Nebraska’s Heartbeat Bill Shows That Life Is Worth Preserving, Protecting

The Nebraska Heartbeat Act is the type of legislation that demonstrates life is worth protecting and preserving. Several states, including New York and Illinois, have done the opposite by removing restrictions on abortion. One state delegate in Virginia proposed a bill in 2019 that would allow doctors to perform an abortion even if the mother showed signs of going into labor. Federal legislators have moved in a similar direction. House Democrats proposed a bill after Texas enacted its “heartbeat” ban that removed abortion restrictions after fetal viability. The past 50 years of legal battles over abortion—starting with Roe v. Wade in 1973 and continuing since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision last summer—prove every state will have to define what life is and when it should be protected. Heritage Expert: Delano Squires 

Trump is the target of a politically ambitious DA

The lack of surprise at this indictment is not because Trump is necessarily guilty of any crimes, but because he is the target of a politically ambitious DA in Manhattan. Alvin Bragg is a Soros-supported, rogue prosecutor who won’t prosecute misdemeanors and is giving a get-out-of-jail free card to many serious felony defendants, resulting in dramatically rising crimes rates in New York City. While ignoring serious crimes happening every day in New York, Bragg is pursing what he claims is a violation of federal campaign finance law that happened seven years ago by trying to shoehorn it into a misdemeanor claim about false business records. It is the Federal Election Commission and the U.S. Justice Department who enforce federal campaign laws and neither of them considered the settlement with Stormy Daniels a violation that merited prosecution. In fact, the U.S. Attorney’s Office opened, and then closed, an investigation into this matter. Heritage Experts: John Malcolm and Zack Smith

This week on Faith On Trial on the Iowa Catholic Radio network

Podcast #356 posted at: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Congresswoman Wants Abortionist Held Accountable for Five Babies Left to Die After Surviving Abortions - LifeNews.com

Congresswoman Wants Abortionist Held Accountable for Five Babies Left to Die After Surviving Abortions - LifeNews.com: Republican Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna wants to hold a Washington, D.C. abortionist accountable for potential crimes he may have committed aborting babies in his Foggy Bottom abortion clinic. Luna sat down with The Daily Signal on Friday for a wide-ranging interview on her first few weeks in Congress, what she wants to accomplish in […]

California Democrats Are Coming After Your Kids

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – The problem of one-party control is being amply demonstrated in the State of California. In case you have not heard, California has now become a sanctuary state for gender confused children who are seeking a refuge from their parents who do not countenance their little ones — some not yet old enough to drive — making medical decisions for themselves that will affect their lives in a largely negative way. So why don’t we just let California be California? After all, just let those people suffer under the radical leftists that they elect.

Here’s why: The new bill, SB 107, sponsored by left-wing political gadfly State Sen. Scott Wiener, and the usual zoo animals that comprise the legislature’s majority party, is looking beyond California into your state to authorize political kidnapping of any kid in the United States to be brought to California for transgender affirming care; that means everything from puberty blockers to surgery.

A little bit of law is necessary to see the harm these animals are doing. There is something called the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. When issues arise over which state has jurisdiction over a minor, the act determines which state’s courts have jurisdiction. So, as happens in inter-state child custody disputes, the law provides a legal guideline on which state has, and which state has not, jurisdiction over the child.

Naturally, if a divorce case, for example, is started in one state a parent cannot take a child to another and seek redress there. Now obviously there are some exceptions (consult your lawyer), but where there is no pending litigation, such as when an aunt or grandparent in different states take temporary custody over a child recently orphaned, the rule when I practiced juvenile law was to prefer jurisdiction in the state where the child resided for the greater part of the last six months.

But the wrecking crew that is the California legislature has specifically abrogated the uniform act and gives California courts the jurisdiction over any child in the state regardless of how the child got there, including those children who are runaways as well as those taken to the state without the permission of the child’s parents. We — at least those of us in old school legal thought — call that kidnapping. But, of course, there is nothing old school about the creatures who run such things in — do I dare call it? — the Golden State. Now, no matter how a child reaches the state a judge has the legal authority to name a temporary guardian for that child and when his parents find him, the state prohibits the release of any information to them. So nice to see what these God-fearing Democrats are doing.

The practical effect of this is if you live in a state that has some common sense, it is still possible you can lose your child to California, now indoctrinated by the little tike’s school into believing that he or she might have been born into the wrong body. If he can just make it to that bastion of fruit and nuts (its political product not to be confused with its agricultural output), he can free himself from your parental control regardless of his age.

But there may be some relief in sight. Just last week a conservative legal organization, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, filed a federal lawsuit to stop the enforcement of SB 107. The author of that suit, Mariah Gondeiro, was recently on my radio program to explain the litigation. The legislation, she said, is objectionable on at least three commonsense counts: It encourages children to flee to California to get transgender services; it gives California courts temporary jurisdiction regardless where the child hails from, and it bars parents from obtaining any medical or psychological information about their own child.

SB 107 also creates a carve-out from the law that prohibits parties from obtaining jurisdiction in California by engaging in “unjustifiable conduct.” It explicitly states that “taking of a child [from] the person who has legal custody is not unjustifiable conduct if done to pursue gender transition procedures in California.”

When Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the law, he claimed he did so because “states across the country [were] passing laws to demonize the transgender community.” Bless his little heart. In legal terms SB 107 violates several constitutional provisions including:

Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by “stripping parents of their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and care of their children, including accessing their child’s medical records” as well as failing to define the terms “gender-affirming care or “gender-affirming health care.” It also allows the children to be removed to California. Violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by denying states the right to adjudicate juvenile matters in their own state.

“The Full Faith and Credit Clause demands that state court judgments be accorded full effect in the courts of other states and precludes states from adopting any policy of hostility” towards the public acts of another state, says the suit. “California has neither a legitimate nor legal interest in exceeding its jurisdiction by taking deeply personal, intimate, and life-altering medical decisions of out of state children into their own hands,” the suit argues. The lawsuit was just filed so we have some time before a final decision is handed down, but Ms. Gondeiro is asking for a pre-enforcement injunction against the law. In the meantime, expect numerous amicus briefs to be filed by red state attorneys general from around the country, as well as numerous interested parties, both pro SB 107 and anti.

One who, perhaps inexplicably for some, will not be supporting the bill is a group called Gays Against Groomers. We visited on the radio with Jaimee Michell, the president and founder of that group, who is fighting the transgender effort to target children. “There is no such thing as a child born in the wrong body,” she says and blames radical fringe groups for pushing that agenda. “We do not condone this. . . . We are not a monolith, the majority of people in the gay community, and that includes trans people, do not condone this. There is definitely what I like to call the ‘alphabet mafia’ — or ‘LGBT, Inc.’ — it is more of a political movement.”

Unfortunately, she says, those fringe groups are backed by numerous other political groups, including the White House, to push an agenda most gays do not support. She has two main goals for her organization: stop promoting transgenderism on children and to protect her community so that it can regain some of its respectability that it has achieved in recent years, and is now losing due to this controversy.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/ the episode referred to in this article is #354.)

The Fatima message and what it means: This week on Faith On Trial

Podcast #355 posted at: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/

Pentagon doctors suggest 7-year-olds are capable of choosing transgender hormones

(LifeSiteNews) – Department of Defense (DoD) doctors published a report urging that children in military families who experience gender confusion be subjected to experimental “transition” procedures and suggesting that kids as young as seven years old be allowed to make life-altering decisions regarding cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. 

The group of military doctors said that they were motivated to author their report because some states have begun to limit or ban such procedures for kids. They said this represents a “crisis” in so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors.   

The authors noted that some of these states are home to large military bases with large populations of military families with kids. 

“These current legislative efforts, along with efforts to exclude gender identity from legal discrimination protections, restrict sports participation, and regulate bathroom use” harm gender-confused youth, they allege, while ignoring the damaging impact that inflicting gender ideology has had on children forced to compete against and use school restrooms and locker rooms with members of the opposite sex.    

The report, “Caring for Military-Affiliated Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youths: A Call for Protections,” published in the most recent edition of the American Journal of Public Health, falsely claims that “[g]ender-affirming health care, such as puberty suppression and affirming hormones, mitigates” risks of “suicidal ideation or self-harm” for gender-confused minors and “optimizes patient-oriented outcomes.”

Bottom of Form

Written in an authoritative tone, the report is, in reality, a one-sided opinion piece attempting to eliminate legitimate objections to highly dangerous transgender procedures.

The Devil And The Democrats

 By Fr. Denis Wilde, OSA

(The Wanderer) – States such as Minnesota, California, Maryland, and others, in all cases with Democrat-controlled legislatures, are on a fast track to not only allow unborn babies to be murdered on demand as a woman’s “constitutional right” but also to allow infanticide.

Our nation has gotten so used to the moral evil of killing in the womb that the next diabolical step is being taken — allowing newborn babies to be killed. And at the end of life, assisted suicide is making inroads in the U.S.
Where does our acceptance of legal murder stop?

The Democrat Party has become the biggest funnel of evil that history has seen in a Western democratic society. I say “funnel” because it is a conduit drawing anti-God, anti-life, and anti-family views that converge into law.

This party funnels every vice into law under the attractive banner of “rights,” but without the slightest mention of responsibility. Its members are the architects and custodians of the movement to ensure that the slaughter of babies in the womb keeps going. The Devil hardly does a better job.

Hell is real. God is real, and so is Satan, who is more wily and powerful than any gangster cabal. God continually reaches out to save us, while Satan wants nothing more than to tear our souls from God. He wants human damnation.

Tragically, we are in a cesspool of moral bankruptcy that punishes a person more for publicly protesting the evil of child murder than for committing the act itself. Democrat legislatures are at the forefront in that mentality under the rubric of a so-called constitutional right to “choose.” No, again. We read in Deuteronomy: “Choose life that you and your descendants will live.”

That’s us as well today, pre-Roe v. Wade, during Roe’s 50 years, and now in the states’ purview in the aftermath.

We know the only choice is life. No man or woman of God can vote for a party so steeped in and committee to death. Nearly every Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate voted against life-saving measures for the unborn, while nearly every Republican voted in favor of life-saving measures. Voters cannot look away from this glaring statistic, easily confirmed in the Congressional Record. It is not 60-40, 70-30, but 95 percent to 5 percent. If your House member or Senator is a Democrat, you can be 95 percent sure he/she wants more killing, not less.

God wants us to be saved by following His Commandments. If you do not believe in God, you will indeed meet Him, nonetheless, after your last breath. Jesus speaks of Hell much more than He does of Heaven not because He wants us to be damned but to ensure we understand the importance of following His Plan for each one of us. To “choose” to kill will cause a grave disturbance that will manifest itself and affect your vision of life negatively, even during your life here.

The Catholic Church in its wisdom has for centuries taught that these are the two sins against the virtue of hope: presumption and despair. Abortion leads to both.

The Devil has his tricks to sooth the mind and heart in how “necessary” it was to “choose” the killing, lulling us into the belief that even if we choose abortion, God will forgive us. That is the real sin of presumption. Despair is what can happen to a mother and father after abortion, when self-hatred and despondency fill the void left in the womb, mind, and heart.

Be assured Satan also knows how to manipulate the human conscience. We all have a conscience; think of it as a GPS for getting to eternity. But the tragedy is that we can deaden our consciences, thus ending up in Satan’s grasp for eternity.

When Catholics pray that very simple prayer, the “Hail Mary,” at the end we humbly plead: “Pray for us now and at the hour of our death.” We’re not asking for another minute to enjoy life but instead hoping that our fervent and heartfelt prayer will be the key to open the door, after our last breath, to Heaven rather than Hell.

Lent is a perfect time to really put our eternal destination in focus. We can perish in a storm, or be lulled to sleep with self-centered ease. To discover the Light requires the humility to put our responsibilities before our desires, the things we might choose — like abortion — that turn us away from God.

As our national conversation more frequently than ever revolves around the “right to choose,” it is of paramount importance that we choose what leads to eternal life with God, rather than eternal damnation with Satan.

We must pray, but we also must speak out against what the Democrat Party has chosen to codify in law. Some of us may have our wings clipped for taking a stand, but this is a time of moral crisis and our very souls — and the soul our nation — are in danger.

(Fr. Denis Wilde, OSA, Ph.D., is the associate chaplain for Priests for Life. A concert pianist, he was formerly an associate professor of music at Villanova University.)

Wyoming Says No to Chemical Abortions

CHEYENNE, WY – As the majority of abortions are now chemical abortions in the United States, Wyoming has become the first state to explicitly ban abortion pills and will impose criminal penalties upon those who violate the law. 

Last Friday, Governor Mark Gordon signed SF0109, known as the “Prohibiting Chemical Abortions” bill, which states “it shall be unlawful to prescribe, dispense, distribute, sell or use any drug for the purpose of procuring or performing an abortion on any person.” 

The only exceptions are “to preserve the woman from an imminent peril that substantially endangers her life or health, according to appropriate medical judgment, or the pregnancy is the result of incest or sexual assault.” 

Abortionists who violate the law would be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, a $9,000 fine, or both. 

According to this law, a woman upon whom a chemical abortion is performed or attempted shall not be criminally prosecuted.

Another law, HB0152, known as the “Life Is a Human Right Act,” became law last Sunday without Governor Gordon’s signature. This law modifies an existing abortion ban in the state to now include prescribing or selling abortion pills. 

This law states, “From conception, the unborn baby is a member of the human race,” and “all members of the human race are created equal.” The legislation states that “no person may be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.” Abortions may take place only to save the life of the mother, if the child is conceived in rape or incest, or if the child has a “lethal fetal anomaly.” 

The law also refers to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization when it states, “Wyoming's legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development; the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.”

Abortionists who kill an unborn child would be guilty of a felony with punishment up to five years in prison, or a $20,000 fine, or both. Abortionists can have their medical licenses revoked. It also creates a right of action for mothers who suffered an abortion, or her parents if she is a minor or deceased, for $10,000 in statutory damages, as well as “actual and punitive damages.” In addition, the woman who underwent the abortion shall not be prosecuted. 

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute has released data revealing that chemical abortions accounted for the majority of all abortions for the first time in U.S. history in 2020. Every three years, Guttmacher surveys all known abortion providers in America. In 2020, abortion pills accounted for 54 percent of all U.S. abortions, an increase from 44 percent in 2019. Chemical abortions accounted for 39 percent of all abortions in 2017, an increase from 29 percent in 2014. 

The abortion drugs, sold under the brand name Mifeprex, is a two-drug treatment that is approved to terminate a pregnancy up to 10 weeks gestation or less when the baby has a beating heart and arms and legs. There has been a steady increase in the use of abortion pills since September 2000 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone/RU-486, which cuts off blood and nutrients to the unborn baby, slowly starving it to death over one to two days. This drug is taken with misoprostol, which induces labor and causes severe cramping, contractions and bleeding to expel the baby from the womb. 

A 2019 study published in the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience provides additional evidence of the harmful biological and behavioral effects of drug-induced abortion. Using rat subjects, the findings “strongly suggest that pregnancy termination at mid-term (first-trimester human equivalent) induces significant negative biological and behavioral changes in the rat.” The study found that drug-induced abortion presented more negative effects than a spontaneous abortion through miscarriage. Finally, the study found there were positive benefits to carrying the baby to term. 

The Franciscan University three-year study, which was conducted by a team of behavioral neuroscientists who do not have ties to the abortion industry, clearly indicates that there are negative consequences such as depression, anxiety, loss of appetite and decreased self-care after terminating a viable pregnancy using mifepristone and misoprostol. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “We commend Wyoming legislators for protecting unborn children and mothers by banning this human genocide. Chemical abortions harm women physically and emotionally and end the life of defenseless children. More states need to follow Wyoming’s example.” 

Liberty Counsel provides broadcast quality TV interviews via Hi-Def Skype and LTN at no cost.

Did Silicon Valley Bank Prioritize Social Justice Over Risk Management?

Heritage take: While neglecting critical risk management, SVB's 2023 proxy statement records 40 mentions of the environmental, social, and governance—or ESG—movement currently in vogue at many corporations and financial institutions. In a “key change,” the board expanded the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee's oversight role in ESG. The committee’s oversight includes, according to the proxy statement, “environmental sustainability, climate change, the Company's external diversity, equity and inclusion ("DEI") initiatives, Board diversity, as well as our philanthropic strategy and advocacy activities.” Heritage Expert: Diana Furchtgott-Roth

McCarthy Slams Biden’s Veto of Bipartisan Bill Opposing ‘ESG’ Investments

Heritage take: According to the Labor Department, its rule “allows plan fiduciaries to consider climate change and other environmental, social and governance factors when they select retirement investments and exercise shareholder rights, such as proxy voting.” The ESG rule, the agency added, “follows Executive Order 14030, which was signed by President Biden on May 20, 2021.” Last month, Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., and Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., introduced resolutions of disapproval to block the Labor Department rule; those measures succeeded in both the House and the Senate, on Feb.28 and March 1, respectively. Heritage Expert: Samantha Renke

Loudon's Revenge: Vote on Federal Parents Bill of Rights Act Scheduled This Week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the U.S. House is scheduled to vote on HR 5, known as the “Parents Bill of Rights Act,”with many new protections for both parents and guardians. Liberty Counsel Action staff is in meetings today on Capitol Hill to educate people about the need for this bill. A vote is expected on Thursday with the final floor vote scheduled for Friday.

Americans watched in shock as parents in Loudon County, Virginia, were falsely labeled “domestic terrorists” because they cared about their children’s education. They watched in horror as parents faced the full weight of the FBI investigating them for daring to advocate for a better path. This bill will help ensure the freedom of speech and rights of parents to advocate for their children at their local school board meetings without fear of punishment from our federal government. It will also discourage any ongoing FBI investigations against these parents.

HR 5 will encourage and involve parents in their children’s future and best interests. The bill “requires schools to notify parents and guardians of their rights regarding the education of their children.” This bill’s summary includes the following rights for parents and guardians:

• Review the curriculum of their child's school.
• Know if the state alters its challenging academic standards.
• Meet with each teacher of their child at least twice each school year.
• Review the budget, including all revenues and expenditures, of their child's school.
• Review a list of the books and other reading materials in the library of their child's school.
• Address the school board of the local educational agencies (LEA).
• Receive information about violent activity in their child's school.
• Receive information about any plans to eliminate gifted and talented programs in the child's school.

An amendment friendly to the bill is expected for schools to stop helping children hide from their parents when a child presents as one gender at home and the opposite gender at school. This important amendment was already introduced in the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee and is expected again on the House floor this week.

“Parents and guardians know their children best. ‘Experts’ don’t even know a child’s first name, yet they try to push a ‘one size fits all’ on every child in America. However, the reality is that every child has unique needs. That is why it is critical to encourage parental involvement and local leadership for the best possible future for every child,” said Jonathan Alexandre, senior counsel for governmental affairs for Liberty Counsel Action.

One of the best indications of a child’s future success is parental involvement, according to the Public School Review, yet radicals have a history of repeatedly trying to push parents out of some of the most critical, life-changing decisions for children in America. 

People can make their voices heard on this bill by contacting the U.S. House switchboard at 202-224-3121 and asking for their representative by name. Look up your U.S. representative’s name HERE.

Biden is vilifying efforts to protect children

Biden is vilifying efforts to protect children

Dumping On The Confessional

By Deacon Mike Manno

(The Wanderer) – Several years ago, I served as chaplain at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. The interesting thing about the center – besides that it was located in the county jail — was that all involved had some problems with the law outside of their addictions. I would usually spend parts of three days a week there, one of them just meeting those newly arrived.

Most of our “clients” were willing to give me the benefit of the doubt and actually listened to what I said. Naturally many were churchless and needed help finding a denomination that suited them and I tried to help them find one. Others already had a background in some congregation and I tried to help them get to its services on Sundays. And, of course, there were a number who were Catholic and I would arrange for them to be picked up for Sunday Mass.

However, there were a few who were baptized Catholics who had fallen away from the faith. Often, they would come to me and ask how they could return to the Church. Go to Confession, I would tell them, but don’t wait in the Confession line on Sunday morning, let me make an appointment with a priest and do it privately, without being rushed, in his office.

My routine was simple: I would make the appointment and go to the jail, pick up the individual, take him or her to the priest’s office and transport them back to the jail afterwards. It may sound routine, but with each trip I noticed a miracle was taking place right before my eyes. The person I took back to the jail was not the same person that I took to the priest: They had been changed, their life had a new meaning, those who had never been confirmed enrolled in our RCIA program to become confirmed, and most, when released from the program continued their spiritual journey within the Catholic Church.

I saw firsthand how that sacrament could change people’s lives and why Jesus gave His apostles the power to forgive sins.

That is why I was saddened this week to read that two states — and possibly others — had bills filed in their legislatures to eliminate the civil protection priests have which protects the confidentiality of the communication that takes place in the confessional. In Canon Law we call that the Seal of the Confessional, in civil law it is called the priest-penitent privilege.

The Democrats in Delaware and Vermont who are supporting this claim it is in reaction to the child abuse crisis. Teachers, they claim, doctors, the clergy, and many others are mandatory reporters, that is, they are required to notify the authorities if they see or suspect a child is being abused. That, of course, is good. All of those listed often are able to make observations that others cannot.

But the bills in Delaware and Vermont go further: They require a priest who hears a sacramental Confession to report what they hear concerning child abuse, thus rendering the seal of the confessional null and void. It is, according to the sponsors, necessary to remove that protection from the clergy to ensure that those so involved can pay the price in court.
Delaware’s legislature gave this synopsis of its bill:

“This Act abrogates the privilege between priest and penitent in a sacramental confession relating to child abuse and neglect. It requires priests to report child abuse and neglect or to give or accept evidence in a judicial proceeding relating to child abuse or neglect.”

Now no one in either legislative body has suggested eliminating the attorney-client privilege. That would be bound to reap a harvest of criminals who said the wrong thing to their attorney. As it stands now, a client could walk into my office, give me a gun and tell me where the body is buried and that information remains with the client and me alone and I could be disbarred if I breach that confidence.

But a penitent who seeks the consolation of the Church to cleanse his soul for eternity would not be accorded the same privilege as a hardened criminal who is only trying to save himself from jail. Think maybe this shows a lack of concern for the spiritual well-being of those they govern? Or, perhaps, an animus against the Catholic Church?

I do know that one of the concerns that those whom I took from the jail to Confession was “would the priest tell anyone?” Of course, the answer is a firm no; the priest would go to jail first. And if he did violate that confidentiality, he would suffer automatic excommunication which could only be reversed by the Pope himself.

But jail is the threat that the Dems in those two states are proposing, for if a priest fails a court order to reveal what was told to him in the confessional he could be held in contempt and jailed. Nice knowing ya, Father, enjoy your bread and water.

The priest-penitent privilege has a long history in the United States. The first case I found was in New York in 1813, People v. Philips, in which a priest, Fr. Anthony Kohlmann, was asked to divulge the contents of a Confession in a case involving a jewelry theft. The priest asked to be excused from testifying, citing the confidentiality of the confessional. Attorneys made the argument that requiring the priest to do so would not only violate common law precedents but the state constitution as well.

The court, holding that “religion is an affair between God and man, not between man and man” ruled that requiring the priest to testify would also violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Numerous cases have followed suit and states have added this privilege to its statutory codes and expanded it to include all clergy acting with a religious purpose.

One of the last cases on the issue, which I covered back in 2015 on my radio program, came from Louisiana where a priest from the Diocese of Baton Rouge was subpoenaed, and later sued for refusal to reveal the topic of a Confession of a young girl who allegedly told the priest about abuse from a parishioner. Her parents were suing the estate of the parishioner for the abuse and the priest for failure to report it.

Naturally the priest refused and the case went up and down the judicial chain making a stop at the Supreme Court which sent the case back down for further hearings. The trick in this case was that the girl, now an adult, wanted to waive the privilege so the priest could testify.

Now in civil law, if the guy who gave me the gun and directed me to the burial place waived attorney-client privilege I would have to testify, since that privilege — as most others are — was established to protect the client, not the attorney. Thus, you would think that the girl could waive it and force the priest to testify.

Not so. Under Canon Law the seal cannot be waived by the penitent. In fact, the priest is not even allowed to confirm the identity of the individual; nor can he ask the penitent about it outside of the confessional afterwards. Ultimately in Louisiana the diocese and the priest were dismissed from the case.

Anyway, leave it to politicians who do not appreciate or understand it to try to gum up the works. May God enlighten them: If not, I’m sure a court will.

(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)

This week on FOT: Both gays and straight are fighting transgenderism of children

Listen now: Podcast #354 posted at: https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/