alternative

Texas boys school establishes policy to destroy smartphones

Boys swing on a rope during recess at Western Academy in Houston, Texas. / Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy

Houston, Texas, Oct 4, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

After years of boys (and their parents) repeatedly ignoring the rules, a private boys school in Houston is taking a novel approach to its smartphone and digital device policy: Bring it to school, and “we will destroy it.”

Western Academy, an independent, liberal arts school that states its goal is to educate young men “in the good, the true, and the beautiful,” has never allowed students to bring electronic devices to school.

In the past, if a boy was caught with a phone or other device at the school or a school-sponsored event, faculty would confiscate the device, which would be returned to the parents only after they had met with headmaster Jason Hebert. He would explain the harms to boys caused by smartphone use and why parents “should not put the phone back into your son’s hands.”

Boys look for toads in a pond during recess. Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy
Boys look for toads in a pond during recess. Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy

Under the new policy, which Hebert laid out in a four-page letter to parents last month, after the device is discovered and destroyed, the boy will be suspended. If it happens again, the boy will be automatically expelled. 

Along with its singular smartphone policy, the school, which has 230 students in third through eighth grade, takes a unique approach to education. The boys are free to play throughout the park-like, rambling grounds, where they climb and swing from trees, build forts, shoot Nerf guns, and care for (or chase) chickens before and after school and multiple times throughout the school day. 

The all-male faculty expects respect and responsibility from the boys at a young age, according to Hebert. The teachers have the boys rise when an adult visits a classroom and encourage parents to let their sons learn to endure hardship and experience natural consequences when they forget their homework or their lunch at home.

Jason Hebert, headmaster at Western Academy in Houston. Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy
Jason Hebert, headmaster at Western Academy in Houston. Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy

A Catholic priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei serves as chaplain to the school, which was founded in 2010, and oversees the religious education program.

The model is popular: Even with middle-school tuition close to $28,000 a year, every grade has extensive waitlists, and the school may start wait-listing boys beginning as early as kindergarten. 

At the beginning of each school year, the boys are sorted into one of four houses that compete throughout the year in games such as capture the flag and “The Hero’s Race,” where the boys in each house choose one boy to race across campus, climbing over obstacles and crawling through mud. There is also a poetry recitation competition known as “The Bard.” One mother, Stephanie Creech, told CNA her sons are so happy at the school they “beg to get to school early and to stay afterward to play.”

Hebert sat down with CNA and discussed what brought about the change in the smartphone policy, saying he chose the words in his letter very carefully. 

Hebert speaks to the boys on the first day of school as the faculty looks on. Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy
Hebert speaks to the boys on the first day of school as the faculty looks on. Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy

Witnessing the damage 

“Smartphones are causing significant, unimagined damage to the students who have them,” Hebert wrote in his letter to parents, “as well as to the sons of those parents who have chosen not to give phones to their sons.” 

“The damage these phones have caused to our children,” he told CNA in the interview, “it literally has never been imagined.” 

“It’s not just pornography,” Hebert continued. “YouTube actors and other characters just trying to get clicks perform the most shameless actions on video. They just have zero respect for the dignity of their bodies and for life, zero. And these boys want to emulate these people.”

Hebert said the last straw came after a mother called him complaining her son saw a graphic, violent video on a smartphone at a school event. 

After that, Hebert said he and the other administrators agreed: “That’s it. We’re done.” 

Asked why the school did not just consider automatic expulsion after the first offense rather than the destruction of the devices, Hebert said with a laugh: “To be perfectly candid, I want to destroy the phone. I want to give the boys an opportunity to have life without it.”

He ordered a metal grinder for the purpose.

“Look, I am not an alarmist. I am not reactionary. But the bottom line is this: These devices are not neutral. The research is definitive: They are bad for our kids. I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of boys over two decades in education and I have yet to see an exception to this,” he said.

Hebert said that over the years, he has noticed a degradation in the quality of the boys’ conversation. “You can’t imagine the level of shamelessness” among some of the boys,” many of whom are generally considered “good kids.”

“This type of behavior is unprecedented in my tenure as an educator, and even as a professional athlete,” he said. 

Boys cheer  their teammates on as the houses compete in a game of "Thud," in which two boys throw a medicine ball at one another as hard as they can until one of them drops it or gives up. Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy
Boys cheer their teammates on as the houses compete in a game of “Thud,” in which two boys throw a medicine ball at one another as hard as they can until one of them drops it or gives up. Credit: Courtesy of Western Academy

In the early 2000s, before beginning his teaching career, which included teaching at The Heights School in Maryland, he spent one year as a professional football player on practice squads for three NFL teams: the Chargers, the Titans, and the Raiders. 

“I never played in a regular-season game. This is what I tell people: I made it to the NFL. I did not make it in the NFL,” he said, laughing.

“Let me make it clear: I was an athlete around some of the most earthy human beings on the planet,” he said. “These men were not ashamed to say anything in the locker room. Yet these same men would have blushed if they heard some of the things these boys talk about! This is so unimaginable. Yet it is becoming more common now, thanks to these devices.”

Parents on board 

Asked if he was worried parents would leave over the school’s new policy, Hebert said if parents are not on board with the school’s values, it might be better if they left and one of the many others on the waitlist could take their spot.

In his letter to parents, Hebert wrote that the “school is a true partnership with parents. We say this not for poetic effect, but because it must be so for the authentic growth of your sons to become a reality.”

He told CNA parents should ask themselves: “How valuable is the phone to you? Are you willing to leave this place for it? This place where your son is so abundantly happy? Is your phone worth that? And if it is, well, it’s a mismatch of vision.”

Since the change in policy, however, Hebert said parental response has been “100% positive.”

After hearing about the school’s new policy, a mother whose son graduated from the school several years ago dropped off a financial donation at the front desk recently “for the phone grinder.”

“Everybody just knows it’s right. Parents might be frustrated because saying no to their sons makes their lives harder, but they know it’s right,” he said.

Hebert, a father of seven, said he and his wife do not allow their children to have smartphones or social media. “My children may not know a lot of the lingo or some of the jokes or about all the parties. They’re on the outside, to a degree.”

“And even though that’s a big deal,” he continued, “the alternative overrides that. It’s a bigger deal.”

“The alternative is not worth it,” he said.

“We all want the truth,” he said, “and the truth is these devices are severely hurting kids. I’m not a doomsday guy, but some day these kids will be in charge of society. Think about that.”

Read More
Girl Scouts, Cincinnati Archdiocese announce ‘renewed’ partnership after LGBT dispute

null / Credit: maximino/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 2, 2025 / 09:41 am (CNA).

After cutting ties with the Girl Scouts over the group’s endorsement of gender ideology, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati said this week that it has struck up a renewed partnership with the more-than-century-old youth organization. 

Last year, the archdiocese ended a 110-year relationship with Girl Scouts of the USA due to the group promoting gender ideology contrary to Catholic teaching. 

The decision was spearheaded by then-Archbishop Dennis Schnurr, who now serves as archbishop emeritus. At the time, Schnurr endorsed a faith-based scouting group, American Heritage Girls, as an alternative.

Newly-instated Archbishop Robert Casey has since made an agreement with the local Girl Scouts of Western Ohio to maintain Church moral teaching while operating in Catholic parishes.

Girl Scouts groups are “welcome” on Catholic campuses, so long as they pledge not to promote anything counter to the Church’s teaching on faith and morals, according to an archdiocesan press release. 

Casey said he is “proud” that the archdiocese and the Girl Scouts “focused on our shared desire for the flourishing of young women in virtue and faith, rather than being solely focused on our differences.”

“Girl Scouts is a secular organization, and as such, they do not share all of our views,” he said in a Sept. 30 statement. “As the Catholic Church we are called to uphold the Gospel and teach young people the truth of the Catholic faith.” 

“Despite these differences, we have reached a mutual understanding that allows us to fulfill our mission as Church in the faithful formation of young girls while also accessing all that is best about Girl Scouting,” he continued. 

Aimée Sproles, president and CEO of Girl Scouts of Western Ohio, said that organization hopes to encourage girls in their faith journey.  

“At Girl Scouts, we believe that a part of girls’ healthy development is encouraging girls in their spiritual journey, through partnerships with their individual faith communities,” Sproles said in a statement

“Girl Scouts of Western Ohio and the Archdiocese of Cincinnati have helped generations of girls to grow in their faith and develop the critical thinking and decision-making skills they need in order to act on the values of their faith in our complex world,” she said. 

“This renewed partnership allows our Catholic Girl Scouts to have the support of their family and the Catholic community as they grow in courage, confidence, and character,” she added. 

The agreement comes after “continued dialogue,” archdiocesan spokeswoman Jennifer Schack told CNA. 

“While this announcement highlights the renewed partnership, there has been ongoing dialogue, given the two agencies share a common interest to strengthen and support girls in our communities,” Schack said.

The agreement specifies that the Girl Scouts cannot promote anything that goes against Catholic faith and moral teachings, according to documents shared with CNA.  

Whether the renewal of the Girl Scouts will affect the archdiocese’s partnership with American Heritage Girls is unclear. 

When asked about the effect of the partnership renewal, American Heritage Girls told CNA that it looks forward to “deepening its relationship” with the archdiocese.

The interdenominational group has programs and activities designed for its Catholic scouting groups that promote the Catholic faith, including troop-led Stations of the Cross and Eucharistic Revival patches.

“Catholic families in Cincinnati and beyond have embraced AHG as a trusted youth ministry option,” the organization stated. “AHG looks forward to deepening its relationship with the Archdiocese of Cincinnati as more Catholic families and parishes build communities where virtue and faith flourish.”

Schack affirmed that the recent announcement “has no impact on American Heritage Girls troops” in the archdiocese.

American Heritage Girls, which has been endorsed by Catholic dioceses across the country, features a National Catholic Committee headed by Bishop James Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska. 

The group forms “girls of integrity through Catholic Faith Awards, troop life, service, outdoor adventure, and leadership,” the group stated. 

“American Heritage Girls is grateful for over 30 years of ministry rooted in a Christ-centered foundation, deeply aligned with the Catholic Church,” it added.

Read More
Where does your state stand on the death penalty? 

null / Credit: felipe caparros/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Aug 30, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA).

The United States is seeing the highest number of executions in more than a decade, with 30 executions so far in 2025. 

CNA has released three new interactive maps to show where each state in the U.S. stands on life issues — the protection of unborn life, assisted suicide, and the death penalty. The maps will be updated as new information on each issue becomes available.

Below is an analysis of the map that shows where each state stands on death penalty laws as of August 2025.

The death penalty in the U.S. 

The United States is split on the death penalty, which is also known as capital punishment. Twenty-three states have the death penalty, while 23 states have abolished it. In the remaining four states, executions have been temporarily paused via executive action, but the death penalty has not been abolished.

Of the states that have abolished the death penalty, Michigan took the lead, becoming the first state to abolish the death penalty in 1847. Alaska and Hawaii — both newer states — have never had the death penalty.

Five states (Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah) allow the death penalty via firing squad as an alternative to lethal injection.

The federal death penalty can be implemented for certain federal crimes in all 50 states as well as U.S. territories.

A total of 16 federal executions have occurred since the modern federal death penalty was instituted in 1988. 

The federal death penalty was found unconstitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Furman v. Georgia in 1972, but it was later reinstated for certain offenses and then expanded by the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994. 

In 2024, President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 men but left three men on death row.

Where does your state stand on the death penalty? 

Alabama: The death penalty is legal in Alabama. The state has one of the highest per capita execution rates in the nation, with 81 people executed since 1976.

Alaska: Alaska has never had the death penalty. Capital punishment was abolished by the territorial legislature two years before Alaska became a state. Hawaii and Alaska are the only states to have never had capital punishment in state law.

Arizona: The death penalty is currently legal in Arizona but has been paused for various reasons throughout the state’s history. In 2025 executions resumed in Arizona following a three-year pause.

Arkansas: Arkansas allows the death penalty if a defendant is found guilty of capital murder, defined as the premeditated and deliberate death of another person. In 2025, Arkansas became the fifth state to use nitrogen gas for executions.

California: California has had a moratorium on its death penalty since 2019.

Colorado: In 2020, Colorado abolished the death penalty.

Connecticut: In 2012, Connecticut abolished the death penalty for future crimes.

Delaware: The Delaware Supreme Court found capital punishment to be unconstitutional in 2016, and in 2024 Delaware repealed the state’s death penalty laws.

District of Columbia: The District of Columbia does not have a death penalty. It was repealed by the D.C. Council in 1981.

Florida: Florida allows the death penalty for first-degree murder and other capital felonies, including sexual battery. Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023 ended requirements for juries to vote unanimously for capital punishment. DeSantis also signed legislation allowing capital punishment in the case of sexual battery of children.

Georgia: Georgia law allows the death penalty in cases where the defendants are at least 17 years old and commit certain homicides; for instance, if the method of homicide was depraved or if the defendant committed the murder in a public place threatening other people.

Hawaii: Hawaii abolished the death penalty in 1957 when it was still a territory, prior to becoming a state. Hawaii and Alaska are the only states to have never had capital punishment in state law.

Idaho: Idaho is one of five states to allow the death penalty by firing squads. In 2023, the state allowed this method due to a shortage of lethal-injection drugs. The method can be used if the state cannot obtain lethal-injection drugs.

Illinois: Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011.

Indiana: In Indiana, the death penalty is legal in some murder cases with “aggravating circumstances” for someone 18 or older who is not intellectually disabled. Lethal injection is the only method of execution that is legal.

Iowa: Iowa abolished the death penalty in 1965. Though some capital punishment proponents have attempted to bring it back over the years, none have succeeded.

Kansas: The death penalty is legal in Kansas, but the state has not executed anyone since 1994. Kansas has abolished and reinstated the death penalty several times.

Kentucky: The death penalty is legal in Kentucky for those convicted of murder with aggravating circumstances.

Louisiana: The death penalty is legal in Louisiana.

Maine: Maine abolished the death penalty in 1887.

Maryland: Maryland abolished the death penalty in 2013.

Massachusetts: Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984.

Michigan: Michigan was the first state — and the first government in the English-speaking world — to abolish the death penalty. It abolished capital punishment in its constitution in 1847.

Minnesota: In 1911, Minnesota abolished the death penalty via the state Legislature.

Mississippi: Mississippi is one of five states to allow the death penalty by firing squad.

Missouri: Capital punishment is legal in Missouri, typically for first-degree murder with aggravating factors.

Montana: The death penalty is legal in Montana.

Nebraska: Though Nebraska lawmakers have debated abolishing the death penalty in recent years, it remains legal.

Nevada: The death penalty is legal in Nevada in first-degree murder cases with at least one aggravating circumstance.

New Hampshire: New Hampshire abolished the death penalty in 2019 after the state Legislature overrode the governor’s veto of the repeal bill.

New Jersey: New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007.

New Mexico: New Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2009.

New York: In 2004, the New York Court of Appeals declared New York’s death penalty law unconstitutional.

North Carolina: The death penalty is legal in North Carolina for first-degree murder cases with an aggravating factor. The state law has 11 aggravating factors, including for sexual offenses, cruelty, and murder of a witness or law enforcement officer.

North Dakota: In 1973, North Dakota abolished the death penalty.

Ohio: In 2020, Gov. Mike DeWine declared a moratorium on the death penalty in Ohio.

Oklahoma: Oklahoma has the highest per capita state execution rate, with 127 executions from 1976–2024. Oklahoma is one of five states to allow capital punishment by firing squad.

Oregon: Executions have been paused as Oregon has had a moratorium on the death penalty since 2011.

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania has had a moratorium on executions since 2015.

Rhode Island: Rhode Island abolished the death penalty in 1852. The state briefly reinstated it in 1872, but it never carried out another execution.

South Carolina: South Carolina is one of five states to allow the death penalty by firing squad.

South Dakota: In South Dakota, the death penalty is legal only in cases where someone dies. Those who are declared insane or those with mental disabilities cannot be sentenced to capital punishment.

Tennessee: The death penalty is legal in Tennessee. In 2022, Gov. Bill Lee placed a moratorium on capital punishment for review of lethal injection protocols, but executions recently reopened.

Texas: Texas has the second-highest per capita state execution rate, with 101 executions from 1976–2024.

Utah: Utah is one of five states to allow the death penalty by firing squad, and it has been requested twice in recent years. States with this option usually allow defendants to choose, as some say it is less painful and more instantaneous than lethal injection, which at times has taken hours to cause death.

Vermont: Vermont abolished the death penalty in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court — for a brief period of time — declared the punishment unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia.

Virginia: Virginia abolished the death penalty in 2021.

Washington: In 2018, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional, citing racial bias and arbitrariness. In 2023, capital punishment was formally removed from state law.

West Virginia: West Virginia abolished the death penalty in 1965, though there have been attempts to reinstate it in recent years.

Wisconsin: Wisconsin abolished the death penalty in 1953, one of the first states to do so.

Wyoming: The death penalty by lethal injection is legal in Wyoming. It is not allowed if the person is mentally incapacitated or pregnant.

Federal: The death penalty is legal on a federal level in the United States of America. The Trump administration restored the death penalty on Jan. 20, 2025, via an executive order.

Catholic Church teaching on the death penalty

In 2018, the Vatican developed the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, with Pope Francis updating the Catechism of the Catholic Church to reflect that the death penalty is “inadmissible” in the contemporary landscape. 

Previous teaching in the catechism issued during the pontificate of St. John Paul II permitted the death penalty in “very rare” cases, saying that “cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (CCC, 2267, pre-2018).

Read More
Trump administration appeals to some pro-life reproductive health care despite IVF push

null / Credit: Aykut Erdogdu/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Aug 26, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA).

President Donald Trump’s administration has started to incorporate some elements of pro-life reproductive health care into its policy goals, which pro-life advocates argue are alternatives to in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures meant to address fertility problems.

So far the inclusion of these efforts has been limited and the president has remained consistent in supporting IVF as the major solution to fertility issues. Yet some Catholics and others in the pro-life movement have been urging these alternative approaches amid ethical concerns surrounding IVF, such as the millions of human embryos killed through the procedure.

Life-affirming options tend to focus on curing the root causes of infertility. This health care, which many practitioners call “restorative reproductive medicine,” can include charting one’s menstrual cycle, lifestyle and diet changes, and diagnosing and treating underlying conditions that lead to fertility struggles.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is currently considering grant applicants for an “infertility training center,” which is the most concrete plan to date to incorporate pro-life fertility care options within the administration’s policy goals.

The potential $1.5 million grant would use federal Title X family planning funds to help the recipient “educate on the root causes of infertility and the broad range of holistic infertility treatments and referrals available.” The money would also help “expand and enhance root cause infertility testing, treatments, and referrals.”

When reached for comment, an HHS spokesperson told CNA the agency could not comment on “potential or future policy decisions.”

Restorative reproductive medicine was also discussed at a recent event hosted by the MAHA Institute, named after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” slogan. The institute is run by Del Bigtree, who is Kennedy’s former communications director.

“Traditional women’s health and fertility care has relied heavily on Big Pharma Band-Aids and workarounds that circumvent a woman’s reproductive system rather than working in harmony with it and doing the work of deeper investigation to find and treat underlying causes of infertility,” Maureen Ferguson, a commissioner on the Commission on International Religious Freedom, said at the event.

Ferguson introduced a roundtable of doctors who practice restorative reproductive medicine.

“Restorative reproductive medicine is effective, affordable, it leads to healthier moms and babies, and it’s far preferred by couples, most of whom wish to conceive naturally,” Ferguson said.

Reproductive medicine policy opportunities

Emma Waters, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNA there are several ways the government can promote restorative reproductive medicine.

“This needs to be a project that both states and the federal government prioritize,” she said.

Waters said current insurance coding “doesn’t account for the kinds of care that [restorative reproductive medicine] is offering” or “doesn’t cover each step.”

She noted that insurance will often cover surgeries to fix endometriosis, which often causes infertility, but will not cover the initial exploratory surgery needed to properly diagnose the condition.

She said this could be improved with broader coverage or a restorative reproductive medicine “bundle package for care,” similar to an OB-GYN bundle package for when a woman is pregnant, to “simplify the billing process.”

Additional policy options, Waters noted, include grant funding for research and training. 

Restorative reproductive medicine “is aiming to ensure that that man and woman’s body is the healthiest it can be for the pregnancy journey,” she said.

Waters noted that this health care “recognizes that infertility is not a disease but is a symptom of underlying conditions.” As opposed to IVF, restorative reproductive medicine focuses on “the root, rather than bypassing the body,” and helps ensure the body is healthy enough to “sustain that embryo through pregnancy and a live birth.”

Theresa Notare, who serves as the assistant director of the natural family planning program at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told CNA restorative reproductive medicine is often practiced in a way consistent with Catholic Church teaching, such as natural procreative technology and fertility education and medical management.

“You’re trying to basically healthfully address whatever problem a patient is having and you’re trying to restore them to the balance that they should have … to naturally conceive,” she said.

IVF alternatively violates Church teaching because it destroys human embryos and because “conception would be taking place outside of the marital embrace,” Notare said. 

She said marriage is a covenant in which “the man and the women are coming together in this one-flesh union.”

“That communion of persons — that environment — is where the Lord God gave husband and wife stewardship over the power of life and love,” Notare said.

Read More