukee are not. Pittsburgh has seen a decline of over 30 percent in the Catholic population since 1980, and is situated in the bottom in terms of priestly ordinations, along with New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle and Dallas. New York is especially troublesome given that the Catholic population has actually increased; Pittsburgh’s situation is more understandable given the loss of the Catholic population.

There are many reasons why Catholics are doing better than mainline Protestants in the U.S. and the U.K. The latter suffer from mixed messages on sexual issues, and from a misguided attempt to be “relevant.” The data clearly show that the more “relevant” a religious community tries to be—in terms of accepting the norms and values of the dominant culture—the more irrelevant it becomes for its adherents.

This may seem counter-intuitive. But it isn’t: the desire for continuity among the faithful is strong and seriously unappreciated. If Christianity is about truth—which is what it is supposed to be—then constant challenges to settled teachings is not only unappealing, it is subversive.

We should have known by now that attempts to secularize Christianity are an utter failure. Archbishop Mullally will either move toward orthodoxy and succeed, or she will continue the slide toward heterodoxy, and fail.

Bill Donohue

The Taliban are known as among the world’s most brutal terrorists, yet they exhibited more humanity at the end of Ramadan than New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill.

On March 20, the last day of Ramadan, the Taliban released an American, Dennis Coyle, whom they had imprisoned for over a year, citing the holiday as the reason for doing so. They said his release was “based on humanitarian sympathy and goodwill.” Now contrast this with the way Mamdani and Sherrill acted that day. They were not guided by one ounce of “humanitarian sympathy and goodwill.”

Mamdani made his first visit to Rikers Island, home to the most violent inmates in the city. This may appear to some as an outreach to the marginalized, but when we learn that he habitually reaches out to murderers and thugs, but not their victims, a different picture emerges.

One New York City police veteran told reporters that Mamdani “hasn’t visited any victims of the heinous crimes some of these guys have committed.” He gave as an example a man who tried to knife police officers in Queens, noting that “he visited the criminal’s family in that case too.” He added, “He can go visit inmates in Rikers, but he can’t go visit a cop who gets hurt during an Isis-inspired attack outside the Mayor’s home earlier this month.”

Sherrill was just as insulting. It is one thing to visit a mosque at the end of Ramadan, quite another to choose one that has been linked to terrorism since its founding in 1989; the co-founder was convicted of funneling money to Hamas.

She met with Imam Mohammad Qatanani, pretending she was a Muslim (she wore a large cloth wrapped around her head, extending down the front of her body), offering her well wishes. This cleric has called for “a new intifada,” and has met with Hamas leaders in Gaza saying, “our wish should be we carry out Jihad to death.” That was his message to Jews—you should all be killed.

Ramadan is a month that begins in mercy, followed by an emphasis on forgiveness, and ends with a prayer asking for emancipation from hell. The Taliban’s decision to release Coyle evinced mercy and forgiveness.  Mamdani and Sherrill turned these two virtues on their head, showing mercy and forgiveness for murderers and terrorists

Thus were New York City’s mayor and New Jersey’s governor outclassed by the Taliban. What a sorry state of affairs.

Bill Donohue

When Jews and Protestants are being considered for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, they are rarely, if ever, asked by legislators to explain how their religious convictions might affect their legal thinking. The same is not true of Catholic nominees: their faith often becomes center stage at the hearings.

Sometimes it gets really ugly, as when Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to smear prospective Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “When you read your speeches,” she said, “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

This was not Feinstein’s first rodeo. In 2005, she questioned John Roberts about his suitability to sit on the Supreme Court. She specifically asked him if he shared President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 convictions about not mixing church and state. Other prospective federal judges who are Catholic have been subjected to the same line of questioning.

It must also be asked, why is it that nominees who are known secularists are not probed to learn if they harbor an animus against public displays of religious expression? Why is it always Catholics who are asked to explain themselves?

Now our Catholic Supreme Court Justices are under the microscope again, only this time liberal commentators are afraid they may not be Catholic enough!

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has filed an amicus in a case before the high court asking the Justices to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for some babies born in the U.S. Without addressing the merits of this case, what interests the Catholic League is the media reaction to the Catholics on the high court.

Maureen Groppe is a senior reporter for USA Today. A recent column she wrote says it all. “Will the Majority-Catholic Supreme Court Listen to the Church on Immigration?” She is particularly impressed that the USCCB is making a moral case against Trump’s position, as well as a legal case; the bishops branded it “immoral.”

The USCCB uses stronger language with regard to abortion. It labels it “intrinsically evil.” Yet when Catholic Justices overturned Roe v. Wade, sending the issue of abortion back to the states, pro-abortion groups blasted them and law journals ran articles about conflating religious convictions and legal reasoning. The American Bar Association held a webinar on this subject.

“Will the Majority-Catholic Supreme Court Listen to the Church on Same-Sex Marriage?” Imagine a news story on this subject that invites the reader to question the autonomy of Catholic Justices. Would USA Today run it?

We all have biases, but when it comes to being clueless about harboring them, no one beats liberals. They live in a world where their political thinking is constantly reinforced, leaving them hopelessly blind to their own prejudices.

Bill Donohue

We are asking New York State Attorney General Letitia James and New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg to investigate an apparent cover-up of sexual abuse that took place at Columbia University and New York-Presbyterian Hospital. The twin entities failed to adequately deal with a serial sexual abuser, Dr. Robert Hadden, and they have been able to get away with their delinquent decisions for far too long.

To read my letter to the two of them, click here.

The church invasion that took place at Cities Church on January 18 in St. Paul, Minnesota was a flagrant violation of constitutional law, federal law and common decency. It is the kind of behavior associated with totalitarian regimes, not democracies. Yet the outcry from all quarters—government, religious, civic, educational, the media—was miniscule.

The purported cause for action was to register disapproval of David Easterwood, one of the pastors of this Southern Baptist church; he heads the local office of ICE.

Nine of the church invaders were charged with entering the church “in a coordinated takeover-style attack,” and for engaging in “acts of oppression, intimidation, threats, interference, and physical obstruction.” The indictment alleges that “the pastor and the congregation were forced to terminate the Church’s worship services,” and had to flee out of fear for their safety.

One of the defendants disrupted the church service by screaming, “This ain’t God’s house. This is the house of the devil.” He got in the face of a mother and her two young children, chiding her for not supporting the church invasion. He said to child congregants, “Do you know your parents are Nazis? They’re going to burn in hell.”

One of those arrested was Don Lemon. The former journalist and failed CNN pundit claims he was a disinterested observer, and not part of the organized protest.

The indictment says otherwise. Lemon met at a shopping center with all the other defendants to make plans about invading the church. He did not just stumble on the scene of the crime. Instructions were given by the organizers of the invasion; one of those arrested admitted Lemon was in on the planning. Also, he tried to intimidate the pastor and obstructed congregants from leaving the church.

The list of politicians and civil rights organizations that have nothing but contempt for the right to worship is astounding. See p. 4.

Notice that none of them even give a nod to the egregious violation of the “free exercise of religion.” They are framing this as purely a free speech issue.

In response to this incredible assault on religious liberty, the Catholic League embarked on a four-prong campaign: we asked the public to support Rep. Buddy Carter’s House Resolution condemning the church invasion; we contacted President Trump’s Religious Freedom Commission; we contacted the Department of Justice; we asked President Trump to support funding for enhanced police protection of Christian churches (97% of the deadly incidents in a house of worship that occurred between 2000 and 2024 were in Christian churches).

The timid response to the church invasion is troubling. We responded with vigor.

Russell Shaw, a prolific Catholic spokesman and author, has died at the age of 90. He was the former Secretary for Public Affairs of the National Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference.

Last year he told Bill Donohue he was not doing well, and asked if he would still promote his latest book, Turning Points: How Thirteen Remarkable Men and Women Heard God’s Call and Responded to It. He was delighted to endorse it.

Russ served on the board of directors of the Catholic League in the 1990s, and then moved to our board of advisors. Donohue used to joke with him that he is a “walking encyclopedia of Catholicism.” It wasn’t much of a stretch.

Russ had a reserved manner, but it belied a fierce devotion to his calling, namely to accurately and passionately discuss the affairs of the Catholic Church, past and present. His commitment to the mission of the Catholic League—fighting anti-Catholicism—was never in question.

When the notorious ABC-TV show, “Nothing Sacred,” aired in the late 1990s, some on our board of directors questioned whether we should be hammering away at it. Not Russ. He stood by Donohue’s side, knowing how pernicious this dissident-happy portrait of Catholicism was. ABC, a Disney product, tried to stop our attacks on the show, but did not prevail. We eventually won and the show was withdrawn.

Russ will be missed. His legacy is secure and the Catholic Church is its beneficiary.

A Catholic League staffer was recently having dinner with friends at a New York steakhouse when she witnessed a table of several mature women talking loudly, some of whom were throwing around the “f-word” with abandon.

It used to be that such language would be heard in pubs, but not in pricey restaurants, much less by women in their senior years. But times have changed. The dumbing down of language, just like the dumbing down of virtually every other standard of decency, has become the norm. President Trump, and Biden before him, have certainly made their contributions to this end.

We can blame the entertainment industry and the media for normalizing obscenities. Movies have long featured expletives, but now TV shows and the mainstream media are following suit.

Recently, I was reading a news story in the New York Times on the anti-ICE protest in Minneapolis. It quoted the Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, saying the government’s position was “bull – – -,” I have been reading this newspaper for decades, and I honestly don’t recall reading this word spelled out in a news article before. Then I read the next sentence. It quoted Frey telling ICE to “get the f—out of Minneapolis”; the obscene word was printed in full.

The next night, I heard Fox News host Greg Gutfeld complaining how insincere the anti-ICE protesters are about the welfare of illegal aliens. He said, “they don’t give two s—s about these people.” He was not censored. The show airs at a time when children watch TV. And this is not the first time Fox has lowered its standards.

Then I read an op-ed by John McWhorter, a linguist who teaches at Columbia University, in the New York Times. He was celebrating the increased use in public of the “f-word.” He said, “I actually think it’s a positive development.” He opined, “The normalization of the word…is a sign of maturity in American English.” Ironically, he chose not to spell it, instead referring to it as the “f-word.” He concluded saying he was “happy” that we are “getting to the point where we can all speak the way we think and live.”

What about the “n-word”? Would McWhorter, who is black (I happen to admire his work on race), celebrate its invocation on TV and in newspapers? If not, why not? Why wouldn’t it be a sign of maturity?

A number of years ago on CNN I was objecting to the display of some obscene artistic display when the host smugly chided me for not respecting free speech, the way the cable channel does. I immediately challenged him, saying they would not allow me to say the “n-word” on TV, only I actually said the word. I smiled, but he didn’t, when they – rightfully – censored me. “See,” I said.

We decided to find out how some of the big media have been handling this issue. We looked at AP (Associated Press), the New York Times and the Washington Post. They all have a “Standards” or “Stylebook” section that addresses this issue. While they generally don’t print obscenities, they make exceptions. What is crystal clear is that in recent times all three are more likely to spell out the “f-word” than the “n-word.”

Why are liberal elites more likely to find the “n-word” offensive than the “f-word”? They certainly don’t object when blacks call each other the “n-word”; it is done in song all the time.

Good parents and teachers should teach their children how offensive both words are. Unfortunately, fewer appear to be doing so, and one reason why is because the frequent invocation of these words in public has a way of sanitizing them. We are more upset about a high school football team adopting a Native American tribal name as its mascot than we are mature women screaming the “f-word” in a public establishment. Moreover, calling a team the “Indians” is seen as hate speech, but telling those who object to “f—” off is okay.

Why should this matter? Every survey in this century on the subject of civility and the moral order shows that Americans – across all demographics – are genuinely concerned about what has been happening. Things are going south. When people treat linguistic offenses like pedestrian commentary, they are letting their guard down. By itself such a phenomenon will not change our cultural landscape, when it is coupled with other attempts to normalize deviancy, it certainly does.

In the 1990s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that “we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is not abnormal by any earlier standard.” Agreeing with him in his American Educator article, “Defining Deviancy Down,” was John Cole. As an example of what Moynihan noted, he said were increased incidents of “profane and abusive language” targeted at teachers by their students. Today, matters are much worse. Cursing out a teacher is defended by some as free speech.

Normalizing obscenities is not worth celebrating. It only increases the coarseness that has engulfed our society.