Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was recently mocked on CNBC for fearmongering over the economy and getting tons of stuff wrong in general.
The post Elizabeth Warren Proves She Has No Idea How the Basic Concept of ‘Supply and Demand’ Works appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Read More
Vice President JD Vance visited the Ohio steel plant where his own grandfather worked this week and used part of the visit to outline the accomplishments of the Trump administration, especially with regards to immigration and jobs.
The post JD Vance Tears Into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for Trying to Protect a Child Predator (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Read More
Coffee giant Starbucks is laying off hundreds of people at their headquarters in Seattle as they prepare to ship many more jobs to Nashville, Tennessee.
The post Starbucks Headquarters in Seattle Lays Off Hundreds as They Prepare to Send Jobs to Nashville appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Read MoreMy Lord Jesus Christ,
I believe that You are really here in this Sacrament.
Night and day You remain here compassionate and loving.
You call, You wait for,
You welcome everyone who comes to visit You.
I thank You, Jesus my Divine Redeemer
for coming upon the earth for our sake
and for instituting the Adorable Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist
in order to remain with us until the end of the world.
I thank You for hiding beneath the Eucharistic species
Your infinite …
Aid to the Church in Need has launched a petition that urges international leaders to take action to end religious persecution.
On Aug. 12, a total solar eclipse crossed Iceland and Spain — the first time totality has touched European soil since 1999, and the first time it’s crossed Iceland since 1954. Clouds spoiled the view for many in Iceland, but skies cleared for eclipse chasers in Spain. There, totality fell almost at sunset: some viewersContinue reading “Our favorite reader images of the 2026 total eclipse”
The post Our favorite reader images of the 2026 total eclipse appeared first on Astronomy Magazine.
Read More![Surrogate mother faces 0,000 lawsuit from biological parents for refusing to abort baby – #Catholic – A California couple is suing their surrogate mother for refusing to abort the child she was carrying for them, alleging that she violated her contract by not killing the baby prior to his birth.Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed have filed suit against McKenna West seeking more than 0,000 in damages, alleging she breached their surrogacy agreement, which included a clause allowing them to request abortion of the baby if it were found to have fetal abnormalities. West, a cardiac nurse from Alaska, gave birth on Aug. 12 in Dallas to a baby boy diagnosed prenatally with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious but treatable heart condition. West called the child Gabriel; the contracting couple, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, call him Rumi.West had fled to Texas seeking the state’s protection for the baby after his birth. In an Aug. 20 op-ed in the New York Post, she said she was allowed only about 60 seconds with the newborn before the contracting couple took physical custody. She is currently barred from contact with the child under existing orders.A hearing on parentage and related issues is scheduled for Aug. 25 in Dallas County.West, a single mother, refused the request for an abortion following the diagnosis of the condition in April. The couple subsequently stopped paying for pregnancy-related expenses. According to the pro-life group Live Action, West was willing to give birth in California, where the contracting couple reside, if they would commit to treating the baby’s heart condition, though they reportedly refused.West said she chose Dallas Children’s Hospital in Texas due to its 100% success rate for the procedure the newborn needed.“As a cardiac nurse, I knew this little one had a great shot at survival if given the opportunity to receive the necessary treatment,” she said.The baby has undergone his first surgery for the heart condition and is receiving care in Texas under a court order secured by Attorney General Ken Paxton that required lifesaving treatment and barred his removal from the state.Lee Budner, Gilkar and Ahmed’s attorney, said in a recent statement to TMZ that the couple is “devastated” that the baby’s birth and health issues have allegedly been “transformed into political theater” by West and Paxton.In her op-ed, meanwhile, West denied claims that her actions were “political theater,” writing: “No woman should be forced to kill the baby inside her. Most importantly, every child deserves a chance to live.”West stated she has given up any claims to the baby and is only requesting that the contracting couple commit to provide “the lifesaving treatment he needs. That is all it would take to end this.”However, she wrote that the couple is “actively working to get the court order that required the baby’s continued treatment thrown out.”Budner did not respond to EWTN News’ requests for comment, but TMZ reported that he said the couple is “following the advice of the baby’s medical team, just as any loving parent would,” adding that his clients, who are suing West for not aborting the child, “continue, as they always have, to place their baby’s health and well-being first.”Irene Alexander, an associate professor of moral theology at the University of Dallas, told EWTN News that aborting a child with a treatable health condition is “almost like an Amazon mentality. If I don’t get exactly what I ordered, I want to send it back.”Alexander described the practice of surrogacy, which the Catholic Church teaches is gravely immoral, as a “dissociation of all the aspects of human sexuality: love, parenthood, and the good of the child are all spliced into parts” that lead “the children to suffer because those things are inseparably connected.”“Once you violate the order of reality that was intended to be one whole; once youʼve committed so many levels of injustice,” she said, “you’re left with the mess that does injustice to the child and to the unity of marriage.”Christina Bennett, a news correspondent for Live Action, told “EWTN News Nightly” reporter Eric Rosales on Aug. 20: “Surrogacy exploits both mother and child. Women are not just wombs to be rented, and children are not just property to be sold with contracts to be signed.” “Women deserve human dignity, children deserve human dignity, and surrogacy violates that, and it should be banned across the entire nation, as other countries have done,” she said.
[The dispute] “is a textbook example of what is wrong with surrogacy.
Joe ZalotEthicist, National Catholic Bioethics Center
Joe Zalot, an ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told EWTN News that the case demonstrates “how commercial surrogacy denigrates the surrogate, seeking to reduce her to subservient role vis-a-vis the genetic ‘parents,’ as well as how surrogacy contracts denigrate the dignity of the preborn child through the demand that it be killed if a prenatal anomaly is diagnosed.”The dispute “is a textbook example of what is wrong with surrogacy,” Zalot continued. The controversial practice, according to Church teaching, “is never permitted because it severs the ‘inseparable connection’ between procreation and union, it violates the child’s right to be gestated by, and born of, its biological mother, and it violates the exclusivity of marriage as spouses have a right to become parents only through each other.”Kimberly Bird, a spokeswoman for Live Action, told Rosales that the “very dark reality around … these abortion clauses that are put in [surrogacy] contracts are absolutely atrocious … no one has a right to tell a woman” she must kill “the baby sheʼs carrying.”“And absolutely surrogacy should be banned,” Bird continued. ”Other countries have done it or have at least put severe restrictions on it.”Colombia lawmakers proposed a bill outlawing surrogacy this week, while the practice is illegal in dozens of other countries around the world.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/surrogate-mother-faces-100000-lawsuit-from-biological-parents-for-refusing-to-abort-baby-catholic-a-california-couple-is-suing-their-surrogate-mother-for-refusing-to-abort-the-child-she-was-car.jpg "Surrogate mother faces 0,000 lawsuit from biological parents for refusing to abort baby – #Catholic – A California couple is suing their surrogate mother for refusing to abort the child she was carrying for them, alleging that she violated her contract by not killing the baby prior to his birth.Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed have filed suit against McKenna West seeking more than 0,000 in damages, alleging she breached their surrogacy agreement, which included a clause allowing them to request abortion of the baby if it were found to have fetal abnormalities. West, a cardiac nurse from Alaska, gave birth on Aug. 12 in Dallas to a baby boy diagnosed prenatally with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious but treatable heart condition. West called the child Gabriel; the contracting couple, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, call him Rumi.West had fled to Texas seeking the state’s protection for the baby after his birth. In an Aug. 20 op-ed in the New York Post, she said she was allowed only about 60 seconds with the newborn before the contracting couple took physical custody. She is currently barred from contact with the child under existing orders.A hearing on parentage and related issues is scheduled for Aug. 25 in Dallas County.West, a single mother, refused the request for an abortion following the diagnosis of the condition in April. The couple subsequently stopped paying for pregnancy-related expenses. According to the pro-life group Live Action, West was willing to give birth in California, where the contracting couple reside, if they would commit to treating the baby’s heart condition, though they reportedly refused.West said she chose Dallas Children’s Hospital in Texas due to its 100% success rate for the procedure the newborn needed.“As a cardiac nurse, I knew this little one had a great shot at survival if given the opportunity to receive the necessary treatment,” she said.The baby has undergone his first surgery for the heart condition and is receiving care in Texas under a court order secured by Attorney General Ken Paxton that required lifesaving treatment and barred his removal from the state.Lee Budner, Gilkar and Ahmed’s attorney, said in a recent statement to TMZ that the couple is “devastated” that the baby’s birth and health issues have allegedly been “transformed into political theater” by West and Paxton.In her op-ed, meanwhile, West denied claims that her actions were “political theater,” writing: “No woman should be forced to kill the baby inside her. Most importantly, every child deserves a chance to live.”West stated she has given up any claims to the baby and is only requesting that the contracting couple commit to provide “the lifesaving treatment he needs. That is all it would take to end this.”However, she wrote that the couple is “actively working to get the court order that required the baby’s continued treatment thrown out.”Budner did not respond to EWTN News’ requests for comment, but TMZ reported that he said the couple is “following the advice of the baby’s medical team, just as any loving parent would,” adding that his clients, who are suing West for not aborting the child, “continue, as they always have, to place their baby’s health and well-being first.”Irene Alexander, an associate professor of moral theology at the University of Dallas, told EWTN News that aborting a child with a treatable health condition is “almost like an Amazon mentality. If I don’t get exactly what I ordered, I want to send it back.”Alexander described the practice of surrogacy, which the Catholic Church teaches is gravely immoral, as a “dissociation of all the aspects of human sexuality: love, parenthood, and the good of the child are all spliced into parts” that lead “the children to suffer because those things are inseparably connected.”“Once you violate the order of reality that was intended to be one whole; once youʼve committed so many levels of injustice,” she said, “you’re left with the mess that does injustice to the child and to the unity of marriage.”Christina Bennett, a news correspondent for Live Action, told “EWTN News Nightly” reporter Eric Rosales on Aug. 20: “Surrogacy exploits both mother and child. Women are not just wombs to be rented, and children are not just property to be sold with contracts to be signed.” “Women deserve human dignity, children deserve human dignity, and surrogacy violates that, and it should be banned across the entire nation, as other countries have done,” she said.
[The dispute] “is a textbook example of what is wrong with surrogacy.
Joe ZalotEthicist, National Catholic Bioethics Center
Joe Zalot, an ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told EWTN News that the case demonstrates “how commercial surrogacy denigrates the surrogate, seeking to reduce her to subservient role vis-a-vis the genetic ‘parents,’ as well as how surrogacy contracts denigrate the dignity of the preborn child through the demand that it be killed if a prenatal anomaly is diagnosed.”The dispute “is a textbook example of what is wrong with surrogacy,” Zalot continued. The controversial practice, according to Church teaching, “is never permitted because it severs the ‘inseparable connection’ between procreation and union, it violates the child’s right to be gestated by, and born of, its biological mother, and it violates the exclusivity of marriage as spouses have a right to become parents only through each other.”Kimberly Bird, a spokeswoman for Live Action, told Rosales that the “very dark reality around … these abortion clauses that are put in [surrogacy] contracts are absolutely atrocious … no one has a right to tell a woman” she must kill “the baby sheʼs carrying.”“And absolutely surrogacy should be banned,” Bird continued. ”Other countries have done it or have at least put severe restrictions on it.”Colombia lawmakers proposed a bill outlawing surrogacy this week, while the practice is illegal in dozens of other countries around the world.")
McKenna West fled to Texas to give birth to the baby after his parents demanded he be aborted due to a heart condition.
Baptisms significantly fall in Ireland, a German bishop resigns, Asian churches rally after Indonesia earthquake, and more in this week’s Catholic world news roundup.
Consider trading a national park visit for one of these less-trafficked gems with wooded trails, sparkling lakes, and majestic peaks.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/TAL-lead-image-ridgway-state-park-COSTATEPARKS0925-748154b8aa07437ca6f8e14eb5ee3c7e.jpg)
A NASA jacket containing Artemis I and II mission patches, along with other NASA patches hangs on the back of a chair on Thursday, Aug. 6, 2026, inside Firing Room 1 of the Rocco A. Petrone Launch Control Center at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida during a terminal countdown simulation for the Artemis III mission.
Read More
![Advocates warn New Jersey law could criminalize prayer outside abortion clinics #Catholic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill on Aug. 20 signed a bill that criminalizes “interference” with “reproductive” or “gender-affirming” care, a law that opponents say has serious implications for freedom of speech.The law criminalizes inflicting “emotional harm” against those seeking or providing “reproductive health care services.” It also bans filming and sharing videos within 100 feet of an abortion clinic.Under the new law, an officer can “order the immediate dispersal of a gathering that substantially impedes access to or departure from an entrance or driveway to a reproductive or gender-affirming health care facility during the business hours of the facility.”The measure is a type of “bubble” law, which creates zones around abortion clinics where free speech is limited in “buffer zones.”Violations of the law could be punished by up to 18 months’ imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine.New Jersey Right to Life Executive Director Marie Tasy criticized the law, describing its provisions as “inherently subjective” and the law itself as “a serious danger to free speech.”“Peaceful sidewalk counseling, prayer, holding signs, or simply offering help and alternatives outside a facility can easily be labeled ‘intimidation’ by someone who claims to feel threatened, leaving pro-life advocates open to criminal charges that are difficult to disprove and chilling constitutionally protected expression,” Tasy said.Catholic diocese leads campaign against abortion amendment referendumThe Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, is leading a campaign to oppose an amendment referendum that could create a right to abortion in the state constitution as well as another measure that would remove a same-sex marriage ban in the state.The campaign Catholics Vote No is opposing the ballot measure titled the “Virginia Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment” as well as the “Virginia Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment.”Arlington Bishop Michael Burbidge describes the measures as “very serious legal threats to human life and marriage” in a video statement.“If written into Virginia’s Constitution, these unjust amendments would be extraordinarily difficult to reverse,” the campaign website states. The abortion amendment would “effectively” make Virginia “a sanctuary for abortion and commercial abortion businesses,” it states. “Basic health and safety standards that protect women from harm would be eliminated, parents would be pushed out of life-altering decisions involving their family and children, and unregulated abortions would be possible, performed even on healthy babies up to the moment of birth for any reason with no limits,” the campaign says.Live Action says it will keep referring to abortion as ‘killing’The pro-life group Live Action has said it will not stop calling abortion “killing” after a pro-abortion group threatened the organization with legal action.Live Action made the declaration in response to a cease-and-desist letter sent by the abortion-supporting legal group Amplify Legal. The dispute is over claims made by Live Action in multiple articles about abortion cases where the unborn baby had a serious life-threatening diagnosis.“Each of our clients has described the decision to end their wanted pregnancy as the most compassionate choice for their own health, future fertility, and family’s wellbeing,” the letter read, arguing that Live Action News “repeatedly [wrote] about our clients intentionally ‘killing’ their babies.”In its response Live Action said it would not follow the request to “delete years of reporting and commentary on the most contested moral and political question in American public life.”“We are fighting for a culture and legal system that respects every human life and refuses to treat the sick, disabled, or unborn as disposable,” said Live Action Founder and President Lila Rose in a statement. “Legal threats against our First Amendment right to speak will not change that mission.”Catholic dad Mark Houck continues pro-life work after federal legal battleCatholic father Mark Houck is joining CatholicVote’s development team as a gift officer, the group announced this week. Houck and his family are adjusting to life after their home in rural eastern Pennsylvania was raided by 20 armed federal agents in the early hours of Sept. 23, 2022. Houck was arrested in front of his family and interrogated for six hours. The incident led to nearly four years of legal battles, which concluded with the family earning a seven-figure settlement for damages.“I am still very much unpacking spiritually what happened to us — very profound and certainly God is revealing his ultimate plan for us through it all, CatholicVote being the latest direction he has taken us,” Houck told EWTN News. “We are so happy to be with an organization that shares our passion for our faith, the pro-life cause, and, of course, advocacy in the public square.”Houck’s role in the organization "will extend beyond that [of a gift officer],” CatholicVote spokeswoman Laurie Olsen told EWTN News. He will “have a voice in all our pro-life efforts,” she said.Houck, meanwhile, told EWTN News: “We measure success by one soul at a time.”“Save a soul, you save your own soul. It is that one soul that gets me going and up early to head into Philadelphia and serve the common good with sidewalk advocacy,” he said.Federal court strikes down Indiana abortion parental-consent lawThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled on Aug. 18 against an Indiana law that prevents doctors from providing abortion assistance to minors without parental consent.The 54-page ruling struck down a law that required parental consent to aid or assist a minor in obtaining an abortion. The ruling said that the parental-consent law violated the First Amendment.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/advocates-warn-new-jersey-law-could-criminalize-prayer-outside-abortion-clinics-catholic-new-jersey-gov-mikie-sherrill-on-aug-20-signed-a-bill-that-criminalizes-interference-with.jpg "Advocates warn New Jersey law could criminalize prayer outside abortion clinics #Catholic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill on Aug. 20 signed a bill that criminalizes “interference” with “reproductive” or “gender-affirming” care, a law that opponents say has serious implications for freedom of speech.The law criminalizes inflicting “emotional harm” against those seeking or providing “reproductive health care services.” It also bans filming and sharing videos within 100 feet of an abortion clinic.Under the new law, an officer can “order the immediate dispersal of a gathering that substantially impedes access to or departure from an entrance or driveway to a reproductive or gender-affirming health care facility during the business hours of the facility.”The measure is a type of “bubble” law, which creates zones around abortion clinics where free speech is limited in “buffer zones.”Violations of the law could be punished by up to 18 months’ imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine.New Jersey Right to Life Executive Director Marie Tasy criticized the law, describing its provisions as “inherently subjective” and the law itself as “a serious danger to free speech.”“Peaceful sidewalk counseling, prayer, holding signs, or simply offering help and alternatives outside a facility can easily be labeled ‘intimidation’ by someone who claims to feel threatened, leaving pro-life advocates open to criminal charges that are difficult to disprove and chilling constitutionally protected expression,” Tasy said.Catholic diocese leads campaign against abortion amendment referendumThe Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, is leading a campaign to oppose an amendment referendum that could create a right to abortion in the state constitution as well as another measure that would remove a same-sex marriage ban in the state.The campaign Catholics Vote No is opposing the ballot measure titled the “Virginia Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment” as well as the “Virginia Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment.”Arlington Bishop Michael Burbidge describes the measures as “very serious legal threats to human life and marriage” in a video statement.“If written into Virginia’s Constitution, these unjust amendments would be extraordinarily difficult to reverse,” the campaign website states. The abortion amendment would “effectively” make Virginia “a sanctuary for abortion and commercial abortion businesses,” it states. “Basic health and safety standards that protect women from harm would be eliminated, parents would be pushed out of life-altering decisions involving their family and children, and unregulated abortions would be possible, performed even on healthy babies up to the moment of birth for any reason with no limits,” the campaign says.Live Action says it will keep referring to abortion as ‘killing’The pro-life group Live Action has said it will not stop calling abortion “killing” after a pro-abortion group threatened the organization with legal action.Live Action made the declaration in response to a cease-and-desist letter sent by the abortion-supporting legal group Amplify Legal. The dispute is over claims made by Live Action in multiple articles about abortion cases where the unborn baby had a serious life-threatening diagnosis.“Each of our clients has described the decision to end their wanted pregnancy as the most compassionate choice for their own health, future fertility, and family’s wellbeing,” the letter read, arguing that Live Action News “repeatedly [wrote] about our clients intentionally ‘killing’ their babies.”In its response Live Action said it would not follow the request to “delete years of reporting and commentary on the most contested moral and political question in American public life.”“We are fighting for a culture and legal system that respects every human life and refuses to treat the sick, disabled, or unborn as disposable,” said Live Action Founder and President Lila Rose in a statement. “Legal threats against our First Amendment right to speak will not change that mission.”Catholic dad Mark Houck continues pro-life work after federal legal battleCatholic father Mark Houck is joining CatholicVote’s development team as a gift officer, the group announced this week. Houck and his family are adjusting to life after their home in rural eastern Pennsylvania was raided by 20 armed federal agents in the early hours of Sept. 23, 2022. Houck was arrested in front of his family and interrogated for six hours. The incident led to nearly four years of legal battles, which concluded with the family earning a seven-figure settlement for damages.“I am still very much unpacking spiritually what happened to us — very profound and certainly God is revealing his ultimate plan for us through it all, CatholicVote being the latest direction he has taken us,” Houck told EWTN News. “We are so happy to be with an organization that shares our passion for our faith, the pro-life cause, and, of course, advocacy in the public square.”Houck’s role in the organization \"will extend beyond that [of a gift officer],” CatholicVote spokeswoman Laurie Olsen told EWTN News. He will “have a voice in all our pro-life efforts,” she said.Houck, meanwhile, told EWTN News: “We measure success by one soul at a time.”“Save a soul, you save your own soul. It is that one soul that gets me going and up early to head into Philadelphia and serve the common good with sidewalk advocacy,” he said.Federal court strikes down Indiana abortion parental-consent lawThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled on Aug. 18 against an Indiana law that prevents doctors from providing abortion assistance to minors without parental consent.The 54-page ruling struck down a law that required parental consent to aid or assist a minor in obtaining an abortion. The ruling said that the parental-consent law violated the First Amendment.")
![Massachusetts high court rules against saints statues – #Catholic – Two statues of Catholic saints will remain off of a Massachusetts city’s new public safety building for the foreseeable future now that the state’s highest court has upheld a lower court order prohibiting them from being erected.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that the 0,000, 10-foot-tall bronze statues of St. Michael and St. Florian are so closely allied with Catholicism that putting them on a public building would amount to “government preferential treatment of a particular religion,” thus violating the state constitution.“The likelihood that these statues of religious figures closely associated with the Catholic faith could be viewed by the public as endorsement of a particular religion, and thus subordination of others, is enhanced by the fact that the statues are not part of a larger collection of statues and monuments that includes nonreligious ones, or statues of figures of particular importance to other religions,” the state’s highest court said in a 34-page decision.The unanimous court upheld a preliminary injunction on behalf of a dozen residents of the city of Quincy who object to the statues, which are currently in storage in a town south of Boston.City officials have argued that the statues have secular purposes because the city is attempting to honor police officers, whose patron saint is St. Michael the Archangel, and firefighters, whose patron saint is the early Roman martyr St. Florian. Lawyers for the city have also argued that while both figures are Catholic saints, they are also honored by other religious traditions.
Judge rules against saints’ statues on Massachusetts government building
Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, which brought the initial lawsuit, praised the decision of the state’s highest court.“Here in Massachusetts, our state constitution is clear: The government must remain neutral in matters of religion and must not elevate one faith above others. With today’s landmark ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court affirms those principles, which are the essential foundation of a pluralistic society where people of all faiths and no faith can flourish,” Rossman said in a written statement.Rachel Laser, president and chief executive officer of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the decision “a win for religious freedom and church-state separation.”“Police and fire services are for all Quincy residents, regardless of their religious belief. By trying to install large religious statues in front of the government building dedicated to public safety, [Quincy] Mayor [Thomas] Koch and the city are violating the constitutional promise of church-state separation and sending a message to all who rely on city services that one faith is favored over all others,” Laser said in a written statement.The decision sends the case back to a state superior court, where a judge has already ruled that the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of succeeding. But it also sets up a potential appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court — as the National Catholic Register, the sister partner of EWTN News, reported in April — if the city’s mayor decides to go that route.“This ruling is disappointing but is only preliminary,” said Joe Davis, senior counsel at Becket law group and lead attorney for the city.“Quincy chose these statues to honor the courage and sacrifice of its firefighters and police. The City should not have to hide public art simply because some people may think of religion when they see it,” Davis said in a written statement. “As the Court noted today, this is not the final word for these statues, and we will continue defending Quincy’s right to honor its heroes.”Koch, who chose the statues and authorized them quietly before a local newspaper reported their existence, also implied that the city will continue its legal fight to erect the statues.“Quincy’s firefighters and police put their lives on the line for this city every day, and these statues were chosen to honor their bravery, service, and sacrifice,” Koch said in a written statement. “This decision is disappointing, but it is preliminary, and we will continue to fight for the ability to commemorate our first responders as the law permits.”This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, the sister partner of EWTN News, and has been adapted by EWTN News.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/massachusetts-high-court-rules-against-saints-statues-catholic-two-statues-of-catholic-saints-will-remain-off-of-a-massachusetts-citys-new-public-safety-building-for-the-foreseeable-futu.webp "Massachusetts high court rules against saints statues – #Catholic – Two statues of Catholic saints will remain off of a Massachusetts city’s new public safety building for the foreseeable future now that the state’s highest court has upheld a lower court order prohibiting them from being erected.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that the 0,000, 10-foot-tall bronze statues of St. Michael and St. Florian are so closely allied with Catholicism that putting them on a public building would amount to “government preferential treatment of a particular religion,” thus violating the state constitution.“The likelihood that these statues of religious figures closely associated with the Catholic faith could be viewed by the public as endorsement of a particular religion, and thus subordination of others, is enhanced by the fact that the statues are not part of a larger collection of statues and monuments that includes nonreligious ones, or statues of figures of particular importance to other religions,” the state’s highest court said in a 34-page decision.The unanimous court upheld a preliminary injunction on behalf of a dozen residents of the city of Quincy who object to the statues, which are currently in storage in a town south of Boston.City officials have argued that the statues have secular purposes because the city is attempting to honor police officers, whose patron saint is St. Michael the Archangel, and firefighters, whose patron saint is the early Roman martyr St. Florian. Lawyers for the city have also argued that while both figures are Catholic saints, they are also honored by other religious traditions.
Judge rules against saints’ statues on Massachusetts government building
Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, which brought the initial lawsuit, praised the decision of the state’s highest court.“Here in Massachusetts, our state constitution is clear: The government must remain neutral in matters of religion and must not elevate one faith above others. With today’s landmark ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court affirms those principles, which are the essential foundation of a pluralistic society where people of all faiths and no faith can flourish,” Rossman said in a written statement.Rachel Laser, president and chief executive officer of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the decision “a win for religious freedom and church-state separation.”“Police and fire services are for all Quincy residents, regardless of their religious belief. By trying to install large religious statues in front of the government building dedicated to public safety, [Quincy] Mayor [Thomas] Koch and the city are violating the constitutional promise of church-state separation and sending a message to all who rely on city services that one faith is favored over all others,” Laser said in a written statement.The decision sends the case back to a state superior court, where a judge has already ruled that the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of succeeding. But it also sets up a potential appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court — as the National Catholic Register, the sister partner of EWTN News, reported in April — if the city’s mayor decides to go that route.“This ruling is disappointing but is only preliminary,” said Joe Davis, senior counsel at Becket law group and lead attorney for the city.“Quincy chose these statues to honor the courage and sacrifice of its firefighters and police. The City should not have to hide public art simply because some people may think of religion when they see it,” Davis said in a written statement. “As the Court noted today, this is not the final word for these statues, and we will continue defending Quincy’s right to honor its heroes.”Koch, who chose the statues and authorized them quietly before a local newspaper reported their existence, also implied that the city will continue its legal fight to erect the statues.“Quincy’s firefighters and police put their lives on the line for this city every day, and these statues were chosen to honor their bravery, service, and sacrifice,” Koch said in a written statement. “This decision is disappointing, but it is preliminary, and we will continue to fight for the ability to commemorate our first responders as the law permits.”This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, the sister partner of EWTN News, and has been adapted by EWTN News.")
