5 Ways the Media is Trying to Trick You

Pius XII: The Latest Attempted Smear

Pope Pius XII

By Ronald J. Rychlak 

The New York Times headline read, “Pope Pius XII Likely Knew of Holocaust, Newly Discovered Letter Suggests.” CNN reported, “Wartime Pope Pius XII probably knew about Holocaust early on, letters show.” Fox News said, “Wartime letter show Pope Pius XII may have known about Holocaust earlier than previously thought.” On and on they went.

 Giovanni Coco, an official with the Vatican archives, recently discovered a letter dated December 14, 1942. It had been written by an anti-Nazi German Jesuit priest, Father Lothar König, and it was addressed to Pius XII’s personal secretary, Father Robert Leiber. 

The letter, which is part of a set of archival papers set to be published in the near future, reported that an estimated 6,000 Jews and Poles were being killed every day at the Belzec concentration camp in what was then German-occupied Poland (today it’s part of western Ukraine). König also referred to the operation of “blast furnaces” and made reference to the Auschwitz and Dachau camps. 

That news outlets find this revelation significant is probably not surprising. The reporters have not studied the matters in detail. Author David Kertzer, however, has built a career critiquing the papacy. Nevertheless, he has been promoting the importance of this letter. He should know better. 

As most scholars who work in this field know, the Vatican received reports of atrocities as early as 1941. This letter, dated December 14, 1942, came just three days before the Allied joint statement which said: 

"From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported in conditions of appalling horror and brutality to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invader are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again." 

Pius had been invited to join this statement, but he opted to make his own statement on Christmas day. 

Pius must have been shown the Allied statement well before it was released. Moreover, it is fair to assume that the pope received it after at least a short delay from when it was dated. In other words, the letter likely came after he had seen a draft of the statement. Thus, it did not give him any new information about the atrocities. 

On Christmas Day, less than two weeks after the date on the letter, Pius issued his own statement in which he spoke of “hundreds of thousands who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or gradual extinction.” The New York Times editorialized, “This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent….” 

Of course, Pius did not limit himself to words. In 1941, he provided the Allies with advance information about German troop movements, and as Mark Riebling explained in his book Church of Spies: The Pope’s Secret War Against Hitler, Pius was connected to at least three plots to topple Hitler, starting just after he assumed the seat of Peter in late 1939 and continuing until at least the summer of 1944 with the bomb plot involving German military Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, portrayed by Tom Cruise in the motion picture Valkyrie. 

One part of the December 1942 letter is left out of many news accounts. In it, Father König urged the Holy See to not make public what he was revealing in the letter because he feared for his own life and the lives of the others who had provided the intelligence. This is but one of several such messages that Pius had to take that into account when he chose action and diplomacy over banging away at the bully pulpit. 

That so many outlets have failed to report that part of the letter suggests that others either miss the importance of the message or they are intentionally downplaying a very serious threat. That’s either poor history or dishonest journalism. We’re entitled to better.  

Ronald J. Rychlak is a Distinguished University Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi and serves on advisory board of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

New Mexico Supreme Court disallows ‘friend of the court’ briefs in favor of pro-life ordinances

(Life Action) On December 13, 2023, the New Mexico Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding whether or not local pro-life ordinances in the state are legal following the enactment of the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Healthcare law.

According to NM Political Report, the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Healthcare law, which was signed into law on March 16, 2023, says that state or local governments, advisory boards, commissions, agencies, or entities that receive public funding “shall not deny, restrict or interfere with a person’s ability to access or provide reproductive health care…”

It also states, “A public body or an entity or individual acting on behalf of or within the scope of the authority of a public body shall not deprive, through prosecution, punishment or other means, a person’s ability to act or refrain from acting during the person’s pregnancy based on the potential, actual or perceived effect on the pregnancy.”

There are no regulations on abortion in the state of New Mexico, which has seen an increase in abortion facilities and a Planned Parenthood abortion business expansion since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. New Mexico is also home to Southwestern Women’s Options, the abortion facility responsible for the death of 24-year-old Keisha Atkins during a 24-week abortion.

There are four cities and two counties in New Mexico that have established themselves as Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn, with ordinances that prevent abortion facilities from setting up shop. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez filed an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court in March, shortly after the new law was signed, to block the ordinances in Lea and Roosevelt counties and the cities of Hobbs and Clovis.

The state Supreme Court has requested that all parties involved file briefs explaining what effect the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Healthcare law has on those local ordinances.

In a clearly biased move, the court allowed some pro-abortion groups the chance to file amici briefs in favor of blocking the pro-life ordinances, it has denied pro-life groups the opportunity to file amici curiae on behalf of the sanctuary cities.

PJI to Oregon Court of Appeals: Christian Teachings Aren’t Dangerous to Foster Kids

 SALEM, OR – In denying Shawn and Teresa Kellim a foster care license because their sincerely religious beliefs prevent them from affirming homosexuality and transgenderism, Oregon’s Department of Human Services (“DHS”) essentially declared Christian teachings dangerous to foster kids.

Unwilling to take DHS’ ruling lying down, the Christian married couple from Glide, Oregon sought assistance from the Pacific Justice Institute (“PJI”), which appealed DHS’ ruling on their behalf. PJI recently filed its opening brief in the Kellims’ case before the Oregon Court of Appeals.

“DHS’ action blatantly suggests that Kellim’s free exercise of religion does not apply to foster care youth, and it is unquestionably an attack on Christianity,” said PJI Oregon staff attorney, Ray D. Hacke. “The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear multiple times in the past several years that the First Amendment prohibits government agencies from proceeding in a manner intolerant toward the Christian faith.”

PJI president Brad Dacus, said the Kellims’ case has implications not just for foster parents, but for parents actively raising their biological or adopted children in accordance with their faith. “If states like Oregon can effectively declare that certain religious beliefs concerning gender and sexuality are dangerous to kids, then every parent in this country who declines to provide LGBT+ affirming care to their children stands to have their children ripped from their homes and face long, expensive, possibly futile court battle to get them back unless they abandon their faiths’ teachings,” Dacus said. “That doesn’t just show hostility to religion, it denies kids the care of loving adults who can give them the love, guidance, and stability they desperately need. Religious individuals like the Kellims have long stepped up to provide such care to kids whose biological parents couldn’t care for them. PJI is fighting this battle to ensure that loving couples like the Kellims can continue to do so in a manner consistent with their faith.”

We are proud to say that, for over 25 years and always without charge, PJI’s unique goal is to ensure that no one is left on the side of the road as it relates to their representation and defense of critical religious freedoms, parental rights and sanctity of life issues. We appreciate your partnership, and willingness to continue to give support and a strong voice to those who struggle against the forces of oppression.

[Editor’s note: PJI president Brad Dacus will be on this week’s Faith On Trial.]

Teacher’s Union Head Smears Christians

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president

On September 12, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), ripped Americans who are in favor of school choice and parental rights, comparing them to segregationists. Even worse, she lashed out at Christians who support these initiatives. She made her remarks to Seth D. Harris, a senior fellow at the Burnes Center for Social Change at Northeastern University.

Weingarten said she got the idea that there is little difference between the segregationists of old and today’s promoters of school choice and parental rights from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the seriously disgraced far left-wing organization. She concluded that these Americans want to “divide parents versus teachers.”

Now it is well known that Catholics have long been the mainstay of the school choice movement; they are also among the most vociferous supporters of parental rights. Let’s be clear: this does not mean that anyone who opposes both of these causes is necessarily a bigot. But in Weingarten’s case, she took the next step: she engaged in Christian bashing.

After speaking at length, with utter contempt and derision, about those who are pro-school choice and pro-parental rights, Weingarten let her guard down and went right for the jugular. “They want to have, basically, a Christian ideology, their particular Christian ideology to dominate the country as opposed to those that was born on the freedom of the exercise of religion.”

The subject under discussion had nothing to do with religion, so it tells us volumes about Weingarten that she would indict Christians, without cause.

What she said just prior to her bigoted remark puts her animus against Christians in perspective. She had just commented that some parents want school choice because they want universal vouchers, and “others want it because they hate knowledge.”

So who is it that “hates knowledge?” Those Americans who are bent on shoving their “Christian ideology” down our throats. The context says it all.

In other words, taxpaying parents who believe that they should have the right to send their child to the school of their choice—which includes most African Americans—and insist that their rights as parents be respected by the state, are somehow seeking to impose a Christian ideology on the nation. To top it off, these same religious zealots “hate knowledge.”

Weingarten should resign. The hatred that she has for millions of school choice and parental rights advocates—especially those who are Christian—disqualifies her from serving in any public role.

California federal court issues order blocking school from forcing teachers to lie to parents

A California federal court has granted teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West reprieve from a dangerous school district policy forcing them to lie to parents about their children’s gender identity.

Thomas More Society attorneys successfully convinced the court to issue the preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Escondido Union School District’s offensive policy while the case is under court consideration. The court order, issued September 14, also denies motions to dismiss the case filed by both the Escondido Union School District and the California Department of Education.

Mirabelli and West are suing administrators at the Escondido Union School District, California Department of Education, and Rincon Middle School. The lawsuit details violations of the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment over a policy that has allowed activists to “coopt school districts to push gender theory.” The current Escondido Union School District policies compel staff to deceive parents about whether their own children have requested to socially transition to a new gender at school — in direct conflict with the long-standing policy that teachers are to be honest with parents.

“This is an untenable situation to put teachers in,” explained Paul M. Jonna, Thomas More Society special counsel and partner, LiMandri and Jonna LLP. “Traditionally, educators have been viewed as highly significant players in a child’s development, partnering with parents — not supplanting them — in the incredibly important responsibility of raising children. The State of California and the Escondido Union School District have created an unconscionable scenario where it pits these two key influencers in a child’s life against one another by putting up an intentional curtain of dishonesty between them.”

In the request for a preliminary injunction, Mirabelli and West claimed that their First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion were being violated. The court agreed, and stated, “Mirabelli and West face an unlawful choice along the lines of: ‘lose your faith and keep your job, or keep your faith and lose your job.’”

The order was quick to point out the problems with the policy, labeling it “a trifecta of harm,” and detailing the abuses that it heaps on children, parents, and teachers. The court stated that the Parental Exclusion Policy:

“ … harms the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. It harms the parents by depriving them of the long recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make health care decisions for their children. And finally, it harms plaintiffs [teachers] who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students — violating plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”

Read the Order: (1) Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction; (2) Denying Motions to Dismiss, issued on September 14, 2023, by Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in Thomas More Society’s lawsuit on behalf of educators Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, Mirabelli, et al. v. Olson, et al. here [https://tinyurl.com/5e96m5e2].

DeSantis ad confronts attacks on people of faith

A new ad released by Ron DeSantis took aim at the Biden administration for “weaponizing” the federal government against people of faith. “Family and faith are the building blocks of society, but government is waging an assault on both of them,” DeSantis said when he introduced the ad.  READ

Seeing beyond euphemisms in Ohio

CatholicVote’s Logan Church warns that the Democrat-backed amendment Issue 1 in Ohio intentionally “makes no distinction between minors and adults.” She explains: “It extends far beyond abortion and even into transgender ideology … with a goal of obliterating ‘most limits to abortion or sex-change surgery’ for adults and children alike.  And with parents cut out of the picture, children are left exposed to those who prey on the vulnerable.”  READ

Reuters: Biden reelection in jeopardy

“U.S. President Joe Biden's chances of re-election are being jeopardized by voters' concerns over his age, the economy and crime,” Reuters reports. According to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, Biden and former President Donald Trump are currently tied in a hypothetical 2024 match. But in the seven states where the 2020 presidential election was closest, “Trump led with 41% to Biden's 35%, and 24% undecided.”  READ

The NEW Iowa Catholic Radio Network

 

This week: The Rosary coast to coast; Fire Chief fired for attending a leadership conference hosted by a church

Listen now: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/  -- Episode 380

Fire Chief Terminated for Attending Leadership Conference Hosted By Church Appeals Ninth Circuit Decision

Fire Chief Ron Hittle’s attorneys submit request for en banc hearing to correct flawed legal standard involving religious discrimination.

San Francisco, CA—First Liberty Institute, Baker Botts LLP, and the Church State Council filed a petition for an en banc rehearing by the U.S. Court for Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review a three-judge panel decision that allowed the Stockton (CA) Fire Department to dismiss a fire chief, Ron Hittle, for attending a leadership conference held at a church.  

You can read the petition here. 

“Firing Chief Hittle for attending a world-class leadership conference attended by thousands simply because it was associated with religion is clear evidence of illegal religious discrimination,” said Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel at First Liberty. “We urge the Ninth Circuit to grant rehearing en banc to fix the panel’s dangerous ruling.” 

The City of Stockton, California terminated Fire Chief Ron Hittle after 24 years of service, because he attended a religious leadership conference while on the clock. Although the City asked Chief Hittle to attend a leadership training course, it opened an investigation after he attended Willow Creek Community Church’s Global Leadership Summit, a world-class conference with speakers from a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds, including Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, and Super Bowl winning coach Tony Dungy. Prior speakers include Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook and former President Bill Clinton. The City listed as the Chief Hittle’s attendance at a “religious event” while on duty as the primary reason for his termination. 

The court made two major errors when it ruled against Chief Hittle. It ignored Supreme Court precedent in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District when it allowed the “perception of others” to justify its religious discrimination against Chief Hittle. The court also held religious claims to a more difficult legal standard than other kinds of discrimination. Chief Hittle’s legal team is seeking review of this decision, to safeguard the religious freedoms of all Americans in the workplace.

VP Harris supports NO abortion limits

Vice President Kamala Harris this week dismissed complaints that the Biden administration supports legal abortion up until birth as “ridiculous” but refused to name a single regulation of abortion she would support. CBS’s Margaret Brennan repeatedly asked Harris “What week of pregnancy should abortion access be cut off?” Harris refused to answer.  READ

Abortion lawyer accused of perjuring herself

Reps. Chip Roy, R-TX, and Mike Johnson, R-LA, this week confronted abortion lawyer Talcott Camp of the National Abortion Federation for providing false information in sworn testimony before Congress. “Testimony before Congress ought to be true and knowingly providing materially false information to Congress ought to be punished by the Department of Justice,” the congressmen told Camp.  READ

EXPLAINER: California’s anti-parent bills

In what critics are denouncing as a full-on assault on parental rights, California has passed a battery of bills that all take aim at families who disagree with gender ideology. CatholicVote’s Anthony Iafrate goes through each of the bills and explains why one journalist calls them collectively “the transgender inquisition.”  READ