California! Who Needs It?

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) Ahhh, California. A place where Americans used to look to for innovation, culture, and that yearning to live and breathe free. Its air was clean and its beauty and climate were a magnet for the rest of the country. We used to sing about “California Girls” and “Cable Cars” as if they were national treasures, and its agriculture was celebrated as coming from “the land of fruit and nuts.”

Well, it’s still the land of fruit and nuts, but not the agricultural kind. The political kind. The California legislature is full of it, fruits and nuts, that is. They have considered and adopted more than their fair share of crazy ideas that they seriously consider in the mainstream.

Who, for example, can forget that enlightened piece of legislation that eliminated boys’ and girls’ toy departments from stores? Yes, every Californian should be able to differentiate between a Barbie Doll and a toy truck when choosing a birthday gift for their little non-binary bundle of joy. What a wonderful piece of legislative forethought that would only confuse us poor, uneducated bumpkins in the Midwest who still need the assistance of sex-designated departments to aid our decision process.

My guess is that it will take a while for my legislature to adopt such an inspired piece of legislation. I don’t think Iowans’ wokeness is as developed as theirs is.

Anyway, that stellar political leadership has now introduced another piece of fruity lawmaking that will enshrine the state’s reputation. It seems now they are proposing to make — as a condition of high school graduation — their version of ethnic studies. Now that may not sound too bad at first blush, but as they say, the devil is in the details.
The legislature directed the California Department of Education (CDE) to develop a model curriculum on ethnic studies that local schools could use. That curriculum includes teachers leading chants to Aztec gods of human sacrifice. Yes, California is setting the stage for their children (binary, non-binary, or just plain confused) to learn how to chant praises to these gods — of course, God forbid the school choir sing “O Holy Night” for the school’s winter solstice pageant — but chanting praises for Quetzalcoatl (ket-zolÈkooah-tl) or Tezcatlipoca, (tez-ca-tlee-poh’-kawell), that’s just fine for the Golden State.

So what would these chants sound like? According to the Pacific Justice Institute, there are at least five distinct deities for whom chants have been approved by the CDE. Here is one of the jotty tunes your little one will be singing himself to sleep with:

Quetzalkoatl, Quetzalcoatl, x2
The morning & evening star of venus double helix of human beings
fearless here it’s, precious blessed beautiful knowledge,
gaining perspective, on events & experiences our ancestors endured,
allows us to become more realized human beings learning
to be listening to each other’s hearts and our elders with humility, dignity,
Indigenous brilliance & wisdom in our hearts and our energies, remembering . . . ancestral memories, planning, future trajectories,
la cultura cura, with remedies of knowledge,
healing epistemologies, ecologies
in life, home, streets, school, work, & life, fueled by. . . .

I think you’re really going to have to get a good beat down to get the kids to remember this. But this is education in the land of fruit and nuts that every parent wants their kiddies to know. By the way, if it matters, Quetzalcoatl was the Aztec feathered snake god who was related to the gods of the wind, merchants, and the patron god of the Aztec priests.

Time for another one? This can be so fun and educational. Tezcatlipoca is the god of the Great Bear constellation and the object of a myth that tells the story of how he (she or whatever) expelled Quetzalcoatl and induced Big Q to sin. Here’s his peppy little chant:

Tezcatlipoca, Tezkatlipoka, x2
smoking mirror, self-reflection
We must vigorously search within ourselves be reflective, introspective bysilencing distractions and extensive comprehensive obstacles in our lives, (in our lives), in order to be warriors of love, of love,
for our gente representin’ justice, (justice)
local to global global to local eco-logical, & social, (social), justice (justice).

Of course, if you’re in California don’t expect you little offspring to be singing these toons right away. Despite the monumental step forward in education this act takes, California schools aren’t opening soon. You’ll just have to hire a private tutor to learn the melodies.

But while the schools will remain closed, your hard-working and tolerant lawmakers are planning more utopian lawmaking. This one is in the form of police reform called AB655, the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (CLEAR Act). According to the bright lights sponsoring this measure, the act is to combat “the infiltration of extremists in our law enforcement agencies.”

CLEAR Act would require background checks for all officers who have “exchanged racist and homophobic messages,” or, as we would call it, “hate speech” which it defines as “advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”
Now, what that means in real life is translated for us by the senior staff attorney for the Pacific Justice Institute, Matthew McReynolds, as a way to purposefully and arbitrarily classify as “hateful” ideologies that oppose such things as abortion and so called same-sex marriage.
“Under the guise of addressing police gangs, the bill at the same time launches an inexplicable, unwarranted, and unprecedented attack on peaceable, conscientious officers who happen to hold conservative political and religious views,” wrote McReynolds. “Indeed, this is one of the most undisguised and appalling attempts we have ever seen, in more than 20 years of monitoring such legislation, on the freedom of association and freedom to choose minority viewpoints.”

“Should the state now ban from public service qualified, fair-minded people who happen to hold religious or political views that conflict with controversial Supreme Court decisions on marriage and abortion?” asks Greg Burt, director of Capitol Engagement with the California Family Council. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional violation of religious liberty and freedom of speech. It is also a tyrannical abuse of power from a politician seeking to ruin the lives of those he disagrees with.”

Put that one right up there with the worship of Tezcatlipoca. I wonder if that lesson-plan calls for the actual sacrifice of a child. Naaah, not ones in school anyway.
“Ket-zol Kooah-tl here I come, right back where I started from….” Hey, that’s a catchy tune.

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

 

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment Rights for Pro-Life Wisconsin

(April 14, 2021 – Madison, Wisconsin)  The Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with Pro-Life Wisconsin, represented by the Thomas More Society, in an April 14, 2021, ruling that the state does not have the authority to limit capacity on businesses without the approval of Wisconsin’s lawmakers.

Pro-Life Wisconsin was among the organizations and businesses whose rights were violated as Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’s administration evaded the legislative process to set arbitrary and discriminatory rules under cover of COVID-19 prevention. The majority decision in Tavern League of Wisconsin v. Andrea Palm and Wisconsin Department of Health Services upheld a previous ruling from the Court of Appeals that favored Pro-Life Wisconsin and the other organizations and businesses in the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit was filed in response to an emergency order issued in October 2020 that limited the number of people at indoor public gatherings to 25 percent capacity. The order limited businesses without capacity limits to 10 people. An injunction against the emergency order was issued after the lawsuit by The Tavern League, which was joined by Pro-Life Wisconsin and others, said that Palm illegally bypassed the state’s proper rulemaking procedures. 

Andrew Bath, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and General Counsel, responded to the decision, “The Wisconsin Supreme Court has affirmed what we have said all along, that, under our constitutional system of separation of powers, no branch of government is a rule unto itself. The rights of Pro-Life Wisconsin and the other plaintiffs were violated when the Evers Administration engaged in dictatorial rule rather than follow the law. Those rights have been vindicated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which today declared the administration’s illegal order to be neither ‘valid’  nor ‘enforceable.’ We hail the court’s decision because the very notion of citizen self-government was at stake in this case.” 

Bath added, “The outrageous fact that the Secretary-designee included a punishment of civil forfeiture of assets for noncompliance with her excessive regulations shows that the move was more about absolute power than disease prevention. As we have seen, the United States Supreme Court continues to protect rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution – even in a pandemic. We are pleased that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has protected rights guaranteed by the state constitution and halted the administration’s attempt to do an end run around the people’s representatives - in violation of Wisconsin law.” 

Dan Miller, State Director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, stated, “We thank the Wisconsin Supreme Court for its prudent, decisive, and common sense reading of the law as it was written. This rebuke of Governor Tony Evers' abuse of power is a win for the people of Wisconsin. Those who love liberty are forever indebted to the Thomas More Society for its tireless work on this case. This case was not just about how the executive branch overreached its power in the name of public health, but how a handful of citizens and constitutional law experts stood up to tyranny and won." 

In March 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the governor’s statewide mask mandate, ruling that two of the governor’s executive orders regarding masks were “unlawful” under Wisconsin state statutes. 

Read the Supreme Court of Wisconsin order issued in Tavern League of Wisconsin v. Andrea Palm and Wisconsin Department of Health Services on April 14, 2021, on bypass from the Court of Appeals, here [https://thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PLW-v.-Palm-WI-Supreme-Court-Opinion-4-14-21.pdf] 

About the Thomas More Society

The Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty. Headquartered in Chicago, Omaha, Rancho Santa Fe, California, and Fairfield, NJ, the Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org 

This week (4-15) on Faith On Trial:

Bryan Neihart, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom on a challenge to a state law that forces photographers to take part in same-sex weddings and prohibits them from communicating their views on marriage.

Sarah Perry, the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, on the trans-gendering of children during school hours only. Shush, don’t tell your parents.

Thursday at 10 a.m. CT on 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of earlier programs you may have missed.

How Leftists Want to Make Schools More Dangerous - Return to Order

How Leftists Want to Make Schools More Dangerous - Return to Order

Today the Police, Tomorrow the Military - Return to Order

Today the Police, Tomorrow the Military - Return to Order

Public Schools Resist Competition

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

The waiting list to get into charter schools is considerable in most cities. Most on the list are non-white. They want an alternative to the public schools. Why? For the same reason that rich people do: the public schools are unsatisfactory, and in many cases they are positively dreadful. But unlike the rich, most minority parents cannot afford to send their children to private schools.

Enrollment at Catholic schools during the pandemic is down overall, though there are many important exceptions. Many low-income parents, and those who are out of work, cannot pay the tuition. A report by the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) found that "Disadvantaged communities have been particularly affected by recent closures [of Catholic schools] with more than half of the closed schools located in low-income urban areas."

However, there are some places where Catholic enrollment has surged—Boston and Cleveland are just two cities that have witnessed an uptick. The NCEA study found that "In 2020, nearly 40% of Catholic schools report that they have a waiting list for students—an increase of more than 11 percentage points from 2019." The increase is due to the failure of the public schools to open. That there has been no outbreak of Covid cases in these Catholic schools is undeniable.

One might think that those educators who are truly interested in quality education for black and brown students might be promoting charter schools and school choice. But few are. One of the most striking attacks on charter, Catholic and Christian schools was published on April 12 in USA Today by Derek W. Black and Rebecca Holcombe; he teaches law at the University of South Carolina and she is the former Vermont Secretary of Education.

They call for an end to charter schools and to school-choice programs. In doing so, they are consigning minority students to dead-end schools, the effect of which is to increase racial inequities. If someone were to devise a policy to punish the poor—to deny upward social mobility for Hispanics and African Americans—they could not suggest a better way to do so.

Public school advocates have always been worried, if not terrified, of competition. Their number-one goal has always been to create a total public-school monopoly, even if it means discriminating against minorities.

Black and Holcombe complain that some Christian schools adopt textbooks that advance "anti-science and white-centric ideology." Their resort to racist labeling is invidious, but this is what we have come to expect from those who want to indoctrinate students in critical race theory; it is now the norm in California.

These educators are exercised about a Christian textbook that allegedly teaches that "dinosaurs and humans lived together." They should instead worry about the California curriculum that teaches that Jews are "gaining racial privilege." 

Similarly, Black and Holcombe fret over a Catholic school whose website says faith "is weaved into every aspect of life" at school. It is a sure bet that they are not perturbed by public schools that tell young boys and girls that they can switch their sex. Nor are they likely to object to public schools that weave racism into every part of the curriculum, including math.

If we were sincere about helping minority students, we would promote more charter schools and fund more school-choice initiatives, the exact opposite of what these two sages recommend.

 

ADF suing NY on behalf of Christian photographer

ADF suing NY on behalf of Christian photographer: A photographer in New York state wants to operate her business according to her faith but is facing prohibition on free speech and a jail cell, and is waiting on the day the state tries to trap her. 

This week's podcast of Faith On Trial's radio program

This week's podcast of Faith On Trial: Georgia Howe, the Daily Wire, on the graphic sexual content in a Texas school District. Mark MacDougal, executive director of Ruth Harbor Ministries, on its Christ-centered homes, programs, and services for young women facing unplanned pregnancies. Every Thursday morning at 10 a.m. CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also hear podcasts of earlier programs.

This week's Faith On Trial -- April 8

This week  on Faith On Trial:

Georgia Howe, the Daily Wire, on the graphic sexual content in a Texas school District.

Mark MacDougal, executive director of Ruth Harbor Ministries, on its Christ-centered homes, programs, and services for young women facing unplanned pregnancies.

Thursday morning at 10 a.m. CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can also hear podcasts of earlier programs.

Court: Wayne State’s actions “obviously odious to the Constitution” Federal court protects InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, holds university liable

WASHINGTON – A federal court just ruled against Wayne State University, finding that it discriminated against InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a religious student club, when it kicked the group off campus for requiring its leaders to be Christians. As the court stated, at Wayne State, “Student groups were permitted to restrict leadership based on sex, gender identity, political partisanship, ideology, creed, ethnicity, and even GPA and physical attractiveness.”

However, religious groups were not allowed to require that leaders share any of a group’s religious beliefs, and at Wayne State, it was a “small group of Christians, who were denied [student organization] benefits because they require their Christian leaders to be . . . Christian.” The court concluded that Wayne State’s actions to force religious groups to accept leaders “who may be hostile to [their] religious tenets” were obviously wrong and “strike at the heart” of the First Amendment: “No religious group can constitutionally be made an outsider, excluded from equal access to public or university life, simply because it insists on religious leaders who believe in its cause.”

Because Wayne State’s actions were “obviously odious to the Constitution,” the court held Wayne State officials personally liable for violating the rights of Wayne State’s religious students. 

“The law is crystal clear: universities can’t kick religious student groups off campus just because they choose leaders who share their faith,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket. “The court’s common-sense ruling today means that InterVarsity must be treated fairly, just as it had been for 75 years at Wayne State, and now can continue its good work serving a diverse campus community.” 

InterVarsity’s student group had been a part of Wayne State for three-quarters of a century, holding Bible studies and providing a place for community discussion. InterVarsity is open to all students, but, like many other student groups, it requires its student leaders to adhere to its mission and purpose. The university never had a problem with its policy until 2017 when, during a routine club membership reapplication process, Wayne State told InterVarsity that asking its leaders to share its faith was “discriminatory” and deregistered the group. 

But the court said Wayne State had things backward—it was the school that had discriminated against the small student group: “Disparate and discriminatory treatment of religious groups due to their religious character violates the Free Exercise Clause.” In fact, Wayne State’s attempt to control a religious group’s leadership selection was “categorically barred by the Constitution.” And the law on this point was so clear that the court held that Wayne State officials are personally liable for their actions. 

In 2018, Becket sued Wayne State on InterVarsity’s behalf, since the group had been excluded. Wayne State relented and let InterVarsity back onto its campus but argued that it still had the right to remove the group later. Today’s ruling safeguards InterVarsity and sends a clear message that accommodation, not discrimination, is the best policy.

One-Party Press In America

By DEACON MIKE MANNO

(The Wanderer) – Anyone who has been even a casual reader of this column knows of my affinity for the profession of journalism and my deep disdain for the manner in which it is practiced today. Naturally, then, I was pleased and surprised that a federal appeals court judge also took aim at the press, and social media, while ruling on a case before him.

The judge is Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who took senior status in 2000 but is still eligible to hear and rule on appellate cases. The case was an unremarkable one involving Liberian officials who were suing an international human rights organization for defaming them in a report by implying that they had accepted bribes. The lower court had dismissed the case

This issue on appeal was whether or not the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged actual malice by the defendant company. The issue of malice, as articulated by the Supreme Court in its legendary ruling in the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, was a key issue. In Sullivan, the court ruled that for a public official to prevail in a defamation case, the official must not only prove the legal elements for defamation, but must also prove that the defamatory statements were made with “actual malice” — meaning that the defendant knew the statements were not true or published them with reckless disregard for their truth.

Sullivan came out of the civil rights era of the 1960s when a local official in Montgomery, Ala., sued the Times over a full-page advertisement which criticized the local police for mistreatment of civil rights protesters which contained several inconsequential factual errors. Nonetheless a local jury found against the paper and awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in damages. The Supreme Court overturned the trial court award 9-0, holding that it violated the First Amendment and establishing the “actual malice” standard for such suits.

Subsequent cases expanded the protection beyond public officials to public entities, such as the defendant in the case being heard by Judge Silberman.

In his partial dissent to the panel’s affirmation of the lower court, Silberman objected to what was considered “actual malice.” From there he went on to criticize the Sullivan decision as “policy driven” and having “no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution…the actual malice requirement was simply cut from whole cloth,” he wrote.

But then he went further, criticizing the press, social media, and, by implication, the Democratic Party.

“I recognize how difficult it will be to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule such a ‘landmark’ decision. After all, doing so would incur the wrath of press and media. But new considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make The New York Times decision a threat to American Democracy. It must go,” he wrote.

“I readily admit that I have little regard for the holdings of the Court that dress up policymaking in constitutional garb. That is the real attack on the Constitution, in which — it should go without saying — the Framers chose to allocate political power” to the political branches. “The notion that the Court should somehow act in a policy role as a Council of Revision is illegitimate,” he said before going off on the press and one-party rule by the Democrats.

Pointing out that the original suit against the Times was to curb its criticism of local officials by the northern press, he noted that the day after the jury verdict was announced, “The Alabama Journal (a Montgomery paper) celebrated the result. An editorial trumpeted that the case would cause the ‘reckless publishers of the North…to make a re-survey of their habit of permitting anything detrimental to the South and its people to appear in their columns’.”

Continuing he opined that the Sullivan case increased the power of the media, which initially needed that protection to cover the civil rights movement. But, he warned, “As the case has subsequently been interpreted, it allows the press to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity. It would be one thing if this were a two-sided phenomenon.” Citing statistics and reports of press accusations predominately target conservative and Republican politicians, he noted that over the years since, cities, especially those controlled by Democrats, have been served only by a liberal press.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party — not just controversial individuals — is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the 1970s. Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets….The orientation of these…papers is followed by the Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as The Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television — network and cable — is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

Then he turned his attention to Silicon Valley which “also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.” He noted how Facebook and Twitter have also curbed Internet free speech on their platforms.

“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination raises the specter that the government effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.”
He noted there are a few exceptions to “Democratic Party ideological control” of the media such as Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Yet, he observed, there are attempts to muzzle Fox News and some of the other conservative networks that have emerged in recent years. The Democratic Party’s dominance in the press and social media has been estimated at adding between eight and ten percent to its vote in a typical election, he said.

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” he penned.

“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness — if not eagerness — to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”

Two footnotes Judge Silberman placed in his opinion are worth noting: “The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefor is — I say this advisedly — fundamentally un-American. As one who lived through the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women can support such actions.”

And finally, another dig at the current state of society: “The reasons for press bias are too complicated to address here. But they surely relate to bias in academic institutions.”

Thank God for Judge Silberman. Unfortunately, however, you won’t find much about this argument in either the media or academia. Such is the world we live in today.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central Time on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

 

Christian Bashers Invent Christian Nationalism

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue

Scholars rightly take umbrage when pundits and activists exploit their work for political purposes. The latest example, at least in religious circles, is the way in which a new book, Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics, is being received by militant secularists.

The authors, David Campbell, Geoffrey Layman and John C. Green—all of whom have distinguished records—maintain that the number of Americans who no longer claim a religious affiliation is growing quickly, accounting for a secular surge. The data support their thesis.

Their volume becomes somewhat more controversial when they attribute some of the exit from religious institutions to the more conservative members of the Republican Party. The authors say that many Americans have an "allergic reaction" to mixing religion and conservative politics. They further note that "a secular-religious divide" may lead each side to view the other "with suspicion and perhaps even hostility."

As I have recounted in reviewing their work in the past, these authors are well aware of the fact that the secularization of American society has been going on for decades. Layman previously cited 1972 as the pivotal year when secularists took over the Democratic Party. Twenty years later he wrote that "The Democratic Party now appears to be a party whose core of support comes from secularists, Jews, and the less committed members of the major religious traditions."

In 2004, Green directed a survey by the Bliss Institute at the University of Akron on this subject and found similar results. Campbell's work in this area is consistent with these findings.

Unfortunately, those who are more interested in propaganda than scholarship are using their work to advance their own agenda. The latest to do so is Adam Gabbatt, a reporter for The Guardian; it is being flagged by Yahoo.

In his news story of April 5, Gabbatt offers a fair presentation of Secular Surge, but then descends to politics when he says that "Christian nationalists" are "thrust[ing] their version of religion into American life." He finds support for this view by citing Alison Gill, vice president for Legal and Policy at American Atheists. She cites a report by the organization, "2020 State of the Secular States," that claims Christian nationalists are at the forefront of this movement.

To begin with, Layman, Campbell and Green never use the term "Christian nationalists" in their book. More important, although this label is mentioned 12 times in the report by American Atheists, never once is it defined. It's just bandied about, the way it always is.

"Christian nationalists," according to the report, are those who believe in such things as religious exemptions, pro-life legislation, school vouchers, homeschooling, and our national motto, "In God We Trust." Fairly common stuff. In other words, American Atheists thinks that a very large swath of the American public qualify as "Christian nationalists."

To be sure, there are Christian extremists, but I hasten to add that they are far less influential than their secular counterparts. A militant brand of secularism has gripped the country, and this includes many of those in elite positions of power.

We don't have to worry about "Christian nationalists"—we have to worry about those who are promoting this fiction as a weapon to assault our Judeo-Christian heritage.

 

How To Keep Corporate Wokeness From Destroying America

How To Keep Corporate Wokeness From Destroying America: Democrats long ago abandoned working-class blacks and whites in favor of identity politics, corporatism, and leftism. It's time for the GOP to step up.

This week – April 1 – on Faith On Trial, Iowa Catholic Radio

This week – April 1 – on Faith On Trial, Iowa Catholic Radio

Michael Berry, attorney, First Liberty on his recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on claims of religious extremism by Christians and Catholics.

Dr. Anne Hendershott, professor of sociology, Franciscan University, and author of The Politics of Envy on the resentment and discrimination against Asian-Americans.

Every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central on Iowa Catholic Radio 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Biden And The Bishops At Easter

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

During the presidential campaign season last year, it was obvious that candidate Joe Biden was not having an easy time with some U.S. bishops. After he won the election, that observation was validated. Now that we are at Easter, it is undeniably true that the president's relationship with many bishops is rocky, if not seriously strained. 

Last summer, Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin issued a tweet that was both sarcastic and pointed. "Biden-Harris. First time in awhile that the Democratic ticket hasn't had a Catholic on it. Sad." The dismissal of Biden's professed Catholic status was lost on no one. 

A month before the election, Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Biden should not receive Communion, adding that he was not a Catholic "in good standing." 

A few weeks after the election, Archbishop José Gomez, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, opined that President-elect Biden supported policies that "attack some fundamental values we hold dear." Noting that it could be confusing to Catholics to see a Catholic in the White House who rejected the Church's teachings on abortion and other matters, Gomez appointed a Working Group, chaired by Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron, to help the bishops "navigate" this "difficult and complex situation." 

In December, the recently retired archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, said that Biden's support for gay marriage and abortion rights meant that he "should stop defining himself as a devout Catholic." On the day he was inaugurated, Biden's press secretary, Jen Psaki, called the president a "devout Catholic." 

Archbishop Gomez, speaking for the bishops' conference, also weighed in on inauguration day. "I must point out that the 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." 

A week later, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, chairman of the bishops' Pro-Life Committee, teamed up with Bishop David Malloy, the head of the bishops' International Justice and Peace Committee, to take Biden to task for promoting abortion overseas. "It is grievous that one of President Biden's first official acts actively promotes the destruction of human lives in developing nations." They said his executive order "is antithetical to reason, violates human dignity, and is incompatible with Catholic teaching." 

In February, Naumann, the archbishop of Kansas City, Kansas, said that Biden "should stop defining himself as a devout Catholic," noting that he is "100% pro-choice on abortion." He accused Biden of "usurping the role of the bishops and confusing people." What should be done? "The bishops need to correct him, as the president is acting contrary to the Catholic faith." 

Within days of Naumann's remarks, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas declared that "Biden is not a real Catholic." In March, Bishop Richard Stika, who heads the Diocese of Knoxville, tweeted that Biden "likes to brag on his Catholic background when convenient. So very dishonest!" 

At the end of March, Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, who leads the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, said that Biden "should not present himself" for Communion. He cited Biden's long history of supporting abortion rights, saying that if politicians are "living in a way or holding positions that are contrary to church teaching, then the Minister of Communion has to deny them the sacrament." 

Paprocki's comments were followed by Cardinal Burke's. Speaking of Biden, he said that "a person who claims to be Catholic and yet promotes in such an open, obdurate, and aggressive way a crime like procured abortion is in the state, at least, of apostasy." He concluded that the penalty for the "crime of apostasy" is "excommunication." 

As we approach Easter, the bishops, as well as millions of practicing Catholics, are not going to have their concerns about Biden allayed by photos of him clinging to his rosary beads. He cannot at once declare himself to be a "devout Catholic" while at the same time supporting abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, sex transitioning for minors, and the war on religious liberty.

It's time for President Biden to stop living a lie.