Boys' and girls' toy, clothes sections could land CA stores $1K fine

Boys' and girls' toy, clothes sections could land CA stores $1K fine: A proposed bill recently picked up again in California could end up fining retailers $1,000 for having separate girls and boys toy and apparel sections.

House passes Equality Act, which bishops warned would ‘punish’ religious groups

House passes Equality Act, which bishops warned would ‘punish’ religious groups: The House on Thursday passed the Equality Act, a bill that the U.S. bishops have warned would trample religious freedom protections while codifying gender ideology in federal law.

Faith On Trial program for this week, Feb. 25

 

EPISODE SUMMARY 

Guest #1: Attorney Lisa Haba, represents survivors of human trafficking and Attorney Peter Gentala Nat'l Center on Sexual Exploitation. 

Topic: Suit against Twitter over allegations it allowed sexually-explicit videos to be posted and maintained despite the pleas of the underage victim to remove them; sexual exploitation of children. 

Guest #2: Greg Baylor, Senior Counsel Alliance Defending Freedom. 

Topic: The Equality Act: what it means to religious freedom, gay and transgender rights, its effect on women's and girls’ sports.

A statement by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

A statement released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops this morning:

The Equality Act discriminates against people of faith and threatens unborn life. Tell your elected officials to oppose it! 

Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. The Equality Act, which is being voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives soon, in many ways does the opposite and needs to be opposed. Instead of respecting differences in beliefs about marriage and sexuality, the Equality Act would discriminate against people of faith. The Equality Act would: punish faith-based organizations, such as charities and schools who serve everyone in their communities, simply because of their beliefs; force girls and women to compete against boys and men for limited opportunities in sports, and to share locker rooms and shower spaces with biological males who identify as women; risk mandating taxpayers to fund abortions; force people in everyday life, and especially health care workers, to support gender transition; and expand what the government considers a “public” place, forcing even some parish halls to host functions that conflict with Catholic beliefs. 

Faith On Trial this week, Feb. 25

This is our Care-A-Thon week where we’re trying to raise funds to keep our Catholic Radio station on the air. If you would like to contribute go to our web page, IowaCatholicRadio.com and click on the “donate” button to make a secure donation.

Topics this week: Sexual exploitation of children with attorneys Lisa Haba and Peter Gentala and the Equality Act with Alliance Defending Senior Counsel Greg Baylor.

Join us this Thursday at 10 a.m. Central time on Iowa Catholic Radio for Faith On Trial! 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM; streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com, or download our free and convenient app.

Truth, Reconciliation, And The Distribution Of Wealth

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) – It’s tough for conservatives these days. We lost an administration (by hook or by crook) that, on balance, embraced our values. It mattered not whether you personally approved of Mr. Trump or his conduct, conservatives, if they are honest, will admit that his policies reflected conservative and Christian policies, again, on balance.

But that administration has been replaced by Mr. Biden’s; one that rejects the principal tenets of conservativism just as Mr. Biden personally rejects the principal tenets of the Catholic Church. In addition, it is not just turning the page from a conservative administration to a liberal one; it seems that we have turned our entire society from one which endeavored to breathe the fresh air of freedom into one that is entirely comfortable with the heavy breath of an overreaching Big Brother.

I think nothing sums this up as much as what is happening to our political holy trinity: Big Media, Big Business, and Big Labor. As I pointed out before, the 2020 election was more than a referendum on who should occupy the White House for the next four years. There was with it an undercurrent that leaves a bad taste in the mouth such as happens when you sip from a glass of expired milk.

Just as in auto racing when stewards with flags signal to the cars instructions from race control, today Big Media are signaling to us from what can only be described as mind control. The networks and major cable news outlets signal to us what we need to believe, what we are free to discard, and what we don’t really need to know. Joining as loyal fellow travelers are the major social media outlets who have now taken to censoring voices on the right.

And to complete the Big Brother act, leftist politicians — many of whom serve in Mr. Biden’s close orbit — are discussing legal means to close down or cancel any one who disagrees — such as the socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who, with colleagues, is supporting a plan for “truth and reconciliation” commissions that will systematically root out opinions and facts and opinions that AOC and her cohorts consider false. But this goes beyond a creepy congresswoman and her comrades; it permeates society.

But what surprised me was how quickly Big Business followed suit. National banks are now declining to deal with people and businesses that belong to what can be loosely — sometimes very loosely — described as right-wing. More and more are following in the footsteps of the Southern Poverty Law Center and viewing anyone not toeing the company line as racist, homophobic, or whatever pejorative fits the group at issue.

A case in point involves the retailers that are beginning to drop Mike Lindell’s My Pillow brand, as if his pillows pose an existential (the left really loves that word) threat to the well-being of the planet.

So I guess it should not surprise me too much that big industry is eager to play its part in this societal damnation. After all business is money, not liberty or freedom — unless there is a profit-motive involved — solely about money. And, not just a little bit, about good public relations. And can you blame industry? Mr. Trump’s America First policy brought back thousands of jobs to our shores that had been thought lost forever.

Instead of winking at manufacturers that moved production overseas to avoid paying their workers U.S. wages, the Trump administration put pressure on business — sometimes by unorthodox measures, at least measures not seen on that scale before — to bring manufacturing, as well as non-manufacturing jobs home.

Cheap labor overseas; big profits at home. I think I understand the game. I get it, make nice-nice with the folks who will “liberate” you from the necessity of paying for high-priced help at home, thus letting you use cheap, sometimes slave, labor to make products that can be sold in the United States — and elsewhere — at a much higher profit margin than could be had if you had to pay a competitive wage here.

Which, of course, was one of the reasons why German industrialists supported the National Socialists. Cheap, slave labor was a boon to their bottom lines. But of course those perks can suddenly disappear, as the old adage says: Those who try to ride the tiger oft end up inside it. German industrialists soon found themselves subject to crippling regulations.

Robert Morris College history professor Ralph Reiland, writing for The Free Market in 1998 quoted a businessman’s letter about the Third Reich: “You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth’.”

I’m not suggesting that our current crop of industrialists would ever support anything close to a Nazi regime; but I am suggesting that they should be careful about the road they are traversing. With an administration as liberal as this one, filled as it is with left-wing and Marxist devotees, it is easy to see how cheap labor now could turn into “distributing the wealth” and crippling regulations later.

Much the same could be said for Big Labor. Labor has been the backbone of the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember. Yet this administration, after garnering labor support during the campaign, now appears deaf to its interests. Oh sure, Mr. Biden allowed the teachers’ unions to make frivolous claims as to why schools should remain closed, for which he was justifiably criticized, but he canceled thousands upon thousands of good-paying jobs — that incidentally pay much more than a teacher’s — on his first day in office through a series of executive orders.

In just one, Mr. Biden canceled a federal permit given to TC Energy Corp. for pipeline construction. TC last August signed a project labor agreement with four unions for the creation of 42,000 “family-sustaining jobs” totaling two billion dollars in total earnings for their workers. The labor unions that signed the agreement were the Laborers International Union of North America, the Teamsters, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. All four labor unions endorsed Mr. Biden for president. Wait until they get to the distributing the wealth part.

But have no fear, the administration’s point man — climate czar and Herman Munster impersonator John Kerry — assured those losing their pipeline jobs they can find jobs making solar panels. That’s nice to know, especially since Bloomberg reported in 2018 that: “There is only one U.S. company (General Electric Co.) among the global top 10 wind turbine manufacturers, and one (First Solar Inc., which does most of its manufacturing in Malaysia) among the top 10 solar-cell makers. The wind industry is headquartered in Europe, and the solar industry increasingly in China.” Thanks, John.

And Big Media? Well while the left is celebrating its media darling, AOC, before it moves any further in her direction it might want to examine a bit of history. In 1797 Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act provided that anyone publishing “false, scandalous, and malicious” statements “against the government of the United States, or either house of congress…or to bring them into contempt or disrepute” would be subject to imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of $2,000.” That $2,000 today would be over $70,000 now.

Since that is similar to what Ms. AOC is suggesting I should make clear for her that the change is the value of the money after inflation; the calendar part doesn’t change, thus the two years would still be two years. Hope she understands.

Of course none of that ended well for the sponsoring Federalists. There were 26 prosecutions for violations of the Sedition Act, mostly against newspaper editors. The act was so unpopular it became a big part of the Thomas Jefferson party’s victory over Federalist John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. The acts themselves expired on the last day of Adams’ term and no Federalist has ever achieved the presidency since, in fact, the party didn’t survive.

Now, bring on that distribution of wealth.

(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.)

 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Assisted Death may be a Cruel Death

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition: Assisted Death may be a Cruel Death: Alex Schadenberg Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Dr Joel Zivot who is an assistant professor of anesthesiology/critical ...

Equality Act Is Anti-Christian

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Equality Act is "about ending discrimination"; President Joe Biden agrees. That may be its intent, but its effect is to promote the most comprehensive assault on Christianity ever written into law.

This explains why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been fighting this proposed law for years. Most recently it said the Equality Act "would discriminate against people of faith." The Catholic League and many other civil rights and religious organizations have also sounded the alarm.

The Equality Act has two major goals: it would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity to the definition of sex; it would also undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by allowing gay rights to trump religious rights.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was primarily motivated by a desire to end racial segregation. It banned discrimination based on race, sex or national origin. That was it. It said absolutely nothing about sexual orientation, and it certainly didn't address transgender rights—it wasn't even a concept in the 1960s. Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to this law not only violates the intent of the legislation, it unduly burdens  houses of worship and other religious organizations.

In order to end racial segregation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act banned discrimination in public accommodations. Blacks had historically been denied services in many public facilities, ranging from diners to hotels. The Equality Act goes way beyond this, so much so that it disfigures the meaning of this historic 1964 law.

The Equality Act not only covers homosexuals and transgender persons, it expands public accommodations to include consumer services such as healthcare. In practice this would be a disaster. It would mean, for example, that healthcare providers would be forced to provide hormone therapies and surgical procedures that are required to change the physical characteristics associated with sex changes.

One does not have to be a Catholic healthcare practitioner to register moral and religious objections to this "healthcare" initiative. Will anyone be allowed to voice objections to these procedures, pointing out the long-term physical and mental problems associated with sex reassignment? What about parents who learn that their child wants to switch his or her sex? Will their rights be respected or eviscerated? 

It has become increasingly clear that the expansion of rights to transgender women—really biological males who identify as female—has come at the expense of rights for biological females. Take sports.

Boys and men would be allowed to compete in sports with girls and women, thus unfairly altering women's athletics. Females would also lose their privacy rights. These biological males can use the locker rooms, restrooms and shower facilities that have always been reserved for females. None of this has anything to do with why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. Similarly, rights that have never been envisioned for homosexuals are also affected by the Equality Act.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act specifically banned preferential treatment in law. Nevertheless, the courts have invoked this law to justify affirmative action for blacks. Were the Equality Act to become law, it would mean that homosexuals could now insist that they are entitled to preferential treatment. Yet it is well established that homosexuals earn more income than heterosexuals; lesbians also make more than straight women. The economic condition of gays is nothing like that of African Americans.

In 1993, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); it was signed by President Bill Clinton. This was a major victory for religious liberty. But now Pelosi and Schumer regret their vote, even to the point of supporting the Equality Act, knowing full well that it exempts itself from RFRA! This is perverse. There could be no more serious undercutting of religious liberty than what they are proposing.

It would mean that Catholics, evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Muslims and many other religious communities could not raise religious liberty objections to any of the aforementioned rights of transgender women. In effect, religious entities would be secularized.

For example, if the Equality Act were to become law, Catholic foster care programs would be shut down. They would either have to agree to allow two men to adopt children—a clear violation of Church teachings—or lose federal funding. This is the kind of "gotcha" type element that makes this bill so pernicious.

Currently, Catholic hospitals can legally refuse to perform abortions. Under the Equality Act, they would either lose federal funding or be forced to get into the abortion business. That is because refusing abortion services would be declared "pregnancy" discrimination.

Without the religious liberty protections afforded by RFRA, virtually every religious institution—from houses of worship to schools—would be expected to fall in line with this radical legislation. Catholic schools, for instance, would be expected to change their teachings on sexual ethics to suit the radical LGBT agenda.

It is hard for the public to understand, especially Catholics, why such allegedly "devout Catholics" as Biden and Pelosi would want to champion such patently anti-Christian legislation as the Equality Act. 

Why Every Child Deserves Married Parents

Why Every Child Deserves Married Parents: Every child deserves to live with a married mother and father who love them and are committed to each other.

Biden v. The Bishops

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

President Biden has been in office for just over a month and already he is on a collision course with the bishops. It reached a new level today when he issued a statement endorsing the Equality Act; next week it will be voted on in the House and will also be reintroduced in the Senate.

Biden sees the Equality Act as granting "dignity and respect" to everyone, making sure that "America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all." He says it is needed because "LGBTQ+ Americans" have been denied "full equality."

This is a dishonest account. If the bill were as benign as Biden says it is, why would the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's (USCCB) be so adamantly opposed to it? The bishops have not been fooled. The Equality Act is, without a doubt, the most radical assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy rights ever packaged into one bill.

When Archbishop José Gomez, chairman of the USCCB, warned in November that some of Biden's policies were troubling, he explicitly mentioned "the passage of the Equality Act." As the bishops have previously noted, it could gut the autonomy of Catholic hospitals, especially with regards to reproductive issues. It could also be used to compel Catholic schools to grant boys access to the locker rooms and shower facilities of girls.

Of course, Biden never mentions such matters. His speechwriters are masters of spin.

Gomez said the Equality Act poses "a serious threat to the common good," but that wasn't the worst of it. What made it really treacherous was its endorsement by a Catholic president. The chairman of the USCCB rightly observed that "it creates confusion among the faithful about what the Church actually teaches on these questions." 

Biden's statement today promoting the passage of the Equality Act means that the collision course with the bishops has reached its destination. Biden has formally triggered the crash.

I will have more in the way of detailed objections to the Equality Act next week.

Rep. Raul Ruiz wrongly argues abortion is necessary for babies with disabilities

Rep. Raul Ruiz wrongly argues abortion is necessary for babies with disabilities: During a House committee debate on the Hyde Amendment, Rep. Raul Ruiz argued in favor of abortions targeting babies with disabilities and health conditions.

Progressive ideology and the hijacking of the Christian faith

Progressive ideology and the hijacking of the Christian faith: Turek Miles So-called “progressive Christians” do what many with a bad case do: they distract and deceive by not only redefining the standard, but redefining the moralistic sounding words they use to sell the new standard.

Faith On Trial episode 256 February 18, 2021

EPISODE NOTES

Guest #1 John Horvat, vice president American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property; Author of Return to Order. 

Topic: Activities of Satanist: church desecrations, black masses, pro-abortion billboards. What is going on and how do we combat it and how do we report it. How we can get the book Return to Order free. (www.tfp.org) 

Guest #2 : Matt Willkom, Executive Director of Iowa Catholic Radio

Topic: Introduction of matt as the new executive director, exciting changes coming and  care-a-thon. 

Guest #3 Dr. Alveda King, executive producer Roe v. Wade, evangelist, and pastoral associate for Priests for Life and director of Civil Rights for the Unborn. 

Topic: The Movie Roe v. Wade follows the case for the legalization of abortion all the way to the Supreme Court. To persuade the Justices, pro-abortionists start a blitz that includes fabricating fake statistics to the media, and creating pro-abortion narrative in Hollywood; a classic courtroom drama exploring the behind the scenes story. 

Becerra Is A Menace To Life And Liberty

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

President Biden's worst nominee for a Cabinet post is Xavier Becerra to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). On February 23, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions will conduct a hearing on his nomination. The man is a menace to life and liberty and has no business serving in this capacity. 

Here are 16 reasons why Becerra should not be confirmed. 

Beginning of Life 

1) It would be impossible to find a more enthusiastic advocate of abortion-on-demand. While a majority of Americans support legal abortion, it does so with important qualifications: it does not support abortion for any reason and at any time during pregnancy. As such, Becerra is out of the mainstream. Indeed, he is an extremist. That is why he secures a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood and a 0% score from National Right to Life. 

2) Becerra's lust for abortion even allows him to support partial-birth abortion, a practice which allows the abortionist to crush the skull of a baby who is 80% born so that the child can exit the woman's birth canal.  

3) For all the talk about allowing pregnant women the right to choose, Becerra is on record seeking to prevent them from choosing life. To be exact, when he was the California Attorney General, he lost in the U.S. Supreme Court in his attempt to effectively close down crisis pregnancy centers across the state. 

In 2016, in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, the high court ruled against his mandate forcing abortion-alternative centers to post a message saying the state will pay for a woman's abortion. This not only negated the reason these centers were founded, it constituted "compelled speech," and was therefore unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In short, Becerra's idea of freedom to choose is limited to choosing abortion over adoption.  

4) If someone who assaults a pregnant woman winds up killing her unborn child, that would seem to make him a criminal. But not to Becerra. As a congressman, he voted against a bill that would criminalize the killing of an unborn child during the commission of another crime. According to Becerra, the unborn child has no rights that the law needs to respect.  

5) Though it is hard to believe, there are underground railroads run by abortion extremists that literally transport minors to states where they can easily get an abortion. This is a particularly obscene form of human trafficking that makes even pro-abortion politicians wince. Not Becerra. He voted against a ban on this hideous practice.  

6) Becerra proved himself to a pro-abortion zealot once again when he brought charges against pro-life activists who went undercover to film Planned Parenthood officials trafficking in aborted baby parts. He brought felony charges against them. His decision was so radical that even the abortion-rights Los Angeles Times criticized him for "disturbing overreach." In 2017, a judge dismissed 14 of the 15 charges as legally insufficient. 

Genetic Engineering 

7) Embryonic stem cell research, unlike other kinds of stem cell research, is a life and death issue. Science tells us that nascent human life is evident at the embryonic stage, making it impossible to do embryonic stem cell research without killing the embryo. This does not matter to Becerra, which explains his vote in Congress to approve it. 

8) Human cloning is an issue that most lawmakers and judges have declined to address. Their reluctance is grounded in the moral and legal dilemmas associated with making a genetically identical copy of a human being in the laboratory. Becerra, however, is different. When he was in  Congress, he approved human cloning for research purposes.  

End of Life 

9) It makes sense that if someone does not value innocent human life at its beginning that he would not value it at its end. Becerra is a classic example of this mentality. When he was Attorney General in California, his strong support for doctor-assisted suicide won him the kudos of the most radical proponents of this cause. 

Religious Liberty 

10) Conscience rights are at the very heart of religious liberty. To put it mildly, Becerra is not a fan. When those who owned Hobby Lobby were pleading their case, invoking their conscience rights as grounds for objecting to paying for birth control in their healthcare plan, Becerra maintained that such rights should not matter. He said it was one thing to hold to religious beliefs, quite another to act on them. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court did not ratify such contorted logic and sustained the conscience rights of the business owners. 

11) Few Attorneys General in the United States fought more ferociously to deny the Little Sisters of the Poor their religious rights than Becerra. The nuns objected to being forced to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization in their healthcare plan. At every stage, Becerra hounded them. He even filed lawsuits against the Trump administration for shielding the nuns from the HHS mandate passed under the Obama administration. 

12) Should a baker be forced against his will to make a wedding cake for two men planning to marry? The owner did not object to selling his products to gay men. What he found objectionable, on religious grounds, was being ordered to inscribe a wedding cake for two homosexuals; to do so would force him to affirm their status. Becerra said too bad for them—their religious convictions should be overridden. This explains why he filed an amicus brief on the part of the gay men. But once again, he lost. 

13) Practicing Catholics, among others, do not believe that people of the same sex should be adoptive parents. Anyone is free to disagree, but respect for the diversity that Catholicism affords suggests that Catholic foster care agencies should be entitled to practice what they preach. Becerra disagrees. He is so wedded to the LGBT agenda that as California Attorney General he even supported a law to deny California public agencies, public universities and boards the right to fund work-related trips to states that respect the religious liberty interests of foster care agencies.  

14) In January 2017, at his confirmation hearings as California Attorney General, Becerra stunned lawyers when he said that it was one thing to respect the religious rights of individuals, quite another to extend these rights to organizations. Thus did he try to marginalize houses of worship, faith-based organizations and religious non-profits. It doesn't get more absurd, or constitutionally wrongheaded, than this. 

15) The Equality Act is not law but it is strongly supported by Biden. If passed, it would be the most serious assault on religious liberty ever enacted. As a congressman, Becerra was a co-sponsor of this bill. In the name of abortion and LGBT rights, it would not only devastate the autonomy of Catholic hospitals, it would ensure that boys who claim to be girls could compete against biological girls in sports. It would even allow them to shower with girls. When religious liberty objections are made, Becerra dismisses them outright. 

16) Over the past year, California Governor Gavin Newsom imposed the most draconian Covid-19 restrictions on houses of worship in the nation. His limitations on occupancy have been so severe as to abolish the rights of churchgoers. Becerra, of course, was delighted to enforce these strictures.  

For all of these reasons, it would be hard to think of a more unfit person in the United States to serve as Secretary of HHS than Xavier Becerra. His positions on life and religious liberty make him an outlier and should automatically disqualify him from serving in this capacity. 

This week on Faith On Trial (Feb. 18)

Guests this week: John Horvat, vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, and author of Return to Order.

And Dr. Alveda King, pastoral associate for Priests for Life, director of Civil Rights for the Unborn, and executive producer to the movie Roe v. Wade.

Join Deacon Mike and Gina Noll this Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on Iowa Catholic Radio for another edition of Faith On Trial, 1150 AM; 88.5 or 94.5 FM; streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com, or simply download our free and convenient app.

Do We Learn From History? Pope Formosus, Pope Stephen and the Cadaver Synod

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) I fell in love with history as a kid. My mom bought me a set of the World Book Encyclopedia and put it in my bedroom to help me with my homework. One of the reasons she purchased the set was a sales special for our school, St. Theresa of the Child Jesus. Apparently, as I recall, for every so-many sets that were purchased by St. Theresa parents, a set would be given to the school.

I didn’t think too much of it at first, but it was convenient. I remember browsing through the books and wondering why I needed so many books in grade school, but, beyond that, it didn’t make much of an impression at first.

But as time went by, and the weather would turn so that I couldn’t go outside, I started to just grab a volume at random and flip through the articles. I started to find many of them interesting, especially those related to history and historical events. By the time I reached high school, I had read all the biographies of our presidents, much of the history of the United States, the media, the Church, and the history of the papacy, as well as other topics of interest.

I remember ultimately stumbling across the conflict between Pope Formosus and his Successor, Pope Stephen VI, set in the year 897, which, for some reason, intrigues me now.

First a little background on the times in which Formosus and Stephen lived. This was a period of time from about the year 800 — the beginning of the Carolingian Empire — for another 200 years when the history of the papacy was probably at its lowest.

There was papal corruption, with the buying and selling of Church offices, nepotism, concubines, and the domination of the papacy by kings and emperors, including that of the Holy Roman Empire, with which Popes of this time were required to politically maneuver to support or oppose certain rulers of the day. It was also a time when the Roman laity participated with the clergy in choosing their bishop: the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Into this mix arose two men who are at the heart of this story.

Pope Formosus was born around 816. A man of exceptional intelligence and ability, he nonetheless made several bitter political enemies, including one of his Successors, Pope Stephen VI. Stephen was a factional partisan who was a member of the ruling Spoleto family, which Formosus, favoring the Frankish party, opposed.

Formosus was named a cardinal in 864 and became bishop of Porto. As the cardinal-bishop he came to the notice of Pope Nicholas I, who named him a papal legate and sent him on diplomatic missions to France. Rome became uneasy when Formosus’ uncle, Charles the Bald, was chosen as Holy Roman Emperor. Many, including Formosus, fearing violence, fled the city.

When Pope John VIII requested his return, Formosus remained in hiding. John responded by excommunicating him for leaving his diocese without permission. The excommunication was lifted when Formosus agreed not to work as a cleric and not to return to Rome. Pope Marinus finally recalled Formosus to Rome and restored him as bishop of Porto. When Pope Stephen V died in 891, Formosus was unanimously elected the 111th Supreme Pontiff, succeeding him on October 6. He reigned during a period of political instability with which Formosus and his pontificate became entangled.
He died on April 4 in 896 after a reign of approximately four and one-half years. He was succeeded by Pope Boniface VI who reigned only 15 days before he, too, died. He was succeeded by Stephen VI. Stephen had been consecrated bishop of Anagni, apparently against his will by Formosus, and was elected the 113th Pope on May 22 in 896.

Stephen, harboring ill will toward the dead Formosus, claimed that his Predecessor had committed perjury by violating the oath he gave Pope John, and claimed that Formosus, before becoming Pope, had tried to usurp the papacy from him. In addition, Stephen also asserted that Formosus had attempted to exercise the office of bishop as a layman and had despoiled the cloisters in Rome.

Stephen, for reasons history still disputes, decided to “try” Formosus for his crimes. To do so he had the body of Formosus exhumed, attired in pontifical vestments, and placed on a throne before a synod of the Roman clergy. There a “trial” was for held for Formosus with Stephen as chief prosecutor and a deacon appointed to answer for Formosus.

Of course the trial was a travesty and Formosus was duly found guilty of all charges. Upon the finding of guilt, the body of the former Pope was stripped of its vestments and the three fingers on its right hand, used by Formosus for blessings, were cut off. The body was ultimately thrown into the Tiber.

He was tried, found guilty, and, at Stephen’s order, his pontificate was erased from history and all his decrees were declared null and void. Stephen even forced several clerics who had been ordained by Formosus to resign their offices.

Restored To The Official List

So much for ex-Pope Formosus! Stephen’s vengeance was satisfied. A sad ending for Formosus? Well, we’re not quite at the end of the story.

The people of Rome were so incensed by the spectacle of what history has called “the cadaver synod,” they arrested, imprisoned, and deposed Stephen, who was later strangled August 14, 897, after serving only fifteen months as Pope.

Ultimately, the actions of Stephen and the synod were themselves declared null and void by Pope Theodore II (r. 897), who called his own synod to annul Stephen’s rulings and to restore the Ordinations of Formosus which Stephen — who ironically was ordained by Formosus — had annulled. Formosus was thus restored to the official list of Popes.

When the body of Formosus did finally wash ashore, there were rumors of miracles that accompanied it. It was finally attired in pontifical vestments and the former Pope was finally laid to rest in St. Peter’s Basilica.

I learned a lot from that old World Book. I wonder if Joseph the Devout or Nancy the Pious got a set from their moms.

Come on, man; just sayin’.

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

Marxist infusion coming to school houses in Prairie State

Marxist infusion coming to school houses in Prairie State: Illinois appears to be on the forefront of a "woke" education policy that a cultural issues writer says could sweep across school districts nationwide.

Protection of women's sports gaining traction at state, national levels

Protection of women's sports gaining traction at state, national levels: Governor Bill Lee (R-Tennessee) told reporters Wednesday that transgender athletes should be banned from playing on middle and high school sports teams or they will "destroy women's sports." He's the latest critic of allowing biological males in female sports.

This week's (Feb. 11) Faith On Trial podcast

EPISODE NOTES

Guest #1 - Lea Patterson, attorney at First Liberty Institute

Topic: Maine school choice case - state prohibits religious schools from participation; Disqualification of a juror for expressing belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

Guest #2 - Dr. Anne Hendershott, Franciscan University

Topic: Author, The Politics of Envy. The practice of mobbing in academia and elsewhere. "It often emerges from an envy of excellence - excellent and productive people are more likely to be mobbed than 'little birds.'"

Dr. Hendershott's book can be purchsed from Amazon by clicking the link found on the right column. 

Demonizing White Christians

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

Much to the chagrin of the Christian left, they have never been able to gain traction. This accounts, at least in part, for their animus against conservative Christians, who, unlike those on the left, carry significant political and cultural weight. The most recent manifestation of the Christian left's hostility to conservative Christians is their invention of Christian nationalism. 

It always helps to have a bogeyman. Christian nationalism was not discovered—it was created out of used cloth. Formerly known as the "Religious Right" or "Christocrats," today's bad guys are different in that they evince a strong racist edge. White people are the problem. To be more specific, it is white conservative Christians, many of whom are Trump supporters, who are an existential threat to our democracy. 

Who believes this nonsense? Americans United for Separation of Church and State believes it. It blamed Christian nationalists for the Capitol riot of January 6. So did several True Believers in Christian nationalism, including professor Andrew Whitehead, one of the more prominent exponents of this fiction. 

Christianity Today columnist Tish Harrison Warren is also on board. The violence, she said, can be "laid at the feet of the white American church." The "white American church?" Who speaks this way? Is there an "Asian American church?" Or a "people of color American church?" 

David French is a white evangelical critic of Christian nationalism, but unlike most of these partisans, he hasn't gone off the deep end. For example, he doesn't seem to know what the "white American church" is anymore than the rest of us. "It is rare to find an outright Christian nationalist church. There's not a huge wave of Christian nationalist churches." 

This seems odd. If we can't locate where the bogeyman hangs out, isn't it possible he doesn't exist? After all, communists were reliably found  hanging out at the offices of the Communist Party. Why can't anyone locate the address of Christian nationalists? Whitehead suggests that's because they're everywhere. "Christian nationalism is pervasive across all segments of U.S. society," he says. Still, it doesn't make sense that no one can find their headquarters. 

David D. Miller was featured last month in an interview he gave to Christianity Today on this subject. He is a professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service; he is also finishing a book on Christian nationalism. Those are impressive credentials. Too bad he can't get his facts straight. 

Miller cites a book by Whitehead and Samuel Perry on Christian nationalism, "Taking America Back for God." They contend the country is split between advocates and detractors of Christian nationalism. They call the most rabid advocates of Christian nationalism "ambassadors," saying they make up 19.8% of the population. In his interview, Miller said the authors contend that "52% of all Americans are what they call ambassador." 

How could Miller screw this up? It's not hard to figure out. In his enthusiasm to show how omnipresent the bogeymen are, he conflated the ambassadors with the "accommodators," the less rabid supporters of Christian nationalism; they constitute 32.1% of the public. That's how Miller concluded that the majority of Americans are radical Christian nationalists. 

If someone believes that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are divinely inspired, does that make him a Christian nationalist? Whitehead and Perry say it does. Miller goes so far as say "that put[s] you high up on the scale of Christian nationalism." 

That would seem to make Thomas Jefferson, not exactly a practicing Christian, a Christian nationalist. The author of the Declaration made four references to God in our founding document. He spoke of "the laws of nature and nature's God"; "the Creator"; "the supreme judge of the world"; and "the protection of Divine Providence." And, of course, he said our inalienable rights come from our "Creator," not government. 

Was the U.S. Supreme Court giving voice to Christian nationalism in 1892 when it declared, "This is a Christian nation"? Or was it simply making an historical observation? No matter, to advocates of the cancel culture, such a remark needs to be excised. 

Are those who sing patriotic songs Christian nationalists? What about those who display the American flag? Or how about those who say the Pledge of Allegiance? Miller says all three are examples of Christian nationalism. He just indicted most Americans. 

What about left-wing Christians who pledge their allegiance to the poor? Are they Christian nationalists? No, insists Miller. What about Christians who are pro-life or who defend religious liberty? According to Miller, they are true Christian nationalists. 

Looks like David French is a Christian nationalist after all. The mild-mannered critic of Christian nationalism maintains, "I haven't changed my perspective on things like being pro-life or believing in strong religious freedom protections." 

Miller was asked what pastors can do to help stop Christian nationalism. His answer was precious. They can ask the faithful, "How much time are you spending a day listening to Fox News and talk radio?" 

Who knew that Rush was the real bogeyman all along?

Faith On Trial for Thursday February 11

This week:

Lea Patterson, attorney with First Liberty Institute on a Maine school choice program that excludes religious schools because they teach religion, and the case of a juror who was dismissed from jury duty for expressing trust in the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Anne Hendershott of Franciscan University on her new book, The Politics of Envy.

Join Deacon Mike Manno and Gina Noll this Thursday at 10 a.m. (CT) on IowaCathlicradio.com where the program will stream live and where podcasts of our old programs can be found.

Feminist Author Calls for Crackdown on Homeschoolers

CV NEWS FEED // Prominent lawyer and feminist author Jill Filipovic is warning the public against homeschooling, and pushing for new measures to rein in the rights of “far-right” Christian parents to educate their children differently than public educators would.

In a scathing opinion piece, Filipovic cited examples of homeschooling parents charged with the abuse and even murder of their own children. 

Taking to Twitter, Filipovic accused other parents of “a lot of extreme arrogance” for thinking themselves capable of teaching despite their lack of credentials.

Filipovic preemptively attacked pro-homeschooling critics, complaining that “if you so much as write about homeschooling, and certainly if you try to legislate anything related to it, you will be incessantly harassed by a right-wing mob.”

“Children’s rights are as threatening to them as feminism is,” she wrote. 

Filipovic also argued that “powerful and politically connected” “right-wing homeschooling groups” have “very successfully undermined children’s basic physical safety and right to an education all across the US.”

Excusing Public Schools, Attacking Alternatives?

While Filipovic raised alarms about the abuse and endangerment of homeschooled children and called for more regulation and oversight to be imposed on homeschooling parents, critics pointed to the phenomenon of abuse in the public school system.

In 2019, the New York Times reported that public K-12 schools “have become notorious for failing to recognize and address sexual assault, and employing tactics to intimidate victims and avoid lawsuits.” 

Likewise, Commonweal Magazine reported that “the aggregate number of children abused in the public schools would be larger than in the Catholic Church scandal,” according to Charol Shakeshaft, a Virginia Commonwealth University professor and former advisor to the Department of Education.

As to why Filipovic overlooked this data in her commentary about homeschooling, Catholic critics suggested a more far-reaching motive. 

“Anyone could see this coming,” said CatholicVote Political Director Joshua Mercer. “It’s not just about homeschooling:

That’s just a pretext. It’s ultimately about the secular state dictating what children learn. In fact most of what Filipovic wrote about home schoolers could be applied just as easily to private Catholic schools.

On Twitter, author Rob Kroese expressed a similar sentiment. “You don’t give a s*** about children’s rights,” he wrote in reply to Filipovic. “You just want license to indoctrinate them.”

Federal Court Grants Emergency Motion

San Jose, CA – Federal District Court Judge Edward Davila granted in part an emergency motion filed by five churches seeking a stay against Governor Gavin Newsom and Santa Clara County’s Public Health Officer, Sara Cody.  The churches brought suit challenging the complete prohibition on indoor gatherings at places of worship.  Following a decision in the Ninth Circuit, on January 29 the Court partially granted a motion for a preliminary injunction against the state but left completely intact the County’s 100% ban on indoor church services.  

But on February 5, the US Supreme Court reversed the appellate court in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal v. Newsom.  Based on that decision, Judge Davila granted the emergency motion against the County and State defendants late Monday allowing the churches to operate at up to 25%.  The case is Gateway City Church v. Newsom and includes The Home Church, Spectrum Church, Orchard Community Church, and Trinity Bible Church. 

Santa Clara County has been the most restrictive jurisdiction in the nation against religious assemblies.  It has assessed punitive fines against churches, including a $112,000 fine against North Valley Baptist Church and $2 million against San Jose Calvary Chapel.  In the latter case, the church was sued as a public nuisance by the County.  

“We are pleased that Judge Davila did not hesitate to quickly respond to our emergency motion regarding Santa Clara County’s continued violation of churches’ rights to worship as articulated by the US Supreme Court on Feb. 5th”, said PJI President, Attorney Brad Dacus. 

PJI has been litigating the case in a joint effort with the Cannistraci Law Firm and McAllister Law Group. 

New Study Shows Lockdowns Destroyed the Economy, Not the Virus

New Study Shows Lockdowns Destroyed the Economy, Not the Virus: A recent Washington Post article claimed 'shutdowns aren’t killing jobs, the virus is.” Data from a new economic paper, however, paints a much different picture regarding the toll of government lockdowns.

Anti-Trump media in a predicament as ratings nosedive

Anti-Trump media in a predicament as ratings nosedive: Analysts were wondering what was going to happen to the mainstream media once they no longer had Donald Trump to kick around. The ratings are in – and it's not pretty.

Historian Warns: Mexican Persecution Could Happen Here

 

Election Redux

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) The fight over election laws, expanded mail-in voting, verification requirements — and several other issues that caused a nationwide debate during the 2020 election — is being fought in two venues which could produce contradictory results.

In the East Coast corner, representing the Democrats, the House is now considering HR 1, a proposed law entitled “For the People Act of 2021” which, if passed, would effectively legalize many of the controversial “emergency rules” which opponents claim stole last year’s election from President Trump.

In the West Coast corner, representing the “Stop the Steal” crowd, is a coalition of conservative groups who are in federal court in California seeking a declaratory judgment that many of the state’s election rules are unconstitutional, and an order prohibiting their continued use.

What makes this an interesting fight is that the East Coast group is trying to legalize many of the same things that the West Coast group is trying to invalidate.

Let’s introduce the contestants. The East Coast folks are the Democrats in Congress who are trying to solidify the tactics they successfully used that put Mr. Biden in the White House. The West Coast people are led by the Election Integrity Project of California, Inc., and represented by several conservative public-interest law firms.

As the parties thrust and parry, here are their positions: The D.C. group, in its 791-page bill, claims that “racial discrimination in access to voting and the political process persists,” thus there is a need for a uniform election law that applies to all states “[t]o expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.”
It includes requirements such as this:

“A State may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prevent a State from requiring a signature of the individual or similar affirmation as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot….A State may not require notarization or witness signature or other formal authentication as a condition of obtaining or casting an absentee ballot….A State shall treat the individual’s application to vote by absentee ballot by mail in an election for Federal office as an application for an absentee ballot by mail in all subsequent Federal elections held in the State.”

The bill legalizes unrestricted ballot harvesting, ends voter ID, and permits nationwide mail-in voting. It restores the voting rights for convicted felons, prohibits the use of more than the last four digits of a Social Security number for authentication, requires the use of Internet-only voter registration, and requires same-day registration whereby voters can register to vote on Election Day.

Notably, the states would be prohibited from setting their own election rules, but would be required to follow the federal law. The state could apply no restrictions on absentee voting and must allow early voting for at least 15 days prior to the election date itself. As mentioned above, vote harvesting would be allowed and the placement for drop boxes would be regulated by federal agencies.

Thus, early polling stations and drop boxes should be located to “ensure that each polling place which allows voting during an early voting period under [this] subsection is located within walking distance of a stop on a public transportation route.”
In short, everything that was complained of in the last election will be legalized by this bill.

On the other side of the ring, the Election Integrity Project argues that California’s “Practices that promote the casting of illegal or unreliable ballots fail to contain basic minimum guarantees against such conduct are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by leading to the diminution in value of validly cast ballots. . . .

“Predictably, the conduct of the 2020 election eviscerated citizen oversight, caused mass irregularities and opportunities for fraud, and violated the rights of lawful voters, citizen observers, and candidates. The expansion of vote-by-mail ballots and the changes in the law to send vote-by-mail ballots to all registered voters created a process where known ineligible voters (including deceased persons, non-citizens, and non-residents) were sent live ballots,” it said in a statement announcing its lawsuit.

Robert Tyler, one of the attorneys involved in the suit, and president of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said, “COVID-19 has ushered in an unprecedented era of tyranny in state government, and fraud in our elections. Any unbiased observer can recognize that we have a serious problem in California when at least one million more persons are registered to vote than the total number of Californians who are actually eligible to vote.”
Among the complaints set out in the 44-page lawsuit:

“Over the past three decades in California, however, these rights have been intentionally eroded by an onslaught of unconstitutional statutes, regulations, and executive orders, which, taken together, are designed to create an environment in which elections could be manipulated and eligible voters disenfranchised. Among other things, they have:

“A. Eliminated absentee ballots and massively expanded vote-by-mail (VBM) through which even voters who could vote in person receive less-secure VBM ballots;
“B. Legalized unrestrained and unrestricted ballot harvesting by removing mandates of ‘chain of custody,’ unleashing the exploitation of vulnerable populations….
“C. Eviscerated protections on in-person voting;
“D. Implemented laws and procedures that automatically add non-citizens to voter rolls. . . .
“E. Failed to comply with federal laws requiring maintaining accurate voter rolls, allowing deceased persons, non-citizens, non-residents, and other ineligible voters to remain on rolls and receive ballots.”

It then argued, “These efforts culminated in new ‘emergency’ regulations and executive orders put into place without public comment or legislative authority of the State and many of its counties, often under the pretext that they were necessary due to COVID-19.”

Shades of Elections Past? Perhaps, we’ll see, but it is too early to tell how the lawsuit will play out since it was only filed early last month. HR 1, on the other hand, has a good chance of passing since the Democrats effectively have control of Congress. If it passes, however, it will undoubtedly face legal challenges in the courts. The real question here is whether they could all be resolved in time for the 2022 election.

Who said politics is dull? Frightening maybe, but not dull.

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

 

Watch: Rand Paul Grills Biden Nominee on Boys Competing in Girls' Athletics

Watch: Rand Paul Grills Biden Nominee on Boys Competing in Girls' Athletics

SPLC denounced as ‘thoroughly disgraced’ after labeling pro-life, family organizations as ‘hate groups’

SPLC denounced as ‘thoroughly disgraced’ after labeling pro-life, family organizations as ‘hate groups’: Critics of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) say the organization has become extreme and “thoroughly disgraced,” after the center released its 2020 “census of hate groups,” which included numerous pro-life and family organizations.

Podcast of this week's Faith On Trial program

EPISODE NOTES 

Guest #1 Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Topic: Updates on the movement for assisted suicide and euthanasia - US & Canada 

Guest #2 Ashley McGuire, Senior Fellow the Catholic Association and Author Topic: Ashley's book Sex Scandal: Drive to Abolish Male and Female 

The archive of our past programs are listed at the Faith On Trial link at IowaCatholicRadio.com

This week on Faith On Trial (Feb. 4)

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, and Ashley McGuire, author of Sex Scandal: Drive to Abolish Male and Female.

Join Gina and Deacon Mike this Thursday at 10 a.m. CT for Faith On Trial on Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM; 88.5 or 94.5 FM, and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find the archive of our recent programs.  

Are Democrats Really Trying To Scuttle The Church?

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) Several times in this column, I’ve mentioned my earlier allegiance to the Democratic Party. I attended conventions, held party office, and was elected as a Democrat to public office. I was as partisan as they come and have the newspaper clippings to prove it.

I came of political age while in grade school. My dad one day pointed to a football game on TV (it was all black and white then) and told me that a senator I had never heard of, by the name of Kennedy, was at the game. In response to my question, he told me that the senator was a Catholic and was going to run for president.

That’s when I first fell in love with politics and started following it. I read the local paper and watched the news. That’s when I fell in love with journalism, a career I chose in high school. That led me to a lifelong study of all things political.

But now we have our second Catholic president. Unfortunately, one who does not follow the tenets of the Church on the issues of life, marriage, and family — just to mention a few! But now as I sort through his policy agenda, along with that of his party, I have to ask the question: Are the Democrats really trying to scuttle the Church? Or, do they just play that role on television?

Here’s what I know for sure. The Democrats have been trying to adopt legislation called the Equality Act. It passed the Democratic House; every Democrat voting for it and every Republican voting against it. Problem for the Dems was that the Senate was in Republican hands and it did not even consider the legislation, and, of course, there was no way President Trump would have signed it if it had reached his desk.

Democrats still control the House, but the Senate has flipped and is tied 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris sitting in the chair ready to break the tie in favor of the Equality Act, and good ol’ Catholic President Joe Biden has pledged to sign it.

Now the title “Equality Act” certainly doesn’t sound like something to fear. Think again. It is designed, whether or not intentionally, to bring the Church to its knees both legally and financially. It would fundamentally and radically alter federal civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in much the same manner as racial discrimination is now prohibited. It would also reaffirm a commitment to a universal access to abortion.

Here are some of the things it would do:

Doctors, nurses, and hospitals — even faith-based hospitals — would be required to participate in and perform abortions, sex-change operations, and other procedures against their moral or ethical beliefs, or lose their medical licenses. All abortions, without restrictions, would be taxpayer funded. Any insurer or entity that provides health care for pregnancy and childbirth would be required to treat abortion as a “related medical condition.”

It would cause women to share locker rooms, bathrooms, hospitals, homeless and women’s shelters, gyms, prisons, military barracks, and other intimate spaces with men who identify as female.

Private and Catholic schools that have single-sex sports teams would be prohibited from competing against public school sports teams where such “discrimination” will be prohibited.

Private and religious schools who refuse to adopt LGBT policies that includes hiring active homosexuals, transgender individuals, as well as those in same-sex marriages would be prohibited from satisfying state compulsory attendance rules. They, along with churches, would be prohibited from obtaining construction loans from federally chartered banks and other institutions unless it adopts those same LGBT policies.

Schools, churches, and employers would be require to use an individual’s preferred pronoun, including those so gender confused that they use such as xe or fae, or any of the multiple variations of non-gender specific pronouns that are available.

If parents object to their minor child taking puberty-blocking drugs or cross-sex hormones that are suggested by a school counselor or social welfare agency, they could lose custody of their children.
Foster and adoption agencies that refuse to place children in homosexual or transgender homes or with same-sex couples will violate the law. The Knights of Columbus, Catholic Charities, and other Christian nonprofits will be barred from receiving community block grant funds, unless they specifically agree to the LGBT agenda mentioned above.

And, of course, the kicker: Churches that do not celebrate same-sex weddings and who ordain only male clergy would lose their tax-exempt status. Churches would also become “public accommodations” which would disallow them from refusing to provide services on account of sexual orientation.

Any person or entity — including a church — found violating the provisions of the act — could be forced to pay court costs as well as compensatory damages — in an employment case of up to $300,000 — as well as punitive damages.

The icing on this cake is that the federal law which protects the conscience rights of individuals and businesses (such as Hobby Lobby), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, would specifically be excluded from the Equality Act and could not be used as a defense.

Robert Marshall, writing in LifeSiteNews before the election to warn voters of the LGBT agenda woven into the Equality Act, said: “Attempting to interfere with the exercise of conscience by Christians is exactly the intent of the Equality Act. LGBTQ+ and pro-abortion leftists offer a choice of apostasy or persecution.”

On my radio program (January 14), he warned that the law could easily cause the financial collapse of the U.S. Church as well as many other Christian churches, organizations, and ministries.

If you would like more information on the Equality Act, our friends at the Heritage Foundation have a fuller explanation which you can find at https://www.heritage.org/gender/heritage-explains/the-equality-act.

So, how do you answer the question?

Then what are you going to do about?

Perhaps you might want to tell your answer to your priest and local bishop. As Archbishop José H. Gomez, archbishop of Los Angeles and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a statement:

“I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live, according to their consciences.”

This is not an exercise in partisanship. It is an exercise to save the Catholic Church and religious liberty in America. Speak up and act fast! Joe Biden has said he wants this bill on his desk during his first one hundred days.

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