Wichita, Kan., Jun 7, 2018 / 05:00 am (CNA).- Father Chad Arnold, vocations director in the Diocese of Wichita, Kansas, is hesitant to dole out advice about how a diocese can increase its priestly vocations.
He recognizes that he’s been blessed…. […]
Albany, N.Y., Jun 6, 2018 / 05:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Backers of a New York bill to open a lawsuit window for civil action from victims of past sexual abuse are wrong to say it would apply to public institutions, a former judge has said.
In a May 21 … […]
Denver, Colo., Jun 6, 2018 / 04:05 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- As ongoing wildfires rage through the southwest region of the United States, local dioceses are offering their prayers and support for victims.
“I pray for all those in harm’s way and… […]
Baltimore, Md., Jun 6, 2018 / 02:27 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Perched on a hill overlooking the rivers and railroad tracks in Ellicott City, Maryland, stands St. Paul’s Catholic Church – a place where many Catholics in the Archdiocese of Baltimo… […]
Washington D.C., Jun 6, 2018 / 03:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- When presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy was shot in a California hotel on June 5, 1968, his supporters prayed.
“After Kennedy was shot at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, many s… […]
Washington D.C., Jun 5, 2018 / 05:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- On Monday the Supreme Court vacated an appellate court’s decision from October which permitted an undocumented minor held in federal custody to an obtain an abortion.
This move by the court means there will no longer be a precedent should a similar case arise.
The June 4 order in Azar v. Garza was unanimous, though the initial case had been rendered moot as the minor had already had an abortion. The Supreme Court took up the case in January.
The minor in question, identified only as “Jane Doe,” obtained an abortion Oct. 25, 2017, after an appeals court ruled that the government had to provide her with one. Doe was from Central America, and was arrested after illegally crossing the U.S. border. She learned she was pregnant after she was in custody. Doe is now 18 years old and is no longer in federal custody. She was represented in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Trump administration argued that it was not the role of the government to assist with an undocumented minor’s abortion. In an appeal filed last year, Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote that the government is “not obligated to facilitate abortion,” and that “the government acts permissibly when it does not place an undue burden in a women’s path.”
While the ruling did not go as far as some pro-life activists would have preferred, they were still pleased with the decision.
Charlotte Lozier Institute President Chuck Donovan told CNA that although the court did not determine whether the federal government must assist undocumented minors with abortions, he felt it was a setback for those in favor of abortion rights.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case doesn’t answer the fundamental question – does the federal government have an obligation to help an undocumented teen abort her unborn child – but it does deny the ACLU a major victory in their drive to promote abortion on demand,” he said.
“Solicitor General Noel Francisco and the Trump Administration deserve the greatest thanks for waging this fight and helping our nation honor the right to life of every human being, born and unborn, who reaches our shores,” Donovan stated.
Kerri Kupec, Justice Department spokeswoman, welcomed the court’s decision. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the federal government is not required to facilitate abortions for minors and may choose policies favoring life over abortion. We look forward to continuing to press the government’s interest in the sanctity of life.”
The Supreme Court’s decision detailed the timeline of the case.
The appellate court ruled Oct. 24, 2017 that the government make Doe available to obtain the counseling required by Texas law and to obtain an abortion. Texas requires pre-abortion counseling with the same doctor who will perform the abortion to take place at least 24 hours in advance of the procedure.
Doe’s representatives scheduled an appointment for her, and arranged for her to be transported to the clinic Oct. 25 at 7:30 a.m.
The government planned to ask the Supreme Court for emergency review of the appellate court’s ruling, and said it would file a stay application early in the morning of Oct. 25, believing an abortion would not take place until Oct. 26.
“The details are disputed, but sometime over the course of the night both the time and nature of the appointment were changed,” wrote the Supreme Court.
A doctor who had performed counseling for Doe earlier was available to perform an abortion, and her 7:30 a.m. appointment was moved forward to 4:15 a.m.
The government was informed at 10 a.m. Oct. 25 that Doe had procured an abortion that morning.
The Supreme Court declined to discipline Doe’s lawyers, whom the Trump administration alleged had committed misconduct, making “what appear to be material misrepresentations and omissions … designed to thwart this Court’s review.”
“Not all communication breakdowns constitute misconduct,” the court wrote.
Denver, Colo., Jun 4, 2018 / 07:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A spoken-word drama about the life of St. Francis of Assisi has won an Audie Award from the Audio Publishers Association.
“It truly is an honor for us to be considered worthy to recei… […]
Washington D.C., Jun 4, 2018 / 04:21 pm (CNA).- Religious freedom advocates have mostly celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, although some commentators have expressed concern that the … […]
Washington D.C., Jun 4, 2018 / 03:29 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Religious freedom groups cheered Monday’s 7-2 Supreme Court decision that a Colorado baker had his rights violated when the state civil rights commission said he was required to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
“Today’s decision confirms that people of faith should not suffer discrimination on account of their deeply held religious beliefs, but instead should be respected by government officials,” said leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“This extends to creative professionals, such as Jack Phillips, who seek to serve the Lord in every aspect of their daily lives. In a pluralistic society like ours, true tolerance allows people with different viewpoints to be free to live out their beliefs, even if those beliefs are unpopular with the government.”
Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, chair of the bishops’ religious liberty committee, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, head of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, and Bishop James Conley of Lincoln, chair of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, released a joint statement Monday applauding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed a constitutionally unacceptable hostility toward religion when it ruled that he had discriminated against a same-sex couple who requested a wedding cake from his bakery back in 2012.
Phillips, a devout Christian, said repeatedly throughout the case that he would have no issue serving gay customers in a context outside of a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. In adherence to his religious beliefs, he also refuses to make Halloween cakes, products with alcohol, and cakes for bachelor parties.
“The Court reached the right outcome,” Princeton law professor Robert George told CNA.
He said Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, writing in concurring opinions, “got there for the right reasons,” while the majority opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was “valid but incomplete, and leave[s] issues unresolved that would have been resolved properly had the key points in the Gorsuch opinion been added.”
The Court stopped short of setting a major precedent, and instead tailored the decision to this particular case. However, supporters of Phillips said the decision still marked an important victory.
“Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that,” said Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which was representing Phillips.
“Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage,” Waggoner said in a statement.
The opinion was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, something that surprised Brian Miller, an attorney for the Center for Individual Rights.
“Even before getting to the text, the decision comes with surprises. Despite being one of the most controversial cases of the term, the justices didn’t split along partisan lines,” said Miller.
While Ginsburg and Sotomayor are typically on the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer do not generally lean conservative. Some commenters were surprised to see that they sided with the court’s conservative wing in this case.
“The Court’s holding is narrow,” Miller told CNA, “and insists that it is possible to both protect against discrimination and protect religious freedom. That principle will be important for states to remember going forward.”
Becket Law President Mark Rienzi expanded further on this, saying, “The Court has said 7-2 that the Constitution requires us all to try and get along. There is room enough in our society for a diversity of viewpoints, and that includes respecting religious beliefs too.”
George warned that the reasoning behind the majority’s ruling could be used to oppose religious freedom in the future.
“As it stands, there is a danger that state officials will interpret the decision as licensing discrimination against Christians and other religious people so long as those officials don’t reveal their anti-Christian or anti-religious animus in public statements,” he cautioned.
Still, he said, the decision offers an optimistic look at the court’s newest addition, Justice Gorsuch.
“This case shows that Justice Gorsuch is not only a faithful constitutionalist, he has the potential to be one of history’s greatest Supreme Court justices,” George said.
Washington D.C., Jun 4, 2018 / 08:19 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012.
The 7-2 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission could be a landmark ruling for freedom of religion and conscience cases.
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring in part, and concurring in the judgment.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop case dates back to July 2012, when owner Jack Phillips was asked by two men to bake a cake for their same-sex wedding ceremony.
He explained to the couple that he could not cater to same-sex weddings – to do so would have been a violation of his Christian beliefs. He said he has also declined to make a number of other types of cakes, including cakes for Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, and cakes with atheist messages.
The couple then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for discrimination.
The commission ordered Phillips to serve same-sex weddings and to undergo anti-discrimination training. In a hearing in 2014, the civil rights commissioner Diann Rice compared his declining to serve same-sex weddings to justifications for the Holocaust and slavery.
Alliance Defending Freedom took up Phillips’ case in court. He lost before an administrative judge in 2013, who ruled that the state could determine when his rights to free speech unlawfully infringed upon others’ rights.
Phillips then appealed his case to the state’s human rights commission, which ruled against him. He appealed again to the state’s court of appeals, which also ruled against him. The Colorado Supreme Court did not take up Phillips’ case.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. It was re-listed repeatedly throughout the winter and spring of 2017, before the Court decided to take the case.
Phillips had said that he started his Lakewood, Colorado business in 1993 as a way to integrate his two loves – baking and art – into his daily work. Philipps named his shop “Masterpiece” because of the artistic focus of his work, but also because of his Christian beliefs. He drew from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically the commands “no man can serve two masters” and “you cannot serve both God and mammon.”
“I didn’t open this so I could make a lot of money,” Phillips said of his business, speaking at a panel event last September. “I opened it up so that it would be a way that I could create my art, do the baking that I love, and serve the God that I love.”
Throughout the ordeal, Phillips said, he has paid a heavy price for his stand, losing 40 percent of his family’s income and more than half his employees.
Phillips said he began receiving threatening phone calls shortly after the couple left the store. One death threat was so severe, his sister and niece at the store had to hide in the back room until police arrived.
Attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the First Amendment protects Phillips’ right to freedom of expression as an artist.
“[J]ust as the [Human Rights] Commission cannot compel Phillips’s art, neither may the government suppress it,” the legal group said, adding that the conflict between Phillips’ freedom as an artist and the wishes of his customers should be solved by the citizens themselves, and not by the government.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching results, particularly in determining the extent of religious liberty protections following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Florists, photographers and other wedding vendors have also faced lawsuits alleging discrimination for declining same-sex ceremonies.
“There is far more at stake in this case than simply whether Jack Phillips must bake a cake,” the US bishops’ conference and other Catholic groups had stated in an amicus brief. “It is about the freedom to live according to one’s religious beliefs in daily life and, in so doing, advance the common good.”
“[T]his could be one of the most important First Amendment cases in terms of free speech and the free exercise of religion in a century or more, and it could be a landmark, seismic kind of case of First Amendment jurisprudence,” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) said last September in a press conference at the U.S. Capitol.
© Catholic World Report