By 
Winona-Rochester Bishop Robert Barron on March 20 criticized what he described as “absurd” claims from Carrie Prejean Boller that she was booted from the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty because of her Catholic beliefs.
Boller, an outspoken Catholic and a former Miss California USA contestant, was removed from the commission in February after repeatedly criticizing “Zionism” at a commission hearing on Feb. 9.
The hearing focused on combatting anti-semitism in the U.S., though Boller during the hearing regularly brought up the subject of Zionism, the movement supporting Jewish self‑determination in a homeland in Israel.
“I’m a Catholic, and Catholics do not embrace Zionism, just so you know,” Boller said at one point. Elsewhere she asked witnesses if they were willing to “condemn what Israel has done in Gaza.”
In announcing Bollerʼs removal, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — the chairman of the commission — argued that “no member of the commission has the right to hijack a hearing for their own personal and political agenda on any issue.”
“This is clearly, without question, what happened … in our hearing on antisemitism in America,” he said at the time.
‘Simply preposterous’ discrimination claims
Boller has spoken out publicly about the controversy in the weeks since her removal, alleging that she was booted from the commission because of her Catholic faith. In a March 20 post on X, she suggested that the religious liberty commission “does not truly care about religious liberty” and suggested that she was removed “for faithfully articulating the Church’s teaching.”
In that post she suggested that Bishop Barron — who himself serves on the commission — was not sufficiently defending the Catholic faith by refusing to speak up about the alleged discrimination.
“If my religious freedom is not protected, then no one’s is,” she wrote to Barron. “Please speak up. Please stand up for Catholics.”
In a blistering response, Barron bluntly dismissed Bollerʼs allegations as “absurd.”
“Mrs. Prejean Boller was not dismissed for her religious convictions but rather for her behavior at a gathering of the Commission last month: browbeating witnesses, aggressively asserting her point of view, [and] hijacking the meeting for her own political purposes,” the bishop said.
Barron noted that he “fully subscribes” to the Catholic position on Zionism, which includes unequivocal opposition to antisemitism along with an acknowledgment that Israel has a right to exist but does not “stand beyond criticism.”
“If Mrs. Prejean Boller were dismissed for holding these beliefs, it is difficult to understand why I am still a member of the Commission,” Barron wrote.
“To paint herself as a victim of anti-Catholic prejudice or to claim that her religious liberty has been denied is simply preposterous,” he argued.
The commission met most recently on March 16 to discuss religious freedom in health care. Barron said during the hearing that Catholics are increasingly being pushed out of health care and social services.
“We’ve got to come forward in the public space, articulate what is the human good. I think we’ve become more reticent, and we’ve succumbed to the pressures from the secular ideology,” he said.
Alongside Barron, other prominent Catholics on the commission include Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ryan Anderson and Cardinal Timothy Dolan.
The commissionʼs advisory board also features San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki and Fort Wayne-South Bend Bishop Kevin Rhoades.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I’ll go with Barron, Anderson, Dolan, Cordileone, Paprocki and Rhoades when it comes to articulating Catholic beliefs.
How did Carrie Prejean get on that Commission anyway?
I’m guessing she is something of an influencer.
Well, she is a former beauty Queen, which means a lot in this Administration. Beauty queens and TV personalities seem to be rather prevalent. Style over substance?
Trump appointed her to the Commission, apparently respecting her view and courage in speaking up for heterosexual marriage while a contestant in the Miss ?America? pageant.
And that qualifies her to be on the commission? Another pretty celebrity masquerading as an expert.
“How did Carrie Prejean get on that Commission anyway?”
*******
No se’.
Catholics may not be anti semites. Period. Someone remind this dame that Jesus was a Jew. It appears she is trying to use catholic belief to justify her political opinions.
No only was Jesus a Jew but also His Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, the Apostles, etc, etc.
The Vatican presumably had its reasons for not recognising Israel for generations after it was set up.
What are their reasons, then, miguel?
Indeed
Catholics have a very mixed & troubled history with anti Semitism . Miguel Cervantes, though to be a Sephardic Jew, would have known all about that.
Prejan believes in a Catholicism that existed before VII. That is why she was removed from the commission and not supported by Baron.
Prejean believes in a Catholicism that existed before VII. That is why she was removed from the commission and not supported by Baron.
Sadly, I think she was influenced by those who believe in errors in Catholicism from the 13th century.
Prejean believes in a Catholicism that existed before VII. That is why she was removed from the commission and not supported by Barron.
Repeat that?
Question:What’s the difference between a Zionist and Prejean?
See what I mean?
👏👏👏 Three cheers for the good Bishop and for our President for establishing this commission!
Amen. I appreciate Bishop Barron. God bless him.
Shame on Barron. This is unbecoming, especially from the “Dare we hope” bishop
‘Why can’t Carrie Prejean rage about Jews being Christ-killers without getting blowback from meanies like Bishop Baron?!’
You TradCaths pick some really laughable heroes.
She said no such thing. Do you Modernists not fear the sin of calmuny?
The same thing goes on amongst the Left, Vince. It’s not a Right v. Left issue. Just different flavors of the same errors.
It’s actually quite important to a Religious Liberty Commission that antisemitism not be mis-defined.
In terms of theology it’s important, as the Catholic Church is the New Israel embracing Jewish and non-Jewish Christians alike. As the Letter to the Hebrews says, the eternal promise to Abraham and his (above all) spiritual children is a promise of a *heavenly* kingdom (as distinct from historically fulfilled and contingent promises of physical land).
Politically, it’s also very important to distinguish even very sharp criticism of the political State of Israel from genuine antisemitism. Conflating the two may be useful to pro-Israel lobbyists, but no-one should be fooled.
Yes, and no one is fooled by the veiled antisemitism you have been communicating in your recent posts. Like a true progressive, you’re not as good at hiding as you think you are.
I’m not a progressive at all. Why would you think that? Criticism of Israel does not equal antisemitism, veiled or otherwise. Your comment just illustrates how important it is to distinguish them, so we can actually have productive and honest discussions on Catholic theology, the Middle East etc etc instead of ad hominem attacks
You aren’t criticizing. You haven’t identified or explained any specific point of disagreement or policy problem in any of your posts. You’re hiding your antisemitism behind a facade of legitimate criticisms, none of which you discuss or explain. That’s about as progressive as it gets.
“You’re hiding your antisemitism behind a facade of legitimate criticisms”
We really should express our heartfelt gratitude to Athanasius.
So, thanks for letting us know about the insidious agenda of poster Kathy Ungar, being as her antipathy is merely a “facade of legitimate criticisms”. Those of us lacking the gift of telepathy might be otherwise deceived.
I don’t see anything particularly “blistering” about Bishop Barron’s response.
Is it the job of a Bishop to “slam” a member of the laity in public?
Has any pro-abortion, pro same sex marriage politician been “slammed”?
See “Our Catholic President and the Most Pressing Moral Issue of Our Time” (Aug 5, 2022) by Bishop Barron.
Also see the Bishop’s rationalization in support of any Catholic voting for Joe Biden in 2020 that includes trying to make moral equivalencies between various positions of Biden and Trump for voters to consider. Some of the moral equivalencies are also debatable, but Bishop Barron claims equivalency.
He knew what Biden would be like if he “won,” but it did not matter in 2020. He massaged Church teaching, made false comparisons, and provided cover for any Catholic who wanted to vote for Biden…all in good conscience, of course…..BUT an informed conscience needs to deal with actual facts, and not faux moral equivalencies as provided by Bishop Barron that I am sure his supporters will defend and claim that his comparisons of Biden and Trump were 100% accurate.
https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/four-principles-for-catholics-during-election-season/
Sorry, the comment was more directed at the author’s use of the word “slam”.
The quality of EWTN’s written articles of late is worrying. I would think somebody with the title “senior editor” would realize that even when attempting to maximize clicks, one needs should exercise restraint.
That said, Bishop Barron, if he didn’t consult her privately, should have-and might want to consider if his and Dolan’s position is due to the perception of ineffectuality.
Paula White-Cain is far more problematic that CPB.
“The quality of EWTN’s written articles of late is worrying.”
I have similar concerns. It’s not the sort of headline we would write.
I also appreciate your concerns regarding some EWTN articles, Carl. In this spirit, I’d like you to address my question to Mr. Payne regarding his decision to leave out a crucial part of Bishop Barron’s tweet. That, too, is problematic and appears to be an intentional decision to withhold some information that could give some support to Mrs. Boller, and if nothing else, it shows a lack of a fair-mindedness quality in a CWR article that should also concern you.
Next, I ask you and all others who can set aside preconceived notions of Mrs. Boller’s actions at the Religious Liberty’s 5th Commission hearing, and review the hearing via YouTube that is provided in 2 parts, even if you already watched it.
To make it easier to home in on what Mrs. Boller said, her most controversial participation is found at roughly the 1:30:20 mark of the first part, and it ends about 7 minutes later at the 1:37:20 mark.
In part 2, Mrs. Boller’s participation and exchange with Seth Dillon begins at roughly the 1:39:56 mark and ends at roughly the 1:48:35 mark.
She also spoke one more time in offering sympathy and support for a witness at roughly the 2:48:40 mark and ending about one minute later at 2:49:40.
Mrs. Boller made no other comments.
__________________________________________
I believe that a truly fair-minded review of her actual comments and exchanges will conclude that the way they have been characterized by Bishop Barron and others are largely false. There was no hijacking of the hearing for political ends, and the so-called hostility could only be so concluded by those who are easily offended snowflakes. I also don’t see where she expressed anything but a rejection of antisemitism. However, one rabbi stated flat out that to be anti-zionist is to be antisemitic, and that, I submit, is quite hostile as well as being false, yet nobody but Mrs. Boller directly challenged the rabbi on his hideous remarks, and she did not attack him in doing so.
Of course, one can claim that Mrs. Boller should have never brought up her particular challenge as directly as she did, but contrary to other false claims, she was not wrong in doing so since other parts of the hearing also touched on these issues prior to Mrs. Boller making her points.
After any fair-minded person reviews her actual participation and the responses of others for proper context, I don’t see how they would conclude that she should have been removed from the commission essentially because she has been dishonestly tar and feathered as being out of order.
And then the piling on of Mrs. Boller afterward based on false spins that others have simply accepted, and attacks on her qualifications (wrongly dismissing her as being only a former beauty queen instead of looking more honestly into her full background in standing up for religious beliefs for many years, and in public…) by fellow Catholics also leaves much to be desired unless they are on the record doing so when she was first appointed to the commission instead of now attacking her credentials near the end of the commission’s work because they have willingly accepted how she has been falsely portrayed.
Bishop Barron has it very correct and balanced as is his hallmark. When he speaks I listen. There is a tremendous depth to his theology and philosophy which I have always found to be authentically Catholic, true, good and beautiful. He is a master at describing the true path of love, love in Christ with great discernment and virtue. Thanks for getting it right again Bishop Barron.
I support Bishop Barron’s statement as well as the recent one of Archbishop Sample.
Rejecting extreme right wing antisemitic conspiracy views does not mean support for everything the Nation of Israel does, just as rejection of extreme left wing positions on abortion, transgenderism, open borders, defund the police, etc. does not mean support for everything the Trump Administration does.
Anti-zionist is the same thing as anti-semite. Its disgusting, and you can’t dig deep enough to find any support at all for this kind of racist garbage in Catholicism. People who support this point of view should not be allowed a govt support platform to spew their hate. Its good this woman was removed from the panel.
Left out of the cited tweet by Bishop Barron is a very important part of what he stated. Here is that part of the Bishop’s tweet that also needs to be considered, because it reflects a position that also rejects theological zionism:
“The Catholic position on matters of ‘Zionism,’ to which I fully subscribe, is as follows: all forms of antisemitism are to be unequivocally condemned; the state of Israel has a right to exist; but the modern nation of Israel does not represent the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies and hence does not stand beyond criticism.”
Note the “but the modern nation of Israel does not represent the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies”…
Why did Mr. Payne leave this crucial part out of the Bishop’s Tweet statement?
I’m dismayed at the many men who’ve slightly Mrs. Prejean for her past association with beauty pageants as though she’s not worth keeping around if she doesn’t toe the party line because she’s an airhead or something. I honestly don’t know her position well enough to defend it or attack it. But her past experience and her past public sins have no bearing on whether she correctly warns us that Zionism is afoot in the American landscape. The good bishop might do well to advocate for Sen. Cruz to publicly renounce his strange advocacy for Zionism and his recent attacks on Catholics. Mrs. Prejean arguably never should have been invited to join the Religious Freedom Commission, but the swift and even misleading attacks on her by several prominent Catholics, including Ryan Anderson whom I’ve known for over 22 years are unbecoming of Catholics. We continue to see hierarchs support James Martin (especially financially through Ave Maria Press’s use of him in their confirmation program). So the South Bend Bishop also deserves a black eye. Shame on CWR for peddling this rhetoric that a beauty queen has no valuable thoughts to share.
She converted last year. As an old cradle Catholic and former Latin Rite altar boy, with one of my degrees from Jesuit University, I find it curious how celebrity converts are regarded as such fountains of Catholic wisdom. Her “insights” are no more valuable than any other Catholic. Trump picked her for the Commission because she is a former beauty Queen.
More celebrity foolishness.
“with one of my degrees from Jesuit University”
While you are snapping your suspenders of incumbency, you might want to revisit The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1-16)
Which font of apostasy did you get your degree from? I graduated from one that erected a mosque on campus and had Abbie Hoffman as a speaker. As a result, I generally don’t cite my degree as evidence of orthodoxy or doctrinal fidelity. Fortunately for me, I matriculated at 28, not 18 and MBA’s are focused enough to avoid the casuistry Jesuits are famous for using.
A late acquaintance of mine, who was a classmate of Antonin Scalia in both high school and at at Georgetown used to lament the transmogrification of the “Pope’s marines” to the “Pope’s queens”. A commenter on another site-when it had a comment section- who went by the pseudonym “Art Deco” and used to say parts of the order subsisted on “single malt scotch and sodomy”.
We all know that when the Vatican dismissed William Peter Blatty’s complaint about Georgetown, it did so with a very Marshallian evasion. Archbishop Angelo Zani stated he had not suffered an “objective change” but acknowledged the complaints were “well founded”. Think about that. A graduate who was married FOUR times found Georgetown’s excursions from sound doctrine intolerable.
I’m not sure you are the one to judge. She is known because she stood up for her personal belief in marriage to one noxious Perez Hilton. (Can somebody tell me how a homosexual male with becomes a judge of a female beauty contest?) and she was stripped of her title. Her parents had a bitter divorce where the proceedings lasted a decade and included charges of homosexual behavior.
Your posts mostly demonstrate a poor grasp of economics.
Are you an economist? Where are your degrees from? Trump University?
William writes: “with one of my degrees from Jesuit University.”
That explains just about everything.
I also have a degree from a Jesuit University. That particular institution erected a mosque on campus and hosted Abbie Hoffman as a speaker. For obvious reasons, I don’t cite it as a credential of Catholic orthodoxy or doctrinal fidelity.
At least the Jesuits can think, unlike recent, right wing converts who presume to instruct the Pope.
Carrie is a sister in Christ and we should be praying for her. She didn’t make up this dangerous nonsense.
Those who shared it with her deserve prayers and instruction, too. It’s a spiritual work of mercy.
The injunction to weep for yourself and your children comes to mind.
Fully disagree. It became easy to pitch Boller as the fall guy. Bad.
She rationally sought to bring to light a prejudice in there that itself could later hijack; as well as expose a mode of proceeding that distorts presentations and examinations. She is perceptive and has a working intelligence. She is demonstrating that the Commission mustn’t be a stamping mechanism only and needs to be able to handle diverse aspects of the these things not try to impose homogenized ideas/ideology nor be always homologizing them into a “necessary whole”.
Barron has the capacity to handle that as it should be and he is not handling it. And I am not Jesuit.
Yes, the Commission should not be a rubber stamp for the Administration. How about some members who are not right wing Trump puppets? Some people who can think.
It reminds me of the Covington School saga some 6 years ago when many Catholics including the local bishop and professional conservatives like Robert George joined in with the wider frenzy and attacked Nicholas Sandmann as a racist and demanded he apologize when Sandmann was only the victim leftist activist smears. Can Catholics including most especially the bishops develop an instinct to not throw fellow Catholics under the bus at the first sign of condemnation of the wider culture?
Off topic, but need to say, hoping and praying Bishop Barron next position is Arch Bishop of Chicago. Chicago needs a no nonsense Catholic Bishop to push back on the so called Catholic Dems in Illinois who are pro abortion, anti-Semitic etc.
Amen, Mr. Mike. 🙏
How about the next Pope?
When the dispute about “Christian Zionism,” “Dispensationalism,” etc. broke out into the mainstream, my first reaction was to scratch my head and wonder what the argument was about, as these things have been non-issues for me and seem to be non-issues for most Catholics who I have encountered. I bet many Catholics could not define Dispensationalism without looking it up. Unless they studied Christian theology, or like Carrie Prejean Boller, are converts from Protestant denominations.
Boller was welcomed into the Catholic Church last Easter (may the Lord be praised, and I am glad for her), so she is a recent convert who may feel a need to separate herself from beliefs she formerly held versus what she now believes. Which makes sense on an human level, but it also means that she is still in a transitional period. She had been a Catholic for about two months when she was appointed and therefore probably wasn’t a good choice to represent Catholics on a national religious commission.
Personally, I can’t relate to some of what Boller has said at that commission meeting or in her recent email. For instance, it would not occur to me to emphasize that “the modern state of Israel is not the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy,” because why would I? The amount of emphasis she puts on the point is outside my frame of reference, but perhaps it makes sense for a former Evangelical Christian. When she remarks that “I’m a Catholic, and Catholics do not embrace Zionism,” that is not really accurate, because it depends on the understanding of Zionism. If you understand Zionism as a political construct that doesn’t have any theological significance, then you as a Catholic may support it or not support it, or have mixed feelings, or feel neutral about it. If you understand Zionism as a matter primarily rooted in Biblical prophecy and theological interpretation, then that’s different, but I doubt more than a handful of Catholics have that understanding.