Issue

U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to allow communities to regulate firearms under Second Amendment #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local communities to regulate firearm ownership, weighing in on a high-profile federal case that could significantly reshape the nation’s gun laws. The case before the high court, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerns a regulation enacted by Cook County, Illinois, banning more than 100 types of semiautomatic weapons, including the popular AR-15 platform.Two plaintiffs, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, sued to dispute the regulations under the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Supreme Court should rule on the case “to guarantee fundamental Second Amendment rights and to address the confusion in the lower courts” regarding Supreme Court precedent.In their amicus brief regarding the legal dispute, the U.S. bishops urge the court to “[preserve] the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons.” The “autonomy of local authority” is a significant part of “America’s historical tradition of federalism,” the bishops write, comparing it to the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the authority closest to a local need is best suited to tackle the issue. The principle of federalism does not allow for the wholesale redefinition of the Second Amendment, the bishops write. But, they argue, a “uniform constitutional standard need not require uniform firearm policy.” Guns have historically been regulated differently throughout the U.S. depending on the locality, the bishops say, and the U.S. Constitution “does not require every community to exercise … its authority to regulate weapons identically.” The prelates further argue that modern advances in weaponry mean firearms like AR-15s are “fundamentally dissimilar” from the standards of the 18th century; such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the bishops suggest, and are thus open to reasonable regulation. Though the issue was brought to trial due to the local regulation, the ultimate question before the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the right to possess [the] AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” In the past 20 years the Supreme Court has significantly affirmed Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, including in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a state militia. Those rights were broadly expanded in subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago and the 2022 decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. The latter decision upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. In the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does allow for individuals to be disarmed if they have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of someone else.
Read More

U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to allow communities to regulate firearms under Second Amendment #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local communities to regulate firearm ownership, weighing in on a high-profile federal case that could significantly reshape the nation’s gun laws. The case before the high court, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerns a regulation enacted by Cook County, Illinois, banning more than 100 types of semiautomatic weapons, including the popular AR-15 platform.Two plaintiffs, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, sued to dispute the regulations under the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Supreme Court should rule on the case “to guarantee fundamental Second Amendment rights and to address the confusion in the lower courts” regarding Supreme Court precedent.In their amicus brief regarding the legal dispute, the U.S. bishops urge the court to “[preserve] the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons.” The “autonomy of local authority” is a significant part of “America’s historical tradition of federalism,” the bishops write, comparing it to the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the authority closest to a local need is best suited to tackle the issue. The principle of federalism does not allow for the wholesale redefinition of the Second Amendment, the bishops write. But, they argue, a “uniform constitutional standard need not require uniform firearm policy.” Guns have historically been regulated differently throughout the U.S. depending on the locality, the bishops say, and the U.S. Constitution “does not require every community to exercise … its authority to regulate weapons identically.” The prelates further argue that modern advances in weaponry mean firearms like AR-15s are “fundamentally dissimilar” from the standards of the 18th century; such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the bishops suggest, and are thus open to reasonable regulation. Though the issue was brought to trial due to the local regulation, the ultimate question before the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the right to possess [the] AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” In the past 20 years the Supreme Court has significantly affirmed Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, including in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a state militia. Those rights were broadly expanded in subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago and the 2022 decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. The latter decision upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. In the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does allow for individuals to be disarmed if they have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of someone else.

unitedyam

The Supreme Court is set to consider whether or not Americans are permitted to possess AR-15 rifles and similar firearms.

Read More
‘An unborn child is a child’: Lawyer questions lack of empathy regarding pregnancy loss #Catholic Ecuadorian lawyer Pablo Proaño questioned the lack of empathy for families who lose a child during pregnancy and called for protocols to support them.His remarks followed the death due to a pregnancy complication of Stefano, the son of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa and his wife, Lavinia Valbonesi.On Aug. 15, Interior Minister Nataly Morillo announced the news and offered her condolences to the presidential family.Many comments appeared on social media questioning the characterization of the loss as the death of a “child” rather than an embryo or fetus, or arguing that the matter should have remained private.For Proaño, a lawyer with the firm Dignidad y Derecho (Dignity and Law), these reactions reveal “a lack of understanding regarding pregnancy loss and a lack of empathy that goes beyond the political debate over the way the president is running the country.”“Many people approached this topic by first claiming it’s a ‘fake news’ story — arguing that it’s not a child, but rather an embryo or a fetus — and secondly, by insisting that it’s a matter that should remain private. And this reveals, as I said, a profound lack of empathy,” he noted in an interview with ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News.‘There’s already an expectation’ of welcoming the childThe lawyer explained that regardless of gestational age, “parents who already know, long for, and look forward to welcoming this baby are already forming an expectation, both on the psychological and social level.”He said there can be “severe psychological impact following the loss” but also “long-term effects when the time comes to decide whether or not to try for another child.”The lawyer also noted that this suffering can arise in everyday situations, particularly when the mother encounters other women with babies.Proaño said he believes the scale of the phenomenon makes it important for society to learn how to support those going through this type of grief. “According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 4 women has experienced pregnancy loss at some point in her life,” he stated.The lawyer noted that while the circumstances of a miscarriage or an abortion may differ, both situations can involve suffering and grief.“Induced abortion often entails a greater sense of guilt,” he said.Regarding miscarriage, he said there is also “a great deal of suffering regarding why the pregnancy could not be carried to term.” “Many questions remain unanswered, and this creates a great deal of anxiety and can even lead to cases of severe depression in women and families going through this grief,” he continued.The need for protocols regarding pregnancy lossProaño said he believes healthcare systems should have protocols in place to care for women who lose their babies during pregnancy.“The first and most important aspect is institutional support from a medical standpoint. In many Latin American countries, there are protocols known as ‘butterfly protocols’ for the care of women experiencing pregnancy loss,” he explained.In this practice, the silhouette of a butterfly is placed on the headboard of the patient’s bed, alerting the hospital staff to be particularly sensitive to her emotional state. The butterfly symbolizes a brief life, fragility, and transformation.Ecuador does not currently have an official protocol from the Ministry of Health. “There are foundations promoting these types of protocols, and individual hospitals may implement them, but it largely depends on whether the hospital authorities choose to adopt them,” Proaño stated.These protocols, he explained, aim to prevent situations that could increase the suffering of a woman who has just lost her child.“What do these ‘butterfly protocols’ mean? It means healthcare staff are sensitized that they don’t say things like, ‘Oh, right. Well, it would have been better if you’d done this or that, and then you wouldn’t have lost the baby,’” he explained.He also emphasized the need to avoid placing a woman who has just suffered a loss “in the maternity ward, where you can hear and see other women with their babies.”Proaño even proposes identifying these patients: “They should be given a separate room and identified by a symbol or a sign on the door, so that when a nurse or doctor walks by, no one makes the mistake of asking, ‘And where is your baby? Why haven’t they brought your baby to you?’” he said.In addition, the woman should receive psychological care, he noted.Employers should also have to make allowancesAccording to Proaño, families also need “social recognition that extends to the workplace.”“In Ecuador, these cases often only qualify for three days of leave for a family emergency, and three days is not enough,” he maintained.“Many of these people go through episodes of severe depression, return to work, and are then fired because the enhanced job protection afforded to pregnant women because they are carrying a child does not apply. But if the baby dies, they don’t benefit from this leave,” he added.Parents' right to say goodbye to their childAnother aspect the lawyer deems necessary to review is what happens to the babyʼs remains following a pregnancy loss.Measures should be in place “to ensure the baby can be given a proper burial," he stated.Proaño explained that, according to Ecuadorian regulations, there is a distinction regarding the release of remains based on whether the pregnancy has reached 22 weeks of gestation.“In Ecuador, up to the 22nd week of pregnancy, hospitals are not required to hand over the child — the body or remains of the fetus — and may simply dispose of it, donate it for research, or even sell it to institutions,” he stated.He said this situation can deprive parents of a step that is important for the grieving process.“This baby is the child of a family that deserves and needs, for the sake of their grieving process, to bury him and have a place to go to mourn his death,” he noted.In his view, families should receive clear information about their rights and be able to decide what happens to their childʼs remains.“Parents should be provided with informed consent that explains this possibility and their rights, so they can make a decision. And if they ultimately decide not to take the fetus, they should also be able to decide on its final disposition,” he explained.‘An unborn child is a child’Beyond the legal and medical aspects, Proaño said he believes there is a cultural challenge: “A great deal of work to raise awareness and foster understanding” needs to be done, he noted.“Because an unborn child is a child; it’s not merely a fetus,” he emphasized.The lawyer lamented that many families do not even receive condolences after losing a child during pregnancy. He also questioned certain responses that may seem well-intentioned but ultimately minimize the pain.For example, he said, “there are many doctors who say, ‘You can get pregnant again; there’s no problem.’ As if that loss could simply be erased from a mother’s heart.”An issue that also involves the stateProaño maintained that the response should include public policies focused on prevention, support, and family protection.“At the state level, there are these three points: promoting the implementation of support protocols; ensuring proper informed consent when the disposition of the fetuses is to be decided; and enacting workplace reforms to grant parents more time to grieve the loss of their child in accordance with the law,” he explained.“And also, having awareness-raising campaigns. Furthermore — taking it a step further — it would be very important for the state to take up this issue as a public policy necessity,” he added.Proaño said he also believes that proper preventive care during pregnancy can help reduce some pregnancy losses. He cited, among other factors, medical monitoring during pregnancy and the detection of potential vitamin or hormonal deficiencies.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
Read More

‘An unborn child is a child’: Lawyer questions lack of empathy regarding pregnancy loss #Catholic Ecuadorian lawyer Pablo Proaño questioned the lack of empathy for families who lose a child during pregnancy and called for protocols to support them.His remarks followed the death due to a pregnancy complication of Stefano, the son of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa and his wife, Lavinia Valbonesi.On Aug. 15, Interior Minister Nataly Morillo announced the news and offered her condolences to the presidential family.Many comments appeared on social media questioning the characterization of the loss as the death of a “child” rather than an embryo or fetus, or arguing that the matter should have remained private.For Proaño, a lawyer with the firm Dignidad y Derecho (Dignity and Law), these reactions reveal “a lack of understanding regarding pregnancy loss and a lack of empathy that goes beyond the political debate over the way the president is running the country.”“Many people approached this topic by first claiming it’s a ‘fake news’ story — arguing that it’s not a child, but rather an embryo or a fetus — and secondly, by insisting that it’s a matter that should remain private. And this reveals, as I said, a profound lack of empathy,” he noted in an interview with ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News.‘There’s already an expectation’ of welcoming the childThe lawyer explained that regardless of gestational age, “parents who already know, long for, and look forward to welcoming this baby are already forming an expectation, both on the psychological and social level.”He said there can be “severe psychological impact following the loss” but also “long-term effects when the time comes to decide whether or not to try for another child.”The lawyer also noted that this suffering can arise in everyday situations, particularly when the mother encounters other women with babies.Proaño said he believes the scale of the phenomenon makes it important for society to learn how to support those going through this type of grief. “According to the World Health Organization, 1 in 4 women has experienced pregnancy loss at some point in her life,” he stated.The lawyer noted that while the circumstances of a miscarriage or an abortion may differ, both situations can involve suffering and grief.“Induced abortion often entails a greater sense of guilt,” he said.Regarding miscarriage, he said there is also “a great deal of suffering regarding why the pregnancy could not be carried to term.” “Many questions remain unanswered, and this creates a great deal of anxiety and can even lead to cases of severe depression in women and families going through this grief,” he continued.The need for protocols regarding pregnancy lossProaño said he believes healthcare systems should have protocols in place to care for women who lose their babies during pregnancy.“The first and most important aspect is institutional support from a medical standpoint. In many Latin American countries, there are protocols known as ‘butterfly protocols’ for the care of women experiencing pregnancy loss,” he explained.In this practice, the silhouette of a butterfly is placed on the headboard of the patient’s bed, alerting the hospital staff to be particularly sensitive to her emotional state. The butterfly symbolizes a brief life, fragility, and transformation.Ecuador does not currently have an official protocol from the Ministry of Health. “There are foundations promoting these types of protocols, and individual hospitals may implement them, but it largely depends on whether the hospital authorities choose to adopt them,” Proaño stated.These protocols, he explained, aim to prevent situations that could increase the suffering of a woman who has just lost her child.“What do these ‘butterfly protocols’ mean? It means healthcare staff are sensitized that they don’t say things like, ‘Oh, right. Well, it would have been better if you’d done this or that, and then you wouldn’t have lost the baby,’” he explained.He also emphasized the need to avoid placing a woman who has just suffered a loss “in the maternity ward, where you can hear and see other women with their babies.”Proaño even proposes identifying these patients: “They should be given a separate room and identified by a symbol or a sign on the door, so that when a nurse or doctor walks by, no one makes the mistake of asking, ‘And where is your baby? Why haven’t they brought your baby to you?’” he said.In addition, the woman should receive psychological care, he noted.Employers should also have to make allowancesAccording to Proaño, families also need “social recognition that extends to the workplace.”“In Ecuador, these cases often only qualify for three days of leave for a family emergency, and three days is not enough,” he maintained.“Many of these people go through episodes of severe depression, return to work, and are then fired because the enhanced job protection afforded to pregnant women because they are carrying a child does not apply. But if the baby dies, they don’t benefit from this leave,” he added.Parents' right to say goodbye to their childAnother aspect the lawyer deems necessary to review is what happens to the babyʼs remains following a pregnancy loss.Measures should be in place “to ensure the baby can be given a proper burial," he stated.Proaño explained that, according to Ecuadorian regulations, there is a distinction regarding the release of remains based on whether the pregnancy has reached 22 weeks of gestation.“In Ecuador, up to the 22nd week of pregnancy, hospitals are not required to hand over the child — the body or remains of the fetus — and may simply dispose of it, donate it for research, or even sell it to institutions,” he stated.He said this situation can deprive parents of a step that is important for the grieving process.“This baby is the child of a family that deserves and needs, for the sake of their grieving process, to bury him and have a place to go to mourn his death,” he noted.In his view, families should receive clear information about their rights and be able to decide what happens to their childʼs remains.“Parents should be provided with informed consent that explains this possibility and their rights, so they can make a decision. And if they ultimately decide not to take the fetus, they should also be able to decide on its final disposition,” he explained.‘An unborn child is a child’Beyond the legal and medical aspects, Proaño said he believes there is a cultural challenge: “A great deal of work to raise awareness and foster understanding” needs to be done, he noted.“Because an unborn child is a child; it’s not merely a fetus,” he emphasized.The lawyer lamented that many families do not even receive condolences after losing a child during pregnancy. He also questioned certain responses that may seem well-intentioned but ultimately minimize the pain.For example, he said, “there are many doctors who say, ‘You can get pregnant again; there’s no problem.’ As if that loss could simply be erased from a mother’s heart.”An issue that also involves the stateProaño maintained that the response should include public policies focused on prevention, support, and family protection.“At the state level, there are these three points: promoting the implementation of support protocols; ensuring proper informed consent when the disposition of the fetuses is to be decided; and enacting workplace reforms to grant parents more time to grieve the loss of their child in accordance with the law,” he explained.“And also, having awareness-raising campaigns. Furthermore — taking it a step further — it would be very important for the state to take up this issue as a public policy necessity,” he added.Proaño said he also believes that proper preventive care during pregnancy can help reduce some pregnancy losses. He cited, among other factors, medical monitoring during pregnancy and the detection of potential vitamin or hormonal deficiencies.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.

unitedyam

Ecuadoran lawyer Pablo Proaño’s remarks followed the death due to a pregnancy complication of Stefano, the son of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa and his wife, Lavinia Valbonesi.

Read More
Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools #Catholic A federal court heard oral arguments on Aug. 5 about whether an Oklahoma law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.Oklahoma established a charter school system in 1999, which provides public funds for privately run K–12 schools to which parents can send their children instead of a public school operated by a school district. The law only allows “nonsectarian” applicants, which prevents any participation from schools that have a religious identity.In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved an application from a proposed Catholic charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — which led to a legal challenge from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who opposed religious charter schools.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided against the school, finding that charter schools are public schools and that public schools must be secular. St. Isidore appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that resulted in a 4-4 deadlock with no majority opinion because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a conflict of interest and recused herself.Amid no clear guidance from the federal courts, a Jewish organization — National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation — filed an application to set up a charter school, which was denied. The group, represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund, filed a new lawsuit and asked a federal district court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants.“Oklahoma makes room in its charter program for schools of all shapes and sizes, from those focused on science and fine arts to language immersion and classical education,” Daniel Chen, a Becket attorney representing the Jewish foundation, said in a statement.“The one it refuses to make room for is a faith-based school,” Chen added. “That is religious discrimination, plain and simple, and the state deserves a failing grade for it.”Chen told EWTN News that Becket is asking the federal court to immediately allow National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to set up a charter school, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that requires government programs to allow religious institutions the same access as secular institutions.“They’re private actors,” he said. “And because they’re private actors, they cannot be excluded from participating in a public benefits program.”Chen said the federal district court is not bound by the precedent of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because that is a state court, so it could rule in favor of the school. He also said if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, he hopes Barrett can weigh in to break the 4-4 deadlock.“We’re hoping that [for] our case, there wouldn’t have to be any recusals,” he said.School board’s hands are tiedAlthough the charter school board denied the application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, one of its lawyers at First Liberty Institute explained to EWTN News that its hands are tied by the statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.“They’re following that order,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty and the lawyer representing SCSB. “But [they] would be happy if the federal court didn’t [require the school board] to engage in that kind of discrimination.”Sasser said the SCSB does not want to exclude an applicant “simply because it’s religious” and would rather evaluate applicants “just based on the merits.” But he said the order “makes them exclude religious schools just because they’re religious.”“They want to maximize all of the various choices and opportunities for parents,” he added.Sasser said he hopes the question goes to the U.S. Supreme Court again so “we’ll get an answer — a real answer.” He said it would provide more clarity for the school board, which “needs an answer.”John Meiser, director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at the University of Notre Dame and the lawyer who represented St. Isidore at the Supreme Court, told EWTN News that the question ultimately comes down to whether charter schools are private or public institutions.In Oklahoma, he said charter schools “are called public schools” and that label “introduces a confusion that I don’t think would be present if they chose any other word.”He said Supreme Court precedent is clear that religious institutions must have equal access to government programs available to private institutions, but if a charter school is a “government school,” that “doesn’t apply” because the government “doesn’t and can’t run religious schools.”In spite of the label, Meiser said charter schools in Oklahoma are “formed and designed and run by private groups” and people who work there “are private employees.” He said the structure “looks just like a government contract” and funding from the government “doesn’t turn all those private contractors into the government itself.”“The dispute is really just about, ‘Well is a charter school in some way different?’” he said.Although Meiser said he is not aware of any ongoing Catholic efforts to recreate a charter school, he said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s constitutional arguments for equal access “would presumably apply to all religious operators of schools, and so it would open the door to a Catholic charter school or other religiously based charter school.”Attorney general stands firmDrummond, who remains Oklahoma’s attorney general, is standing firm in opposing the creation of religious charter schools and is fighting against National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s efforts."This matter was resolved when the state Supreme Courtʼs ruling to prevent taxpayer funded religious charter schools was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year,” Leslie Berger, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, told EWTN News.Drummond has also criticized the charter school board in public statements surrounding this legal battle in March, accusing the SCSB of “playing politics with the taxpayers' money” and alleged it “manipulated the record [about why National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s application was rejected] to make that lawsuit easier to lose — not win.”"A state agency that deliberately hobbles its own legal position is not doing its job — it is betraying Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said. “I will not allow that.”Drummond has garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for opposing the creation of religious charter schools.Attorneys for FFRF are representing seven Oklahomans who oppose their tax money being used to support religious charter schools.“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”It’s unclear when the federal court will issue its ruling, but National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the state so it can begin operating a school while the litigation plays out.
Read More

Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools #Catholic A federal court heard oral arguments on Aug. 5 about whether an Oklahoma law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.Oklahoma established a charter school system in 1999, which provides public funds for privately run K–12 schools to which parents can send their children instead of a public school operated by a school district. The law only allows “nonsectarian” applicants, which prevents any participation from schools that have a religious identity.In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved an application from a proposed Catholic charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — which led to a legal challenge from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who opposed religious charter schools.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided against the school, finding that charter schools are public schools and that public schools must be secular. St. Isidore appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that resulted in a 4-4 deadlock with no majority opinion because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a conflict of interest and recused herself.Amid no clear guidance from the federal courts, a Jewish organization — National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation — filed an application to set up a charter school, which was denied. The group, represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund, filed a new lawsuit and asked a federal district court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants.“Oklahoma makes room in its charter program for schools of all shapes and sizes, from those focused on science and fine arts to language immersion and classical education,” Daniel Chen, a Becket attorney representing the Jewish foundation, said in a statement.“The one it refuses to make room for is a faith-based school,” Chen added. “That is religious discrimination, plain and simple, and the state deserves a failing grade for it.”Chen told EWTN News that Becket is asking the federal court to immediately allow National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to set up a charter school, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that requires government programs to allow religious institutions the same access as secular institutions.“They’re private actors,” he said. “And because they’re private actors, they cannot be excluded from participating in a public benefits program.”Chen said the federal district court is not bound by the precedent of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because that is a state court, so it could rule in favor of the school. He also said if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, he hopes Barrett can weigh in to break the 4-4 deadlock.“We’re hoping that [for] our case, there wouldn’t have to be any recusals,” he said.School board’s hands are tiedAlthough the charter school board denied the application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, one of its lawyers at First Liberty Institute explained to EWTN News that its hands are tied by the statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.“They’re following that order,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty and the lawyer representing SCSB. “But [they] would be happy if the federal court didn’t [require the school board] to engage in that kind of discrimination.”Sasser said the SCSB does not want to exclude an applicant “simply because it’s religious” and would rather evaluate applicants “just based on the merits.” But he said the order “makes them exclude religious schools just because they’re religious.”“They want to maximize all of the various choices and opportunities for parents,” he added.Sasser said he hopes the question goes to the U.S. Supreme Court again so “we’ll get an answer — a real answer.” He said it would provide more clarity for the school board, which “needs an answer.”John Meiser, director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at the University of Notre Dame and the lawyer who represented St. Isidore at the Supreme Court, told EWTN News that the question ultimately comes down to whether charter schools are private or public institutions.In Oklahoma, he said charter schools “are called public schools” and that label “introduces a confusion that I don’t think would be present if they chose any other word.”He said Supreme Court precedent is clear that religious institutions must have equal access to government programs available to private institutions, but if a charter school is a “government school,” that “doesn’t apply” because the government “doesn’t and can’t run religious schools.”In spite of the label, Meiser said charter schools in Oklahoma are “formed and designed and run by private groups” and people who work there “are private employees.” He said the structure “looks just like a government contract” and funding from the government “doesn’t turn all those private contractors into the government itself.”“The dispute is really just about, ‘Well is a charter school in some way different?’” he said.Although Meiser said he is not aware of any ongoing Catholic efforts to recreate a charter school, he said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s constitutional arguments for equal access “would presumably apply to all religious operators of schools, and so it would open the door to a Catholic charter school or other religiously based charter school.”Attorney general stands firmDrummond, who remains Oklahoma’s attorney general, is standing firm in opposing the creation of religious charter schools and is fighting against National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s efforts."This matter was resolved when the state Supreme Courtʼs ruling to prevent taxpayer funded religious charter schools was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year,” Leslie Berger, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, told EWTN News.Drummond has also criticized the charter school board in public statements surrounding this legal battle in March, accusing the SCSB of “playing politics with the taxpayers' money” and alleged it “manipulated the record [about why National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s application was rejected] to make that lawsuit easier to lose — not win.”"A state agency that deliberately hobbles its own legal position is not doing its job — it is betraying Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said. “I will not allow that.”Drummond has garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for opposing the creation of religious charter schools.Attorneys for FFRF are representing seven Oklahomans who oppose their tax money being used to support religious charter schools.“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”It’s unclear when the federal court will issue its ruling, but National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the state so it can begin operating a school while the litigation plays out.

unitedyam

Oklahoma’s Statewide Charter School Board wants to approve religious charter schools, but a ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court and efforts by the state attorney general prevent it from doing so.

Read More
Bishops issue new calls for recognition of immigrants’ human dignity and immigration reform #Catholic In response to increased immigration enforcement measures throughout the country, two U.S. Catholic bishops have issued fresh statements affirming the human dignity of immigrants as children of God and calling for immigration reform.Both prelates said Americans should understand why people flee their home countries in search of a better life while acknowledging the nation’s right to enforce its immigration laws. The current situation, however, is unjust, immoral, and must be fixed, both men emphasized.On Aug. 3, the centennial anniversary of the elevation of San Antonio to a metropolitan archdiocese, Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller released a pastoral letter expressing the Church’s solidarity with migrants and calling for the “careful and well-formed moral discernment of every Catholic conscience” in response.Meanwhile, on Aug. 1, Bishop Robert Gruss of the Diocese of Saginaw, Michigan, issued a statement in which he reminded the faithful of the “inherent human dignity” of every person.Gruss said the current “challenge” facing the United States, which has “consistently received immigrants, refugees, exiles, and the persecuted from other lands” throughout its history, is “how to deal with a situation when one administration has allowed individuals and families to migrate … freely and the next administration wants their removal.”The bishop wrote that the removal of “immigrants who have caused harm to society by participating in criminal activity” is understandable, but asked if it is “fair to remove those who are and have been contributing to society in a positive way, oftentimes for many years?”He said that a “just and civil society” would not allow the deportation or detention of people “without cause” or “meaningful legal representation, without access to family or a supportive community, and without basic human needs being met.”He urged the faithful to “push for public policy changes that secure civil rights for all immigrants” and “humane border enforcement policies” that simultaneously uphold national security while protecting the “safety and dignity” of those who come to the country to work.‘We will come to you’García-Siller promulgated his letter, titled “We Will Come to You: United in Solidarity with Our Brothers and Sisters in Migration,” at a Mass at San Fernando Cathedral in downtown San Antonio.“We are living in a world of war,” the letter began. “Across continents, people are dying every day. Across borders, survivors are forced to migrate. They do not leave by choice, but because of violence, hunger, fear, and oppression.”In the 56-page letter, composed of five sections and concluding with a prayer to Our Lady of Guadalupe, García-Siller said he prayed “for a long time” before writing, saying he wanted to write from “the right place, one of accompaniment and solidarity.”He said the letter addresses an “unprecedented” time in the country, writing that “a convergence of structural and legal tactics … calls for the careful and well-formed moral discernment of every Catholic conscience.”“I write to comfort the afflicted, to ignite the comfortable, and to confront injustice with the full conviction of the Gospel.”He went on to cite his personal experience of “years walking alongside” migrants, many of whom are living in so much fear they rarely leave their homes, as well as his own story as a migrant himself.The archbishop wrote that he has witnessed a “fear that has taken root” across the archdiocese, saying he and other pastors “pray with parents who embrace their children each morning unsure if they will be home at night,” and describing parents who avoid taking children to the doctor or to go to work “because each mile carries risk.”“The community bears this cross, and the Church cannot be silent,” he wrote, describing declining Mass attendance and the worsening physical health of those who suffer fear related to immigration.“The people have not lost their faith,” he wrote. “Many, however, have lost their sense of safety and belonging.”The Church must “defend the dignity of those caught in the machinery of removal,” he emphasized.García-Siller described visiting three detention centers in the area, including the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, the largest family detention center in the nation, saying he’s witnessed "firsthand, violations of human dignity within their walls.”He went on to quote Bishop Steven Biegler of the Diocese of Cheyenne, Wyoming, who wrote in a pastoral letter in April that “‘the current campaign of mass detention and deportations is immoral.’”García-Siller accused private corporations of profiting from the processing and movement of large numbers of detained immigrants from one site to another.He also cited an investigation by U.S. Sen. John Ossoff, D-Georgia, which documented more than 1,000 “credible reports of human rights abuses since January 2025, including “medical neglect, denial of food and water, overcrowding, sleep deprivation, and the separation of breastfeeding mothers from their infants,” as well as similar abuses in privately-run sites.García-Siller called the public narrative that only criminals are being removed “misleading,” writing that “73% of those in immigration detention have no criminal conviction, and only 5% have been convicted of a violent crime.”He described how pastors, deacons, extraordinary ministers, and trained catechists are developing “active ministries of accompaniment” in the archdiocese, visiting migrants in their homes, bringing the sacraments along with medicines and other supplies, as well as in detention centers.“If your family has been detained, tell us. We will go to them. The Body of Christ does not abandon its members in chains,” García-Siller declared.The archbishop went on to lament that existing legal pathways take years to navigate, years that families cannot afford to wait as they seek safety and stability. He called for more accessible legal pathways, saying migrants would take those pathways if they were available. Migrants’ “contribution to the common good of our nation” demands such, he wrote.At the end of the letter, García-Siller entrusted the situation to Our Lady of Guadalupe, who herself crossed borders of culture and race and walked the road of exile with the Holy Family: “Long before she was Queen of Mexico … she was a mother who crossed a border. She knows this road; she walked it with her own feet.”
Read More

Bishops issue new calls for recognition of immigrants’ human dignity and immigration reform #Catholic In response to increased immigration enforcement measures throughout the country, two U.S. Catholic bishops have issued fresh statements affirming the human dignity of immigrants as children of God and calling for immigration reform.Both prelates said Americans should understand why people flee their home countries in search of a better life while acknowledging the nation’s right to enforce its immigration laws. The current situation, however, is unjust, immoral, and must be fixed, both men emphasized.On Aug. 3, the centennial anniversary of the elevation of San Antonio to a metropolitan archdiocese, Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller released a pastoral letter expressing the Church’s solidarity with migrants and calling for the “careful and well-formed moral discernment of every Catholic conscience” in response.Meanwhile, on Aug. 1, Bishop Robert Gruss of the Diocese of Saginaw, Michigan, issued a statement in which he reminded the faithful of the “inherent human dignity” of every person.Gruss said the current “challenge” facing the United States, which has “consistently received immigrants, refugees, exiles, and the persecuted from other lands” throughout its history, is “how to deal with a situation when one administration has allowed individuals and families to migrate … freely and the next administration wants their removal.”The bishop wrote that the removal of “immigrants who have caused harm to society by participating in criminal activity” is understandable, but asked if it is “fair to remove those who are and have been contributing to society in a positive way, oftentimes for many years?”He said that a “just and civil society” would not allow the deportation or detention of people “without cause” or “meaningful legal representation, without access to family or a supportive community, and without basic human needs being met.”He urged the faithful to “push for public policy changes that secure civil rights for all immigrants” and “humane border enforcement policies” that simultaneously uphold national security while protecting the “safety and dignity” of those who come to the country to work.‘We will come to you’García-Siller promulgated his letter, titled “We Will Come to You: United in Solidarity with Our Brothers and Sisters in Migration,” at a Mass at San Fernando Cathedral in downtown San Antonio.“We are living in a world of war,” the letter began. “Across continents, people are dying every day. Across borders, survivors are forced to migrate. They do not leave by choice, but because of violence, hunger, fear, and oppression.”In the 56-page letter, composed of five sections and concluding with a prayer to Our Lady of Guadalupe, García-Siller said he prayed “for a long time” before writing, saying he wanted to write from “the right place, one of accompaniment and solidarity.”He said the letter addresses an “unprecedented” time in the country, writing that “a convergence of structural and legal tactics … calls for the careful and well-formed moral discernment of every Catholic conscience.”“I write to comfort the afflicted, to ignite the comfortable, and to confront injustice with the full conviction of the Gospel.”He went on to cite his personal experience of “years walking alongside” migrants, many of whom are living in so much fear they rarely leave their homes, as well as his own story as a migrant himself.The archbishop wrote that he has witnessed a “fear that has taken root” across the archdiocese, saying he and other pastors “pray with parents who embrace their children each morning unsure if they will be home at night,” and describing parents who avoid taking children to the doctor or to go to work “because each mile carries risk.”“The community bears this cross, and the Church cannot be silent,” he wrote, describing declining Mass attendance and the worsening physical health of those who suffer fear related to immigration.“The people have not lost their faith,” he wrote. “Many, however, have lost their sense of safety and belonging.”The Church must “defend the dignity of those caught in the machinery of removal,” he emphasized.García-Siller described visiting three detention centers in the area, including the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, the largest family detention center in the nation, saying he’s witnessed "firsthand, violations of human dignity within their walls.”He went on to quote Bishop Steven Biegler of the Diocese of Cheyenne, Wyoming, who wrote in a pastoral letter in April that “‘the current campaign of mass detention and deportations is immoral.’”García-Siller accused private corporations of profiting from the processing and movement of large numbers of detained immigrants from one site to another.He also cited an investigation by U.S. Sen. John Ossoff, D-Georgia, which documented more than 1,000 “credible reports of human rights abuses since January 2025, including “medical neglect, denial of food and water, overcrowding, sleep deprivation, and the separation of breastfeeding mothers from their infants,” as well as similar abuses in privately-run sites.García-Siller called the public narrative that only criminals are being removed “misleading,” writing that “73% of those in immigration detention have no criminal conviction, and only 5% have been convicted of a violent crime.”He described how pastors, deacons, extraordinary ministers, and trained catechists are developing “active ministries of accompaniment” in the archdiocese, visiting migrants in their homes, bringing the sacraments along with medicines and other supplies, as well as in detention centers.“If your family has been detained, tell us. We will go to them. The Body of Christ does not abandon its members in chains,” García-Siller declared.The archbishop went on to lament that existing legal pathways take years to navigate, years that families cannot afford to wait as they seek safety and stability. He called for more accessible legal pathways, saying migrants would take those pathways if they were available. Migrants’ “contribution to the common good of our nation” demands such, he wrote.At the end of the letter, García-Siller entrusted the situation to Our Lady of Guadalupe, who herself crossed borders of culture and race and walked the road of exile with the Holy Family: “Long before she was Queen of Mexico … she was a mother who crossed a border. She knows this road; she walked it with her own feet.”

unitedyam

“I write to comfort the afflicted, to ignite the comfortable, and to confront injustice with the full conviction of the Gospel,” San Antonio Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller wrote.

Read More