The attempt to discriminate against Christians at a cooperative apartment complex in Westchester County, New York failed. Those who run the cooperative allowed the display of a menorah in the common area, but not a nativity scene. They failed because we intervened.

What makes this story so bizarre is that the same issue took place last Christmas, and in the same building in Larchmont, New York! The only difference is that the building management company is new and the resident who complained is new. But the facts are the same.

Bill Donohue wrote to the new Property Manager company, recounting the story from last year. He said the display of a menorah was “commendable.” But he hastened to add, “What is not commendable is the refusal to display a nativity scene. Indeed, it is illegal.”

Donohue’s letter was dated December 10 and we gave them until December 15 to either display the nativity scene, along with the menorah, or take down the menorah. The letter was emailed to them in the morning of December 10 (and sent in the overnight mail) and that very afternoon they removed the menorah, and a Christmas tree.

They could have settled this issue by simply displaying the crèche, but their idea of neutrality was to ban both the menorah and the manger scene. We prefer the tolerant alternative; they prefer the intolerant option.

“The menorah, like the crèche,” Donohue wrote, “is a religious symbol; the Christmas tree is a secular symbol. This is not my opinion—this is the interpretation afforded by the U.S. Supreme Court. So you can either allow all religious symbols to be displayed, or you can deny both of them: You cannot chose one and deny the other.”

Ironically, it was last year’s confrontation with a different management group that ran this cooperative that led us to contact over 2,000 Homeowner Associations (HOA) in November, alerting them to the religious rights of their residents. We never thought we would have to swing into action again to stop discrimination against Christians in the same cooperative.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 makes is clear that if one religious symbol is displayed in a common area, others must also be allowed. Supreme Court decisions on the display of religious symbols on public property are also accommodating. This is a serious religious liberty issue.

It is a sad commentary on the co-op board of this property that they thought they could get away with their bigoted stunt two years in a row. But their determination to discriminate was met with our equally determined decision to stop them.

In early December, before we erected our nativity scene in Central Park, Bill Donohue told the staff that this was the first time in 30 years that we have displayed our crèche that he was concerned it may not be safe. Regrettably, he was right.

On December 26, a video was posted on Instagram showing a man (assisted by two others) draping a large keffiyeh, a symbol of Palestinian nationalism, on the shoulders of the statue of Our Blessed Mother; he tried to place a Palestinian flag in the hands of Joseph, but failed.

We contacted the New York City Parks Department, which granted us the permit; we also reported this to the police. We did not make a public statement until January 5, the day it was taken down.

What happened is in stark contrast to what happened in 1995. Here is what Donohue wrote in 2015 about that day.

“In 1995, when we displayed our first nativity scene in Central Park, Monsignor John G. Woolsey blessed it in front of our staff. Just as we were about to walk away, a beautiful rainbow appeared above. But it didn’t shine everywhere—it shone directly on our crèche. We take that as a sign that more than the public approves of our display.”

We take that as a sign that we are doing the right thing. That is why what happened this year will not intimidate us one bit.

One day after the Catholic League asked its email subscribers to contact Sen. Dick Durbin to decline the “Lifetime Achievement Award” that he was scheduled to receive from the Archdiocese of Chicago, he did just that.

The first person to raise a red flag over this issue was Thomas Paprocki, Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield. He honed in on Durbin’s pro-abortion voting record. He quickly received the support of San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone; eight other bishops followed. We chose to direct our attention to Sen. Durbin, allowing the clergy to deal with the clergy.

The Catholic League was the only lay Catholic organization in the nation to press Sen. Durbin to decline the award.

On September 23, Bill Donohue sent a letter to Sen. Durbin in the overnight mail—it was received the next morning—asking him to decline the award. He explained that when the news broke that he was to receive the award, it “created a firestorm in the Catholic community, involving both the clergy and the laity.” He stressed that by declining the award “you will help ameliorate Catholic discord,” and that “by putting the interests of the Catholic community above your own interests, it will only redound to your benefit.”

When it appeared that Durbin was not giving in, we asked our supporters to petition him to do so. On September 29, we listed the email of his chief of staff in a news release, asking our subscribers to pound away. They did. One day later, Durbin yielded. We commended Sen. Durbin for doing the right thing.

In Donohue’s letter to Durbin, he said that “the proximate cause of the backlash is your voting record on abortion,” but he hastened to add, “Your support for same-sex marriage, and your probing of the religious convictions of Catholic nominees for the federal bench, have also elicited much criticism.”

Regarding the latter issue, on September 23, prior to posting Donohue’s open letter to Durbin, he detailed the senator’s longstanding assaults on Catholics seeking a seat on the federal bench.

His opposition to Circuit Court nominee William Pryor (2003), Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (2005), and Circuit Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett (2017), were all unseemly. He probed them on their Catholic convictions, effectively promoting a religious test. Unlike other lay Catholic groups, we protested what Durbin did in each of these cases when they occurred.

The media made it sound as if it was just Durbin’s pro-abortion stance that was a problem, which was not true.

We are delighted with this victory. Thanks to our base for contacting Durbin—they made it happen!

After many months of wrangling, the confessional seal remains intact in Washington state. State officials have given up their quest to force Catholic priests to divulge what they learn in the confessional. It took an array of organizations and specialists to exact this outcome.

The Catholic League was the first lay Catholic group in the nation to write to Washington legislators about this issue, and the first to draw media attention to it.

Back in February, Bill Donohue asked the state’s lawmakers to explain, “What broke?” He pointedly asked, “where is the evidence that child molesters—in any state—report their crimes to priests in the confessional?” He noted that there is not a single instance where this has happened. He closed by saying, “If any lawmaker has evidence to the contrary, you have an obligation to make it public.” No one did.

We brought this issue to the attention of the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. Attorney General’s office. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, took it from there, suing Washington. Meanwhile, we continued to press public officials, and law firms filed suit in behalf of the Catholic clergy.

A District Court judge blocked the discriminatory state law that singled out priests in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, allowing other professionals, such as counselors and therapists, to be exempt from the reporting law.

The pressure was coming at public officials from all sides. They finally yielded in October.

We often get complaints from members who live in apartment complexes or condominiums that homeowners association managers are too restrictive in dealing with religious symbols at Christmas. We decided to do something about it. On November 19, we contacted over 2,000 of these officials, alerting them to the rights of their residents. Here is the text of the letter.

Now that the holiday season is upon us, it is important that the religious rights of owners be observed. The Federal Housing Act (FHA) of 1968 prohibits discrimination by housing providers on the basis of seven characteristics, one of which is religion. Before 1968, HOA managers had a lot of leeway in enforcing policies that restricted religious practices, but that changed when the FHA was passed.

As interpreted by the U.S. Department of Justice, the FHA permits religious decorations on doors and in common areas. This would include a Jewish mezuzah and a cross. “Similarly, when condominiums or apartments have a common room that can be reserved by residents for private activities like parties or book studies, residents seeking to hold a Bible study or other private religious activity may not be discriminated against.”

It should be noted that the Eleventh Circuit has stated, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed us to give the Fair Housing Act a ‘broad and inclusive’ interpretation.'” In other words, the religious rights of residents are presumptively protected.

What the courts take seriously is any selective enforcement of HOA rules. For example, to allow a menorah but not a nativity scene, or vice versa, is a clear violation of the FHA. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that a menorah is a religious symbol (even if it is not solely religious in nature). The crèche is also religious, but a Christmas tree is not—it is a secular symbol. This needs to be said because every year there are instances where these kinds of violations occur.

HOA managers have greater latitude in adopting restrictive rules for balconies. Balconies can be kept clear from displaying religious symbols; they are not analogous to doors or common areas. However, even if the rule is “facially neutral,” there can be a violation of the law if there is evidence of an underlying intent to discriminate.

In conclusion, there should be no attempt to favor one religion over the other, nor should there be any intent to discriminate.

Wishing everyone a happy holiday season.

William Donohue, Ph.D.

President

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

We hope this will minimize these problems this year. They now have no more excuses.

We wanted to display a Christmas message on billboards, but we got shot down. So we came up with a new idea—alerting Homeowners Association Managers to the religious rights of residents. Here’s what happened to our billboard idea.

In September, we contacted a company that deals with outdoor marketing in Washington, D.C., hoping to run a Christmas message on billboards, the back of buses, bus shelters, etc. We wanted to take advantage of the new religious-friendly atmosphere in the nation’s Capitol.

Unlike the Biden administration, which allowed the FBI to spy on faithful Catholics, the Trump team has not only put an end to this tyrannical scheme, it has promoted a host of religion-friendly policies. We wanted to capitalize on this without being too partisan, which is why we never mentioned anything specifically about the current administration. Here was our proposed message:

Christians Take Note. Religious Liberty is Thriving Again. Celebrate Christmas Like Never Before!

The woman we spoke to thought it would be okay, but knowing that we were dealing with D.C. officials, we asked for it to be cleared with their lawyers first. She got back to us, saying, “It looks like that messaging is about 50/50 in terms of being approved. I think if you took out ‘Christian’ in the ‘Christians Take Note’ and just had ‘Take Note’ it would have a better chance.”

We refused to bend to these anti-Christian bureaucrats. They really do fear us.

Charlie Kirk was assassinated because he was an outspoken Christian. This is undeniable. Yet the media continue to bury this fact. Of course he was a conservative Christian—those are the only Christians targeted by Christian haters.

The suspected killer, Tyler Robinson, was also a sexually confused young man. It takes a very disturbed man to be “romantically involved” with a man who desperately wants to be a woman.

Apparently, Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twiggs, had a great effect on his ideological convictions, and they were not of the MAGA variety.

According to relatives of Twiggs, “He hates conservatives and Christians. He hated us. He was not raised that way, but he, over the years, has become really detached [and] been radicalized. He has obviously gotten progressively worse the last year or two,” saying he was “always very angry.”

Robinson made it plain to his family that he had a special hatred for Kirk’s Christian message. In an affidavit, a relative said that he “didn’t like Kirk” and was “full of hate and spreading hate.”

An important part of Kirk’s message was a strong defense of traditional Christian family values, something which is anathema to the LGBTQ crowd. Kirk deplored the entire transgender movement, and was therefore seen as the enemy. Liberal Christians tend to be on the transgender side, which is why they are safe.

As federal authorities, and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, said, the evidence shows that he became “deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.” They concluded that he had only been “radicalized” in recent years. Those years coincide with his relationship with his trans boyfriend.

Robinson was not simply involved with a man who hated being a man, he himself exhibited ties—at least online—to the “furry” community. “Furries” are people who dress up as animals and consider themselves to be a mix of humans and animals. Many give themselves names, choose a species, and attend conventions with like-minded people. Most of the “furries” are homosexuals.

Now why aren’t most of those in the media telling the truth to the American people?

What could be more different from Christian sexual ethics than the idea that it is natural for people to hate their sex and their humanness? Let’s face it, it is not normal to rebel against one’s nature, reconceptualizing oneself as a member of the opposite sex and another species.

The big media are in denial. They are not highlighting the virulent anti-Christian bigotry that bedevils Robinson and Twiggs, or their depraved orientations. They would rather lie than tell the truth. They have too much invested ideologically, financially and emotionally to change.

On September 8, President Trump addressed the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty, underscoring his commitment to combating anti-Christian bigotry.

The task force he authorized to study this subject issued its initial report on anti-Christian bigotry on the same day (though it was dated June 6.) It covered many of the issues that the Catholic League has addressed. We previously gave a large batch of documents to the Department of Justice task force.

Among the issues that we addressed, and were cited in the report, were the Biden administration’s war on pro-life Christians, particularly its treatment of crisis pregnancy centers. The corruption of the FBI—spying on faithful Catholics and labeling them “domestic terrorists”—engulfed the Catholic League for years; we made available all the documents detailing our efforts to stop it.

In this issue of Catalyst, we detail our latest response to the president’s effort to stem attacks on Christians. We would like the president to broaden the scope of the panel to study instances of anti-Christian bigotry that emanate from outside the federal government. In his remarks, Trump referenced several such examples, though he was not explicit in charging the task force to address them.

Anti-Catholicism, which is at the heart of this problem, has a long and ugly history. Unfortunately, after many years of progress, the Biden team turned back the clock. Trump is off to a good start trying to rectify it. We stand ready to help.

On July 22, an Interim Staff Report on President Biden’s FBI Catholic spy ring was released by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. Some of the new information is distressing.

The FBI began its Catholic spy ring by focusing on “radical-traditionalist Catholics,” but it didn’t end there. Amazingly, according to the FBI’s own internal review of this matter, “investigators found that many FBI employees could not even define the meaning of ‘radical-traditionalist Catholic’ when preparing, editing, or reviewing” the Richmond Field office memo that okayed the probe.

FBI operatives went beyond these “rad-trads” by categorizing “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.” They came to this absurd conclusion based on articles their employees read. “How Extremist Gun Culture is Trying to Co-opt the Rosary” is one of the gems they named as evidence of the nefarious Catholic agenda.

If there is one Catholic group that the FBI thought was emblematic of very conservative Catholics, it is the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). This was not a good choice—they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. This is a break-away association of Catholics founded in 1970 who were upset with the reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s. They were once excommunicated, then reinstated, but are still one step removed from being an authentic part of the Catholic Church.

The FBI’s focus on SSPX and the “rad-trads” was a pretext to opening the door to a much wider investigation of practicing Catholics, most of whom tend to be more conservative than non-practicing Catholics.

As an example of this mad search for wrongdoing, the FBI investigated Catholics who evinced “hostility toward abortion-rights advocates.” In other words, Catholic activists who exercised fidelity to Church teachings on abortion—they are called pro-life Catholics—were considered a domestic threat by the FBI. Similarly, those who espoused “Conservative family values/roles” were labeled “radical.”

It was not dissident Catholics the FBI was concerned about, it was the loyal sons and daughters of the Church. How strange it is to note that at least some dissident Catholics, and some FBI agents, were both seeking to subvert the Catholic Church.

It is not just the profile of Catholics whom the FBI was examining that was a problem—it was the scope of its investigations. It started in Richmond, then spread to Louisville, Milwaukee and Portland. Its reach even extended overseas—the FBI’s London Office was involved.

The ultimate goal was to have a “national application” of its investigatory measures.

Under Biden, the FBI engaged in one of the most despicable violations of civil liberties of innocent Americans we’ve seen in modern times.

A young good-looking star, Sydney Sweeney, managed to set off a firestorm of criticism over the summer with an American Eagle ad.

A video of the ad said, “Sydney Sweeney has great genes.” She was shown crossing out “genes,” inserting “jeans.” She opined, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color.”

She hit the Left’s hot button. The very word “genes” was enough to ignite charges of eugenics. Moreover, her critics took note that she is a blue-eyed blond white woman, as if that is a bad thing. Ironically, it is those in left-wing circles who pioneered eugenics.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was one of the great eugenicists of the twentieth century. She believed that the best way to get rid of poverty was to get rid of the poor, especially blacks. This was the motivation behind her birth control agenda.

The Left hates the word “genes” because it reminds them of the role nature plays in directing human behavior. That bothers them. Their quest for social engineering is predicated on the idea that by manipulating the environment, we can determine behavioral outcomes. Nature gets in the way of their grand totalitarian design.

American Eagle did not buckle, sending its sales and stock soaring, thanks to the humorless woke mob. Congratulations to Sydney Sweeney for braving the storm, and to American Eagle for doubling down.