Constitution – United Yam

Denver Archdiocese, Catholic schools ask Supreme Court for access to preschool program #Catholic

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA).
The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release. “That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.” Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.

unitedyam November 15, 2025

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA).

The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.

The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.

Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”

Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.

In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”

“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release.

“That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.”

Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”

Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”

The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.

In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.

Vatican-set thriller based on true story set to begin filming in 2026 #Catholic

St. John Paul II. / Credit: Adrian Tusar/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
A new Vatican-set thriller based on a true story is currently in the works, according to Variety.“Santo Subito!” will follow Father Joseph Murolo, an American priest asked by the Vatican to serve as the “devil’s advocate” in the investigation of Pope John Paul II’s life and his path to sainthood.The film will take place after the pontiff’s death and follows Murolo, who “must make sure that nothing undermines the sanctification of Karol Wojtyla, the first non-Italian pope in 450 years,” the synopsis reads, as he interviews candidates and witnesses. The description goes on to say that the priest will navigate a “moral labyrinth” that will “put his own faith to the test.”Murolo will be played by actor Mark Ruffalo, known for his role as Bruce Banner, or the Hulk, in “The Avengers” movies.Filming is expected to begin on March 9, 2026, on location in Italy and Poland.“The film offers a genuine behind-the-scenes investigation of the Vatican world, while also taking us into the deeper realm of faith and values,” a co-producer of the film, Nicolas Brigaud-Robert, said. “The script itself is a page-turner, and I can’t imagine any audience remaining indifferent to Father Murolo’s journey.” In the canonization process of the Catholic Church, the “advocatus diaboli,” or the devil’s advocate, was established to ensure rigorous scrutiny of a candidate’s life, virtues, and reported miracles. The role’s purpose was to consider all possible doubts and inconsistencies, and to present evidence that might challenge claims of holiness, so that only those truly worthy would be declared saints.However, in 1983, Pope John Paul II reformed the process through the apostolic constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister, changing the role of the devil’s advocate, also known as the “promoter of faith.” The emphasis shifted from an adversarial model to one more focused on collecting and verifying evidence, with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints overseeing the process.

unitedyam November 15, 2025

St. John Paul II. / Credit: Adrian Tusar/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

A new Vatican-set thriller based on a true story is currently in the works, according to Variety.

“Santo Subito!” will follow Father Joseph Murolo, an American priest asked by the Vatican to serve as the “devil’s advocate” in the investigation of Pope John Paul II’s life and his path to sainthood.

The film will take place after the pontiff’s death and follows Murolo, who “must make sure that nothing undermines the sanctification of Karol Wojtyla, the first non-Italian pope in 450 years,” the synopsis reads, as he interviews candidates and witnesses. The description goes on to say that the priest will navigate a “moral labyrinth” that will “put his own faith to the test.”

Murolo will be played by actor Mark Ruffalo, known for his role as Bruce Banner, or the Hulk, in “The Avengers” movies.

Filming is expected to begin on March 9, 2026, on location in Italy and Poland.

“The film offers a genuine behind-the-scenes investigation of the Vatican world, while also taking us into the deeper realm of faith and values,” a co-producer of the film, Nicolas Brigaud-Robert, said. “The script itself is a page-turner, and I can’t imagine any audience remaining indifferent to Father Murolo’s journey.”

In the canonization process of the Catholic Church, the “advocatus diaboli,” or the devil’s advocate, was established to ensure rigorous scrutiny of a candidate’s life, virtues, and reported miracles. The role’s purpose was to consider all possible doubts and inconsistencies, and to present evidence that might challenge claims of holiness, so that only those truly worthy would be declared saints.

However, in 1983, Pope John Paul II reformed the process through the apostolic constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister, changing the role of the devil’s advocate, also known as the “promoter of faith.” The emphasis shifted from an adversarial model to one more focused on collecting and verifying evidence, with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints overseeing the process.

Texas voters to decide on parental rights amendment in November #Catholic

Texas state capitol. / Credit: Inspired By Maps/Shutterstock

Houston, Texas, Oct 29, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Texas voters will head to the polls next week to consider Proposition 15, the Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining parents’ rights in the state constitution.The measure, if approved, would add language to the Texas Constitution affirming that parents have the right “to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” and the responsibility “to nurture and protect the parent’s child.” Texas already ranks among 26 states with a Parents’ Bill of Rights enshrined in state law. That existing statute grants parents a right to “full information” concerning their child at school as well as access to their child’s student records, copies of state assessments, and teaching materials, among other provisions.The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops told CNA it supports the “proposed amendment to recognize the natural right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.”Other supporters include the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, Family Freedom Project, Texans for Vaccine Choice, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Right to Life PAC.Marcella Burke, a Houston attorney, told CNA that “it’s good to live in a state where an amendment like this is on the table. Parents matter, their kids matter, and families should be protected against government interference. That’s exactly what this amendment seeks to do: keep governments from interfering with beneficial family growth and child development.”“While these rights to nurture and protect children are currently safeguarded thanks to existing Supreme Court case law, there is no federal constitutional amendment protecting these rights,” Burke continued.Opposition to the proposition has come from both Democratic as well as conservative advocacy groups.According to the True Texas Project, a conservative group of former Tea Party supporters, the language of the amendment is too vague. In addition, the group argues that “Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the state constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect.”The group says that including the proposed language in the state constitution “equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.”Burke said, however, that “an amendment like this will make governments think twice and carefully consider any actions affecting child-rearing. Keep in mind that no rights are absolute, so in this context, parents don’t have the right to abuse their kids — and that’s the sort of exception the amendment reads in.”Katy Faust, founder of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, told CNA parental rights are the “flipside of genuine child rights.”

unitedyam October 29, 2025

Texas state capitol. / Credit: Inspired By Maps/Shutterstock

Houston, Texas, Oct 29, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Texas voters will head to the polls next week to consider Proposition 15, the Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining parents’ rights in the state constitution.

The measure, if approved, would add language to the Texas Constitution affirming that parents have the right “to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” and the responsibility “to nurture and protect the parent’s child.”

Texas already ranks among 26 states with a Parents’ Bill of Rights enshrined in state law. That existing statute grants parents a right to “full information” concerning their child at school as well as access to their child’s student records, copies of state assessments, and teaching materials, among other provisions.

The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops told CNA it supports the “proposed amendment to recognize the natural right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.”

Other supporters include the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, Family Freedom Project, Texans for Vaccine Choice, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Right to Life PAC.

Marcella Burke, a Houston attorney, told CNA that “it’s good to live in a state where an amendment like this is on the table. Parents matter, their kids matter, and families should be protected against government interference. That’s exactly what this amendment seeks to do: keep governments from interfering with beneficial family growth and child development.”

“While these rights to nurture and protect children are currently safeguarded thanks to existing Supreme Court case law, there is no federal constitutional amendment protecting these rights,” Burke continued.

Opposition to the proposition has come from both Democratic as well as conservative advocacy groups.

According to the True Texas Project, a conservative group of former Tea Party supporters, the language of the amendment is too vague. In addition, the group argues that “Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the state constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect.”

The group says that including the proposed language in the state constitution “equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.”

Burke said, however, that “an amendment like this will make governments think twice and carefully consider any actions affecting child-rearing. Keep in mind that no rights are absolute, so in this context, parents don’t have the right to abuse their kids — and that’s the sort of exception the amendment reads in.”

Katy Faust, founder of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, told CNA parental rights are the “flipside of genuine child rights.”

Alabama executes man by nitrogen gas after Supreme Court denies request for firing squad #Catholic

The state of Alabama on Oct. 23, 2025, executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead. / Credit: Alabama Department of Corrections via AP, File

CNA Staff, Oct 24, 2025 / 11:32 am (CNA).
The state of Alabama on Thursday executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead.Boyd reportedly took around 20 minutes to die from the execution method, according to the Associated Press. The news wire said he “clenched his fist, raised his head off the gurney slightly, and began shaking,” after which he became still but continued with a series of “heaving breaths” for “at least 15 minutes.”The Alabama man was convicted of capital murder in the 1993 killing of Gregory Huguley in Talladega County. Huguley was taped up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire. Boyd proclaimed his innocence until the last minutes of his life. “I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” he said on Oct. 23 prior to being executed. The protracted execution came on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider whether the execution by nitrogen gas violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Nitrogen gas is a relatively new execution method in the U.S. In January 2024 Alabama executed Kenneth Smith with gas, the first time in U.S. history that such a method was used. Witnesses said Smith writhed for several minutes while being administered the gas and was observed breathing for a considerable amount of time during the execution itself. Advocates have warned that the process is drawn-out and painful for victims of execution. Boyd had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider requiring Alabama to execute him by firing squad. The Supreme Court declined to consider the case.In a scathing dissent ahead of the execution, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the high court of “turn[ing] its back” on Boyd and on the Constitution. Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pointed to several other executions by nitrogen gas, including Kenneth Smith’s, noting reports that inmates have been seen “violent[ly] convulsing, eyes bulging, [and] thrashing against the restraints” while they are killed. All condemned prisoners suffer “distress” ahead of their executions, Sotomayor said. But drawn-out methods of execution like that of nitrogen gas create suffering “after the execution begins and while it is being carried out to completion.”Prisoners are not guaranteed a painless death under the Eighth Amendment, Sotomayor acknowledged.“But when a state introduces an experimental method of execution that superadds psychological terror as a necessary feature of its successful completion, courts should enforce the Eighth Amendment’s mandate against cruel and unusual punishment,” she said.Ahead of Boyd’s execution, the anti-death penalty group Catholic Mobilizing Network said capital punishment “remind[s] us how critically important it is that we include the abolition of the death penalty in our respect life advocacy.”“May we see the dignity of [Boyd] and of every individual sentenced to death, remembering always that no person is defined by the worst thing they’ve ever done,” the group said.

unitedyam October 24, 2025

The state of Alabama on Oct. 23, 2025, executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead. / Credit: Alabama Department of Corrections via AP, File

CNA Staff, Oct 24, 2025 / 11:32 am (CNA).

The state of Alabama on Thursday executed convicted murderer Anthony Boyd by nitrogen gas just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider requiring the state to execute him by firing squad instead.

Boyd reportedly took around 20 minutes to die from the execution method, according to the Associated Press. The news wire said he “clenched his fist, raised his head off the gurney slightly, and began shaking,” after which he became still but continued with a series of “heaving breaths” for “at least 15 minutes.”

The Alabama man was convicted of capital murder in the 1993 killing of Gregory Huguley in Talladega County. Huguley was taped up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire.

Boyd proclaimed his innocence until the last minutes of his life. “I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” he said on Oct. 23 prior to being executed.

The protracted execution came on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider whether the execution by nitrogen gas violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Nitrogen gas is a relatively new execution method in the U.S. In January 2024 Alabama executed Kenneth Smith with gas, the first time in U.S. history that such a method was used.

Witnesses said Smith writhed for several minutes while being administered the gas and was observed breathing for a considerable amount of time during the execution itself. Advocates have warned that the process is drawn-out and painful for victims of execution.

Boyd had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider requiring Alabama to execute him by firing squad. The Supreme Court declined to consider the case.

In a scathing dissent ahead of the execution, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the high court of “turn[ing] its back” on Boyd and on the Constitution.

Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pointed to several other executions by nitrogen gas, including Kenneth Smith’s, noting reports that inmates have been seen “violent[ly] convulsing, eyes bulging, [and] thrashing against the restraints” while they are killed.

All condemned prisoners suffer “distress” ahead of their executions, Sotomayor said. But drawn-out methods of execution like that of nitrogen gas create suffering “after the execution begins and while it is being carried out to completion.”

Prisoners are not guaranteed a painless death under the Eighth Amendment, Sotomayor acknowledged.

“But when a state introduces an experimental method of execution that superadds psychological terror as a necessary feature of its successful completion, courts should enforce the Eighth Amendment’s mandate against cruel and unusual punishment,” she said.

Ahead of Boyd’s execution, the anti-death penalty group Catholic Mobilizing Network said capital punishment “remind[s] us how critically important it is that we include the abolition of the death penalty in our respect life advocacy.”

“May we see the dignity of [Boyd] and of every individual sentenced to death, remembering always that no person is defined by the worst thing they’ve ever done,” the group said.

Judge rules against saints’ statues on Massachusetts government building #Catholic

Statues of St. Florian (at left) and St. Michael the Archangel (at right) are currently barred from appearing on the planned public safety building of Quincy, Massachusetts. / Credit: Courtesy of Office of Mayor Thomas Koch

Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 16, 2025 / 12:18 pm (CNA).
A Massachusetts trial court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation of church and state disputes going forward.The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175 million public safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.“The complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”The mayor said the city will appeal.“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church and state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.” The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case involving prayers offered by a high school football coach in Washington state.If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

unitedyam October 16, 2025

Statues of St. Florian (at left) and St. Michael the Archangel (at right) are currently barred from appearing on the planned public safety building of Quincy, Massachusetts. / Credit: Courtesy of Office of Mayor Thomas Koch

Boston, Massachusetts, Oct 16, 2025 / 12:18 pm (CNA).

A Massachusetts trial court judge has issued an order blocking the installation of statues of two Catholic saints on a new public safety building in the city of Quincy, setting up a likely appeal that may determine how the state treats separation of church and state disputes going forward.

The 10-foot-high bronze statues of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Florian, which were scheduled to be installed on the building’s façade this month, will instead await a higher court’s decision.

The statues cost an estimated $850,000, part of the new, $175 million public safety building that will serve as police headquarters and administration offices for the Boston suburb’s fire department.

Quincy Mayor Thomas Koch, a practicing Catholic, has said he chose St. Michael the Archangel because he is the patron of police officers and St. Florian because he is the patron of firefighters, not to send a message about religion.

But the judge said the statues can’t be separated from the saints’ Catholic connections.

“The complaint here plausibly alleges that the statues at issue convey a message endorsing one religion over others,” Norfolk County Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote in a 26-page ruling Oct. 14.

The judge noted that the statues “represent two Catholic saints.”

“The statues, particularly when considered together, patently endorse Catholic beliefs,” the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the statues — 15 city residents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts — have amassed facts that “plausibly suggest that an objective observer would view these statues on the façade of the public safety building as primarily endorsing Catholicism/Christianity and conveying a distinctly religious message,” the judge wrote.

Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts, who argued the case during a lengthy court hearing on Sept. 19, praised the judge’s decision.

“This ruling affirms the bedrock principle that our government cannot favor one religion above others, or religious beliefs over nonreligious beliefs,” Davidson said in a written statement. “We are grateful to the court for acknowledging the immediate harm that the installation of these statues would cause and for ensuring that Quincy residents can continue to make their case for the proper separation of church and state, as the Massachusetts Constitution requires.”

The mayor said the city will appeal.

“We chose the statues of Michael and Florian to honor Quincy’s first responders, not to promote any religion,” Koch said in a written statement provided to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, by a spokesman. “These figures are recognized symbols of courage and sacrifice in police and fire communities across the world. We will appeal this ruling so our city can continue to celebrate and inspire the men and women who protect us.” The lawsuit, which was filed May 27 in Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, relies on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, but there is a tie-in.

In 1979, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1971 three-pronged “Lemon test” when considering church and state cases — whether a law concerning religion has “a secular legislative purpose,” whether “its principal or primary effect … neither advances [n]or inhibits religion,” and whether it fosters “excessive entanglement between government and religion.”

The state’s highest court also added a fourth standard — whether a “challenged practice” has “divisive political potential.”

But in June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ditched the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case involving prayers offered by a high school football coach in Washington state.

If the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of state law, takes the Quincy statues dispute, it would be the first time the court has considered a case on point since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kennedy decision.

This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

In the Style of Rembrandt – recreate ‘George Washington’ By Gilbert Stuart – #AIPrompt #AIart

unitedyam July 6, 2024June 12, 2024

After the war, Washington’s dedication to the nascent nation did not wane. He presided over the Constitutional Convention in 1787, where his support was crucial in the drafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In 1789, he was unanimously elected as the first President of the United States, serving two terms and setting many precedents for the office. Washington’s presidency established the foundations of American governance, including the creation of a stable financial system, the establishment of the executive cabinet, and the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. Retiring to his beloved Mount Vernon in 1797, he remained a symbol of national unity until his death on December 14, 1799. Washington’s legacy as a leader of integrity, courage, and vision continues to inspire generations.