The Next Four Years (12/29) Under Biden

Daily Mass - Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church, Indian Land SC - December 29, 2020

Proclamation by the President of the United States on 850th Anniversary of the Martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket

Issued on: December 28, 2020

Today is the 850th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket on December 29, 1170. Thomas Becket was a statesman, a scholar, a chancellor, a priest, an archbishop, and a lion of religious liberty.

Before the Magna Carta was drafted, before the right to free exercise of religion was enshrined as America’s first freedom in our glorious Constitution, Thomas gave his life so that, as he said, “the Church will attain liberty and peace.”

The son of a London sheriff and once described as “a low‑born clerk” by the King who had him killed, Thomas Becket rose to become the leader of the church in England. When the crown attempted to encroach upon the affairs of the house of God through the Constitutions of Clarendon, Thomas refused to sign the offending document. When the furious King Henry II threatened to hold him in contempt of royal authority and questioned why this “poor and humble” priest would dare defy him, Archbishop Becket responded “God is the supreme ruler, above Kings” and “we ought to obey God rather than men.”

Because Thomas would not assent to rendering the church subservient to the state, he was forced to forfeit all his property and flee his own country. Years later, after the intervention of the Pope, Becket was allowed to return — and continued to resist the King’s oppressive interferences into the life of the church. Finally, the King had enough of Thomas Becket’s stalwart defense of religious faith and reportedly exclaimed in consternation: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

The King’s knights responded and rode to Canterbury Cathedral to deliver Thomas Becket an ultimatum: give in to the King’s demands or die. Thomas’s reply echoes around the world and across the ages. His last words on this earth were these: “For the name of Jesus and the protection of the Church, I am ready to embrace death.” Dressed in holy robes, Thomas was cut down where he stood inside the walls of his own church.

Thomas Becket’s martyrdom changed the course of history. It eventually brought about numerous constitutional limitations on the power of the state over the Church across the West. In England, Becket’s murder led to the Magna Carta’s declaration 45 years later that: “[T]he English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired.”

When the Archbishop refused to allow the King to interfere in the affairs of the Church, Thomas Becket stood at the intersection of church and state. That stand, after centuries of state-sponsored religious oppression and religious wars throughout Europe, eventually led to the establishment of religious liberty in the New World. It is because of great men like Thomas Becket that the first American President George Washington could proclaim more than 600 years later that, in the United States, “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship” and that “it is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”

Thomas Becket’s death serves as a powerful and timeless reminder to every American that our freedom from religious persecution is not a mere luxury or accident of history, but rather an essential element of our liberty. It is our priceless treasure and inheritance. And it was bought with the blood of martyrs.

As Americans, we were first united by our belief that “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” and that defending liberty is more important than life itself. If we are to continue to be the land of the free, no government official, no governor, no bureaucrat, no judge, and no legislator must be allowed to decree what is orthodox in matters of religion or to require religious believers to violate their consciences. No right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions. As I declared in Krasiński Square in Warsaw, Poland on July 6, 2017, the people of America and the people of the world still cry out: “We want God.”

On this day, we celebrate and revere Thomas Becket’s courageous stand for religious liberty and we reaffirm our call to end religious persecution worldwide. In my historic address to the United Nations last year, I made clear that America stands with believers in every country who ask only for the freedom to live according to the faith that is within their own hearts. I also stated that global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life, reflecting the belief held by the United States and many other countries that every child — born and unborn — is a sacred gift from God. Earlier this year, I signed an Executive Order to prioritize religious freedom as a core dimension of United States foreign policy. We have directed every Ambassador — and the over 13,000 United States Foreign Service officers and specialists — in more than 195 countries to promote, defend, and support religious freedom as a central pillar of American diplomacy.

We pray for religious believers everywhere who suffer persecution for their faith. We especially pray for their brave and inspiring shepherds — like Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong and Pastor Wang Yi of Chengdu — who are tireless witnesses to hope.

To honor Thomas Becket’s memory, the crimes against people of faith must stop, prisoners of conscience must be released, laws restricting freedom of religion and belief must be repealed, and the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed must be protected. The tyranny and murder that shocked the conscience of the Middle Ages must never be allowed to happen again. As long as America stands, we will always defend religious liberty.

A society without religion cannot prosper. A nation without faith cannot endure — because justice, goodness, and peace cannot prevail without the grace of God.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 29, 2020, as the 850th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket. I invite the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches and customary places of meeting with appropriate ceremonies in commemoration of the life and legacy of Thomas Becket.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.

DONALD J. TRUMP

 

Thanksgiving Plans…Or Not

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

This month, in fact this week, is Thanksgiving and, apparently, it has not been totally banned, although some of our political leaders and medical bureaucrats are telling us that it might be best to skip friends and family celebrations this year so we can all be around for next year. A little silly, in my book, since there is no guarantee that any of us, especially our elderly parents and grandparents, will be around in a year.

So in order to do my part in the face of the pandemic, as if I haven’t been isolated enough, I decided to look into some of the recommendations our leaders have given us for how to handle this week’s holiday. And as I reviewed them, I wondered if perhaps this was just a way to extend their control over their citizens. After all, to many of us the pandemic seemed to be the perfect vehicle for some politicians to exert control over the public almost as if they were trying to see how far they could push us.

Many used the virus as an opportunity to flex their muscles against the Church, demanding that it close its doors completely in some places or drastically and ridiculously limit attendance, sometimes to as few as 10 in a cathedral that could seat 2,000. In some locations, drive-in services where no one left their vehicles and heard their ministers over low-powered FM stations were banned and their drivers ticketed.

And, of course, the classic example was that due to the disease we could not safely vote, thus the need for mail-in voting, which would, according to the experts, provide a safe, tamper-proof way to beat the virus and safely choose our leaders.

So much for the experts. And as I researched some of what we are being told about this Thursday, I wondered why we have leaders who act as if we’re too ignorant to figure out how to celebrate safely on our own. To me it’s really simple: Be careful, you know the risks; maintain proper hygiene, and if you are in a category that is apt to be vulnerable to the pandemic, or you don’t feel well, stay home. Otherwise act prudently and enjoy this most American of holidays.

Instead, this is what we get, mandatory guidelines and threats of legal enforcement: In California residents are told, “All persons planning to host or participate in a private [Thanksgiving] gathering . . . must comply with the requirements identified below . . . .

“Gatherings that include more than three households are prohibited. This includes everyone present, including hosts and guests. . . . Gatherings must be outdoors [in certain] counties. . . . If gathering indoors, increase fresh air circulation by opening windows or doors, as much as possible, especially in the rooms where people are gathering. . . .

“Seating must provide at least six feet of distance (in all directions — front-to-back and side-to-side) between different households. People at gatherings are advised to limit removal of their face coverings to when they are actively eating or drinking.

“Gatherings should be two hours or less. . . . Singing, chanting, shouting, cheering, playing of wind instruments and similar activities are not permitted in indoor gatherings.”
Remember for some of us Thanksgiving is a big football day. So how do we watch football if we can’t cheer?

In Chicago, where I hear there is a lot of shouting and cheering going on, Mayor Lori Lightfoot issued a stay at-home order and asked residents to cancel their “traditional” Thanksgiving plans. And if anyone hosts more than ten there will be consequences: “If we see you violating these rules in any way, we’re not going to hesitate to take action,” she decreed.

Hmmm, so much for Chicago being a toddlin’ town.

Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer has cautioned us not to gather with friends and family, but instead do a video call or share photos with each other. I wonder if just logging into Cousin Nancy’s Facebook page will work. “The more people we have in our homes, talking, eating, drinking, hugging, and yelling at the Lions, the higher the risk of catching or spreading this virus, and the higher the risk there is that the people we love will die,” Whitmer said.

She seems concerned about too much cheering for the Detroit Lions. But with a record of 37-40-2 on Thanksgiving Day games, there probably won’t been much to cheer about in Michigan, anyway.

Our friends at the CDC have provided its own guidelines for us:

“Have a small outdoor meal with family and friends. . . . Limit the number of guests. . . . If celebrating indoors, make sure to open windows.” I’m sure that’s going to work in Minnesota.

Along the same lines, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (not to be confused with CNN’s resident stand-up comic, Chris Cuomo) who consigned thousands to COVID deaths by ordering the infected back into nursing homes, has placed a ten-person limit on in-home gatherings. “New York follows the science,” Cuomo said. “We know indoor gatherings and parties are a major source of COVID spread.”

He’s a new author, you know. He wrote a book touting his “leadership” during the COVID crisis: American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Good for you, Andrew; I bet it will be a best seller in nursing homes.

And so it goes. As I was checking these rules out, and to be sure, there are a lot more out there, I was reminded of an episode of the old TV show, The Big Bang Theory. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s based on a relatively simple concept. It follows the lives of four nerds and their interaction with the world. One of the characters is Sheldon Cooper, a genius who earned his Ph.D. before he was old enough to vote.

In that episode, the other three nerds are meeting and partying at one of the other’s apartments, unlike their regular confabs at Sheldon’s. One of the other characters is trying to get Sheldon to go to his friend’s party, and tells him: “They’re all having fun over there.”

To which Sheldon replies, “Yeah, but they’re having fun wrong.”

Unfortunately, some believe that there is now a prescription for how to celebrate. But, fear not, the best is probably yet to come at the end of January when we get locked down again.

Realistically, the China virus is very serious. The inflated case numbers and political games aside, this is a threat. Unfortunately, too many have died and some even without consolation from Church and family. I’ve not been able to get into a hospital or nursing home to visit and take Communion to sick parishioners since March. I can’t figure out why it would be so difficult to have clergymen simply make an appointment at the hospital chaplain’s office, get screened, be suited up, if necessary, and be escorted to the proper room, especially those with non-COVID ailments.

But instead we can try to regulate how many we can have for Thanksgiving dinner. Unfortunately, that’s the imperfect world in which we live. It makes prayers for those affected more important than ever.

Have fun the right way, and remember what you are truly thankful for and be sure to let God know! He’s the author of every good thing and deserves our humble thanks. After all, He gave us turkey and football and that may be the diversion we really need this year.

God bless you all.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday [not this week] on Faith On Trial at 10 a.m. CT on IowaCatholicRadio.)

Biden's Allies Threaten Religious Liberty

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Left-wing advocacy organizations are wasting no time pressing Joe Biden to do away with the religious liberty protections afforded by the Trump administration. As we have previously detailed, no president has done more to secure religious liberty than Donald Trump.

The three most prominent organizations asking Biden to undo Trump's progress are the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Center for American Progress.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is obsessed with sex: it wants to make sure that homosexuals, the sexually confused (transgender people), and women seeking an abortion never have rights that are subordinate to religious rights. It does not matter to the civil libertarians that the former are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution and the latter are enshrined in the First Amendment. The ACLU is worried that "a new wave of bills seeking to create religious exemptions" will succeed, endangering the rights of "LGBTQ" people.

No right is more important than conscience rights, a liberty which is ineluctably tied to religious rights. It is this premier right that the ACLU loathes. In a statement released after the election, it condemned "attempts by the Trump administration to invoke religious or personal beliefs." It said that such exercises can be used to discriminate against LGBTQ people. It further stated that "invoking religious or moral objections" to the LGBTQ agenda cannot be tolerated.

On November 11, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) issued its "Blueprint for Positive Change 2020." It is chock-a-block full of recommendations for Biden. One of its priorities is to upend the new direction taken by the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Health and Human Services under President Trump. It specifically takes aim at the Office's enforcement of "federal conscience and religious liberty laws." Once again, the LGBTQ agenda is considered to be more important. Thus HRC joins the ACLU in the left-wing assault on conscience rights.

HRC also wants to pare back the religious liberty protections afforded faith-based programs by the Trump administration. If its position were followed, it would essentially excise the faith element in faith-based initiatives. This, of course, is its goal.

The most draconian recommendation promoted by HRC is its call for the Department of Education to reconsider its standards for accrediting religious institutions of higher education. In short, it wants to deny accreditation to religious colleges and universities that do not meet its secular vision of education.

HRC is incensed over the current mandate that accreditation agencies "respect the stated mission" of these religious institutions. It takes particular umbrage at the religious liberty protections cited in the Higher Education Opportunity Act, a law passed by the Congress during the outgoing Bush administration in 2008.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) encourages the Biden Administration to do everything the ACLU and HRC want, focusing on doing away with religious exemptions initiated by the Trump administration. However, it does have a few novel ideas of its own.

CAP is big on "diversity outreach" efforts to minority religions. This multicultural game, of course, is less interested in recognizing minority religions than it is in whittling away at our Judeo-Christian heritage. It does not stop there.

"Religious outreach efforts should also specifically include secular humanist or nonreligious groups, as well as faith-based or spirit-rooted communities who do not observe a specific religious tradition." If the gurus who wrote this were honest, they would simply say that religious outreach efforts should embrace organizations founded to subvert religion. Inviting atheists to have a table at religious gatherings is like having racists participate in a forum on racism. Yes, there are non-bigoted atheists, but organized atheist entities invariably harbor an animus against religion.

CAP urges the Biden administration to "safeguard the separation between religion and government." Really? Then why does it say, "Together with Pope Francis, the Biden administration should organize a global gathering of religious leaders to discuss climate change and refugee issues"?

Whatever happened to that proverbial "wall" separating church and state? No matter, if the pope is to have a voice on climate change (not exactly his specialty), why not invite the Holy Father to share his views on gender ideology—the fanciful notion that we can switch our sex? He properly calls it "demonic."

Constitutional law professor Patrick Garry notes that it was never the intent of the Founders to "place religion and nonreligion on the same level." In fact, "Textually, the Constitution provides greater protection of religious practices than for any secular-belief-related activities." This is what gnaws at the ACLU, HRC and CAP.

Much is being made of Biden's alleged "devout" Catholic status. Yet many of his polices on life, marriage, the family, and sexuality are at variance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Now he is being besieged by organizations that are positively inimical to his professed religion. He cannot have it both ways any more. It is time for him to draw a line in the sand, before his allies eviscerate it altogether.

Hyping Lay Catholic Divisions

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League President

Most of the news stories on the alleged widespread division in the ranks of the Catholic laity are bogus. How do I know? Because most writers, and many pollsters, fail to disaggregate on the basis of religiosity. To be exact, those who do not make a distinction between practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics are intellectually dishonest. Lumping them together yields a distorted profile of the Catholic community.

Virtually all polls that disaggregate on the metric of religiosity have long found that most non-practicing Catholics reject Church teachings on life, ordination, marriage, the family, and sexuality. To what extent can they be called Catholic? If their views are practically indistinguishable from non-observant Americans, why are they not classified as secularists?

This is not a new phenomenon, but it is already clear that if Joe Biden is elected president next month by the Electoral College, this issue is going to escalate in the media.

A clear case in point is the November 18 AP story by David Crary, "Catholics Divided as Bishops Examine Biden's Abortion Stance." While Crary properly notes that Catholics split the vote on Trump-Biden (50% to 49%, respectively), he makes the point that there is an alleged Catholic divide over comments recently made by Archbishop José Gomez, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Gomez told his fellow bishops that Biden's record on many policy positions, such as abortion, is problematic: it posed a "difficult and complex situation" for the Church. According to Crary, Catholics are "sharply divided" over Gomez's remarks.

Crary cites no evidence, save for a few comments made by so-called progressive Catholics. He provides no survey data. That is because most Catholics—you can take it to the bank—have no idea what Gomez said, and this includes real Catholics (i.e., those who are practicing). So why the need to make up a controversy when there isn't any?

Here's what's going on. Catholics who reject Church teachings on the aforementioned issues are all ginned up these days, hoping to press the bishops to fall in line with Biden (or at least not to challenge him.) That's what this is all about. Just consider the comments made by left-wing Catholics.

David Gibson of Fordham's Center on Religion and Culture says, "The USCCB leadership simply can't embrace the idea of engagement and goodwill that Pope Francis has asked of them." It apparently does not occur to Gibson that it is Biden, not the bishops, who can't embrace many central teachings of the Catholic Church, and it is that—not episcopal recalcitrance—that is driving this issue. If only Biden would obey.

Natalia Imperatori-Lee, who teaches religious studies at Manhattan College, also blames the bishops. She says, "they'd like to start an antagonistic relationship" with Biden. The truth is that Biden is at war with the Catholic Church: He opposes teachings on abortion, marriage, sexuality (he is a big transgender fan) and religious liberty. That's the cause of the antagonism. Her attempt to portray Biden as the victim is risible.

Thomas Groome of Boston College blames Gomez for his "dreadfully unfortunate" address. Spoken like a true dissident. Crary also quotes Jamie Manson, another dissident—she is now the head of an anti-Catholic and pro-abortion letterhead (Catholics for Choice)—lashing out at Gomez for his "condescending remarks." Practicing Catholics would be more inclined to see his statement as unpretentious, even humble, like the man himself.

Left-wing Catholics cited by the media are not representative of Catholics found in the pews. Indeed, they are more closely aligned with secularists. This is a shell game, designed to shape public opinion with a false narrative. Biden is the problem, not the bishops.

Faith On Trial for November 19

This week we’re going to discuss the case of a third grader who was told she cannot wear a “Jesus loves me” mask in school while BLM masks were permitted. Michael Ross of the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Center for Academic Freedom will join us to discuss that case.

In Massachusetts the legislature is considering a bill that would greatly expand abortion in the state by reducing the age for which teen aged girls do not need parental consent, allows viable babies to be aborted outside of hospitals, and removes medical protections for babies born after a failed abortion. Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, will join us to discuss the ramifications of this if it is passed into law.

Faith On Trial, every Thursday (except Thanksgiving) at 10 a.m. CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Brooklyn Catholic diocese asks justices to block limits on attendance at church services

Brooklyn Catholic diocese asks justices to block limits on attendance at church services

Cuomo's Animus Against Religion Laid Bare

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president                                                                                                             

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, who heads the Diocese of Brooklyn, has a lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court that could prove to be historic. 

All reasonable persons understand the right of government to impose limited restrictions on the public during a pandemic, but only unreasonable persons maintain that such powers are boundless. It is more than unreasonable—it is unconstitutional—to target churches and other houses of worship for special treatment. 

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo acted irresponsibly when he placed greater restrictions on churches than he did on hardware stores. That is what the Brooklyn Diocese's lawsuit contends. By declaring that pet stores and brokers' offices should have greater freedom to operate than synagogues, for example, Cuomo is showing his animus against religion. 

If anyone has any doubt that Cuomo exhibits a flagrant hostility to religion, let him read what the governor has said. At a press conference, he admitted that his Executive Order is "most impactful on houses of worship." That is where he crossed the line. Not only are houses of worship not considered "essential" businesses, they are intentionally relegated to a second-class status. 

The lawsuit nails this point just right. It argues that Cuomo's Executive Order "expressly singles out 'houses of worship' by that name for adverse treatment relative to secular businesses, and does so in a way that is not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest, in direct violation of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause." 

Similarly, Cuomo put a cap on the number of people who can go to church in his so-called "red" and "orange" zones—10 and 25, respectively. As the lawsuit says, the "fixed-capacity limits imposed by Governor Cuomo on 'houses of worship'—and only 'houses of worship'"—proves once again his bias. When a 7-11 can have more people in its store than a church, it tells us volumes about what is really going on. 

Bishop DiMarzio has once again done the right thing. When Covid-19 is behind us, Catholics will remember bishops like him who defended their religious rights, refusing to be treated as pawns of the state.

This week on Faith On Trial

This Thursday:

Bias in the media; what’s next for pro-lifers? Dexter Duggan from The Wanderer, and Fr. Frank Pavone, national director, Priests for Live.

10 a.m. CT Thursday on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM, and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com, or just download our free app.

And The Losers Are . . .

By Deacon Mike Manno, JD

(The Wanderer) Well, maybe by the time this is printed we’ll know who has been elected president. But don’t hold your breath; there’s more than counting going on and litigation is sure to follow. But since the presidential winner may not be known by publication, I think it is fair to acknowledge the losers for their contribution to this election mess.

My first pick: The Mainstream Media. As a former journalist, beat reporter, and newspaper editor, I am completely embarrassed by the conduct of most of the media during the last few years. They have berated the president, his family, religious conservatives, and much — if not all — of the GOP with the savageness of the Roman Praetorian Guard.

While Mr. Trump was (and to them still is) a xenophobic Russian plant and a racist with white supremacist leanings, all would be well once the election was over and the nation was rid of the big, orange buffoon. And, of course, the nation would be saved only by a popular uprising that gave control of the White House and Congress to the Democrats.

Well, it just didn’t happen that way. While the presidency may yet be undecided, the great mass of the unwashed (so despised by the media) rejected that advice. The Senate, which figured prominently in the Dems’ plans for court-packing, filibuster ending, and state adding was kept in GOP hands, despite the Democrats spending literally billions of dollars to knock off some of those pesky senators deemed too close to the Trump administration.

And despite the unfavorable press treatment, the Republicans, while not taking control of the House, did pick up six House seats as of this writing.

But it doesn’t end there for my biggest loser. The blown reporting, the repeating of lies and insinuations, most long since discredited, has not gone unnoticed.

Just one example will suffice to indicate the depths to which the media have sunk: The media — which were so aggrieved that the bad orange man nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court that they left no stone uncovered trying to find evidence that he was a sexual harasser that they even combed through his high school yearbook — were suspiciously unconcerned with the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The Mainstream Media were the biggest loser in this election, having jettisoned journalistic standards to join in running interference for the Dems. Journalism, as we knew it, and as it was taught to me, is dead. We now understand that we have re-entered the period of the party press. Listen to and read what you will, just remember it is coming to you from a party flack.

My next loser is the polling industry. With the exception of a few notable exceptions, the polling in this election was worse than horrible: Dewey defeats Trump horrible. Don’t tell me it was the “shy Trump” voter who threw the polls off; it wasn’t. It was pollsters who — whether or not they realized it — actually skewed their own polls. When pollsters take samples, they must ensure that their samples are representative of the universe as a whole. When independent voters are not factored in properly, or not apportioned correctly, the poll results get skewed.

The big red flag for the industry should have been that Mr. Trump was not a typical politician. Independents and others who historically are prone not to vote were attracted to him because he was not a politician. When did you ever hear a crowd erupt in chants of “we love you” to any politician? It hasn’t been done, except perhaps in Nancy Pelosi’s dreams. That, and the size of his crowds should have tipped pollsters off that there was an undercurrent they might be missing, as had happened in 2016. But it didn’t.

Normally races tighten as they move closer to Election Day. Unfortunately that’s when pollsters start to narrow their sample sizes. They go from surveying registered voters to likely voters. A lot of Trump votes didn’t fall into the likely voter category, a lesson they should have learned from President Hillary Clinton’s victorious campaign.

In 1948 when Gallup predicted Mr. Truman’s defeat, polling had come a long way since the then-respected Literary Digest poll predicted in 1936 that Kansas Gov. Alf Landon would garner 57 percent of the vote against President Franklin Roosevelt. It was Roosevelt, however, who won with 62 percent. The failure of that poll was using a huge undisciplined sample that overwhelming failed to respond to the magazine.

In Gallup’s mistakes we can see some of today’s mistakes for which no correction has been made. Not one of them, however, was that Gallup stopped polling two weeks before the election, having considered it a done deal. But it did make some assumptions and mistakes that our modern pollsters have done. They did not obtain representative samples but samples that were weighted heavily with more educated people; it failed to correctly determine who would actually vote, and assumed that undecided voters would split in the same proportions as the decided voters.

While some polls did catch the movement to Mr. Trump, having learned their lesson four years earlier, many did not. One of the latest polls published just before the election, ABC News/Washington Post, gave Mr. Biden a 17-point lead in Wisconsin and a seven-point lead in Michigan: Dewey defeats Trump all over again!

One of the polls that produced the most accurate results was The Des Moines Register poll. A few others did satisfactory. Most, however, failed. My advice to pollsters: Find out what the Register did and do it next time.

An Egregious Case

My final loser is Chief Justice John Roberts.

President Trump, many Republicans, a large contingent of conservative commentators (including this column) were warning of electoral hanky-panky. Concerns were raised about mail-in and absentee balloting flooding the system, opening the door for results to be compromised by those with the ability to do so.

One of the most egregious cases complained of was in Pennsylvania where the State Supreme Court, an elected body with partisan members, voted on a party-line basis to “redefine” the state’s election law. The redefinitions included accepting ballots beyond the legal deadline, defining them as on time if postmarked by the election. Okay, that might sound reasonable, but the court ruled that any returned ballot with an illegible postmark, or no postmark was to be assumed to have been mailed on time. In addition, the ruling left open the possibility that returned ballots without voter signatures or non-matching signatures could be counted.

Republicans challenged the matter in the U.S. Supreme Court and the court ruled 4-4, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the liberal bloc to allow the Keystone State’s court ruling to stand. Those ballots, however, will be kept separate from the others pending further review.

Now the court is full. Amy Coney Barrett has been sworn in as the ninth justice. But the problem will probably come up again. Roberts’ mistake, and a huge one, was not to take the case before the election so all would know the rules by which mail-in ballots would be evaluated. A simple, decisive decision on how to conduct the count was needed, but it didn’t come from Roberts.

Instead, now that the election is over, if SCOTUS needs to rule on Pennsylvania’s count it will be accused of picking the president — politics — something that Roberts, by trying to avoid initially, might now be stuck with.

There’s a saying in legal circles: “Hard cases make bad law.” Roberts turned an easy case into a hard one — for himself and the court.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

Caesar keeping churches closed; how will the Catholic vote go? Next on FOT

This week on Faith On Trial: Daniel Schmidt, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel on the 
continuation of church closings in some parts of the United States; and Dr. Matthew Bunson, executive editor of EWTN News on what the polls are showing about Catholic voting patterns.

 

                                        

 Thursday at 10 a.m. Central and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com – or you can download our free app. The program will re-broadcast at 10 p.m. 

American Brood of Vipers

 

By Judie Brown Last night, we witnessed the confirmation of a Catholic to the position of associate justice of the Supreme Court, and next week, we elect a president. Given these two facts, is it any wonder the God-despising cadres are howling, growling, and prowling about churning out fallacies far and wide? They adore confusion and doubt because uncertainty serves their evil agenda best. The ever left-leaning Vanity Fair tells its readers that, with the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, America may witness the possibility that the death penalty could be imposed on women who seek abortion! How could they say this? Because Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse asked Barrett: “Under an originalist theory of interpretation, would there be any constitutional problem with a state making abortion a capital crime, thus subjecting women who get abortions to the death penalty?” Barrett declined to respond to a hypothetical, sending her detractors up the wall. Barrett’s adversaries include the reproductive technology industry and, of course, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. They have told followers that the Barrett confirmation is a sham, arguing that the Supreme Court opening is “the people’s seat” and that Barrett’s confirmation is “an insult to the legacy of Justice Ginsburg, the dignity of the nation’s highest court, and our democracy.” That statement emanates from a group pursuing our children with constant messages that encourage them to engage in sexual activity of every kind, jeopardizing their health and their souls in the process. But it’s not just Justice Barrett who irks the brood. They are equally appalled by the election, using every scare tactic under the sun to instill false fear by making senseless claims. The ever-fanatical Marie Claire tells its readers that not only is abortion on the ballot in November, but every health concern a woman might have is in jeopardy. This is predicated on their belief that aborting a baby is healthcare—a premise that is equal in credibility to the argument that killing your grandmother is elder care. We find all of this quite typical. Evil always has a way of seeping into even the most obvious situations.   For example, how is it that in Colorado more than 130 doctors and scientists are in favor of a flawed late-term abortion ban, but the very same elite group is not putting their credibility on the line to end abortion once and for all? Perhaps these pillars of society are not opposed to killing babies if they are not yet 22 weeks of age in the womb. We hope this is not the case, but we would really appreciate it if they and the pro-life community promoting this proposal would get it right. And why would the current Supreme Court say no to South Carolina’s efforts to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood? Some suggest that, with Barrett on the Court, there would be a six-vote majority in favor of defending life, but the current decision calls that into question. So why the hysteria? Yes, there are many questions and too few answers. Clearly all the screaming about Justice Barrett and the election is designed to create frenzy without substance. That is because abortion is not a political issue, even though the vipers have made it so with the willing agreement of far too many of us. Never forget that whether we are addressing the killing of an innocent preborn child or the decriminalized act of imposing death on an elderly person, every human being’s life is precious. Until Americans truly acknowledge this fact, all the political hype is nothing but hot air. And frankly, that is exactly how the snakes like it. But Our Lord Jesus Christ has already spoken the truth about them, saying in Matthew 12:34: “You brood of vipers, how can your speech be good when you are evil? For words flow out of what fills the heart.” Each of them will have his day before God, and so shall we. Therefore, let us strive always to pursue justice for every innocent person; God will take care of the rest.  Judie Brown is president of American Life League. It is the nation's oldest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization.

"Render unto Caesar ..."

Homily for the 29^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle A; Gospel; Matthew 22:15-21

Good Morning:        

            As I look at the calendar this morning I note that it is just over two weeks before Election Day. So this will be the last time I’ll have the opportunity to address you from this pulpit before that day. Four years ago I had the same opportunity to speak here just three weeks before the election. I remember what I said that day. I don’t intent to re-read that homily to you, but I do intent to draw on some of the things I said then.     

            In reflecting on the election we must understand that no matter how important the races are, neither the Church nor any of its ordained ministers can or should tell you who to vote for. That is not our role, and the decisions some bishops made to curb their clergy from electioneering from the pulpit is not out of line.

            But what we can advise you to do is to understand your duties as a citizen of God’s kingdom in conjunction with your obligations as citizens of the United States. So how do we determine how to vote? I think the obvious place to begin is with this morning’s Gospel: Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to him.

            “Render unto Caesar” is a phrase we have heard a lot. In today’s gospel reading we see another effort by the local Jewish establishment to trap Jesus.  The tax he was asked about was a head tax required of every man, woman and slave between the ages of 12 and 65 – it amounted to about a day’s wage and was the price of being a subject of the Roman Empire. 

            Now as you heard, there were two groups involved:  the Pharisees, who would have opposed paying the tax because to do so meant paying allegiance to the Roman emperor, and the Herodians who supported the tax and the Roman puppet King Herod. Thus, between the two factions there was no way in which Jesus could answer their question without condemning himself.

            But, as he had done before, Jesus gave an answer that was unexpected and told the crowd what really mattered: our ultimate allegiance belongs to God, our allegiance to the state is limited.

            Fast forward to today; what does this mean to us today in 21^st century America?

            Well, for many it was taken as an endorsement of the separation of Church and state.  Of course, the separation of Church and state is a modern concept; for much of Western history Church and state were interwoven.  But for the United States – with our history of religious tolerance – it was probably not a bad explanation; and in any event, few issues bridged the gap between Church and state – or between God and Caesar.

            Thus, we have always had a very patriotic Church, one willing to support our nation and willing to give its sons to protect it.  Our political involvement was limited to aspects of social and racial justice, and defending the right of conscience and religious freedom and we generally tended to adhere to the partisan beliefs of our parents, believing that God and Caesar could coexist nicely in America – and indeed they had.

            Times, however, change, and with that change many moral issues have become political ones.  As the Freedom Riders of the 60s found, when these issues arise it is our duty as Christians to bring Caesar to God and if there is a dispute between them, to do as Jesus suggested in the Gospel today: give our ultimate allegiance to God; for to do any less is to set Caesar as a rival to God and to cloak him with the robe of divinity as did the Romans – for the inscription on the coin given to Jesus read “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus, high priest.”

            Thus as Christians we cannot retreat to the mantra of separation of Church and state and pronounce these issues “just politics” and evaluate them using the same considerations one would give to questions of road use taxes, arts funding, or monetary policy. 

            So the question that is posed to us is this:  Do we render to Caesar these basic questions of morality, or do we render them to God?  In short, what is it that belongs to God that must be reserved to him alone?

            Let’s start then from a simple, basic premise:  Life belongs to God; especially the innocent life of the child in the womb … for if we render that life to Caesar we have, in effect, revoked that right and have rendered every other human right contingent on the will of Caesar, not God.

            We are today engaged in exactly that struggle.  For under the guise of claiming the right to life to itself, our modern Caesar is now claiming the right to our conscience: dictating when and how Catholic institutions must react to its dictates.

            And it is happening. In New York, the governor signed an abortion law that permitted abortion of a baby even during the birthing process, before a crowd that gave him a standing ovation for so acting. New York is not alone, and across this great nation there are those who promise more liberal abortion laws, including the call for employers, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to be forced to provide such services or to be forced out of business.

            In a like manner, today we are seeing forces of evil trying to use Caesar to close our churches and places of worship, many finding an excuse to do so in the pandemic that has disrupted our lives for the past nine months. Religious liberty is being attacked in some quarters as violation of the separation of God and Caesar. And I’m not thinking about isolated cases, these forces permeate our political landscape.

            Now many of you know that I am an attorney and part of what is loosely referred to as the Catholic media. I assist when I can on issues of religious liberty, I write a weekly column for the national Catholic newspaper The Wanderer, and I host a program on religious liberty weekly on Iowa Catholic Radio called “Faith On Trial.” 

            Every day my in-box is filled with new reports of secular forces trying to wrest the crown of divinity from God and to crown Caesar with it. Catholic and Christian groups are being banned and thrown off the campuses of public universities; local officials are using zoning laws to control access to churches and Christian facilities, and, of course, secular politicians who are protecting the chief architect of death, Planned Parenthood – some even going so far as to prosecute reporters who uncovered its horrendous business practices of illegally selling the parts of aborted babies.

            The problem can also be seen in those areas where Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because men have given Caesar the right to determine what a family is, and in hospitals where secular groups are trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and other medical procedures that violate the tenants of Catholic moral teaching. Here in the United States several courts have already held parts of Sacred Scripture to be “hate speech.” 

            As you know it is happening around the globe.  In Canada I could be arrested for the content of this homily; and in Europe, as I’ve mentioned before, a Protestant pastor, Ake Green, was arrested, tried and convicted for the crime of preaching against same-sex relationships in a sermon he gave in his church to his congregation. 

            The point is, once we have ceded the basic issue of life to Caesar, there is nothing he will not be able to do.  We, as Catholics, must follow the example of Christ … he did not fear Pilate nor Caesar … he spoke the truth.  We cannot do less.

            Pope Benedict, summed up this problem in what he termed the “silent apostasy” – the inclination many of us have to stand back from the political fray – to look on these issues as private, dogmatic views that we can take or leave at will; or the fallacy that economic policies are somehow equivalent to or even trump the issue of life.

            We have come a long way to this point. I do not think that our grandparents ever had to face the moral choices we do today. And I think we have gotten here because somewhere – maybe in the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies, or our support of costly overseas wars, or perhaps it was the abuse of capitalism and the rush to accumulate personal wealth and secular goods.

            But somehow we have sunk into a cesspool of moral relativism, where we have jettisoned the God who created us and placed the crown of divinity on a god which we ourselves have created.

            It’s time for us now – for the sake of our own souls to return to him who caused us to be. It is only then that our nation can be saved from the ravages of the cesspool which we have helped create.

            We are told in Scripture “If my people humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from Heaven and pardon their sins and heal their land.” In the few weeks before the election I would urge each of you to do just that. Come here, in our chapel, and sit with Our Lord, humbly seeking his healing for our ailing nation.

            And then when you vote, remember what belongs to God and do not surrender it to Caesar. That crown of divinity belongs to Jesus Christ and him only. And remember when you appear someday, as we all will, before the great heavenly choir, sitting on the throne of justice will NOT be the Divine Caesar.

Deacon Mike Manno

St. Augustin Parish, Des Moines, Iowa

October 18, 2020

Thursday on Faith On Trial

As we noted before, this Thursday on Faith On Trial meet the producers of the EWTN films, A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, and A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing II – The Gender Agenda, Stephen and Richard Payne. 

Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing is the story of Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, and the rise of his Cultural Marxism in the Catholic Church and America.

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing II – The Gender Agenda, examines the origins of the so-called Sexual Revolution, with its current emphasis on gender dysphoria and homosexuality, and explains how the battle over marriage and family will be won.

On the program we’ll also have Brenna Bird, formerly attorney for then Governor Terry Branstad, and now the Guthrie County attorney to discuss some of the issues surrounding the Supreme Court and the plan to “pack” the court.  All at 10 a.m. Central on Iowa Catholic Radio.

Jewish schoolgirls take on Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio targeting of Jewish schools

WASHINGTON – Yitzchok and Chana Lebovits, who send their daughters to Bais Yaakov Ateres Miriam (BYAM) – an Orthodox Jewish school for girls– are taking New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio to court today over new COVID restrictions intended to close religious schools in Orthodox Jewish communities. In Lebovits v. Cuomo, with help from Becket and the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, Yitzchok and Chana are asking the court to end Cuomo’s unscientific and discriminatory targeting of the Orthodox Jewish community and allow their children to get back to the classroom. 

On October 6, following an increase in COVID-19 cases that Governor Cuomo admitted “would be a safe zone” in many other states, the state imposed new indefinite lockdowns on a select number of zip codes in New York that target the Orthodox Jewish community. The new restrictions have completely banned in-person instruction at BYAM and other schools in Jewish neighborhoods in New York City—stripping parents of their right to direct the religious education and upbringing of their children. The restrictions come after months of Cuomo and de Blasio scapegoating the Jewish community for the spread of COVID while praising nearby mass protests. Last week, a federal judge in New York found the new restrictions to be specifically targeting the Orthodox Jewish community. 

“We are devastated for our daughters and their classmates who are needlessly suffering because of the Governor’s policy,” said Chana Lebovits, mother of two Bais Yaakov students. “Governor Cuomo should not take away part of my daughters’ childhood because other people are afraid of Orthodox Jews. We hope the court will let our daughters go back to school so they can pray and learn together with their classmates.” 

Beginning in March, BYAM voluntarily transitioned to remote learning to protect its neighbors and in compliance with the law. In the months that followed, the school spent thousands of dollars equipping teachers with the resources they needed to effectively teach over Zoom. Nevertheless, remote learning proved to be a poor substitute for in-person instruction. Students have suffered academically. Teachers have reported alarming regression in reading skills, had to reteach prayers, and are requesting last year’s math textbooks. Since reopening, BYAM has followed rigorous health and safety protocol, including masking, social distancing, and daily temperature checks—the result of which has been zero COVID cases in the school. 

Since its founding in 2012 BYAM has worked to instill the value and tradition of Orthodox Judaism in the next generation of women. Religious education is a centuries-old tradition that is indispensable to practicing the Jewish faith and passing it on to the next generation. Communal prayer, participating in bible studies and engaging in group projects designed to instill ethical values are all just some of the vital activities BYAM provides for its girls. These opportunities simply can’t be fulfilled through telelearning and the new lockdown orders threaten the vitality of BYAM’s traditions and the religious messages they convey in the lives of the girls that attend. 

“There is no place for bigotry in the Big Apple,” said Mark Rienzi, president and senior counsel at Becket. “By Cuomo’s own admission, schools are not significant spreaders of COVID-19, and the new policy was not driven by science but was made from 'fear'—fear of Orthodox Jews. Cuomo and de Blasio need to follow the science, follow the law, and stop scapegoating Jews. The Mayor and the Governor should be ashamed.”

UPDATE: 

WASHINGTON – Just hours after being ordered by a federal judge to explain his shutdown of Jewish schools in court, Governor Andrew Cuomo held a press conference in which he reversed course and agreed to allow the schools to open in Far Rockaway. The announcement came on the heels of the lawsuit filed by Yitzchok and Chana Lebovits, who send their daughters to Bais Yaakov Ateres Miriam (BYAM) – an Orthodox Jewish school for girls. The lawsuit alleged that Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio had illegally discriminated against the school, even though there had been no cases of COVID and both officials had previously admitted that schools have not been spreading the virus.

Watch EWTN this Saturday to see two documentaries -- then join us Thursday to visit with the producers

Next Thursday on Faith On Trial meet the producers of the EWTN films, A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, and A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing II – The Gender Agenda, Stephen and Richard Payne. You can view both films this Saturday, October 17 during a double feature on EWTN starting at 8:30 ET / 7:30 CT. If you can’t watch, TiVo them, then join us Thursday, October 22 at 10 a.m. CT to hear our interview with the producers. On the program we’ll also have Brenna Bird, formerly attorney for then Governor Terry Branstad, and now the Guthrie County attorney to discuss some of the issues surrounding the Supreme Court and the plan to “pack” the court.  

EWTN’s a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing is the story of Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, and the rise of his Cultural Marxism in the Catholic Church and America.

EWTN’s new film, A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing II – The Gender Agenda, examines the origins of the so-called Sexual Revolution, with its current emphasis on gender dysphoria and homosexuality, and explains how the battle over marriage and family will be won.

Both films this Saturday starting at 8:30 ET on EWTN – The Eternal Word Television Network.

Please, Mr. Biden, Answer This Question

By DEACON MIKE MANNO, JD

(The Wanderer) -- I am not a constitutional scholar. I was a simple next-door lawyer who made my living by helping people out of fixes, purchasing homes, adopting children, and plodding through the vexations of life. Nothing special; I graduated, passed the bar, took all my continuing education classes, and paid my bar membership — when I remembered.

But there is something that really scares me about where the law and our courts may be headed. In two and a half weeks, when the election is over, I’ll either feel relieved or on the verge of political despair. So I would like to know the answer to what I consider the most important unanswered question of the year: Mr. Biden, will you pack the Supreme Court?

As I write this, the Democratic nominee has refused to answer this question, although senior members of his party have promoted the idea. It’s a fair thing to do, they say, because the number of justices is left to Congress; besides, it’s been done before.

Well, maybe, sorta. I think we need to look a little deeper first.

The Constitution, article III, section 1 simply states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” That’s about it. No numbers, no qualifications listed, just that one sentence which is followed by the sentence stating that judges have no set terms of office, they “shall hold their offices during good behavior” which basically means for life.

So how did we get to the number nine and what is so magical about it? Well, the proponents of court-packing are correct about the court’s history. The current number was settled on in 1869 but prior to that the court membership fluctuated to as few as five and as many as ten. But what the proponents miss in their “what’s in a number” argument is that there were legitimate historical reasons for the number fluctuation.

The first Congress set the court at six justices. District courts were established to hear cases in the various states. However, in appeals from the district courts, justices from the Supreme Court would sit with district court judges to resolve the case before appeal to the top court. Rather than creating a new level of courts for each geographical circuit, Congress ordered that two Supreme Court justices and one district court judge would sit on the circuit panels.

This necessitated the Supreme Court justices to travel to different venues to hear these cases. Thus the justices would spend most of their time traveling the circuit to which they were assigned. Supreme Court justices would then schedule and meet in Washington, D.C., to hear the cases that were still being appealed by one of the parties.

Now as the nation expanded, there developed a need to expand the geographic boundaries of the circuits and as they were expanded it was necessary to add a judge or two to the High Court so that they could continue their function of “riding the circuit” with the judges from the local area. In 1837 with the admission of eight new states, Congress added two new circuits and two more justices, bringing the total to nine.

The admission of California added a new circuit and caused the addition of the tenth justice in 1863. In 1869 Congress set the number of justices at the current number, nine. In 1911 Congress created a distinct level of courts to hear the initial appeals from the district courts and the nexus between circuits and the number of justices was finally cut.

That’s how we ultimately got to nine. However, in 1937 President Franklin D. Roosevelt, unhappy with the Supreme Court striking down so many of his New Deal programs on 5-4 votes, began discussing the concept of increasing the court to fifteen. During that term, however, one of the associate justices drawing the president’s ire, Owen Roberts, took a legal left turn and upheld a Washington minimum wage law. The court packing plan then flopped with even Roosevelt’s supporters rejecting it.

It died in the Senate by a vote of 70 to 20, its defeat helped by Roberts’ “switch in time that saved the nine.”

Now, just as Roosevelt’s plan was aimed at shifting the ideological balance of the court by changing its composition, now the Democrats have suggested the same thing. During the primary campaign last year, Mayor Pete Buttigieg suggested the idea of a 15-member court composed of five Democrats, five Republicans, and five chosen by the first ten. Obviously that would require a constitutional amendment. However, the idea of just adding more justices became an easy option for Democrats and many party leaders, as well as rank and file members, have endorsed it.

And what a dream for them. A party controlling Congress and the White House could pack the court at a whim. Easy, simple, and a cute way to get around the conservative bloc and show Amy Coney Barrett who’s really in charge.

Problem is, of course, both sides can play that game as well as plenty of others with the make-up of the court. Congress could add requirements that required the appointment of a percentage of non-lawyers, or subject the court to a racial or gender balance, or even a political balance, as Mayor Buttigieg suggested.

And what kind of stability would that create? One of the hallmarks of the law should be its predictability: People want to lead their lives assured that they and their affairs will be safe and legal. How is that to happen with a permissive court that would be willing to curb property rights, First Amendment expression, religious tolerance, and other rights we’ve become used to?

The great debate over the court today is not about health care or abortion. It is about two differing judicial philosophies. In one the court is obligated to consider the words of the Constitution as understood by the authors of those words. The other sees the Constitution as a living document in which the courts breathe life into it by interpreting the words to give meaning to modern ideas, thus unofficially amending it by redefining concepts and terms.

Without a doubt there are things today that were not contemplated by the framers. But that does not mean their words were imperfect because of a change in time, as suggested by some.

Let me give you a quick example: The First Amendment grants the right to freedom of the press. In 1789 when the Constitution was adopted, “press” referred to a printing device by which people could use to communicate. There was no thought of radio, television, or the Internet. Yet they all fall under the freedom of the press because the concept of “press” was communication.

On the other hand, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Yet in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case in which Connecticut’s Comstock Law, banning the sale of any drug or device that prevented conception, was struck down as violating the right to privacy. So how did the court find that right? Well, in the penumbra, of course. That then brings up the question, what the heck is a penumbra?

A penumbra is an area of partial illumination, a place between a shadow and full light. Get it? A penumbra is a twilight area where constitutional rights that were never seen before hide until needed.

As I’m sure you are aware, Griswold’s progeny includes Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges, among others. Penumbras live!

In 2020, just as in 2016, the Supreme Court and the judiciary are front and center in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has not only shown us what kind of jurisprudential theory he is looking for in picking judges, he has given us a list from which he will pick. Mr. Biden refuses to do so, and as of this writing he even refuses to tell us if he supports the Democratic court-packing plan.

His response to the question is that he doesn’t want to make an issue of it. He’s running for the presidency of the United States. It’s already an issue; plain meaning vs. penumbras. He can’t kid himself out of this question. As the newspaper ad once said, “inquiring minds want to know.”

And there are a lot of inquiring minds asking the same question. So, Mr. Biden, please tell us, do you support packing the Supreme Court? A simple yes or no will do.

(You can reach Mike at DeaconMike@q.com, and hear him every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)