At 9:57 a.m. on February 11, we called for the outster of Carrie Prejean Boller from President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. At 10:03 a.m., the chairman of the panel, Dan Patrick, announced she was booted.

What triggered her ouster were her remarks she made on February 9. She told her fellow panelists and the audience that “Catholics do not embrace Zionism, just so you know.” She objected to definitions of anti-Semitism that equated opposition to the state of Israel as an expression of anti-Semitism.

It is not a stretch to say that those who are activists for the anti-Zionist cause invariably harbor an animus against Jews. And yes, this would include self-hating Jews.

Prejean Boller is a former Miss California and a convert to Catholicism. She does not run a Catholic organization, has no Catholic credentials as an author or instructor, and indeed represents no one but herself. For her to say, without qualification, that “Catholics do not embrace Zionism,” is presumptuous and arrogant.

In reply to Prejean Boller, fellow panelist Rabbi Meir Soloveichik said, “This is an incredibly diverse country, and the one thing we should be careful about is speaking on behalf of all members of a religious community, even if one is a member of that religious community. I certainly wouldn’t claim to speak for all Jews on all subjects.”

He was too kind. Her audacity is stunning. Bill Donohue told the media that he has been running the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization for over three decades, and never once has he said that he represents all Catholics. He always says he represents the Catholic League, period. Hopefully, he says, he also represents many others who share his convictions.

Zionism is a movement that promotes Jewish self-determination in a homeland. There are millions of Catholics who, even if they do not identify themselves as Zionists, recognize the Jewish state of Israel. Prejean Boller apparently does not—she is more comfortable showing up at the Religious Liberty Commission wearing a Palestinian flag pin. So telling.

Prejean Boller asked a witness if we should censor 1 Thessalonians 2:15; it spoke about Jews who killed Christ. No, but that passage, like many biblical passages, needs to be put alongside other biblical references, as well as the teachings of the Catholic Church. Moreover, the quote she cited mentions, “The Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets.” It does not say “the Jews killed Christ.”

English warriors killed Catholics in Ireland, but no one blames all the English. Indian tribes killed each other, but no one says all Indians are killers. Rapists are typically men who rape women, but not all men are rapists. Careful scholars recognize these differences—they are not nuances. Prejean is not careful and she is certainly not a scholar.

Donohue’s good friend Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York, noted, “It should never be said that Christians were responsible for the Holocaust—Nazis were. Blaming Christians would be as unjustified as holding Jews accountable for the death of Jesus.” Well said.

Just before it was announced that Prejean was shown the gate, here is what we said.

“The Religious Liberty Commission should have nothing to do with those who are publicly undermining its mission, nor should it become a platform for those who want to exploit it as a vehicle to further their own agenda. Trump should kick Carrie Prejean Boller off immediately.”

Kudos to Dan Patrick for doing just that.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in January on whether boys can compete in girls’ sports. The very idea that this has to occupy the time of the high court is testimony to the sexual confusion that is widespread not only in America, but in western civilization; the rest of the world is a lot smarter.  Adding to the confusion is the Supreme Court itself.

In 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County. He held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employees from being fired on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, even though the law only addressed sex. “An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions,” he said.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent in Bostock, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. He did not take kindly to Gorsuch’s dismissive comments. “The Court’s brusque refusal to consider the consequences of its reasoning is irresponsible.” Indeed, he said, “Before issuing today’s radical decision, the Court should have given some thought to where its decision would lead.” He got specific.

“The Court may wish to avoid this subject, but it is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex. For some, this may simply be a question of modesty, but for others, there is more at stake. For women who have been victimized by sexual assault or abuse, the experience of seeing an unclothed person with the anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room can cause serious psychological harm.”

Again, the fact that such a commonsensical understanding of human nature has to be articulated before the United States Supreme Court shows how ideologically corrupt we have been become. It is not the ordinary American who is the problem—it is elite decision makers.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani likes to hire anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic bigots. This is incontestable: see our website for the proof.

Everyone on the list was either on his transition team or served in an advisory capacity. Some are now working in his administration.

Many hate Israel and are trying to weaken its economy through their BDS efforts (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions). Some have defended Al Queda terrorists while others have organized pro-Hamas demonstrations. Anti-Semitic comments abound. Anti-Catholic remarks have also been voiced, and one hire organized an obscene demonstration during Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

None of this is surprising. Mamdani hates Israel and blames it—not Hamas—for the Hamas massacre of Jews in Israel on October 7, 2023. Anyone who harbors that much hostility to Jews obviously wants to surround himself with people just like himself. Moreover, his decision to reward a vile anti-Catholic organizer tells us that he wants people like that working for him, not practicing Catholics.

Spellcheck does not recognize the word Mamdani, offering as a substitute the word “Madman.” Looks like it is a lot smarter than the people who voted for him.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani wasted no time sending a message to the city’s faith communities: on his first day in office, he said  they would not be afforded heightened protection at their houses of worship. Indeed, he rescinded an executive order to this effect signed by his predecessor, Eric Adams.*

Most of the news stories on Mamdani’s decisions affecting religious liberty focused on his rulings overturning Adams’ executive orders on Israel, but too many neglected to cite his policy on houses of worship.

It is true that he has scratched a definition of anti-Semitism that includes opposition to the existence of the state of Israel, a definition accepted by 40 nations, including the European Union and Canada. It is also true that he has given the green light to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is designed to cripple Israel’s economy. Scurrilous as these two decisions are, his executive order affecting churches, synagogues, mosques and temples hit a wider section of New Yorkers.

Adams did not overreact last month when he directed the New York City Police Department to provide stronger protection for houses of worship. His executive order of December 2, which authorized enhanced protection “of both houses of worship and persons exercising their rights to free assembly and free speech near houses of worship,” was occasioned by what happened on November 19.

It was on that evening that a crowd of 200 anti-Jewish protesters assembled outside Manhattan’s Park East Synagogue screaming, “Death, death to the IDF” [Israel Defense Forces], “globalize the intifada,” and “take the settler out.” Others yelled, “We need to make them scared.” And what was Mamdani’s response? A spokesman slammed the synagogue for abusing “these sacred spaces” by “promot[ing] activities in violation of international law.”

This should concern all New Yorkers, not simply Jews. Catholics should be particularly troubled, given all the protests that have taken place during Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in recent years; the cathedral has also been vandalized.

In August 2025, Bill Donohue wrote an 18-page report, “The Inauthenticity of Zohran Mamdani.” Regarding his position on religious liberty, Donohue noted that “a Lexis-Nexis search reveals he has never addressed this subject.” He also mentioned that “He is very protective of Islam, but a search of his remarks objecting to anti-Catholicism, or anti-Christian words or deeds, failed to turn up one comment.”

It should be noted that at his inauguration, clergy from the Muslim, Protestant, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh communities were invited on stage, but there was no Catholic priest in attendance. Typically, the archbishop of New York is in attendance, but Cardinal Timothy Dolan was not invited. This speaks volumes about Mamdani’s purported interest in “diversity.” His idea of “inclusion” apparently stops at the door of Catholics.

In January, the House Appropriations Committee introduced a bill that directs $5 million in federal funding to protect religious sites and fight hate crimes against people of faith. It is outrageous that New York City has a mayor who finds such a policy morally objectionable.

Be sure to read our “Mamdani Watch” file, regularly updated, that is posted on the front page of our website, www.catholicleague.org

*It was subsequently reported that Mamdani, bowing to pressure, quietly reinstated Adams’ executive order on this issue.

In the last edition of Catalyst, it was reported in a book review that  Detroit Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger had “banned” the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) at the end of June. His Excellency wrote a very kind letter to Bill Donohue that provided detailed information how this account was not accurate. Changes were made before and after he took over as archbishop in Detroit in February 2025, but the bottom line is TLM is not banned. He graciously did not ask for a correction, but he deserves one.

Orwell warned us about elites who manipulate the masses by manipulating the language, and subsequent events have proven him to be more accurate than previously believed. It is our secular elites, in particular, who seek to control language so as to abet thought control. Before examining some recent examples, it is important to recognize that changes in our lexicon are not always the result of some sinister scheme.

For many years, those with low mental attributes were mostly called “imbeciles,” “morons,” and “idiots,” but in 1895 a new term was introduced that was considered less stigmatizing, “mental retardation.” But the shorthand, calling someone a “retard,” was later seen as patently offensive, so by the 1960s terms like “intellectual disability” became more acceptable. There was nothing nefarious about these linguistic transitions.

The same is true for describing the races.

“Colored people” was such a customary term in the early twentieth century that black Americans of African ancestry decided to call a newly established civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Founded in 1909, it goes by the same name today. The United Negro College Fund, founded in 1944, also goes by the same name today, even though “negro,” like “colored people,” has fallen out of favor.

In the 1960s, “black” became the popular racial descriptive, and in the early 1990s it was replaced by “African American,” even though polls showed that the preferred term was still “black.” Again, this transition was not done to serve some political agenda.

The politicization of language today is most evident in the way we think about immigrants who have come to the United States illegally. Virtually everyone called such people “illegal aliens,” and that is because they were foreigners who entered the country by breaking the law. But in 2010, a “Drop the I-Word” campaign was launched to get rid of  “illegal aliens” and replace it with “undocumented immigrant.” In 2013, the Associated Press dropped “illegal immigrant” from its stylebook after liberal scholars protested.

In 2014, under Obama, the government adopted more “inclusive” language. But it wasn’t until the Biden administration that “illegal aliens” was summarily rejected; this was in keeping with its “open borders” approach to immigration. Now that Trump is back in the White House, “illegal aliens” is also back. Unfazed, the New York Times likes to talk about “noncitizens.”

The best examples of twisting the language to accommodate the politics of elites are found by studying matters sexual.

Anyone doing research on violence committed by people who falsely claim to belong to the opposite sex will notice that what we call today “transgender” people were either called “transsexuals” or “transvestites” in the late 1990s. This can get really confusing. Before this century, reporters accurately referred to Jim, who chose Jane as his “transition” name, as Jim. Today he is called Jane and is falsely referred to as “she/her.”

Megyn Kelly created a firestorm in November when she said it was inaccurate to call Jeffrey Epstein a “pedophile.” She was not dismissing his monstrous acts, only pointing out that most of his victims were not prepubescent. Bill Donohue defended her, pointing out that when homosexual priests were being outed for abusing minors, they were falsely called “pedophiles,” so as to avoid calling them homosexuals. Yet only 3.8 percent of the victims of clergy sexual abuse met the clinical definition of pedophilia. The reaction against him was voluminous and vicious.

Another lexicon game is being played by those who refer to men who have sex with adolescents as “ephebophiles.” It’s a game because heterosexuals who abuse minors are never called “ephebophiles”—it’s selectively invoked to avoid referring to homosexuals when adult men molest teenage males.

Homosexuals began referring to themselves as “gay” in the 1920s, a decade of decadence in the West, and it became routine in the 1960s, another morally debased decade. The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press ended their usage of “homosexual” in the 2010s and started using “LGBT,” which by now has taken on a never-ending alphabet of “persons.”

It was left to a New Zealand psychologist, Dr. John Money, to scrap our vocabulary of the term “sexual preference,” substituting “sexual orientation” instead. The Johns Hopkins professor was active in the mid-twentieth century manipulating the language to serve his sexual agenda. “Sexual preference” indicated that our attraction was a matter of choice, and that was taboo; “sexual orientation” accomplished his goal.

Money was not some disinterested “scientist.” He was a pedophile who sought to normalize man-boy sex, lobbied to eliminate the age of consent, and wanted to legalize father-daughter and mother-son sex.

When language is used to obfuscate, to confuse, and to manipulate, it is done to serve a cause, and should be condemned as such. When innocent people are hurt as a result, we are dealing with evil. Such persons—always the elites—do not want to elucidate, they want to dominate.

Language evolves, sometimes for noble purposes. Beware of instances when the motive is corrupt. When the end result is thought control, we are dealing with totalitarians.

Portland, Oregon had a hard time handling Christmas in 2025. Bill Donohue sent the following letter to Portland Mayor Keith Wilson on December 2.

I understand you presided over the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Pioneer Courthouse Square on November 28. But for some reason— phobia? bigotry?—the word “Christmas” was omitted. This creates a dilemma for you. What are you going to do for the rest of the Christmas season when there are plenty of Christmas celebrations taking place in Portland?

Will you call the Christmas Ships Parade the “Ships Parade”? Will you rename the Tuba Christmas Concert the “Tuba Concert”? Will you change the name of the Silverton Christmas Market to the “Silverton Market”? Will you switch the Singing Christmas Tree to the “Singing Tree”? Now it gets really tricky.

What are you going to do about the gospel singers at Gospel Christmas? Looks like you’ve been checkmated: both words are verboten in super-secular Portland. What are you going to do about the scheduled performance of Handel’s Messiah? Can you really allow the word “Messiah” to be said at Christmastime? In the Old Testament “Messiah” means “theAnointed One,” and in the New Testament it means “Christ.” Moreover, in Part I, the Messiah’s coming and the virgin birth are predicted by the Old Testament prophets. Can this be tolerated in Portland?

Are you aware of the fact that this composition is based on the King James Bible and the Coverdale Psalter? As you know, the former is an early English translation of the Bible, but are you aware that the latter is a 16th century translation of the Psalms, written by Bishop Miles Coverdale? The first lines of Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 carry special meaning to Portland. Psalm 1 says, “Blessed is the man who has not followed the advice of the ungodly,” and Psalm 2 reads, “Why do the heathen rage so furiously?” Seems like you are well-suited to provide an answer.

Now for the clincher. What are you going to do about the Christmas Festival of Lights that will take place at The Grotto? This venue is a Catholic sanctuary, formally known at the National Sanctuary of Our Sorrowful Mother. Do you know who she is? Do you know that they allow Masses to be offered at The Grotto, as well as saying the Rosary, and that priests hear confessions? Can this actually be happening in 2025 in Portland?

Looks like you’re in a pickle. Either you engage in religious cleansing—scrubbing Portland free of any Christian symbolisms—or you stop with this nihilistic attack on Christianity and let Christians celebrate Christmas, without it being neutered by its enemies.

Something to think about.

Merry Christmas!

We heard from the mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff. We were told that they sang Christmas carols at the event, including religious songs, thus denying any exhibition of bigotry. But there was no mention of why they refused to talk about a Christmas tree, nor did they say why they allowed a pro-Palestinian performance at this Christmas gathering. In short, they tried to hoodwink us. They failed. We thought you’d like to know.

Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith is the author of Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America. Of course, the demise of religion has long been predicted, yet it never seems to die.

A new Pew Research Center survey shows that after a “prolonged period of religious decline,” conditions have stabilized, and this is certainly true of Christianity. More encouraging is the finding that “today’s youngest adults are more religious than today’s second youngest adults.” An earlier survey by the Barna Group came to the same conclusion.

Over the summer, hundreds of thousands of young people from all over the world attended the Jubilee of Youth event in Rome. According to Colm Flynn, an Irish radio and TV host, “When someone told me it was going to be like the Catholic version of Woodstock, I laughed. But as soon as I got there, I thought: OK, now I get it!”

New York City priest, Father Joseph Teller, celebrates Mass on Sunday nights to a crowded audience of young people in Greenwich Village. He notes that the number of converts has tripled in the past year. The same thing is happening at St. Vincent Ferrer on the upper east side. The Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral is also witnessing a surge. “We’re out of space and exploring adding more masses,” says Father Daniel Ray.

What’s going on? The spiritual emptiness of the dominant culture is clearly a factor, and it’s widespread. Silicon Valley is bursting with young people looking for meaning in a world enveloped by “God-like” artificial intelligence. They are looking for answers that AI cannot provide.

Catholic commentator Michael Knowles is so encouraged by these new developments that he jokes, “everyone is becoming Catholic.” Father Mike Schmitz, a prominent priest who works with young people, says there has been “a resurgence in people asking the question, ‘How do we become Catholic?'”

Religion ebbs and flows, just like most elements in the culture, which is why sounding the death bells is always premature. Young people are proving that prediction wrong.

Florida is supposed to be a mostly conservative state, but there are pockets of resistance. What happened at Christmas in Pensacola and St. Petersburg was despicable. Here is an excerpt of what Bill Donohue wrote to officials in both cities on December 1.

Next month we will celebrate the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. Imagine having a Ku Klux Klan play being held in your home town a couple of days before? The script mocks, insults and offends African American sensibilities. Let’s up the ante: blacks have to pay for it—it’s being held in a taxpayer-funded theater.

Would it be allowed? Should it be? At the very least, should the authorities tell those who are running this event they are not welcome to use city-owned property to bash African Americans?

This is not scheduled to happen, and hopefully it never will. But there is a bigoted portrayal that mocks, insults and offends Christian sensibilities being allowed in Pensacola and St. Petersburg. And they are slated to be held in city-owned venues, the Saenger Theatre in Pensacola and the Mahaffey Theater in St. Petersburg (Hard Rock Live in Orlando is also hosting this event, but it is privately owned).

Fortunately, Florida has a responsible Attorney General, James Uthmeier. On November 7 he wrote to Pensacola City Council members, objecting to the hosting of “A Drag Queen Christmas” being performed on December 23 at a theater that Christians are paying for (he is not pursuing the performance held the day before in St. Petersburg, but we are). He wants the City Council to cancel it.

We know what this anti-Christian show is all about. It’s been performed many times in Florida.

Some of the depictions include a man in drag holding a Bible draped with a rosary, and others feature demonic fare. In the 2022 Broward County show, men paraded around nude in front of children. In the same year in Orlando, a state agency recorded “acts of sexual content, simulated sexual activity, and lewd, vulgar and indecent displays.”

In March 2023, the most detailed news story on what happened in Orlando the previous Christmas was published in the Miami Herald. I wrote a piece about it on March 22, 2023. Here’s a sample (the quotes are from the reporters, not me).

• The performance featured “shimmying, bare-chested men who wouldn’t have been out of place at a Madonna concert”
• It showed a male actor, Jimbo the Clown, “giving birth to a log of bologna and throwing slices to the crowd.” The scene was described by state agents, who had it on video, as a “graphic depiction…of childbirth and/or abortion”
• There was a display of “an image of a finger penetrating a wreath”
• The performance included lyrics to “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” that said, “You know Dasher and Dancer and Prancer and Vixen/Vomit the Stupid and Dildo and Dicks-in/But do you recall the most famous reindeer of all?/Screwdolph the Red-Nipped Reindeer had a very shiny bust”

Children as young as six were in attendance. This year the show is for those 18 and older.

It must be emphasized that the Saenger Theatre and the Mahaffey Theater are not public forums. A public forum is a place like a park which is open to virtually everyone—often used by artists, musicians, and other entertainers. Nativity scenes can be erected in such places.

These two venues are owned by the municipality and are therefore subject to greater legal scrutiny.

In the 1984 Supreme Court case, Lynch v. Donnelly, the court said, “The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.”

If the Constitution forbids hostility toward any religion, it is hard to see why a theater, owned by the city and paid for by Christians, can host a show that explicitly exhibits hostility to Christians by trashing one of their most sacred holidays. To put it differently, if it is wrong for the City of Pensacola and the City of St. Petersburg to promote religion, how can it be permissible for them to disparage religion?

Legalities aside, what these LGBT activists are doing is not only obscene, it is a frontal assault on Christian sensibilities at Christmastime, not altogether different from a Klan attack on African Americans as they prepare to honor Martin Luther King Jr.

We are contacting the Florida governor, the mayors of Pensacola and St. Petersburg, the Pensacola City Council, the St. Petersburg City Council, houses of worship in both cities, Catholic dioceses throughout the state, the Florida Catholic Conference, and local and state media. We are also contacting Catholic League members nationwide to intervene.

What do we want? Ideally, the show’s producers should cancel it. But if that is not the case, then the least the City Council in both cities can do is to tell those who are running this event to move it to a facility that is not owned by the taxpayers. Anti-Christian bigotry is offensive enough without making its victims fund it.

We heard from the Attorney General’s office and they were very appreciative of what we did. But the authorities in both cities would not budge. It just goes to show that cowardice, if not bigotry, exists in both parties.

Kansas City, Missouri City Manager Mario Vasquez censored Christmas by forbidding the display of a nativity scene in City Hall. Bill Donohue set him straight when he distorted the issue. Here is the text of his December 12 letter.

You will not be working on Christmas Day. You have the day off. That is because Kansas City is celebrating the birth of Jesus. There is no other reason for closing shop on December 25. Yet you pretend that shutting down the government has nothing to do with Jesus.

You say that your decision to ban the display of a nativity scene (and the display of a menorah to celebrate Hanukkah) in City Hall is being done to “respect the wide range of religious and non-religious beliefs held by our employees, visitors, and residents.” You also say your decision is being done “to honor the separation of church and state.”

You are twice wrong.

If you truly respected religious beliefs, you would not censor Christmas and cancel Hanukkah. So, please, just tell us how you really feel about Christian and Jewish traditions. It is also dishonest to say that your decision is being done “to honor the separation of church and state.” Your grasp of constitutional law is abysmal.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that religious symbols in public forums, e.g. city parks, are not only permissible, it is illegal to ban them. This explains why the Catholic League currently has a life-size manger scene in Central Park.

Regarding public property that is not a public forum, such as city halls, religious symbols are also permitted, though they must be accompanied by secular symbols (this avoids the appearance of government endorsement of religion).

In other words, you can display a nativity scene and a menorah (we support both), as long as they are accompanied by secular symbols such as a Christmas tree. So don’t invoke fidelity to the Constitution to buttress your bigotry.

I could not help but notice that you are boasting about the display of “decorated trees,” and the like, in City Hall. That you couldn’t even mention “Christmas trees”—you must tremble at the site and sound of the dreaded “C-word”—tells me all I need to know about you.

Cuba also bans Christmas. Why not go there for Christmas? Make sure you get a one-way ticket.