Opponents of Proposition 8 vandalized Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church, in the heart of San Francisco’s gay Castro community, during the first weekend of the year; the California resolution passed by voters last November rejected the legalization of gay marriage. Swastikas were painted on the church and the names Ratzinger (referring to Pope Benedict XVI) and Niederauer (referring to the San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer) were scrawled besides the Nazi symbol.

We noted that following the passing of Proposition 8, innocent persons were assaulted, a substance resembling anthrax was sent to the Knights of Columbus and to Mormon temples, cars and homes were trashed and African Americans were referred to as the “N-word.” Unfortunately, after these events and the vandalism of Holy Redeemer, the gay community was silent.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Board of Advisors are partially to blame for the attack on Catholicism at Holy Redeemer. Both Newsom and the Board have shown nothing but contempt for the First Amendment rights of Catholics. Neither say anything when crucifixes are sold as sex toys and Catholic sensibilities are assaulted by naked men at the annual Folsom Street Fair. Nor did they say anything when gay men dressed as nuns to attend Mass—at Holy Redeemer nonetheless. But the Board was quite vocal about condemning the Church in 2006, which led to a lawsuit triggered by the Catholic League and the Thomas More Law Center.

We commented to the media saying, “For those who love to write about ‘root causes,’ let them ponder the guilt of these public officials. Moreover, leaders in the gay community show no leadership when it comes to denouncing incivility committed in the name of gay rights. This has got to end.”

We urged our members to contact Mayor Gavin Newsom and asked that he finally condemn gay assaults on Catholics and other people of faith.

U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien has launched a federal grand jury investigation against the Los Angeles Archdiocese claiming it violated the federal “honest services” fraud law when dealing with clergy abuse.

In 2007, Los Angeles Archbishop Roger M. Mahony reached a settlement with alleged victims of priestly misconduct, thinking the issue was over. But with this investigation, the issue was resurrected by the Houdini-like tactics of O’Brien. He subpoenaed 22 priests, notwithstanding the fact that two of them are dead and the rest were kicked out of the priesthood a long time ago.

O’Brien claimed that there was a cover-up of abusing priests, and as a result parishioners were denied so-called “honest services.” So novel is this use of the law that this is the first time it has ever been used against a church; it is typically used against politicians and CEOs. But O’Brien isn’t like most lawyers. He has tried to court martial a Marine about an incident in Iraq even though the accused was no longer a reservist; he then tried to get the Marine in civilian court—another first—and again he failed. He has also tried to nail a woman for a crime usually committed by computer hackers (she was acquitted of all the felony charges against her and the rest of the case may be dismissed).

It is no wonder O’Brien was scorned by his profession. Northwestern law professor Albert Alschuler said, “This is a strange one.” An editorial in the Los Angeles Timesopined, “We worry about the elasticity of the law.” Loyola law school professor Laurie Levenson called it “creative lawyering,” and Rebecca Lonergan, a USC law professor, similarly dubbed it “creative.” Catholic law professor Nick Cafardi said that the lawsuit is “a real stretch” and Notre Dame law professor G. Robert Blakely branded it “outrageous.”

We called on O’Brien to drop his witch hunt and to read a book on ethics.

Bernard Madoff, who allegedly fleeced countless numbers of persons and organizations, was also a generous supporter of the abortion rights industry, managing the assets of groups like the Picower Foundation. The now-defunct foundation funded the organizations that handled the vast majority of abortion rights litigation in the United States.

The good news is that big losers in this scheme are “the Center for Reproductive Rights [which] needs to make up a $600,000 shortage in 2009; Planned Parenthood [which] is out $484,000; the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project [which] is off $200,000,” according to the online magazine Slate.

The shortfall for Planned Parenthood is even more significant than Slate initially reported. Between the loss of foundation funding and the downturn in the economy, Planned Parenthood is laying off approximately 20% of its staff.

It goes without saying that the financial woes of these pro-abortion groups is a nothing short of a win for the unborn community.

The College Republicans at George Washington University stored crosses that were used at a pro-life event in their office that is shared with the school’s College Democrats. When they recently returned to their office, they found that a number of crosses had been desecrated.

One cross had a penis drawn on it and was covered with a condom; it was hung upside down from a sign in the College Democrats’ office. Another cross had the word Darwin scrawled on it and a third featured the words, “Take a condom,” with a wrapped condom attached to the bottom. The last desecrated cross showed a crudely drawn stick figure of Jesus.

The College Democrats issued an apology after investigating the desecrations; a member of the club confessed to the outrageous vandalism.

We wondered how something like this could happen in a day and age of “sensitivity” to others. Unless, of course, sensitivity training on the campuses doesn’t extend to us.

In a recent edition of the game show “Jeopardy,” the following comment was featured: “He denounces materialism from the balcony of a marble, gold-domed building…while wearing a giant gold cross.” The question for the contestants was, “Who is the pope?”

We never knew that “Jeopardy” had a political side. But now that we know, we’d like to offer the following entry: “They denounce bigotry on every occasion while constantly serving up anti-Catholic fare.” The right answer, of course, is the entertainment industry.

This is the kind of gratuitous slam that is only made against Catholics.

The February 12 episode of the NBC show, “30 Rock,” threw a few jabs at Catholics. Many of the familiar stereotypes were there: a church full of pregnant women, the alleged silliness of the confessional, questions regarding priestly celibacy, judgmental authority figures, etc.

What was new was the decision to focus on Latino Catholics. We can probably expect more of this as Latinos account for about a third of all Catholics in the United States. It remains to be seen how such fare will be received in their community.

We are so happy that viewers saw all those pregnant women in a Catholic church. Makes us proud.

News reports about the upcoming movie, “Bruno” (featuring Sacha Baron Cohen of “Borat” fame), say there is a black model called Jesus who wears a loincloth and a crown of thorns. Some media pundits are saying this is sure to offend Christians.

In many African American neighborhoods there are Catholic and Protestant churches that display statues of a black Jesus; artistic renditions of a black Jesus are also commonplace throughout the country. No one but racists and the hyper-sensitive object. What matters is not the color of Jesus, but how the Jesus-figure is portrayed.

If the depiction of Jesus in this movie is not offensive, then the Catholic League will not protest. If it is, we will. Our concern is that Sacha Baron Cohen has a reputation for being edgy. So if the Jesus character is mocked or is in any way disrespectful, we will respond accordingly.

Just before President Bush left office, the ACLU sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over its partnership with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in an effort to thwart human trafficking. The problem? The USCCB opposes funds for abortion and emergency contraception.

President Bush wasn’t intimidated. Indeed, he proclaimed January 18 to be “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.” He said that “All life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection.” The president emphasized that “we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law.”

We commended Bush for this proclamation and for all the good work he achieved in furthering a culture of life. Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that his stellar record will be duplicated.

On January 14, Dr. William Donohue testified before the Education Committee of the New York City Council on the issue of allowing a crèche to be displayed in the New York City schools. He spoke in favor of a resolution submitted by Councilman Tony Avella.

Also testifying in support of the resolution was Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center (it was this organization that teamed with the Catholic League to sue New York City over this issue). Frank Milewski of the Polish American Congress also testified, as well as representatives from the Ancient Order of Hibernians and the Ladies AOH.

Speaking against the resolution was Cynthia Rudder, vice president of the New York City chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She actually said that it was “emotionally disturbing” for students to see certain religious symbols; she provided no evidence.

The following is the text of Donohue’s testimony:

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today before the New York City Committee on Education and the Committee on Youth Services.

In 2001, I learned that New York City schools allowed the display of the menorah and the star and crescent in the classroom, but not the nativity scene. I quickly wrote to Dr. Harold Levy, Schools Chancellor at the time, asking that the crèche be afforded the same treatment given the two other religious symbols. I was astonished when he wrote back saying, “The Supreme Court has previously refused to permit erection of a nativity scene on public property.”

I immediately corrected the record—the high court never said any such thing. Indeed, I told Dr. Levy’s general counsel, Chad Vignola, that if what Dr. Levy said was true, then he should sue both me and the New York City Parks Department. My reasoning? Every year since the mid-1990s, the Catholic League has received a permit from the Parks Department (as we did in 2008) to display a crèche in Central Park. Jews display the menorah and occasionally Muslims display the star and crescent (all are erected on the corner of 59th and 5th). Neither the ACLU nor any other organization has ever challenged this annual tradition, and that’s because it is not unconstitutional to display religious symbols in public parks.

The position of Dr. Levy’s office was that the menorah and star and crescent are secular symbols, and the nativity scene was religious. This, of course, would come as a surprise to observant Jews and Muslims. In any event, with the help of the Thomas More Law Center, a suit was filed against New York City; we secured standing by providing a plaintiff, Catholic League member Andrea Skoros, and the law firm did the litigating. On February 18, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Sifton ruled that the Schools policy was acceptable because the menorah and star and crescent had a secular dimension but the crèche did not.

On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with Judge Sifton on this aspect: it said the menorah and the star and crescent were indeed religious, but it balked at ordering the crèche to be displayed. It reasoned that as long as some Christmas holiday symbol was allowed, namely the Christmas tree, there was no discrimination. But it also said something else—something which explains why I am here today: “We do not here decide whether the City could, consistent with the Constitution, include a crèche in its school holiday displays.”

In other words, there is no legal impediment to displaying the nativity scene in the schools alongside the Jewish and Islamic religious symbols,  just as all three are displayed in Central Park. That is why I implore the City Council to ask the Department of Education to amend its holiday policy by allowing equal treatment of Christian religious symbols in the schools in December. To do anything less is to sanction inequitable treatment. I hasten to add that if the nativity scene were allowed and the menorah and the star and crescent were banned in the schools, I would testify in favor of permitting the Jewish and Islamic religious symbols.

In short, the only thing standing in the way of equal treatment is the will of the legislature. In the spirit of the much-vaunted goal of inclusion, I call upon you to end the disparate treatment afforded Christians and affirm the resolution sponsored by Councilman Tony Avella and others.

Thank you for the chance to explain the position of the Catholic League.

Every December the Catholic League is embroiled in the never-ending war on Christmas, and this past Christmas season was no exception. However, there were two important differences: foes of Christmas changed strategies and our side fought back with vigor.

The usual tactic employed by the enemies of Christmas has been to access the law: they prefer to go directly into federal district court seeking to ban nativity scenes on public property, or to censor Christmas songs from being sung in the schools by threatening legal action. While this gambit is still used, the most popular method this time around was to promote “contrived competition.”

Basically, what this comes down to is an attempt to neuter Christmas by celebrating every conceivable holiday or event that occurs in December. Indeed, it even goes beyond this by heralding every racial, ethnic, religious and cultural group worldwide. The goal, under the rubric of promoting diversity, is to deny the central role that Christmas plays in the life of most Americans every December. It is a scam, and nothing more.

The good news is that our side fought back all over the nation. From the state of Washington where the governor allowed militant atheists to foist their hate speech on the public, to Long Island, New York where a village turned a Christmas tradition into an all-inclusive holiday event, Catholics and Protestants fought back by filing lawsuits, staging protests and withdrawing sponsorship.

None of these assaults on Christmas happened purely because of groups like the ACLU. It happened because millions of Americans, including Christians, have been indoctrinated into thinking that the celebration of Christmas should be a mostly private affair. They have been made to feel defensive about their own holiday.

The willingness to fight back occurred because millions of other Americans have had it with attempts to stymie Christmas. They picked up their cultural cudgels in a way not previously seen, giving hope that this perennial culture-war event may yet be won.

There are still those, mostly in the media, who try to pretend that there isn’t a war on Christmas. But as this issue of Catalyst discloses, it is no myth. Moreover, the violence that takes place—in the form of vandalizing religious statues and trashing church grounds—is testimony to the ferocity of our adversaries.

As always, the media courted a response from the Catholic League, and as always, we didn’t let them down.