Latest news with #ThomasMoreSociety
Fox News
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
BISHOP ROBERT BARRON: How state law could force priests to choose between jail or excommunication
When I was auxiliary bishop in Los Angeles some years ago, I spoke up at a meeting of the California hierarchy. We were considering a number of moves being made by the state legislature, including a proposal to require priests to break the seal of confession in matters dealing with child sex abuse. I remember saying, "Brothers, I think we have to draw a line in the sand on this one." And so we did. In every diocese and archdiocese of the state, the bishops roused their people to oppose this legislation. The good Catholics of California consequently flooded Sacramento with letters and petitions ardently defending Catholic prerogatives – and the legislators backed down. It was a victory and an important one. However, similar laws have gone into effect in six other states and most recently the state of Washington legislated along the same lines, requiring priests to violate confidence, even as it exempts healthcare professionals from the same obligation. Happily, the bishops of Washington have filed suit to prevent the implementation of this law, and they have been joined by the Justice Department itself. I was very pleased to submit, with the help of the Thomas More Society, an amicus curiae letter in support of my brother bishops. As I said years ago in California, we have to draw a line in the sand. No one doubts that the motivation behind these legislative moves is a deep and altogether legitimate concern for the safety of children. Catholics share this preoccupation. Indeed, beginning with the implementation of the Dallas accords of 2002, no institution in the world has done more to assure the protection of young people from sexual predation than the Catholic Church. Moreover, every bishop, priest, deacon and lay minister is a mandated reporter, meaning that he or she is obligated by law to convey to the civil authorities any claim of the sexual abuse of a minor. Further, all of those leaders are required to follow, on a constant basis, training in regard to this issue. If you doubt my own dedication to eradicating the scourge of clerical sexual misbehavior, take a look at my book "Letter to a Suffering Church." However, the demand to report cannot be, for Catholics, absolute in the measure that it impinges upon the confidentiality of the confessional. Our belief is that in the sacrament of reconciliation, a penitent opens her heart to Christ himself and receives absolution, which is to say, healing at the level of the soul. What transpires in the privacy of the confessional is, from a spiritual standpoint, a matter of life and death. If there were, therefore, on the part of a prospective penitent, even the slightest suspicion that what he confesses might be shared publicly, he would not seek out this font of grace and the integrity of the sacrament would be utterly compromised. This is why, too, the breaking of the seal results in automatic excommunication of the priest in question. And this explains the awful dilemma currently presented to the priests of Washington state: either they break the seal of confession (and hence face excommunication) or they remain faithful to the sacrament (and hence face jail time). God knows that the Church has faced, over the centuries, more brutal persecution on the part of civil authority, but no Catholic priest in America should be subject to this sort of mistreatment. Permit me to double-down on the properly American dimension of this question. The First Amendment to the Constitution has two very important things to say about religion. The first relevant clause stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This means that the sort of arrangement that was obtained in 18th-century England between the government and the Church of England should not obtain in the United States. In other words, there should not be, in our country, any one religion that is specially favored or authorized by Congress. But the second relevant clause, less well-known, stipulates that Congress shall make no provision interfering with "the free exercise" of religion. Though no particular church can be institutionally favored, all churches should be free to express themselves in the public forum. Mind you, this goes beyond the mere permission to worship as one sees fit; it includes the exercise of one's faith in the civic arena. And there is the rub. For all of these laws, which directly target the integrity of the confessional, are egregious violations of the free exercise clause. They militate against both a Catholic priest's right to hear confessions as is appropriate and against a Catholic penitent's right to participate in the sacrament without trepidation. So, Catholics should indeed rise up against this law of the state of Washington and those like it in other states, but I would insist that all loyal Americans should do so as well. For the moment, the state is threatening the Catholic Church, but if this is allowed to endure, what will prevent it from coming, in time, after the free exercise of other religions? Therefore, I say to my Catholic brothers and sisters, but also to all my fellow Americans, "Don't sit still, draw a line in the sand, fight back."
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education. At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out. The policy was implemented to disrupt "cisnormativity" and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Swoops In To Save Trump Firing Decision Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school. Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that "while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it." Read On The Fox News App "The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance," McHale said. Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos "For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court's attention," he said. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students' preferred pronouns in schools. Scotus Rulings This Term Could Strengthen Religious Rights Protections, Expert Says Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year. Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group's bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state's high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes." The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the article source: Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
Fox News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court to hear case on LGBTQ-themed storybooks and parents' right to opt out
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a closely watched case that could reshape the role of parental rights and religious freedom in public education. At issue is whether a Maryland school district violated the First Amendment by requiring elementary school students to engage with LGBTQ+ storybooks that include topics about gender transitions and same-sex relationships, without allowing parents to opt out. The policy was implemented to disrupt "cisnormativity" and promote inclusivity, according to Supreme Court documents. Initially, the school allowed parents to opt their children out of these lessons, but later reversed this decision, eliminating the opt-out option and not notifying parents when such content was being taught. Parents, supported by religious freedom organizations, argue that this policy infringes upon their First Amendment rights by compelling their children to engage in instruction that contradicts their religious beliefs. The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school. Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale told Fox News Digital in a previous interview that "while there is an opt-out statute in state law, the school initially abided by it." "The school decided to yank the opt-out exception, so to speak, and it really triggered the issue of whether the Constitution requires an opt-out in that circumstance," McHale said. "For the Fourth Circuit to say there was no religious burden, it really seems radical, and given how pressing that issue of school curriculum on sexual orientation, gender identity is, I think it raises an issue worth the Supreme Court's attention," he said. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed several executive orders related to gender policies in federal institutions. McHale said these actions could reduce legal conflicts involving religious rights, such as disputes over whether teachers must use students' preferred pronouns in schools. Mahmoud v. Taylor is one of three major religious cases the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for this year. Earlier this month, the high court heard a case brought by a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group's bid for tax relief, which could alter the current eligibility requirements for religious tax exemptions. At issue in that case is whether the Wisconsin branch of Catholic Charities, a social services organization affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the country, can successfully contest the state's high court determination that it is ineligible for a religious tax exemption because it is not "operated primarily for religious purposes." The third case is about whether a Catholic online school can become the first religious charter school in the U.S.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Federal judge sides with pro-life pregnancy centers, finds part of Illinois abortion law unconstitutional
A federal judge in Illinois has issued a split ruling in a case against a state abortion law, finding part of the law violates the constitutional right to free speech by compelling medical professionals who do not believe in abortion to discuss its benefits. U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston on Friday found part of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act unconstitutional in a case brought by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three pro-life pregnancy centers. "The Court concludes that Public Act 99-690 Section 6.1(1), in exchange for a liability shield, compels speech, requiring a discussion about the risks and benefits of childbirth and abortion. That compelled discussion violates the First Amendment," Johnston said in the ruling. Johnston, however, ruled another section of the law in question constitutional. That part of the law requires medical providers, if a patient asks, to either refer or transfer patients, or give written information about which other providers may offer services that they "can't provide because of a conscience-based objection." Texas Lawmakers Consider Bipartisan Bill Aimed At Clarifying Exceptions To State's Abortion Restrictions "Conceivably, the State has a legitimate interest in facilitating abortions provided by health care professionals to reduce the number of 'self-managed abortions' or 'self-induced abortions,' which are inherently dangerous," Johnston wrote. "Requiring the Plaintiffs to provide the requested information is a rational means of meeting that goal." Read On The Fox News App Of the two sections of the law in question, Johnston wrote that requiring providers to discuss abortion treatment options "mandates speech regardless of anything else; whereas, the latter requires actions when prompted by a patient." Pro-life Activist Assaulted, Bloodied During Street Interview About Abortion Following Johnston's split ruling, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the plaintiffs in the three-day bench trial in 2023, said pro-life pregnancy centers "must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment." "No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions," said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, who argued before the court in September 2023. "The court was right to protect pregnancy centers' freedom to advocate that life is a human right. The government can't compel medical professionals to choose between violating the law and violating the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm." The Thomas More Society, a non-profit that opposes abortion, said it is planning to appeal the split decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Click To Get The Fox News App "Thomas More Society will keep fighting to protect our heroic pro-life ministries. Forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers to facilitate abortion unconstitutionally burdens their faith and conscience," Peter Breen, the group's vice president and head of litigation, said in a statement, adding that the "fight is far from over."Original article source: Federal judge sides with pro-life pregnancy centers, finds part of Illinois abortion law unconstitutional
Fox News
08-04-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Federal judge sides with pro-life pregnancy centers, finds part of Illinois abortion law unconstitutional
A federal judge in Illinois has issued a split ruling in a case against a state abortion law, finding part of the law violates the constitutional right to free speech by compelling medical professionals who do not believe in abortion to discuss its benefits. U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston on Friday found part of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act unconstitutional in a case brought by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three pro-life pregnancy centers. "The Court concludes that Public Act 99-690 Section 6.1(1), in exchange for a liability shield, compels speech, requiring a discussion about the risks and benefits of childbirth and abortion. That compelled discussion violates the First Amendment," Johnston said in the ruling. Johnston, however, ruled another section of the law in question constitutional. That part of the law requires medical providers, if a patient asks, to either refer or transfer patients, or give written information about which other providers may offer services that they "can't provide because of a conscience-based objection." "Conceivably, the State has a legitimate interest in facilitating abortions provided by health care professionals to reduce the number of 'self-managed abortions' or 'self-induced abortions,' which are inherently dangerous," Johnston wrote. "Requiring the Plaintiffs to provide the requested information is a rational means of meeting that goal." Of the two sections of the law in question, Johnston wrote that requiring providers to discuss abortion treatment options "mandates speech regardless of anything else; whereas, the latter requires actions when prompted by a patient." Following Johnston's split ruling, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the plaintiffs in the three-day bench trial in 2023, said pro-life pregnancy centers "must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment." "No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions," said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot, who argued before the court in September 2023. "The court was right to protect pregnancy centers' freedom to advocate that life is a human right. The government can't compel medical professionals to choose between violating the law and violating the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm." The Thomas More Society, a non-profit that opposes abortion, said it is planning to appeal the split decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. "Thomas More Society will keep fighting to protect our heroic pro-life ministries. Forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy centers to facilitate abortion unconstitutionally burdens their faith and conscience," Peter Breen, the group's vice president and head of litigation, said in a statement, adding that the "fight is far from over."
