This week on Faith On Trial: Is there bias against Christians in the military? Mike Berry from First Liberty will join us for that discussion. Dr. Anne Hendershott from Franciscan University will also join us for a discussion of envy and resentment against Asian-Americans.
Faith On Trial, 10 a.m. CT Thursday on
IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also listen to podcasts of previous
programs.
By Deacon Mike Manno
(The Wanderer) Here’s a quick test — see how you score yourself. Should
college administrators be punished for adopting policies that curb free speech
even when they claim that there is no definitive ruling against the restriction
they adopted?
Or, to put it into legal terms: “Whether qualified immunity
shields public university officials from liability when the reasoning — but not
the holding — of a binding decision gave the officials fair warning they were
violating the First Amendment.”
The quote above comes from a brief asking the Supreme Court
to review a case from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld a lower
court decision that college administrators clearly violated the free speech
rights of a student but did not award her damages for that violation. And that
refusal came in spite of the wording of 42 U.S.C. 1983 which states:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall
be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress.”
The case is called Ashlyn
Hoggard v. Ron Rhodes, et al., and it has been appealed to the Supreme
Court by what is called a petition for a writ
of certiorari which is the legal mechanism used by litigants to request a
hearing before the top court. The facts are similar to those found in other
cases.
Ashlyn Hoggard was a student at Arkansas State University
when she tried to establish a student chapter of Turning Point USA on campus.
In order to submit a proposal to the school’s administration to recognize the
chapter she had to have at least five other students as charter members, draft
a constitution for the group, and file an application with the school, among
other things. In attempting to drum up interest in her plan, Ashley and a
representative of Turning Point took a seat at a table in the student union
area where interested students could chat and pick up information on Turning
Point.
To make a long story short, Ashley was soon visited by two
university officials, Sarah Ponder and Elizabeth Rouse, who told her she could
not use the table located as it was in an area the appeals court called the
“Union Patio.” They did tell her that she could use the campus “Free Expression
Area.” Now according to the campus rules, the Free Expression Areas — there
were two of them — comprised about one percent of the campus and students were
required to apply for and receive permission 72 hours in advance to use them.
Noting that she was at an out of the way table and was not
disturbing anyone, nor was she actively soliciting other students, but
passively waiting for them to approach her, Ashlyn objected. The officials told
her she was violating an unwritten policy that only allowed tables in the
student union to be used by registered student groups and university
departments. The officials then called campus police who ordered her out.
The two officials concluded by telling Ashlyn and the
Turning Point representative that they couldn’t speak anywhere on campus
without telling the officials first and the responding campus police officer
told them they could be arrested.
The lower courts easily concluded that the school officials
violated Ashlyn’s First Amendment rights. Since there was no written policy
specifying who could or could not use the tables in the student union, the
policy, according to the court of appeals, “simply emerged from the
bureaucratic aether.” The court also found that it was undisputed that neither
Ashlyn nor her companion created any disturbance, and, in fact, there had been
no complaints about what they were doing.
The unwritten policy gave, according to Ashlyn’s attorneys,
“unfettered authority to grant or deny speakers permission to set up a table.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), representing Ashlyn,
issued a statement condemning the university’s actions: “Arkansas State’s
previous policies unconstitutionally gave university officials free rein to
shut down student speech even in open areas of campus, restricted most
expressive activities to small zones that totaled about one percent of the
campus, and required advance permission for students to speak anywhere on
campus.”
Ashlyn then sued the university seeking an injunction and
compensatory damages for the infringement on her First Amendment rights.
However, the state legislature then passed legislation repealing the
university’s free speech policies rendering most of the case moot. Both parties
then moved for summary judgment on their claims and the district court granted
the school’s motion, allowing Ashlyn’s case but dismissed her claim for damages
against the school officials, the court ruling that the school officials could
not be held responsible for the damage claim because the officials were
entitled to qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity is the legal concept that protects
public officials from civil suits unless the official violated a clearly
established legal right to which a reasonable person would have knowledge.
Police officers, for example, have it.
Ultimately, the appeals court found that there was a clear
violation of Ashlyn’s rights, but again upheld the lower court’s decision on
the issue of qualified immunity. That is the issue that is being presented to
the Supreme Court: Can school officials be forced to personally pay for their
infringement of a student’s constitutional rights?
The matter that raises hackles in this case involves how
clear the precedent was in these student free speech cases are, and that is
where this issue gets sticky. There have been several cases where the
university was upheld in its decision to remove unruly or disruptive students,
or non-students, from campus. However, in most of them the courts state in
dicta that the school officials acted properly only in reaction to the actions
of the student or non-student.
In a court opinion, dicta is an opinion expressed that does
not go directly to the specific matter before the court. Often it is an
expression of opinion that goes beyond the facts before the court and are not
considered legal precedent, such as when the court says you can deny an unruly
non-student’s expression.
There is now a split in the circuits on this question: Can
dicta be so specific that it outlines the parameters of the law which school
officials should know? Or can school officials defend themselves by pointing to
the unruly non-student case and claim that the result vindicates them? Or is
Ashlyn correct and the school authorities should have known they were trampling
on free speech rights even if it only was through dicta?
This is an in the weeds case, inside baseball, if you will. But while the focus
is on a very narrow legal point, a ruling in favor of Ashlyn will go a long way
to protect the First Amendment rights of students.
By Catholic League president Bill Donohue
It is all the rage among elites in many quarters to
sanction sex transitioning for minors. It is time to call this madness for what
it is—child abuse. The damage that is being done is incalculable. Consider what
this process involves.
Puberty blockers are used to facilitate the sex transition
process. These medications stop the normal estrogen or testosterone progression
in girls and boys during puberty, affecting vocal chord changes, the
development of breast tissue, brain development and the like. So little is
known about the long-term effects of puberty blockers that some doctors say we
are dealing with a "blank slate."
Children who want to continue physically transitioning by
taking hormones create a real challenge for doctors, never mind the child. The
physical changes are irreversible. Minors who transition are at risk later in
life for heart disease, diabetes and blood clots. Taking the hormones of the
opposite sex can also reduce fertility. Are adolescents really capable of
making these permanent life-altering decisions?
The mental problems associated with sex reassignment are
multiple, and they are so serious as to make one wonder what kind of health
professional would countenance it. Adults who undergo the transitioning are at
risk not only for depression, but suicide. It will not due to say that these
maladies are a function of the lack of support these people receive. If that
were the case, why do transgender people suffer from high rates of suicide in
places like Sweden where they are totally accepted?
If adults are at risk mentally following sex reassignment,
we can only guess what minors are likely to be faced with down the line. Do
those who profit from their "services" even care?
Dr. Rachel Levine is a man who now identifies as a woman.
He was chosen by President Biden to be his new assistant health secretary.
Given his status, both physical and professional, it is important to know what
his position on sex transitioning is. [Note: Many insist that a biological
man who transitions to a woman should be called "she" or
"her," and that the correct term is gender transitioning, not sex
transitioning. But they don't count. Truth counts.]
When Roger Severino was director of the Office of Civil
Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the Trump
administration, he asked Levine a question that even an elementary student
could answer. "What does it mean to be male or female?" The good
doctor couldn't answer.
At the Senate hearing for Levine, Sen. Rand Paul asked him
a pointed question. "Dr. Levine, do you believe that minors are capable of
making a life-long changing decision as changing one's sex?" Levine dodged
the question saying, "Transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced
field."
Paul followed up with another question. "Do you
support the government intervening to override the parent's consent to give a
child puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and/or amputation surgery for
breasts and genitalia?" Levine dodged the question again saying,
"Senator, transgender medicine is a very complex and nuanced field."
Levine is not alone in refusing to answer such basic
questions. At the Senate Finance Committee hearing on Xavier Becerra, Biden's
nominee to head HHS (he has since been confirmed), Sen. James Lankford said,
"The vast majority of Americans do not believe that a nine-year-old child
can consent to puberty blockers or that a thirteen-year-old girl can consent to
a double mastectomy." He then asked Becerra what his position was on such
matters. The best Becerra could promise is that he would follow the law.
Is President Biden aware that these men think it is okay
for minors to switch their sex? Absolutely. He himself says that little kids
should be afforded the chance.
Last October, during a town hall conversation, Biden was
asked by a mother of a transgender child what he would do to help people like
her and her child. "The idea that an 8-year-old child, a 10-year-old child
decides, you know, 'I want to be transgender, that's what I think I'd like to
be, it'd make my life a lot easier'—there should be no discrimination."
Does Biden believe that parental consent should be required
before a minor can elect to sex reassignment? We do not know, but we do know
that parental consent is already being ignored in some places, leading to
lawsuits.
Most children who seek to transition, if given time, will
change their minds. What they are experiencing is not normal.
According to Dr. Paul McHugh and Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, two
prominent psychiatrists who are experts in this field, the idea that "a
person might be 'a man trapped in a woman's body' or 'a woman trapped in a
man's body'—is not supported by scientific evidence." We need to help
young people who suffer from this disorder to get better, not get deeper into
trouble.
Once the boys and girls are subjected to the treatments, it
is too late. Unfortunately, Biden is stacking his administration with those who
are ratifying his twisted vision of the sexes.
It's time we put an end to this child abuse.
This Thursday: Attorney Chris Schandevel, Alliance Defending Freedom on several free speech issues heard and pending before the United States Supreme Court, including a claim by university officials that they cannot be forced to pay damages to students whose free speech rights they denied.
And, State Senator Amy Sinclair, chair of the Senate
Education Committee on a pair of bills she will be floor managing that protect
free speech rights on public campuses and one that regulates diversity training.
All this on Faith On Trial at 10 a.m. Central Time Thursday
on Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM, and streaming live on
IowaCatholicRadio.com, where you can also listen to previous programs.
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court just ruled that University of Iowa officials who kicked a student club off campus because of its faith can be held personally accountable for the harm they caused. The university targeted Business Leaders in Christ, or BLinC, for requiring its student leaders to affirm the Christian faith. The university oddly claimed this was a violation of its nondiscrimination policy, even though it allowed other religious groups to select faith-compliant leaders and openly encouraged other groups—like fraternities and sororities—to select leaders based on other characteristics covered by the nondiscrimination policy. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recognized this selective enforcement of the university’s policy for what it is: blatant viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. And its ruling makes clear that university officials are personally responsible for such knowingly unconstitutional conduct.
In a partial concurrence/partial dissent, Judge Kobes
concluded with these words:
The law is clear: state organizations may not target
religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available
benefit solely because they are religious. That is what happened here. The
individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly
incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution. Either way, they
should not get qualified immunity.
BLinC is a Christian student group at the university that
helps business students live out their faith in the workplace. The university
initially recognized its members as some of the best students on campus and
assured them they could select leaders who embraced their faith. But the
university later did an abrupt about-face, accusing BLinC of discrimination and
kicking it off campus.
“BLinC takes good students and makes them better by
strengthening their resolve to remain true to their moral compass in the
cutthroat business world,” said
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “Any wise
university would be thrilled to have them on campus, but the University of Iowa
tried hounding them off instead. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects
their right to remain on campus on the same terms as every other student
group.”
In October 2017, after a student complained about being
denied a leadership position, school officials subjected BLinC to a lengthy
investigation, ultimately demanding that it “revise” its beliefs and strip
faith out of its leadership criteria. But while BLinC welcomes all students as
members, to maintain its religious mission, it needs leaders who agree with its
faith. While other campus clubs were allowed to set their own criteria for
leaders, the school removed BLinC from campus for doing the same and told them
their leadership selection was discriminatory.
Even after a federal judge warned the university about its
double standards, university officials went on a deregistering spree to cover
their tracks, ultimately kicking other Christian, Sikh, and Muslim student
groups off campus for reserving leadership positions for students who shared
their faith. But at the same time, fraternities and sororities, political
groups, and other ideology-based organizations were left untouched, even though
they discriminate based on sex, other characteristics protected by the
nondiscrimination policy, or—like BLinC—agreement with their underlying
mission. A lower court last year ruled that the court’s discrimination against
BLinC was illegal, and that the university had to let BLinC back on campus once
and for all. The Eighth Circuit’s decision affirms that ruling, while holding
the individual officials personally responsible for their discriminatory
application of the university’s nondiscrimination policy.
“It’s deeply ironic that school officials tried using the
university’s nondiscrimination policy to discriminate against religion,” said Baxter. “They knew this was
wrong, yet did it anyway. We’re pleased the court has recognized that such
blatant religious discrimination brings personal consequences.”
By DEACON MIKE MANNO
(The
Wanderer) This month, the 8th to be exact, was celebrated as
International Women’s Day. It was, apparently, a big deal and I almost missed
it. But I quickly caught on when photos of Eleanor Roosevelt, Barbara Walters,
Clara Barton, and other notable women started appearing on my daily news feed.
I don’t mean to diminish it, but for me it was like a
husband who forgot his wedding anniversary. That’s something that you might get
away with once — anything beyond that, well, see a lawyer and do your best to
keep your pension.
But for the few who are allowed to make amends, let me do
that right now. Actually I started watching this subject some time ago, but I
think it’s time to bring it to your attention now. And while this issue clearly
affects women more than men (you’ll have to pardon me here, I’m assuming there
are only two sexes). The issue is COVID, childcare, and closed schools. Bad for
everybody, bad for families, and much badder for women.
During the span of my lifetime, women in society have made
remarkable gains in nearly all areas: academic, sports, science, business, and
politics, just to mention a few. However, it seems that lately society is
trying to consign them, or at least most of them, back to the second-class
status to which the leaders of the women’s movement claimed they were
originally confined.
The obvious, of course, is the gender-blending advocates
that want to allow biologically stronger males to compete in athletic
competitions against females, denying them the opportunity to compete in a fair
contest, including the loss of scholarships and advancement into certain areas
of women’s pro sports. You know who is pushing that, and why, and you
should keep that in mind when you vote. However, that is not the problem I’m
attempting to address. It is women in the workforce.
We all know intuitively that the COVID closings have been
harder on women in the job market than on men. The reason is simple: Many women
work in lower-paying retail jobs which were nearly eliminated in an attempt to
curb the spread of the disease. They were, therefore, unable to work from home.
Many other women, who could easily work from home, were unable to fully
participate in that option since children, child care, and school closings made
that almost impossible during the pandemic.
And nothing hurt these women more than the closing of
schools. And what is pouring salt on their wounds, now that the kids should be
back, is that teachers’ unions, who apparently don’t really care about kids,
are refusing to go back to the classrooms in many areas. That fact alone
complicates everything.
Recently a study by four university researchers from
Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Melbourne, the Maryland
Population Research Center, and the University of North Texas compiled a report
for Gender and Society, which is
described as the official journal of Sociologists for Women in Society. The
title of the article is: “The Gendered Consequences of a Weak Infrastructure of
Care: School Reopening Plans and Parents’ Employment During the COVID-19
Pandemic.”
The first thing I noticed about the report is that it was
very left leaning in suggesting certain alternatives such as state-funded
daycare and in attitudes toward governmental and employer responsibilities.
Those are topics we can debate, but the thrust of the report hits hard at what
is happening to working women with school-aged children.
The report begins with something that every member of a
teachers’ union or board of education should memorize:
“The unprecedented impact of COVID-19 on schools has
underscored their critical role, not only for children’s well-being, but also
parents’ employment — especially for mothers, who continue to do the bulk of
caregiving in families despite working for pay nearly on par with fathers.
Schools constitute the most expansive care infrastructure in the United States,
and school closures and uneven reopening have affected mothers far more than
fathers. . . . Some fear that the pandemic will unravel decades of feminist
gains in the paid labor force for women.”
It continues: “We find mothers’ labor force attachment
worsened relative to pre-pandemic levels in states that offered fully remote
instruction. As the pandemic continues into spring 2021, states with
significantly curtailed in-person learning will likely continue to see low
maternal labor force participation with the potential for devastating long-term
employment effects for many women with children.”
To conduct the study, the authors took three representative
states with different approaches to school openings to make their preliminary
findings: Maryland, which adopted an extensive remote learning model, New York,
which used a hybrid model for schools, and Texas, which used mostly in-person
learning.
Some of their findings: In Maryland mothers of
elementary-aged children were 16 percentage points less likely to be in the
labor force during the first semester of 2020 as compared to the similar time
in 2019. Over the same period the status of fathers dropped only five points.
In New York, with a hybrid method of instructional delivery
with in-person education two days per week, there was a drop in the mothers’
labor force participation of seven points, while fathers’ rate of drop was four
points from the prior academic year.
In Texas, where half the schools were in-person full-time,
the fathers’ drop-off rate was only three percent and the mothers’ rate was 10
points, which the authors called insignificant, “a larger shift than observed
in New York but one that is still nonsignificant and substantially smaller than
the changes observed in Maryland.”
The authors observed, “When schooling goes fully remote,
mothers’ employment suffers. This is observed clearly in Maryland, where
mothers’ labor force participation was dramatically reduced during the first
semester of the 2020 school year compared with the same period in 2019.
“Hybrid and in-person schooling in New York and Texas,
respectively, were associated with a less dramatic reduction in mothers’ labor
force participation. Across all states, mothers’ work attachment fell to a
greater extent than did that of fathers, but the gap is widest in Maryland,
where schooling was fully remote.”
The report concluded: “We find that the gender gap in
parents’ labor force participation grew the most in states where school
instruction was primarily remote, and least in states where hybrid or in-person
instruction were more commonly offered.”
Similar results were also reported by LinkedIn, where
mothers with children faced greater burdens during the pandemic. “That burden
only grew heavier when lockdowns forced schools and childcare facilities to
close: thirty-two percent of unemployed women surveyed in the United States
said they weren’t working because COVID disrupted their childcare.”
LinkedIn’s chief economist, Karin Kimbrough, opined, “I
think a lot of it was that women were just busy. They suddenly had kids at
home, they had childcare or eldercare responsibilities. And so they were
definitely pulled out of the workforce a bit.”
And Janine Chamberlin, LinkedIn’s senior director,
commented, “It’s clear that Covid-19 is having a devastating impact on women’s
careers. Women have been more adversely affected by disruptions to the retail,
travel, and leisure industries which employ a relatively greater share of women
and often aren’t remote-ready roles. Our data also clearly shows women are
applying to fewer roles and are also taking on a disproportionate share of care
responsibilities.”
And, just to be on the safe side, I called a friend of mine
who is an HR manager, and a working mother herself, and asked if she saw this
pattern. Yes, she said, and it goes even further. “They are not applying for
jobs; not even for the evening positions.”
Of course with all the responsibilities mothers have in
today’s economy, none of this should seem surprising. We’ve come a long way
since Beaver had a stay-at-home mom, and there are a lot of reasons why there
has been that change. Bottom line, however, is that mothers do have a more
difficult time balancing job and family — something June Cleaver never had to
do.
One way to help: Open the schools. If you won’t do it for
the children, do it for your mom.
(You can
reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m.
Central on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Readings: Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 5:7-9; John 12:20-33
Good Afternoon --
“Give me justice, O God,
and
plead my cause against a nation that is faithless.
From the deceitful and cunning
rescue me, for you,
O God, are my strength.”
Those words are from the entrance antiphon for today’s Mass.
So we ask: what is justice? How do we define it, how do we live it? Well, it
should be obvious that justice comes from the mind and word of God. And those
who seek to remove him from society, as many are doing today, are seeking to
remove truth and justice from the land.
In our first reading today we hear of God’s first
covenant with his people made through Moses. God gave us commands etched in stone. And, as
we know, the Israelites over and over again failed to live up to their part of
the bargain, and paid dearly for their failures.
That is why the prophet Jeremiah prophesized a New
Covenant, which would be written – not on stone tablets – but on the hearts of
men. What is written there is the message of the cross, redemption, and our own
death to the allurements of this world so as to achieve life in Christ. “Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground
and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat, but if it dies, it products much
fruit.”
I don’t think you have to be a great biblical scholar or
theologian to understand today’s message of a seed dying to produce more fruit.
I think we can see that in the state of our polarized society, in which worldly
success is considered the true and only measure of a person, and where the
concept of dying to self to follow a sandal-wearing first century prophet marks
one as some type of fraud or freak, to be cancelled and marginalized.
Thus to follow Jesus today oft times puts us at odds with
today’s secular society; one which offers little in the way of truth or justice.
True success, we are told, is to follow the crowd and live life on your own
terms, to your own satisfaction. Unfortunately, we see all too often the
results of that teaching: sexual depravity, abortion, attacks on religion and
the family, gender confusion, and a litany of offenses against the holy name of
Jesus and his Church.
If we examine the message of society and its teaching on
the High Idolatry of “me first” we can see, if only we care to look, the
destruction that has been done to the psyche of the American soul. Too many
people are living pointless lives, not moored to anything beyond their own
wants – not “needs” but “wants” – those things that will bring us only pleasure
for pleasure’s sake.
Just look around us; how many souls are being lost of
those whose only desire is for pleasure? Or are in willful ignorance of what
the truth really is? How many of us know of friends and families that have been
touched by suicide – especially that of a young person – who cannot find
fulfilment in this life and just wants out; or the person who can only find truth
by ingesting substances that gives them a euphoric feeling?
So what is “just” about allowing them, sometimes even
encouraging them, or even worse, ignoring their plight on their road to perdition?
And what is “just” about the new wave of old ideologies,
such as Socialism and Marxism, condemned by the Church, that embrace material
atheism, violence for in support of social justice, and encourages the pursuit
of personal interests and power over the common good, and devalues human life?
These are only some of the matters that popes, bishops,
and the entire Church have been warning us about since the time of Pope Leo
XIII. Yet, unfortunately, for many those warnings have gone in one ear and out
the other, and we find ourselves in what could be described as a neo-pagan era
where so many of the sins of the past are lining up to pave our own way to
perdition.
All you need to do is to take an objective look at
today’s society: you see racial divides, violence and hate in our streets, attempts
to lure our children into alternative life styles, pornography everywhere and
the list goes on, and on, and on.
So how do we get back to a just society, one that
recognizes true Christian truth and justice? How do we exit from this
predicament and stem the counter-cultural tides that are fighting for control
of society and our souls?
The answer begins with us, each one of us – individually
and collectively. The first thing we need to do is to read in our hearts the
law that has been placed there by God, where we can know him, and where he
will, in the words of the prophet, “forgive
our evildoing and remember their sin no more.”
Forgiveness, of course, requires repentance and that is
what this season is about. In the first part of today’s Gospel the Greeks came
“to see” Jesus. What is it that we are “seeing” right now? What is it that in
these last two weeks of Lent we can find in ourselves that needs repair? What
is it that we can remove that will allow us to live more freely in God’s life
and love?
What is it in us that is the worst in ourselves that we
need to die to, in order to find new life and meaning in the Gospel message? The
scriptures tell us that God will heal us and our land if we only turn to him,
admit our sins, and ask forgiveness. As we approach Holy Week and our
celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection it is a good time for our own
confession, to die in the confessional with him, and to rise with him on Easter
Sunday. Thus we can amend our lives and, in the words of today’s collect, “walk eagerly in that same charity with
which, out of love for the world, your Son handed himself over to death.”
We can and should use this time to cleanse ourselves and
to stand up for the just truth in our part of the world as we pray in the words
of today’s psalmist:
“Thoroughly
wash me from my guilt and of my sin cleanse me.
A clean heart create for me O God,
and
a steadfast spirit renew within me. …
Give me back the joy of your
salvation,
And a willing spirit
sustain in me.
I will teach transgressors your
ways,
And sinners shall return
to you.”
Deacon Mike Manno, St. Augustin Parish, Des Moines
Our guests this week are Dr. Kevin Miller, professor of moral theology at Franciscan University in Stubenville on the Vatican’s recent statement on same-sex unions, and Melanie Israel from the DeVoss Center for Religion & Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation on the potential expanded demand for tissue and organs taken from aborted babies.
So join us this Thursday at 10 a.m. Central on Iowa
Catholic Radio, 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on
IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also find podcasts of earlier programs.
By Catholic League president Bill Donohue
The Catholic Church's chief doctrinal office, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a statement on March 15
making it clear that the Church does not approve of gay unions or gay marriage.
This was done with the approval of Pope Francis.
This has not set well with those Catholics who have been at
war with the Church's teachings on sexuality. The German bishops, in
particular, are not happy with the document. They have steadily been moving
toward a Protestant church for some time, and this may force them to decide
whether they really belong in the Catholic Church.
On March 16, a group of dissident priests in Austria, the
Parish Priest Initiative, pledged to bless gay unions—in open defiance of the
Vatican—beckoning a showdown with Rome. In the U.S., so-called progressive
Catholics are also angry with the Vatican's position, but then again they have
been for decades.
It is important to remember that there is nothing
fundamentally new about this statement: it reaffirms the Catholic Church's
teaching on marriage. Nonetheless, it is being received in some quarters as
very controversial, owing in large part to the welcoming approach that Pope
Francis has exhibited to homosexuals. In fairness to the pope, it is not his
fault that some interpret his friendly stance as signifying an interest in
changing Church doctrine. That's their problem.
To put it differently, it is one thing to say all persons
possess equal dignity in the eyes of God; it is quite another to say that
whatever they do is acceptable to God. Human status and human behavior are not
identical.
Also, this document applies equally to heterosexuals.
According to Catholic sexual ethics, cohabiting men and women are involved in
an illicit relationship, and this statement is very clear about their status.
Yet the media have missed this point, so absorbed are they with gay rights.
Many news stories on this Vatican statement are citing
surveys that say a majority of Catholics approve of gay marriage. That may be
true, especially of non-practicing Catholics, but it is nonetheless deceiving.
There is a difference between a preference and a demand.
How many of those Catholics who are okay with gay marriage are incensed that
the Church has not changed its teaching? Practically none.
What if the subject were corporal punishment in the
schools? If a majority of Catholics favored it, should the bishops ratify their
choice?
This begs the question: Should the Catholic Church align
its teachings to mirror survey results, or should it align its teachings to
mirror Scripture? In other words, should the Church make it a priority to
follow what the public desires, or should it follow God's law?
The Vatican statement reaffirming the Church's opposition
to gay unions and gay marriage concludes by noting, "the Church does not
have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same
sex."
To put it differently, the Church cannot change Scripture,
and indeed has no interest in trying to do so. Its allegiance is to the pursuit
of truth, not public opinion.
By DEACON MIKE MANNO
(The Wanderer) – If you are a frequent, or even
semi-frequent, reader of this column you know that I am a notorious history and
political buff. Bring me a good story from history or politics and I’m an eager
listener. That may be why I — like so many others — am intrigued by the stories
surrounding that Emmy Award-winning governor of New York and bestselling author
of American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic, which is
currently an Editors’ Pick as “best nonfiction” on Amazon, Andrew Cuomo.
It appears that all his greatness may be evaporating in the
wake of a couple of, shall we say, missteps. Apparently, his fictional account
of how he single-handedly battled the dreaded COVID wasn’t exactly his
strength. But naturally big media and big tech weren’t really that concerned
about the 23,000 plus who died as a result of his experimental “leadership.” That
didn’t matter, but he did put on a good show, hence the Emmy.
But what seemed to get Mr. Cuomo into real trouble was his
— how shall we say? — women’s issues, where he is accused of trying to kiss and
not tell. But he’s not the first caught in this web, and who knows, he might be
innocent of trespassing against women who said “no” which would allow his
record as a hero of the COVID wars to stand as unblemished as Ted Kennedy’s
heroics at the Battle of Chappaquiddick.
Anyway, this is not the first time a New York governor has
acted in a way that besmirched his reputation. And, in fact, it is not even the
most interesting. Not by a long shot.
You see, back in May of 1702, an English gent by the name
of Edward Hyde arrived at Manhattan to assume his new duties as the 14th
colonial governor of New York. Hyde, better known as Lord Cornbury, was
appointed and served under his cousin Queen Anne. Apparently Cornbury had an
exemplary record as a military commander of the Royal Dragoons and as a result
was given a seat in Parliament.
In 1701 he was appointed to his New York post by King
William III, who died before Cornbury took up his responsibilities. But
William’s successor Anne ratified the appointment, thus Cornbury entered his
office and served under a woman which has some relevance to this story,
because, you see, Cornbury was a transvestite.
And, since he “represented” a woman, he found no difficulty in dressing like
one, much to the dismay of the people he governed.
Now sometimes it’s hard to determine what actually happened
in history since, as is often said, it is written by the winners. He did,
however, create many enemies not only by his dress but by executive actions he
took, such as confiscating a Presbyterian church for the Anglicans — the Church
of England — to use. So, while reports of Cornbury’s actions may be tainted by
his political enemies, the story, exaggerated or not, is simply too juicy to
ignore.
The story might be best told by author and journalist
Shelley Ross in her book of scandals, Fall
from Grace: Sex, Scandal, and Corruption in Politics from 1702 to the Present.
Ross suggests that in addition to being a crossdresser,
Cornbury was also a “thief, a bigot, a grafter, [and] a drunk.” She wrote:
“The combination of public and private wrongdoings was so
outrageous that Lord Cornbury fanned the fires of revolution and later served
as an inspiration for the articles of impeachment in the United States
Constitution. Never again would anyone have to endure such a despicable or
corrupt leader without a legal recourse for removal from office.”
Cornbury often supplemented his income by throwing grand
balls, inviting the local aristocrats, and then charging them admission. His
wife apparently went shopping in people’s homes and whatever she wanted she would
send for the next day.
When His High Mightiness, as he preferred to be called, was
honored at a banquet, he told his guests of the sensual beauty of his wife’s
ears, then invited all in attendance to come forward and touch Lady Cornbury’s
ears to see for themselves.
Opening the New York Assembly in 1702 he arrived, according
to Ross, “in drag, clad in a hooped gown and elaborate headdress and carrying a
fan, much in the style of the fashionable Queen Anne.” When questioned about
his attire, he is said to have replied, “You are all very stupid people not to
see the propriety of it all. In this place, and on this occasion, I represent a
woman, and in all respects I ought to represent her as faithfully as I can.”
A watchman once told the story that one night he discovered
what he thought was a drunken prostitute prowling on the grounds of Cornbury’s
residence. When he stopped the woman, he shockingly found that it was His High
Mightiness himself who giggled then pulled on the watchman’s ears.
But if it was only Cornbury’s strange behavior and
fetishes, the people might have just accepted him as a colorful, but harmless
character. But he was also corrupt, giving his friends large, illegal land
grants for cash. One such grant was larger than Connecticut. Another he gave
away to a group of friends, who returned the favor by naming the land Hyde
Park, after His High Mightiness’ family. Two hundred years later the land was
purchased by the family of the future president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, as a
homestead, a place now very familiar to historians.
He persecuted Quakers and claimed to have “secret
information” that the French were going to attack and asked the Assembly for
funds to build protective forts. The Assembly passed Cornbury’s measure to tax
the people for the fortifications. When the French attack did not materialize,
His High Mightiness build a new house for himself with the funds.
When his wife died in 1707, he showed up at her funeral in drag. During his five years as governor only nine laws were passed and six were vetoed in England. Finally the queen acceded to calls to remove him. His replacement arrived in 1708 and Cornbury was arrested and placed under house arrest over
 |
| Lord Cornbury? |
Shortly after his dismissal and imprisonment, his father
died, and he inherited the title Earl of Clarendon, which allowed him to cancel
his debts and to return to England. There he served briefly in a number of
positions and was a member of the House of Lords until 1720. He died three
years later inMarch of 1723.
Currently there is a painting in the New York Historical
Society of a man dressed in formal drag. The artist is unknown, but it was
painted between 1705 and 1750, which is thought by many to a posthumous
portrait of Cornbury. There is a similar portrait in the Dallas Museum of Art.
In a couple of hundred years I wonder what Mr. Cuomo’s
portrait will look like. On the other hand, I guess we’ll know since it’s bound
to end up shortly in the Emmy Hall of Fame.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him
every Thursday morning at 10 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Zack Smith, senior fellow at the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation discusses HR1 the Democratic plan for election “integrity.
By DEACON MIKE MANNO
(The Wanderer) –
The Pew Research Center is reporting that its latest surveys indicate that
Americans attend religious services less often than previous estimates
suggested. But it did issue a warning about the various methods used and the
possible effect that the coronavirus may have had on the numbers.
In the report, Pew took the effort to explain that the
method of conducting its polls has changed, making it a little more difficult
to track changes of opinion. Prior polls had been conducted by in-person phone
interviews; however, polls are now taken online with no personal involvement by
a pollster; the respondent basically answers in isolation.
According to the report: “Survey respondents tend to
indicate higher levels of religiosity when answering questions from a live
interviewer than when filling out a survey by themselves (either on paper or
online). This is because, when representing themselves to another person,
some people may (consciously or subconsciously) project a more highly religious
image of themselves than when they are filling out a survey alone and
unobserved. This ‘mode effect’ reflects, in part, that being religious has long
been considered a socially desirable attribute in America.”
Thus, to make comparisons to past in-person surveys with
self-administered polls, Pew is using a weighting methodology to make the
comparisons more relevant.
However, despite the differences in the survey mechanics,
Pew finds that both methods of data gathering indicate that religious
attendance is “far less common” than reflected in past surveys. The conclusion
by Pew is that while the results from the differing survey methods cannot be
directly compared, the results of the self-administered polls produce a more
accurate result. But even comparing results obtained by differing methods Pew
found “a modestly but significant higher percentage of respondents who identify
as religious ‘nones’ and fewer Christians.”
Some of the adjusted results, including those adjusted for
the effects of the COVID virus, are:
Other faiths that appeared in
the survey amounted to six percent of the respondents. Jewish, Muslims,
Buddhists, and Hindus each accounted for one percent or less.
In breaking down the numbers a
bit further, Protestant respondents are broken down as: White evangelicals were
17 percent; non-evangelicals 12 percent, and Black Protestants 8 percent.
Catholics were broken down as: White 12 percent, Hispanic 7 percent, all others
2 percent.
Much of the report was about
the how the different methods of polling affected the results — inside baseball,
so to speak. But it did make a couple of interesting findings about the polling
methods. In the future it indicated that it will probably use more
self-administered surveys and fewer telephone polls, finding that:
“Estimates of the frequency
with which Americans attend religious services derived from self-administered
surveys are clearly not comparable with those produced by phone surveys.” And
even after adjustments to the sampling procedures the self-administered method
“produces far lower estimates of the share of regular religious attenders” than
other methods.
“This means future surveys
conducted using self-administered modes cannot be compared with past surveys
conducted over the phone to assess change over time in the share of Americans
who regularly attend religious services.”
So now, what does all this
mean besides Pew is reconstructing its polling methods to be more accurate and
to better track changes in the religious attitudes of the American public over
time?
First, of course, is that anything
that produces more accurate results of the religiosity of the public is
welcome, even if those results produce numbers that we don’t like.
Unfortunately, this survey appeared to concentrate more on methods than
producing a larger statistical profile of those who do and do not attend church
weekly.
For example, I would have like
to see more about church attendance among Catholics. It has been estimated by
Gallup that our church attendance is on a steep decline. A 1955 Gallup survey
reported weekly Mass attendance at 75 percent. Now it’s closer to 40 percent,
if that high. Gallup also reported that Protestant youth are more likely — 36
percent to 25 — than Catholic youth to say that they’ve attended church during
the week. And if you factor in the percentage of Catholics who regularly
receive Reconciliation, the numbers will shock you.
The Center of Applied Research
for the Apostolate, affiliated with Georgetown University, reports that only
two percent of Catholics go regularly to Confession, and three-quarters either
never go or go only once a year.
So why are these numbers going
down? Why is Confession so unpopular when public confession, by way of daytime
talk shows, is becoming more popular? I think we might want to take a look at
that and try to answer the question to get more people back to the sacrament.
Another thing the Pew report
mentions are the categories of White and Hispanic Catholics, listing all others
at two percent. Sunday mornings were once described as the most segregated
hours of the week — Whites went to their churches and Blacks to theirs. Now I
realize there are societal and cultural differences involved here, but is there
no outreach to our Black brothers?
And, finally, what are we
doing about fallen-away Catholics? The survey puts the number of Catholics at
21 percent of the population. But if we follow the numbers from other surveys,
there is not 21 percent of the U.S. population in Mass every Sunday. Part of
the problem is that many Catholics wear their religion like an ethnic identity;
once you are a Catholic you are one even if you fall away and never attend Mass
again.
So where are we about reaching
out to them? Many, I’m sure, might try to re-establish ties with the Church if
given the chance, but might be too embarrassed to do so. How do we reach them?
And what effect does a Catholic president who rejects many of the tenets of the
faith have on the public?
The numbers from Pew are
interesting, as well as its analysis of which of the methods of conducting
surveys is the best for this purpose. But the more difficult questions can’t be
answered by a poll; problems, however, can be spotted. Now the question is:
What are we going to do about it?
(You can reach Mike at:
DeaconMike@q.com, and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central, on Faith
On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
EPISODE NOTES
Guest #1: Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice
Institute
Topic: California SB 380 which will require physicians who
do not wish to participate in assisted suicide to find someone who will for
their patients who request it. Emergency injunction from SCOTUS against Santa
Clara County's public health orders which banned indoor church services. https://www.pacificjustice.org/
Guest #2: Alexandra Snyder, CEO of Life Legal Defense
Foundation
Topic: Can you be required by your employer to take the
Covid vaccine? https://lifelegaldefensefoundation.org/
By Catholic League president Bill Donohue
Everyone knew that Sen. Joe Lieberman was proudly Jewish,
so there was no need to persuade the public of his religious status. Similarly,
it is widely recognized that Sen. Mitt Romney is a practicing Mormon, therefore
making moot attempts to prove he is. President Biden is different. Not a day
goes by without some commentators, usually left-wing Catholics, trying to
convince the public that he is a model Catholic.
This is disingenuous. If Biden were a model Catholic, there
would be no need to assure us that he is. Even his fans know he isn't,
otherwise they wouldn't waste so much energy on this issue. What galvanizes
them is their war with the bishops.
Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez is president of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). When Biden was elected,
he congratulated him. However, when Biden was inaugurated, Gomez expressed
concerns about the president's positions on various issues, explicitly
wondering whether he "will advance moral evils."
Most bishops agreed with Gomez, but a few did not. Among
the laity, those on the left were furious. Immediately, a campaign against the
USCCB was launched by the National Catholic Reporter, a rogue Catholic
publication.
On January 28, the Reporter asked the Vatican to
investigate the USCCB for its alleged "staunch Republican support."
On February 5, Faithful America, a George Soros creation, started a petition
online in support of the Reporter's efforts. It will have no effect—the Vatican
won't even acknowledge their game—but their intent matters greatly.
What's driving the campaign against the bishops?
Those on the Catholic left have an ideological interest in
selling Biden to the public as a loyal son of the Church. Their goal is to
undermine the authority of the bishops by promoting the false idea that the
bishops do not have the last word on what constitutes a Catholic in good
standing. They seek to persuade the public, especially Catholics, that it is
perfectly acceptable to reject the Church's teachings on life, marriage, and
religious liberty—the way Biden does—and still be a model Catholic.
One of their favorite tactics is to contend that Biden is
more similar to Pope Francis than are the bishops. David Gibson, who directs an
institute at Fordham University, claims that Biden is "more in line with
the pope than the American bishops." That would surely come as news to
priests who have denied Biden Communion.
Paul Elie, a Georgetown professor, says the pope and Biden
have much in common. "Their informality, the fact that they were elected
late in life, the fact that they seem to take issues as they come, listening,
discerning and then acting." He fails to note that the pope and Biden have
nothing in common when it comes to their fidelity to the Church's moral
teachings. But that evidently matters less than their "informality."
Elie is more accurate when he gets to the heart of why it
is necessary for Catholics like him to rescue Biden from his critics. "The
hope is that the Biden Administration will invigorate American Catholicism, and
vice versa." Translated this means that Catholic dissidents want the Biden
brand of Catholicism to prove triumphant.
It angers Catholic malcontents that some criticize Biden's
Catholic credentials. Julia Maloney, who works at the University of Michigan,
gets incensed when she hears someone say that Biden is "Catholic in name
only." Mark Silk, who is not Catholic, wants us Catholics to know that the
president's pro-abortion record "doesn't necessarily make Biden a bad
Catholic."
Sister Simone Campbell, the Democrats' favorite nun, is
bolder than Silk. The star of "nuns on the bus" tries to bail out
Biden by saying his views on abortion are "very developed." By that
she means "he will not force his religious beliefs on the whole
nation." Not exactly reassuring considering his desire to force his
anti-Catholic beliefs on the Little Sisters of the Poor (as well as everyone
else).
Joe Sweeney of the University of California at Davis says
it is "incredibly offensive and absurd" to call into question Biden's
Catholicity simply because he has a "moderate approach to issues like
abortion and same-sex marriage." One wonders what positions Biden must
take for Sweeney to label him an extremist. After all, Biden supports
infanticide—babies killed in partial-birth abortions are 80% born—and he has
officiated at gay weddings.
Jamie Manson, who heads an anti-Catholic organization,
Catholics for Choice, says the majority of American Catholics agree with Biden
on abortion. They do not. Practicing Catholics, as a recent survey disclosed,
are pro-life by a 2-1 margin, and even non-practicing Catholics do not support
late-term abortions.
The Catholic left has an uphill battle. Most people know
that someone who identifies as Catholic yet rejects the Church's teachings on
abortion, gay marriage and the First Amendment cannot realistically be regarded
as a loyal Catholic. The fact that these dissidents are working overtime to
convince us that Biden is a Catholic in good standing is proof that he isn't.
This week on our program: Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute on a proposed California bill that would require physicians who refuse to participate in assisted suicide to furnish a doctor who will; and Alexandra Snyder, CEO of the Life Legal Defense Foundation will answer the question, “Can I be forced to take the COVID vaccine?”
Faith On Trial at 10 a.m. Central Time, with Deacon Mike
Manno and Gina Noll.
By Catholic League president Bill Donohue
The obsession with President Biden's religion is everywhere
apparent, especially among Democrats, liberal pundits, reporters and activists.
They are working overtime to convince the public that he is a good Catholic.
On Biden's first day in office, White House press secretary
Jen Psaki addressed his religion at a press conference. "I will just take
the opportunity to remind all of you that he is a devout Catholic, and somebody
who attends church regularly." "Devout Catholic." A lexis-nexis
search reveals that this descriptive term has been used by the press hundreds
of times in the last three months.
The day after Biden was inaugurated, the New York Times gushed
that he is "perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in
half a century." Usually, this newspaper is apprehensive, if not alarmed,
about "religiously observant" public officials (especially Catholic
ones), yet for some reason they made an exception for Biden.
Sister Carol Keehan is the former head of the Catholic
Health Association. She says Biden is a "man who clearly loves his
faith." To get an idea of what she considers to be a model Catholic, she
recently showered Xavier Becerra with praise when he was being grilled by a
Senate committee over his nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human
Services. It does not bother her one iota that Becerra supports partial-birth
abortions and is known for his never-ending crusades against the Little Sisters
of the Poor.
Another Biden admirer is John Carr, co-director of a
Catholic project at Georgetown University; he is a reliable liberal Catholic
voice. He is impressed by the difference between Biden and his predecessor.
"We're going from one of the least overtly religious presidents in modern
times to one of the most overtly religious presidents in recent times."
If there is one thing that makes Biden "overtly
religious," it is his habit of carrying a rosary. That puts a smile on the
face of liberal Catholics like Father Tom Reese, a prominent Jesuit writer.
"This is a guy who carries a rosary around in his pocket and talks about
his faith." The media also love this story. This explains why there is so
much chatter about Biden's rosary beads.
Let's concede that Biden is a rosary-carrying "devout
Catholic." What does that have to do with his public policy decisions that
are of interest to the Catholic Church?
Biden's lust for abortion rights, and his steadfast
opposition to religious liberty legislation—as exemplified in his defense of
the Equality Act—are uncontestable. In other words, if a "devout"
Catholic doesn't connect the dots between his faith and his public policy
decisions, how excited should Catholics be about him? And does this not explain
why secularists adore this kind of Catholic?
At the individual level, Biden is the embodiment of what
the privatization of religion means. In this view, religion is solely an
interior exercise, having no public role to play. It must be said that there is
nothing Catholic about such a position. Indeed, every pope in recent times,
including Pope Francis, has spoken against this insular view. Catholicism, they
contend, must have a robust presence in the public square.
Biden's privatized conception of religion is not a stunt—it
is who he is. The first time he publicly mentioned his rosary beads was in
1995, twenty-two years after he became U.S. Senator from Delaware. What he said
at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on religious freedom was classic Biden.
"I am one of those guys who's never talked about my
religion. I carry a thing called a rosary bead with me all the time—I say it
all the time, I say it on the train—to me, it's a comforting thing. I don't
suggest it to anybody else."
He did not explain why, if the rosary beads meant so much
to him, he did not want to "suggest it to anybody else." Perhaps in
his mind such a suggestion could be read as an imposition. But that wouldn't
explain his support for forcing nuns to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in
their healthcare plans. That was not a suggestion—it was a mandate. It was also
one that violated Catholic moral teachings.
It seems a little strange for a "devout Catholic"
to keep private his religion. After all, Biden is not a monk—he has been a
public office holder for 47 years. This accounts, however, for the fact that
when he was running for president, the majority of the public had no idea he
was Catholic. In September 2020, Newsweek released a poll showing that 56%
were unaware that Biden was Catholic.
Biden's long-time secretive Catholic status is a secret no
more. Indeed his fans are now touting his "devout Catholic" status
whenever they can. Given the president's strong opposition to the life issues
and religious liberty, they have little choice. It is precisely this kind of
Catholic that the New York Times loves.