Massachusetts town defends St. Michael statue against anti-Catholic ACLU challenge

[Stone]

Massachusetts town defends St. Michael statue against anti-Catholic ACLU challenge
The ACLU and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court launched hostile attacks against St. Michael and St. Florian statues because they are connected to Catholicism.



Statue of Saint Michael the Archangel
meunierd/Shutterstock

May 6, 2026
(LifeSiteNews [slightly adapted - not all hyperlinks included from original]) — The town of Quincy, Massachusetts, is continuing its battle against the ACLU over proposed statues of St. Florian and St. Michael the Archangel.

The city said that religious imagery is common at public buildings, including a statue of Moses at the state supreme court building. Meanwhile, liberal justices largely focused on complaining that the statues might be identified with Catholicism.

The state Supreme Judicial Court held a hearing today as it considers whether the town should be allowed to put up two statues of the saints outside of its public safety building.

The justices asked the city’s attorney to defend the statues against the much-criticized 1971 Lemon Supreme Court case and its subsequent “test” for determining religious freedom cases. However, that case is no longer the primary religious freedom standard used by the nation’s top court.

A coalition of religious groups, free speech scholars, and first responder unions are calling on the state’s supreme court to allow the statues. Meanwhile, the left-wing ACLU wants to see a permanent ban on the statues. In October, an activist judge blocked the statues, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.

The statues are a symbol of “courage,” Quincy’s attorney Joseph Davis argued today.

The attorney noted that the Supreme Judicial Court itself, along with several others, has statues of Moses as well.

“A number of fire departments” use the “Florian cross,” the attorney said, responding to a hostile judge who asked if other fire departments had the saint statues outside.

Other fire and police departments, including in Los Angeles and New York City, have similar statues outside, the attorney told left-wing Associate Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian.

Just because a statue has a “religious significance” does not mean it cannot have “broader significance,” the attorney argued.

He also pointed out that using the religious names of someone does not mean that they only have “religious significance.”

Associate Justice Serge Georges picked up on the hostile questioning line, complaining that the statues may have a “secular” meaning but also have a religious background.

Fellow justice Scott Kafker also complained that the saints are “Catholic,” ignoring legal briefs that established other religious groups’ interest in the saints. Justice Wolohojian jumped back in to complain about the saints.

“They have a mixed significance,” Davis responded.

Wolohojian continued on with her questioning and suggested that “the citizens of Quincy” might be offended by the “government speech” of the public safety building having the statues.

Davis pointed out other courthouses also have religious statues, with Wolohojian interrupting him to say there are other statues besides Moses at court buildings.

“This is the fire and police building,” Davis argued, pointing out the statues represent firefighters and police officers.

ACLU attorney Jessie Rossman followed Davis and urged the judges to block the city from putting up the statues, arguing that they promote “divisiveness.”

She argued that religious beliefs should be confined to private buildings and not “government buildings.”

However, a judge pushed back and asked why existing statues should not be treated the same way.

The ACLU attorney acknowledged that statues or symbols that had been up for a long time, such as 100 years, could be upheld.

Making a new decision to put up new statues could create “divisiveness,” Rossman claimed, and she said that the image having a “Catholic” background was problematic.

Her argument picked up on the general anti-Catholic hostility expressed by the justices as well.

“These statues are conveying a message that [a] particular religion is being elevated above other religious and non-religious beliefs,” Rossman complained.

Some justices, even those that pushed back on the town, questioned Rossman as to her arguments, including that the statues only have a religious meaning.