Faith on Trial is where we examine the influence of law and society on people of faith. Here we will look at those cases and events that impinge on the rights of people to fully practice their faith. Faith on Trial is heard every Saturday at 2 p.m. and Sunday at 9 p.m. on the Iowa Catholic Radio Network and anytime on our podcast at : https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/.
This week on Faith On Trial: Is there bias against Christians in the military? Mike Berry from First Liberty will join us for that discussion. Dr. Anne Hendershott from Franciscan University will also join us for a discussion of envy and resentment against Asian-Americans.
Faith On Trial, 10 a.m. CT Thursday on
IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also listen to podcasts of previous
programs.
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The Wanderer) Here’s a quick test — see how you score yourself. Should
college administrators be punished for adopting policies that curb free speech
even when they claim that there is no definitive ruling against the restriction
they adopted?
Or, to put it into legal terms: “Whether qualified immunity
shields public university officials from liability when the reasoning — but not
the holding — of a binding decision gave the officials fair warning they were
violating the First Amendment.”
The quote above comes from a brief asking the Supreme Court
to review a case from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld a lower
court decision that college administrators clearly violated the free speech
rights of a student but did not award her damages for that violation. And that
refusal came in spite of the wording of 42 U.S.C. 1983 which states:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall
be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress.”
The case is called Ashlyn
Hoggard v. Ron Rhodes, et al., and it has been appealed to the Supreme
Court by what is called a petition for a writ
of certiorari which is the legal mechanism used by litigants to request a
hearing before the top court. The facts are similar to those found in other
cases.
Ashlyn Hoggard was a student at Arkansas State University
when she tried to establish a student chapter of Turning Point USA on campus.
In order to submit a proposal to the school’s administration to recognize the
chapter she had to have at least five other students as charter members, draft
a constitution for the group, and file an application with the school, among
other things. In attempting to drum up interest in her plan, Ashley and a
representative of Turning Point took a seat at a table in the student union
area where interested students could chat and pick up information on Turning
Point.
To make a long story short, Ashley was soon visited by two
university officials, Sarah Ponder and Elizabeth Rouse, who told her she could
not use the table located as it was in an area the appeals court called the
“Union Patio.” They did tell her that she could use the campus “Free Expression
Area.” Now according to the campus rules, the Free Expression Areas — there
were two of them — comprised about one percent of the campus and students were
required to apply for and receive permission 72 hours in advance to use them.
Noting that she was at an out of the way table and was not
disturbing anyone, nor was she actively soliciting other students, but
passively waiting for them to approach her, Ashlyn objected. The officials told
her she was violating an unwritten policy that only allowed tables in the
student union to be used by registered student groups and university
departments. The officials then called campus police who ordered her out.
The two officials concluded by telling Ashlyn and the
Turning Point representative that they couldn’t speak anywhere on campus
without telling the officials first and the responding campus police officer
told them they could be arrested.
The lower courts easily concluded that the school officials
violated Ashlyn’s First Amendment rights. Since there was no written policy
specifying who could or could not use the tables in the student union, the
policy, according to the court of appeals, “simply emerged from the
bureaucratic aether.” The court also found that it was undisputed that neither
Ashlyn nor her companion created any disturbance, and, in fact, there had been
no complaints about what they were doing.
The unwritten policy gave, according to Ashlyn’s attorneys,
“unfettered authority to grant or deny speakers permission to set up a table.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), representing Ashlyn,
issued a statement condemning the university’s actions: “Arkansas State’s
previous policies unconstitutionally gave university officials free rein to
shut down student speech even in open areas of campus, restricted most
expressive activities to small zones that totaled about one percent of the
campus, and required advance permission for students to speak anywhere on
campus.”
Ashlyn then sued the university seeking an injunction and
compensatory damages for the infringement on her First Amendment rights.
However, the state legislature then passed legislation repealing the
university’s free speech policies rendering most of the case moot. Both parties
then moved for summary judgment on their claims and the district court granted
the school’s motion, allowing Ashlyn’s case but dismissed her claim for damages
against the school officials, the court ruling that the school officials could
not be held responsible for the damage claim because the officials were
entitled to qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity is the legal concept that protects
public officials from civil suits unless the official violated a clearly
established legal right to which a reasonable person would have knowledge.
Police officers, for example, have it.
Ultimately, the appeals court found that there was a clear
violation of Ashlyn’s rights, but again upheld the lower court’s decision on
the issue of qualified immunity. That is the issue that is being presented to
the Supreme Court: Can school officials be forced to personally pay for their
infringement of a student’s constitutional rights?
The matter that raises hackles in this case involves how
clear the precedent was in these student free speech cases are, and that is
where this issue gets sticky. There have been several cases where the
university was upheld in its decision to remove unruly or disruptive students,
or non-students, from campus. However, in most of them the courts state in
dicta that the school officials acted properly only in reaction to the actions
of the student or non-student.
In a court opinion, dicta is an opinion expressed that does
not go directly to the specific matter before the court. Often it is an
expression of opinion that goes beyond the facts before the court and are not
considered legal precedent, such as when the court says you can deny an unruly
non-student’s expression.
There is now a split in the circuits on this question: Can
dicta be so specific that it outlines the parameters of the law which school
officials should know? Or can school officials defend themselves by pointing to
the unruly non-student case and claim that the result vindicates them? Or is
Ashlyn correct and the school authorities should have known they were trampling
on free speech rights even if it only was through dicta?
This is an in the weeds case, inside baseball, if you will. But while the focus
is on a very narrow legal point, a ruling in favor of Ashlyn will go a long way
to protect the First Amendment rights of students.
By Catholic League president Bill Donohue
It is all the rage among elites in many quarters to
sanction sex transitioning for minors. It is time to call this madness for what
it is—child abuse. The damage that is being done is incalculable. Consider what
this process involves.
Puberty blockers are used to facilitate the sex transition
process. These medications stop the normal estrogen or testosterone progression
in girls and boys during puberty, affecting vocal chord changes, the
development of breast tissue, brain development and the like. So little is
known about the long-term effects of puberty blockers that some doctors say we
are dealing with a "blank slate."
Children who want to continue physically transitioning by
taking hormones create a real challenge for doctors, never mind the child. The
physical changes are irreversible. Minors who transition are at risk later in
life for heart disease, diabetes and blood clots. Taking the hormones of the
opposite sex can also reduce fertility. Are adolescents really capable of
making these permanent life-altering decisions?
The mental problems associated with sex reassignment are
multiple, and they are so serious as to make one wonder what kind of health
professional would countenance it. Adults who undergo the transitioning are at
risk not only for depression, but suicide. It will not due to say that these
maladies are a function of the lack of support these people receive. If that
were the case, why do transgender people suffer from high rates of suicide in
places like Sweden where they are totally accepted?
If adults are at risk mentally following sex reassignment,
we can only guess what minors are likely to be faced with down the line. Do
those who profit from their "services" even care?
Dr. Rachel Levine is a man who now identifies as a woman.
He was chosen by President Biden to be his new assistant health secretary.
Given his status, both physical and professional, it is important to know what
his position on sex transitioning is. [Note: Many insist that a biological
man who transitions to a woman should be called "she" or
"her," and that the correct term is gender transitioning, not sex
transitioning. But they don't count. Truth counts.]
When Roger Severino was director of the Office of Civil
Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Trump
administration, he asked Levine a question that even an elementary student
could answer. "What does it mean to be male or female?" The good
doctor couldn't answer.
At the Senate hearing for Levine, Sen. Rand Paul asked him
a pointed question. "Dr. Levine, do you believe that minors are capable of
making a life-long changing decision as changing one's sex?" Levine dodged
the question saying, "Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced
field."
Paul followed up with another question. "Do you
support the government intervening to override the parent's consent to give a
child puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and/or amputation surgery for
breasts and genitalia?" Levine dodged the question again saying,
"Senator, transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field."
Levine is not alone in refusing to answer such basic
questions. At the Senate Finance Committee hearing on Xavier Becerra, Biden's
nominee to head HHS (he has since been confirmed), Sen. James Lankford said,
"The vast majority of Americans do not believe that a nine-year-old child
can consent to puberty blockers or that a thirteen-year-old girl can consent to
a double mastectomy." He then asked Becerra what his position was on such
matters. The best Becerra could promise is that he would follow the law.
Is President Biden aware that these men think it is okay
for minors to switch their sex? Absolutely. He himself says that little kids
should be afforded the chance.
Last October, during a town hall conversation, Biden was
asked by a mother of a transgender child what he would do to help people like
her and her child. "The idea that an 8-year-old child, a 10-year-old child
decides, you know, 'I want to be transgender, that's what I think I'd like to
be, it'd make my life a lot easier'—there should be no discrimination."
Does Biden believe that parental consent should be required
before a minor can elect to sex reassignment? We do not know, but we do know
that parental consent is already being ignored in some places, leading to
lawsuits.
Most children who seek to transition, if given time, will
change their minds. What they are experiencing is not normal.
According to Dr. Paul McHugh and Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, two
prominent psychiatrists who are experts in this field, the idea that "a
person might be 'a man trapped in a woman's body' or 'a woman trapped in a
man's body'—is not supported by scientific evidence." We need to help
young people who suffer from this disorder to get better, not get deeper into
trouble.
Once the boys and girls are subjected to the treatments, it
is too late. Unfortunately, Biden is stacking his administration with those who
are ratifying his twisted vision of the sexes.
It's time we put an end to this child abuse.
This Thursday: Attorney Chris Schandevel, Alliance Defending Freedom on several free speech issues heard and pending before the United States Supreme Court, including a claim by university officials that they cannot be forced to pay damages to students whose free speech rights they denied.
And, State Senator Amy Sinclair, chair of the Senate
Education Committee on a pair of bills she will be floor managing that protect
free speech rights on public campuses and one that regulates diversity training.
All this on Faith On Trial at 10 a.m. Central Time Thursday
on Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM, and streaming live on
IowaCatholicRadio.com, where you can also listen to previous programs.
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court just ruled that University of Iowa officials who kicked a student club off campus because of its faith can be held personally accountable for the harm they caused. The university targeted Business Leaders in Christ, or BLinC, for requiring its student leaders to affirm the Christian faith. The university oddly claimed this was a violation of its nondiscrimination policy, even though it allowed other religious groups to select faith-compliant leaders and openly encouraged other groups—like fraternities and sororities—to select leaders based on other characteristics covered by the nondiscrimination policy. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized this selective enforcement of the university’s policy for what it is: blatant viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. And its ruling makes clear that university officials are personally responsible for such knowingly unconstitutional conduct.
In a partial concurrence/partial dissent, Judge Kobes
concluded with these words:
The law is clear: state organizations may not target
religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available
benefit solely because they are religious. That is what happened here. The
individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly
incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution. Either way, they
should not get qualified immunity.
BLinC is a Christian student group at the university that
helps business students live out their faith in the workplace. The university
initially recognized its members as some of the best students on campus and
assured them they could select leaders who embraced their faith. But the
university later did an abrupt about-face, accusing BLinC of discrimination and
kicking it off campus.
“BLinC takes good students and makes them better by
strengthening their resolve to remain true to their moral compass in the
cutthroat business world,” said
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Any wise
university would be thrilled to have them on campus, but the University of Iowa
tried hounding them off instead. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects
their right to remain on campus on the same terms as every other student
group.”
In October 2017, after a student complained about being
denied a leadership position, school officials subjected BLinC to a lengthy
investigation, ultimately demanding that it “revise” its beliefs and strip
faith out of its leadership criteria. But while BLinC welcomes all students as
members, to maintain its religious mission, it needs leaders who agree with its
faith. While other campus clubs were allowed to set their own criteria for
leaders, the school removed BLinC from campus for doing the same and told them
their leadership selection was discriminatory.
Even after a federal judge warned the university about its
double standards, university officials went on a deregistering spree to cover
their tracks, ultimately kicking other Christian, Sikh, and Muslim student
groups off campus for reserving leadership positions for students who shared
their faith. But at the same time, fraternities and sororities, political
groups, and other ideology-based organizations were left untouched, even though
they discriminate based on sex, other characteristics protected by the
nondiscrimination policy, or—like BLinC—agreement with their underlying
mission. A lower court last year ruled that the court’s discrimination against
BLinC was illegal, and that the university had to let BLinC back on campus once
and for all. The Eighth Circuit’s decision affirms that ruling, while holding
the individual officials personally responsible for their discriminatory
application of the university’s nondiscrimination policy.
“It’s deeply ironic that school officials tried using the
university’s nondiscrimination policy to discriminate against religion,” said Baxter. “They knew this was
wrong, yet did it anyway. We’re pleased the court has recognized that such
blatant religious discrimination brings personal consequences.”
By DEACON MIKE MANNO
(The
Wanderer) This month, the 8th to be exact, was celebrated as
International Women’s Day. It was, apparently, a big deal and I almost missed
it. But I quickly caught on when photos of Eleanor Roosevelt, Barbara Walters,
Clara Barton, and other notable women started appearing on my daily news feed.
I don’t mean to diminish it, but for me it was like a
husband who forgot his wedding anniversary. That’s something that you might get
away with once — anything beyond that, well, see a lawyer and do your best to
keep your pension.
But for the few who are allowed to make amends, let me do
that right now. Actually I started watching this subject some time ago, but I
think it’s time to bring it to your attention now. And while this issue clearly
affects women more than men (you’ll have to pardon me here, I’m assuming there
are only two sexes). The issue is COVID, childcare, and closed schools. Bad for
everybody, bad for families, and much badder for women.
During the span of my lifetime, women in society have made
remarkable gains in nearly all areas: academic, sports, science, business, and
politics, just to mention a few. However, it seems that lately society is
trying to consign them, or at least most of them, back to the second-class
status to which the leaders of the women’s movement claimed they were
originally confined.
The obvious, of course, is the gender-blending advocates
that want to allow biologically stronger males to compete in athletic
competitions against females, denying them the opportunity to compete in a fair
contest, including the loss of scholarships and advancement into certain areas
of women’s pro sports. You know who is pushing that, and why, and you
should keep that in mind when you vote. However, that is not the problem I’m
attempting to address. It is women in the workforce.
We all know intuitively that the COVID closings have been
harder on women in the job market than on men. The reason is simple: Many women
work in lower-paying retail jobs which were nearly eliminated in an attempt to
curb the spread of the disease. They were, therefore, unable to work from home.
Many other women, who could easily work from home, were unable to fully
participate in that option since children, child care, and school closings made
that almost impossible during the pandemic.
And nothing hurt these women more than the closing of
schools. And what is pouring salt on their wounds, now that the kids should be
back, is that teachers’ unions, who apparently don’t really care about kids,
are refusing to go back to the classrooms in many areas. That fact alone
complicates everything.
Recently a study by four university researchers from
Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Melbourne, the Maryland
Population Research Center, and the University of North Texas compiled a report
for Gender and Society, which is
described as the official journal of Sociologists for Women in Society. The
title of the article is: “The Gendered Consequences of a Weak Infrastructure of
Care: School Reopening Plans and Parents’ Employment During the COVID-19
Pandemic.”
The first thing I noticed about the report is that it was
very left leaning in suggesting certain alternatives such as state-funded
daycare and in attitudes toward governmental and employer responsibilities.
Those are topics we can debate, but the thrust of the report hits hard at what
is happening to working women with school-aged children.
The report begins with something that every member of a
teachers’ union or board of education should memorize:
“The unprecedented impact of COVID-19 on schools has
underscored their critical role, not only for children’s well-being, but also
parents’ employment — especially for mothers, who continue to do the bulk of
caregiving in families despite working for pay nearly on par with fathers.
Schools constitute the most expansive care infrastructure in the United States,
and school closures and uneven reopening have affected mothers far more than
fathers. . . . Some fear that the pandemic will unravel decades of feminist
gains in the paid labor force for women.”
It continues: “We find mothers’ labor force attachment
worsened relative to pre-pandemic levels in states that offered fully remote
instruction. As the pandemic continues into spring 2021, states with
significantly curtailed in-person learning will likely continue to see low
maternal labor force participation with the potential for devastating long-term
employment effects for many women with children.”
To conduct the study, the authors took three representative
states with different approaches to school openings to make their preliminary
findings: Maryland, which adopted an extensive remote learning model, New York,
which used a hybrid model for schools, and Texas, which used mostly in-person
learning.
Some of their findings: In Maryland mothers of
elementary-aged children were 16 percentage points less likely to be in the
labor force during the first semester of 2020 as compared to the similar time
in 2019. Over the same period the status of fathers dropped only five points.
In New York, with a hybrid method of instructional delivery
with in-person education two days per week, there was a drop in the mothers’
labor force participation of seven points, while fathers’ rate of drop was four
points from the prior academic year.
In Texas, where half the schools were in-person full-time,
the fathers’ drop-off rate was only three percent and the mothers’ rate was 10
points, which the authors called insignificant, “a larger shift than observed
in New York but one that is still nonsignificant and substantially smaller than
the changes observed in Maryland.”
The authors observed, “When schooling goes fully remote,
mothers’ employment suffers. This is observed clearly in Maryland, where
mothers’ labor force participation was dramatically reduced during the first
semester of the 2020 school year compared with the same period in 2019.
“Hybrid and in-person schooling in New York and Texas,
respectively, were associated with a less dramatic reduction in mothers’ labor
force participation. Across all states, mothers’ work attachment fell to a
greater extent than did that of fathers, but the gap is widest in Maryland,
where schooling was fully remote.”
The report concluded: “We find that the gender gap in
parents’ labor force participation grew the most in states where school
instruction was primarily remote, and least in states where hybrid or in-person
instruction were more commonly offered.”
Similar results were also reported by LinkedIn, where
mothers with children faced greater burdens during the pandemic. “That burden
only grew heavier when lockdowns forced schools and childcare facilities to
close: thirty-two percent of unemployed women surveyed in the United States
said they weren’t working because COVID disrupted their childcare.”
LinkedIn’s chief economist, Karin Kimbrough, opined, “I
think a lot of it was that women were just busy. They suddenly had kids at
home, they had childcare or eldercare responsibilities. And so they were
definitely pulled out of the workforce a bit.”
And Janine Chamberlin, LinkedIn’s senior director,
commented, “It’s clear that Covid-19 is having a devastating impact on women’s
careers. Women have been more adversely affected by disruptions to the retail,
travel, and leisure industries which employ a relatively greater share of women
and often aren’t remote-ready roles. Our data also clearly shows women are
applying to fewer roles and are also taking on a disproportionate share of care
responsibilities.”
And, just to be on the safe side, I called a friend of mine
who is an HR manager, and a working mother herself, and asked if she saw this
pattern. Yes, she said, and it goes even further. “They are not applying for
jobs; not even for the evening positions.”
Of course with all the responsibilities mothers have in
today’s economy, none of this should seem surprising. We’ve come a long way
since Beaver had a stay-at-home mom, and there are a lot of reasons why there
has been that change. Bottom line, however, is that mothers do have a more
difficult time balancing job and family — something June Cleaver never had to
do.
One way to help: Open the schools. If you won’t do it for
the children, do it for your mom.
(You can
reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m.
Central on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Readings: Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 5:7-9; John 12:20-33
Good Afternoon --
“Give me justice, O God,
and
plead my cause against a nation that is faithless.
From the deceitful and cunning
rescue me, for you,
O God, are my strength.”
Those words are from the entrance antiphon for today’s Mass.
So we ask: what is justice? How do we define it, how do we live it? Well, it
should be obvious that justice comes from the mind and word of God. And those
who seek to remove him from society, as many are doing today, are seeking to
remove truth and justice from the land.
In our first reading today we hear of God’s first
covenant with his people made through Moses. God gave us commands etched in stone. And, as
we know, the Israelites over and over again failed to live up to their part of
the bargain, and paid dearly for their failures.
That is why the prophet Jeremiah prophesized a New
Covenant, which would be written – not on stone tablets – but on the hearts of
men. What is written there is the message of the cross, redemption, and our own
death to the allurements of this world so as to achieve life in Christ. “Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground
and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat, but if it dies, it products much
fruit.”
I don’t think you have to be a great biblical scholar or
theologian to understand today’s message of a seed dying to produce more fruit.
I think we can see that in the state of our polarized society, in which worldly
success is considered the true and only measure of a person, and where the
concept of dying to self to follow a sandal-wearing first century prophet marks
one as some type of fraud or freak, to be cancelled and marginalized.
Thus to follow Jesus today oft times puts us at odds with
today’s secular society; one which offers little in the way of truth or justice.
True success, we are told, is to follow the crowd and live life on your own
terms, to your own satisfaction. Unfortunately, we see all too often the
results of that teaching: sexual depravity, abortion, attacks on religion and
the family, gender confusion, and a litany of offenses against the holy name of
Jesus and his Church.
If we examine the message of society and its teaching on
the High Idolatry of “me first” we can see, if only we care to look, the
destruction that has been done to the psyche of the American soul. Too many
people are living pointless lives, not moored to anything beyond their own
wants – not “needs” but “wants” – those things that will bring us only pleasure
for pleasure’s sake.
Just look around us; how many souls are being lost of
those whose only desire is for pleasure? Or are in willful ignorance of what
the truth really is? How many of us know of friends and families that have been
touched by suicide – especially that of a young person – who cannot find
fulfilment in this life and just wants out; or the person who can only find truth
by ingesting substances that gives them a euphoric feeling?
So what is “just” about allowing them, sometimes even
encouraging them, or even worse, ignoring their plight on their road to perdition?
And what is “just” about the new wave of old ideologies,
such as Socialism and Marxism, condemned by the Church, that embrace material
atheism, violence for in support of social justice, and encourages the pursuit
of personal interests and power over the common good, and devalues human life?
These are only some of the matters that popes, bishops,
and the entire Church have been warning us about since the time of Pope Leo
XIII. Yet, unfortunately, for many those warnings have gone in one ear and out
the other, and we find ourselves in what could be described as a neo-pagan era
where so many of the sins of the past are lining up to pave our own way to
perdition.
All you need to do is to take an objective look at
today’s society: you see racial divides, violence and hate in our streets, attempts
to lure our children into alternative life styles, pornography everywhere and
the list goes on, and on, and on.
So how do we get back to a just society, one that
recognizes true Christian truth and justice? How do we exit from this
predicament and stem the counter-cultural tides that are fighting for control
of society and our souls?
The answer begins with us, each one of us – individually
and collectively. The first thing we need to do is to read in our hearts the
law that has been placed there by God, where we can know him, and where he
will, in the words of the prophet, “forgive
our evildoing and remember their sin no more.”
Forgiveness, of course, requires repentance and that is
what this season is about. In the first part of today’s Gospel the Greeks came
“to see” Jesus. What is it that we are “seeing” right now? What is it that in
these last two weeks of Lent we can find in ourselves that needs repair? What
is it that we can remove that will allow us to live more freely in God’s life
and love?
What is it in us that is the worst in ourselves that we
need to die to, in order to find new life and meaning in the Gospel message? The
scriptures tell us that God will heal us and our land if we only turn to him,
admit our sins, and ask forgiveness. As we approach Holy Week and our
celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection it is a good time for our own
confession, to die in the confessional with him, and to rise with him on Easter
Sunday. Thus we can amend our lives and, in the words of today’s collect, “walk eagerly in that same charity with
which, out of love for the world, your Son handed himself over to death.”
We can and should use this time to cleanse ourselves and
to stand up for the just truth in our part of the world as we pray in the words
of today’s psalmist:
“Thoroughly
wash me from my guilt and of my sin cleanse me.
A clean heart create for me O God,
and
a steadfast spirit renew within me. …
Give me back the joy of your
salvation,
And a willing spirit
sustain in me.
I will teach transgressors your
ways,
And sinners shall return
to you.”
Deacon Mike Manno, St. Augustin Parish, Des Moines
Our guests this week are Dr. Kevin Miller, professor of moral theology at Franciscan University in Stubenville on the Vatican’s recent statement on same-sex unions, and Melanie Israel from the DeVoss Center for Religion & Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation on the potential expanded demand for tissue and organs taken from aborted babies.
So join us this Thursday at 10 a.m. Central on Iowa
Catholic Radio, 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on
IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also find podcasts of earlier programs.