Thursday, June 16, 2022

This week on Faith On Trial: banning teacher for opposition to pro-transgender policy; 8th graders subject to Title IX investigation for mis-gendering classmate

Luke Berg
This week on Faith On Trial Luke Berg, deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty (WILL) joined Deacon Mike and Sherill Whisanand, sitting in for the vacation Gina Noll, to discuss a recent and an ongoing case in which WILL has been involved. Both involved transgender students. In one three 8th grade students were under Title IX investigation after mis-gendering, using the wrong pronoun, a classmate. The second involved a school counselor who is being threatened with the loss of her teaching license for the “immoral” act of opposing her school’s transgender policy.

You can listen to the full program here:  https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/24cb81eb/faith-on-trial-luke-berg-6162022

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning CT at 9:30 on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of our older programs that you may have missed.



Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Is it immoral for a teacher to oppose transgenderism in grade school?

This week on Faith On Trial we’ll be joined by Attorney Luke Berg, deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty who is representing a school counselor who is in just that position, as the state department of public instruction is threatening to take the teaching license of a teacher who spoke out against transgender policies in her school. The claim is that her comments were “immoral.”

Join Deacon Mike and guest co-host Sherill Whisenand Thursday at 9:30 CT for that interesting conversation on Iowa Catholic Radio. Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of our older programs that you may have missed.



Anti-Catholic Invective Spawns Violence

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 


The recent spate of Catholic churches that have been vandalized, as well as the bombing of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers (many of which are run by Catholics), are not a coincidence. Nor is the attempted murder of  Brett Kavanaugh, the Catholic Supreme Court Justice. They reflect a deep-seated animus against the right of orthodox Catholics to participate in public life.


When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on the high court, she was joined by Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. All three are Jewish. No one complained, nor should they have, about the fact that Jews are roughly 2 percent of the population yet they made up a third of the Supreme Court. But when Catholics are overrepresented—six of the Justices are Catholic (they are a little less than a quarter of the population)—that's a different story.


Those who have spoken critically about the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court include some notable activists and pundits.


  • Americans United for Separation of Church and State president Rachel Laser saw the draft opinion on Roe v. Wade authored by Catholic Justice Samuel Alito as something nefarious. "They attempt to impose one religious viewpoint on all of us," she said. Referring to the Catholics on the bench as "religious extremists," she accused them of trying "to destroy our democracy and force all of us to live by their narrow beliefs."
  • Ron Grossman of the Chicago Tribune sounded the alarms by noting that "if canon law becomes U.S. law, we will be perilously close to having a state religion."
  • Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi wrote that "The ultra-conservative bloc on the court includes Justice Neil Gorsuch and four of six Catholic justices."
  • New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd observes that "Catholic doctrine may be shaping (or misshaping) the freedom and the future of millions of women, and men. There is a corona of religious fervor around the court, a churchly ethos that threatens to turn our whole country upside down."
  • Jamie Manson, the head of the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic letterhead, Catholics for Choice, noted that there are "five radically anti-choice Catholics on this court." She attributed this to a long campaign coordinated by "U.S. Catholic Bishops" and "very wealthy right-wing Catholics."
  • Eleanor Clift at the Daily Beast opined that we are "on the cusp of a decision that cements a theological view of abortion."
  • American Atheists said that Justice Alito's ruling means that "White Christian Nationalism is a clear and existential threat."
  • Another atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation, says "Alito is one of six justices on the nine-member high court who are Roman Catholic," noting that "Religion, as always, is at the heart of this attack against a fundamental right."
  • Frances Kissling, the former head of Catholics for Choice, complains that "the decision was, in essence, written by five Catholic lawyers who accept the most conservative version of Catholicism on abortion and who have applied it to secular American law."
  • In the Los Angeles Times, Sheila Briggs claims that "As the devastating effects on women's lives become visible after the Supreme Court's judgment, Catholics are going to feel increasing shame over what their church has done."
  • Bette Midler came out of retirement to complain about all those Catholics on the high court. "Does that scream 'diversity of opinion' or 'ability to be objective and fair' to you given the historical #Roman Catholic antipathy to abortion?"


Ron Elving at NPR showed it is entirely possible to address the issue of abortion and Catholic judges without making anti-Catholic remarks. But he is unfortunately the exception to the rule.


These activists and pundits have helped to poison the public mind, suggesting that it is patently unfair to have so many Catholics on the high court. In essence, they want a religious test, which is constitutionally proscribed. Worse, they have driven a public narrative about Catholic judges that invites those who are already ill-disposed to Catholics to consider taking things into their own hands.


Catholic churches are being vandalized, crisis pregnancy centers are being bombed, illegal protests are taking place outside the homes of Catholic Supreme Court Justices, and one Catholic Justice was targeted by an assassin. Make no mistake, these are a direct consequence of this relentless spewing of anti-Catholic invective. It needs to stop.



Wednesday, June 8, 2022

Cult like social activity: this week on Faith On Trial

This week Deacon Mike and Gina will host Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Council to discuss her article, Leftists Socially Constructing a Pagan World, which you can read below at https://faithontrialradio.blogspot.com/2022/06/leftists-socially-constructing-pagan.html. Join us for that conversation this Thursday at 9:30 a.m. CT on Iowa Catholic Radio.

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of our older programs that you may have missed.



Abortion Activists Plan to Blockade Supreme Court, Stop Justices From Overturning Roe - LifeNews.com

Abortion Activists Plan to Blockade Supreme Court, Stop Justices From Overturning Roe - LifeNews.com: The Epoch Times uncovered more details this week about radical abortion activists’ plans to blockade the U.S. Supreme Court building on June 13. Threats and violence against the court and pro-life advocates have increased since news broke in May about a leaked draft ruling that shows the justices overturning Roe v. Wade. Authorities expect more violence when the […]

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

Religion Clause: NY School Districts Not Required To Provide Bussin...

Religion Clause: NY School Districts Not Required To Provide Bussin...: In In the Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. v. Washingtonville Central School District ,  (NY App., June 2, 2022), a...

Religion Clause: New York Court Reaffirms Its Decision Upholding Re...

Religion Clause: New York Court Reaffirms Its Decision Upholding Re...: In  Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Vullo , (NY App., June 2, 2022), a New York intermediate appellate court, in a case on remand from t...

Monday, June 6, 2022

Biden’s war on pro-life conservatives

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – If we have not realized it yet, and surely most of us do at this point, our “devout Catholic” president is on a war footing against, not enemies of the nation, but American servicemen who are deemed unfit due to their conservative Christian and pro-life beliefs.

Joe Biden, who has continued to bloody his hands with the results of his extreme abortion (anytime, anywhere) agenda, continues to pursue his vendetta against those pro-lifers in the military, as well as in federal employment, by using the old crisis excuse: COVID.

As reported earlier, Mr. Biden issued orders that all federal employees, including members of the military, must receive the COVID vaccine or be terminated from their positions. While each mandate contained religious exemption for those having strong religious reasons for not taking the vaccine, obtaining one is a near impossibility.

Notably, those objections centered on the vaccine’s development using a cell line from an aborted fetus.

And, of course, it was duly noted that most objections were from conservative Christians who held strong pro-life beliefs. At the time my February column was published, the Heritage Foundation was reporting that the administration was requiring those employees seeking a religious exemption need to provide not only their names and addresses, but maiden names, length and depth of religious practice, among other things, including physical characteristics and identifiers.

Naturally it didn’t take a genius to figure out what was going on: The administration was creating a blacklist of employees who were devout Christian pro-lifers. As reported then, the administration refused numerous requests for a clarification as to how the list was to be used.

As it was noted at the time, of all the thousands of requests for religious accommodations from military personnel, only four had been granted. Now you would think that after the bad publicity, and adverse court decisions, the Biden administration would back off. It didn’t and it continued its anti-Christian crusade against pro-lifers in the military.

Just last week a group of nine Air Force officers filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Air Force for its continual refusal to grant religious accommodations to the vaccine mandate. In the suit the officers claimed that 11,877 such requests have been made and only 81 have been approved; the Air Force admits that the 81 were all members leaving the service. If their request for class-action status is approved by the court, the group will be legally representing all Air Force personnel who have applied for a religious exemption and were denied.

What is interesting about this particular suit is that the circumstances of each of the nine officers have been set out in detail which indicates that the administration is treating each as if they were seeking to undermine the U.S. government, which, of course, is what the president and his military officers have repeated over and over again: The greatest threat to this nation is from extreme right-wingers and white supremacists.
For example, one of the stories from the complaint involves Lt. Col. Tyler W. Stef, who was scheduled to complete pilot instructor training and was prevented from doing so due to his unvaccinated status. He had originally applied for a religious accommodation and cited on his application his objection to the use of the aborted fetal cell line. His first such application was never processed. A couple of months later he reapplied.

While waiting for a reply, he became concerned with his family’s allergic reactions to vaccines, noting that two of his daughters had been hospitalized for severe allergic reaction to vaccines. He then sought allergy testing from a physician who had provided allergy testing services for other servicemen.

The test showed that he was allergic to two of the ingredients of the COVID vaccine. He submitted those results to the Air Force which then approved a one-year medical exception to the mandate. He then re-scheduled his flight instruction training. But he was grounded.

His commander then informed him that he was under investigation for faking an allergy to get out of taking the vaccine. He then met with a board-certified allergist who confirmed the earlier results that he had allergic reactions to the COVID drugs. He was then asked by an Air Force allergist to supply that information to the Air Force, which he did.

Almost immediately he received a heavily redacted reply from the Air Force accusing him of submitting a false “official statement,” the original allergy report from the first doctor. It also included the allegation that he was being investigated for attempting to disobey a lawful order by submitting a false report in an attempt to avoid the vaccine mandate, and that he faked his allergy without proper medical testing or approval.
He was later informed that Air Force medical personnel had confirmed his allergy testing was done according to standard allergy testing protocol. A month later he received a letter of admonishment for having seen his original physician who was now being deemed “illegitimate” by the Air Force.

His story is similar to the eight others, but of the nine his is the worst. All are threatened with separation and worse, and stand to lose their military pensions for simply asking for a religious accommodation to the mandate.

This is eerily similar to the threats made against the Navy Seals who requested religious accommodations. They were not only threatened with separation and loss of benefits, but told they could be required to repay all the costs for their training.

“At a time of instability and ever-increasing threats around the world, you’d think the Pentagon would want every service member at their post. But instead, military leaders are forcing tens of thousands of our bravest out of the service because they’ve chosen to live according to their faith,” said Mike Berry, director of Military Affairs for First Liberty Institute, which is representing the officers.

“Punishing these service members for seeking religious accommodation is illegal, vindictive, and wrong. Religious liberty is essential to national security, and our service members deserve better.”

One of the other plaintiffs, Major Danielle Runyan, a member of the Air Force Reserve, added, “Like many service members, I want to continue faithfully serving my country as I have proudly done for the past 10 years. As the Supreme Court has already recognized, ‘even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten’.”

In an attempt to promote his worldview, it appears that our “devout” commander-in-chief doesn’t really care who he hurts as long as the country is rid of those pesky conservative Christians.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

Leftists Socially Constructing a Pagan World


By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under Biden’s incompetent rule has decided that in order for schools to access federal money to provide lunch to needy children, schools will have to sexually integrate bathrooms and locker rooms. The USDA defended its decision with this bizarre comment:

[A]ccording to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, more than 13% of LGBTQ respondents lived in a household that experienced food insecurity, compared to 7.2% of non-LGBTQ adult respondents. This survey also found food insufficiency – not always having enough food to eat – to be three times as common among transgender individuals (nearly 24% of respondents) as compared to cisgender individuals (8.3% of respondents).

The USDA didn’t say how the sexual integration of bathrooms and locker rooms is related to the problem of “food insecurity” in “LGBT” households or “food insufficiency” among “transgender” individuals. Nor did Biden’s USDA explain why any children who suffer from food insecurity and food insufficiency should be denied school lunches just because schools honor sexual differences in private spaces. This sounds remarkably like extortion. The federal government will make impoverished children suffer more in order to promote the unscientific beliefs of the “trans”-cult.

And it’s not just America’s federal bureaucrats who are abusing their power to socially construct a new mixed up, muddled up, shook up world unfit for anyone other than Lola. (Actually, this socially constructed new world is unfit for Lola too.)

Canada will be using public funds to build a shrine to the false gods of homoeroticism and “trans”-cultism (a phenomenon closer to Haitian Vodou than to science). The shrine features a cylindrical structure with a glitzy, gaping opening representing the imprint of a cloud festooned with disco ball walls. The shrine titled Thunderhead is intended to convey the message that homosexuals and cross-sex impersonators have “risen up” to say, “‘We demand change.’”

Emphasizing the pagan religious nature of the worship of narcissistic desire is a “healing circle ringed with stones hand-picked by Two-Spirit Elders.” Imagine the uproar that would ensue today if a public monument were being built on federal land using federal money that included symbols of Christianity.

The term “two-spirit” was invented—that is to say, socially constructed—in 1990 at the “Third Annual Inter-tribal Native American, First Nations, Gay and Lesbian American Conference.” Although there is debate about the precise meaning of “two-spirit,” it generally “refers to a person who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit and is used by some Indigenous people to describe their sexual, gender and/or spiritual identity.” As such, it is a pagan or quasi-religious term.

The belief that there can be a female spirit trapped in a male body is a faith-based metaphysical claim that has seized the malleable imaginations of post-Christian cultures in search of meaning. “Trans”-cultism is either a form of mysticism or a mental illness. It has no basis in hard science. There is no scientific proof that a human spirit can be born in the wrong body. There is no scientific proof that a person’s subjective, “internal” feelings about one’s maleness, femaleness, both, or neither have any objective material reality.

Religion is defined as, among other things, “Belief in a spiritual or metaphysical reality, accompanied by practices or rituals pertaining to the belief.”  “Trans”-cultic beliefs about “gendered” spirits inhabiting opposite-sexed bodies are accompanied by cultic practices masquerading as science, like using chemicals to artificially stop normal, healthy puberty or to artificially produce unnatural opposite-sex puberty.

Other practices are even more barbaric and can include slicing off the healthy breasts of young, mesmerized women or castrating young men and turning their penises inside out to create “neo-vaginas” that their bodies will always recognize as wounds and try to close them up.

Like all the beliefs of the “LGBTQ+” communities, the term “two-spirit” embodies debatable, socially constructed ontological and moral beliefs—not objective, inarguable science-based facts. These arguable, faith-based, socially constructed beliefs are being imposed by government, big business, and academia throughout the Western world.

Leftists, those normalizers of all things sexually perverse and opponents of all sexual taboos, have binary hissy fits when conservatives accuse them of “grooming” children. The same leftists who defend drag queen story hours for preschoolers, openly admit to using their publicly funded teaching positions to promote their sexual peccadillos, and who pass laws requiring that all boys’ bathrooms in public schools be retrofitted with tampon machines, are rising up in unrighteous indignation at the suggestion they’re grooming children.

Merriam-Webster defines the verb “groom” as “to get into readiness for a specific objective.” The online Free Dictionary defines it as “to prepare, as for a specific … purpose.” As such, leftists who teach children either implicitly or explicitly that homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation are good, healthy, or moral are grooming children. Leftists who seek to use government schools as sexual re-education camps are grooming children. Leftist re-educators who teach children that opposition to single sex “marriage” and carving up girls’ bodies are “homophobic” and “transphobic” are grooming children.

Another leftist gripe is that all social conventions related to sex that they hate are “socially constructed” and imposed by society. By that they mean social conventions related to biological sex are arbitrary conventions that are forced on society. “Trans”-activists and their “progressive” collaborators believe that society “conditions” children into believing that biological sex exists and matters. “Trans”-activists maintain the peculiar belief that stereotypes precede and shape male and female differences rather than the other way around.

Oddly, they don’t see their assumptions about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation as socially constructed. They don’t see their efforts to use the government, public schools, and big business to promote their views as “imposing.”

So, Fisher-Price’s recently introduced drag queen dolls for preschoolers have nothing to do with leftist socially constructed beliefs about cross-sex impersonation and nothing to do with imposing those beliefs on children.

Producing Barbie dolls in sparkly pink evening gowns has everything to do with socially constructed and imposed beliefs and conventions but producing drag queen dolls has nothing to do with the socially constructed and imposed beliefs and conventions of the “trans”-cult. Got it.

These collectible Little People dolls for preschoolers are Fisher-Price’s entree into the world of ideological grooming. Fisher-Price can’t let Mattel’s “gender-neutral” dolls corner the market on corporate grooming for profit.

Target may have been the first corporate behemoth to pave the broad path to sexual anarchy at the expense of children. Today Target has de-sexed toy aisles, de-sexed bathrooms, draped the store in rainbows to celebrate deviant sexuality, and now carries breast binders and panty packers to help girls pretend to be boys. Breast binders are used to compress girls’ breasts and “packers” are underwear that allow girls to “wear a packer, which gives the appearance of having a penis or bulge.”

Those who worship boundary-free sex-related desires view all morally tethered beliefs as “homophobic” and “transphobic.” They hurl these epithets to silence expressions of moral beliefs they hate. But the socially constructed and imposed Christo-phobic beliefs of the “LGBTQ+” community have no right to a monopoly on the public square.

Friday, June 3, 2022

Is California embracing post-birth abortions?

Deacon Mike Manno, JD
Iowa Catholic Radio
Host of Faith On Trial
This week on Faith On Trial our guest was Paul Jonna from the Thomas More Society to discussthe proposed legislation in California that would arguably allow for post-birth abortions by preventing investigations into infant deaths. Who is behind it and what do they want? All discussed, including possible new LGBTQ rules for any school accepting federal funds. How serious are these rules? Apparently mis-gendering an individual can trigger the financial penalty. Also, there is a school district in which the teachers are being directed to grade minority students differently than white or Asian students. For example, minority students cannot be given a zero for missed assignments or tests, and 19 percent is now considered a passing grade.

You can listen to it all by following this link:

https://www.iowacatholicradio.com/faith/episode/cc6fc6ee/proposed-california-abortion-law-6222

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of our older programs that you may have missed.

Restraining the protectors

By Deacon Mike Manno

The problem of sexually grooming kids is becoming widespread, and we spent the column of several weeks ago discussing the issue. Included in the column were comments by Heritage expert Dr. Jay Richards that he made on my radio program about the issue, how it started with adults, sometimes teachers or social workers suggesting to impressionable children that they might be transgender, then behind the backs of the parents they would continue to groom the child until a full transition to the opposite sex could be started.

Well, the state of Alabama decided to do something about it, although probably not as a result of this column. Anyway, the state passed a new law, SB184, which sought to correct many of the problems we discussed here just a few short weeks ago.
The bill made some specific findings about gender dysphoria, including:

“The cause of the individual’s impression of discordance between sex and identity is unknown, and the diagnosis is based exclusively on the individual’s self-report of feelings and beliefs. This internal sense of discordance is not permanent or fixed, but to the contrary, numerous studies have shown that a substantial majority of children who experience discordance between their sex and identity will outgrow the discordance once they go through puberty and will eventually have an identity that aligns with their sex. As a result, taking a wait-and-see approach to children who reveal signs of gender nonconformity results in a large majority of those children resolving to an identity congruent with their sex by late adolescence.”

Thus, the legislature outlawed certain practices on minors; among them was a ban on the use of certain drugs, such as puberty blockers, testosterones, and estrogen therapies as part of a gender transition.

There were a couple of other provisions of note that the bill contained, including banning the use of certain surgical procedures on minors when used as part of a gender transition. It, however, contained several exemptions including for the correction of birth defects on newborn infants

Several important provisions were also included which dealt with those grooming tactics used on children which were outlined in the column, “Grooming Your Kids,” published May 12. They included bans on “nurse, counselor, teacher, principal, or other administrative official at a public or private school attended by a minor shall do either of the following:

“Encourage or coerce a minor to withhold from the minor’s parent or legal guardian the fact that the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with the minor’s sex. Withhold from a minor’s parent or legal guardian information related to a minor’s perception that his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with his or her sex.”
Of course the bill was controversial and set the stage for a legal showdown, which is far from being over.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey defied U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s warning, on behalf of the Biden administration, to stay away from regulating in this area. She signed the bill.

But before it could take effect a group of residents, including minors who felt the call to transition, their parents, several doctors, as well as Merrick Garland himself, sued to block the bill.

The case is pending now before the district court in Alabama, where the judge, a Trump appointee named Liles C. Burke, has issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of three provisions of the bill until such time as the case is tried. The three provisions that have been assigned to legal purgatory for the duration of the court battle are those banning the use of the puberty blockers, testosterones, and estrogens.

The remainder of the law was not affected and remains in effect, including the surgery bans, the prohibition of “grooming” activities, and that of keeping parents in the dark about what is going on with their own children.

Now remember that this is only a temporary injunction against those three provisions. There still must be a full-blown trial to determine if it will be made permanent, but what must be kept in mind is that one of the legal predicates for the issuance of a temporary injunction is that the party seeking same must show a likelihood that he will prevail on the merits of the case. Thus that party does move toward the full trial with a leg up.
However, that does not mean the opposition will be an automatic loser. The case still must be tried and, to my mind, the state still has room to bolster its case for the next round.

For example, while I was not in the courtroom to see each side present their respective cases, pro and con injunction, I did glean from the judge’s written order that the state did not present a very strong case. The challengers presented testimonies by a variety of witnesses speaking to several relevant issues: parents of a transgender student, a transgender student, and two experts who actually worked with patients suffering from gender dysphoria.

The state, on the other hand, presented two witnesses. One was a young 22 year-old woman who basically testified that she had taken trans medications for about a year when she was 19 and she now believes that it was a mistake and that she no longer thinks that gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition.

The second, the state’s expert, was a physician from Toronto who testified from medical literature without having any professional contact with patients suffering from gender dysphoria, nor had he done any clinical studies on the issue.

In reply the judge noted: “Accordingly, the court gave his testimony regarding the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors very little weight.”

Obviously I don’t know if the state’s defense of the law can be salvaged or not, but there certainly are a few things the state will need to expand upon.

+ + + I’m writing this column as the terrible news of the school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas is shocking the conscience of America and leading us to question why. There are many thoughts that went through my mind today, but one that kept coming back to me over and over.
It is this: In 1962 the case of Engel v. Vitale threw God out of schools. In 2020 politicians across the nation threw police officers out of schools. Suppose there might be a connection there?

However, this is not the time for recrimination. It is a time for reflection. May God comfort all of those affected by this tragedy!

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Faith On Trial on IowaCatholicRadio.com.)

Thursday, June 2, 2022

Religion Clause: Parents Can Move Ahead With Challenge To School's ...

Religion Clause: Parents Can Move Ahead With Challenge To School's ...:  In T.F. v. Kettle Moraine School District ,  (WI Cir. Ct., June 1, 2022), a Wisconsin state trial court held that parents could proceed wit...

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

OPRF to implement race-based grading system in 2022-23 school year

OPRF to implement race-based grading system in 2022-23 school year: Oak Park and River Forest High School administrators will require teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students.

Catholics Nearly Alone In Opposing Roe v. Wade

By Catholic League president Bill Donohue 

In 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion in its Roe v. Wade decision, Catholics were nearly alone in their opposition to it. There were some elements in the Lutheran Church, and in the Orthodox Jewish community, who opposed it, but most Protestants and Jews supported the ruling. As a major religious group, Catholics were the only ones to speak out against it. 

The 1970s saw a wholesale reversal among evangelical Protestants. Two decades ago, Richard Land, who at that time was the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, explained what happened. "Nowhere has the shift on the pro-life issue been more dramatic than among Southern Baptists." 

Regarding abortion, Land said that "many [Southern Baptists] perceived it as a Catholic issue. While I was in the seminary from 1969 to 1972 in New Orleans, there was no pro-life consensus among the student body or faculty." What changed them? He said that "the subsequent horror of 1.5 million abortions a year caused Southern Baptists who took biblical authority seriously to begin to re-examine what the Bible had to say about God's involvement with life in the womb from conception onward." 

By the late 1970s and the early 1980s, evangelicals had moved to the pro-life camp. It is also true that during this decade, the Republican Party, which was more closely aligned with the pro-abortion side, became pro-life, and the Democrats, who had been mostly pro-life, became activists for abortion rights. For example, both Rev. Jesse Jackson and Sen. Ted Kennedy had been staunchly pro-life at the time of Roe, but by the end of the decade they had switched to the pro-abortion side. 

The Catholic Church never had to jump ship. It has always been pro-life. 

Today, most mainline Protestant denominations are more enthusiastic about defending abortion rights than they were in 1973. In a recent Pew survey, 83% of Jews support abortion in all or most cases, though Orthodox Jews are mostly pro-life and certainly opposed to abortion-on-demand.

It is sad to note that President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of whom identify as "devout Catholics," are champions of the most radical abortion laws and policies imaginable, putting them at odds with science, as well as the Catholic Church. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade will not ban all abortions, so the fight for the life of the unborn will continue. We expect the Catholic Church will continue its noble legacy of offering alternatives to abortion, caring for the women seeking forgiveness for having an abortion, and promoting the pro-life cause from conception to natural death.

Will California approve post birth abortions?

This week on Faith On Trial we’ll be joined by Attorney Paul Jonna, special counsel to the Thomas More Society on what then pending California law on newborn deaths. Join us Thursday (6-2) as Deacon Mike and Gina take up the issue with Mr. Jonna.

Faith On Trial airs every Thursday morning at 9:30 CT on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM and 94.5 FM Des Moines; 88.5 FM Adel, and 90.9 FM Creston, or catch it streaming on IowaCatholicRadio.com where you can find podcasts of our older programs that you may have missed.