The priest was found dead with gunshot wounds along a stretch of highway. The local bishop urged people not to speculate about the crime and denounced the ongoing violence in the country.
![Venezuela: Talks with opposition, oil deal, Delcy Rodríguez in New York, and the Church’s stance #Catholic Sept. 15 marked the start of the second round of negotiations between a Venezuelan opposition delegation and the country’s ruling socialist regime, a process promoted and driven by the U.S. government with an eye toward potential presidential elections in the South American nation.Dinorah Figuera, who leads the opposition delegation, arrived in Venezuela on Sept. 13 and before national and international media explained that once this weekʼs discussions conclude, the country could expect an announcement regarding the agreements reached.Meanwhile, Jorge Millán, who is also part of the opposition delegation, stated that they would continue “pursuing a Supreme Court of Justice with honorable, independent, and impartial judges capable of providing Venezuela with an upstanding judicial system after so many years. At the end of the cycle [of talks], we will present clear and verifiable objectives.”He also stated that this round of negotiations would also address the status of political parties, political guarantees, and “the dismantling of the repressive apparatus” established by Chavismo (the socialist government established by President Hugo Chávez and continued by President Nicolás Maduro) for over two decades. The state of freedom of expression in Venezuela will also be one of the items on the agenda.“The foundation for achieving a full democracy requires creating the conditions for elections to be held in Venezuela as soon as possible, as quickly as possible. We are laying the groundwork to reach those important areas that will enable all Venezuelans to elect our leaders very soon, with the speed we desire but also allowing for the time this will take,” Millán added.Concerns and proposals from the Catholic ChurchLast week, Cardinals Baltazar Porras and Diego Padrón, together with Bishop Emeritus Ramón Ovidio Pérez Morales, once again spoke out regarding the political and social situation in Venezuela. The prelates had previously raised their voices at the start of negotiations, offering to serve as guarantors of the process.On this occasion, they addressed the state of “indeterminacy, confusion, and uncertainty” prevailing in the country, offering “certain opinions, judgments, and proposals” that seek to “open the way” to help overcome the current crisis and achieve solid institutional stability and the national common good.Following the capture and extradition of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by U.S. forces on Jan. 3, the prelates noted that “changes have occurred, yet neither the desired and expected change nor a shift toward the structuring and functioning of the country in line with the preamble and fundamental principles of the 1999 Constitution is perceptible.”The cardinals and the bishop cite as examples of this lack of change that there are still political prisoners and a climate of repression as well as a state monopoly on the media and the continued centralization of power. Although these issues have been placed on the negotiating tableʼs agenda, the prelates maintain that these talks “operate within a framework of limited scope and authority.”In this regard, they pointed out that the state is operating on “shaky and legally undefined ground,” while the executive branch is “illegitimate regarding both its origins and its exercise of power.” Consequently, they emphasized the urgent need to call for elections soon.Oil deals with few detailsA few weeks ago, the Trump administration and the Chavista regime signed a massive energy deal granting the United States effective control over approximately one-third of Venezuelan oil, some 65 billion barrels of proven reserves.Beyond the economic aspects, the agreement has sparked particular controversy by including Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt López as an intermediary. He has been the subject of several investigations regarding alleged corruption, inflated prices in electricity contracts, and money laundering linked to the oil sector.Within Venezuela, Betancourt is singled out as one of the key figures responsible for the serious deterioration of the electrical grid, which has led to daily, hourslong blackouts across the country for years, severely impacting the populationʼs daily lives and even resulting in loss of life due to various causes.While acknowledging they are not experts in the field, Porras, Padrón, and Pérez Morales call for greater transparency in the negotiations and recommend “prudence and a gradual approach regarding commitments.” This, they state, reflects the prevailing sentiment among the Venezuelan people, who are concerned about the fate and use of the “vast sums of money” the state is set to receive.Greater emphasis on the need to call electionsIn light of the foregoing, the cardinals and the bishop underscored the priority of allowing the sovereign people of Venezuela to have a “a defined and clear mandate” regarding the nation’s future, a step that would also offer a sure path toward “encounter, social reconciliation, and peace.”“God has given us this country as a setting in which to build a ‘new society,’ the ideal of the civilization of love. We Venezuelans, through our own efforts and by invoking divine assistance, must keep hope alive and continue working on this compelling task, striving to reap its fruits of peace, freedom, justice, and fraternity,” the prelates stated.Delcy Rodríguez in New York?According to a Sept. 14 Bloomberg report, Venezuelaʼs interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, is considering a trip to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly, which takes place next week.If the trip goes ahead, Rodríguez would be in the same city where Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores are in U.S. custody. When asked about a possible meeting with the Chavista leader, President Donald Trump simply replied: “Maybe, maybe.”Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that an in-person meeting “probably will happen” if the presence of the interim regimeʼs president is confirmed.Rodríguezʼs presence on U.S. soil would mark a milestone in relations between Washington and Caracas, following more than two decades of tension and discord. Within Venezuela, the growing rapprochement between the U.S. government and the remnants of Chavismo is fueling concern and uncertainty regarding the possibility of real political change.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.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/venezuela-talks-with-opposition-oil-deal-delcy-rodriguez-in-new-york-and-the-churchs-stance-catholic-sept-15-marked-the-start-of-the-second-round-of-negotiations-between-a-venezuelan-op.jpg "Venezuela: Talks with opposition, oil deal, Delcy Rodríguez in New York, and the Church’s stance #Catholic Sept. 15 marked the start of the second round of negotiations between a Venezuelan opposition delegation and the country’s ruling socialist regime, a process promoted and driven by the U.S. government with an eye toward potential presidential elections in the South American nation.Dinorah Figuera, who leads the opposition delegation, arrived in Venezuela on Sept. 13 and before national and international media explained that once this weekʼs discussions conclude, the country could expect an announcement regarding the agreements reached.Meanwhile, Jorge Millán, who is also part of the opposition delegation, stated that they would continue “pursuing a Supreme Court of Justice with honorable, independent, and impartial judges capable of providing Venezuela with an upstanding judicial system after so many years. At the end of the cycle [of talks], we will present clear and verifiable objectives.”He also stated that this round of negotiations would also address the status of political parties, political guarantees, and “the dismantling of the repressive apparatus” established by Chavismo (the socialist government established by President Hugo Chávez and continued by President Nicolás Maduro) for over two decades. The state of freedom of expression in Venezuela will also be one of the items on the agenda.“The foundation for achieving a full democracy requires creating the conditions for elections to be held in Venezuela as soon as possible, as quickly as possible. We are laying the groundwork to reach those important areas that will enable all Venezuelans to elect our leaders very soon, with the speed we desire but also allowing for the time this will take,” Millán added.Concerns and proposals from the Catholic ChurchLast week, Cardinals Baltazar Porras and Diego Padrón, together with Bishop Emeritus Ramón Ovidio Pérez Morales, once again spoke out regarding the political and social situation in Venezuela. The prelates had previously raised their voices at the start of negotiations, offering to serve as guarantors of the process.On this occasion, they addressed the state of “indeterminacy, confusion, and uncertainty” prevailing in the country, offering “certain opinions, judgments, and proposals” that seek to “open the way” to help overcome the current crisis and achieve solid institutional stability and the national common good.Following the capture and extradition of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by U.S. forces on Jan. 3, the prelates noted that “changes have occurred, yet neither the desired and expected change nor a shift toward the structuring and functioning of the country in line with the preamble and fundamental principles of the 1999 Constitution is perceptible.”The cardinals and the bishop cite as examples of this lack of change that there are still political prisoners and a climate of repression as well as a state monopoly on the media and the continued centralization of power. Although these issues have been placed on the negotiating tableʼs agenda, the prelates maintain that these talks “operate within a framework of limited scope and authority.”In this regard, they pointed out that the state is operating on “shaky and legally undefined ground,” while the executive branch is “illegitimate regarding both its origins and its exercise of power.” Consequently, they emphasized the urgent need to call for elections soon.Oil deals with few detailsA few weeks ago, the Trump administration and the Chavista regime signed a massive energy deal granting the United States effective control over approximately one-third of Venezuelan oil, some 65 billion barrels of proven reserves.Beyond the economic aspects, the agreement has sparked particular controversy by including Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt López as an intermediary. He has been the subject of several investigations regarding alleged corruption, inflated prices in electricity contracts, and money laundering linked to the oil sector.Within Venezuela, Betancourt is singled out as one of the key figures responsible for the serious deterioration of the electrical grid, which has led to daily, hourslong blackouts across the country for years, severely impacting the populationʼs daily lives and even resulting in loss of life due to various causes.While acknowledging they are not experts in the field, Porras, Padrón, and Pérez Morales call for greater transparency in the negotiations and recommend “prudence and a gradual approach regarding commitments.” This, they state, reflects the prevailing sentiment among the Venezuelan people, who are concerned about the fate and use of the “vast sums of money” the state is set to receive.Greater emphasis on the need to call electionsIn light of the foregoing, the cardinals and the bishop underscored the priority of allowing the sovereign people of Venezuela to have a “a defined and clear mandate” regarding the nation’s future, a step that would also offer a sure path toward “encounter, social reconciliation, and peace.”“God has given us this country as a setting in which to build a ‘new society,’ the ideal of the civilization of love. We Venezuelans, through our own efforts and by invoking divine assistance, must keep hope alive and continue working on this compelling task, striving to reap its fruits of peace, freedom, justice, and fraternity,” the prelates stated.Delcy Rodríguez in New York?According to a Sept. 14 Bloomberg report, Venezuelaʼs interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, is considering a trip to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly, which takes place next week.If the trip goes ahead, Rodríguez would be in the same city where Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores are in U.S. custody. When asked about a possible meeting with the Chavista leader, President Donald Trump simply replied: “Maybe, maybe.”Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that an in-person meeting “probably will happen” if the presence of the interim regimeʼs president is confirmed.Rodríguezʼs presence on U.S. soil would mark a milestone in relations between Washington and Caracas, following more than two decades of tension and discord. Within Venezuela, the growing rapprochement between the U.S. government and the remnants of Chavismo is fueling concern and uncertainty regarding the possibility of real political change.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.")
Ongoing talks between the socialist regime and the opposition in Venezuela are making some progress while the Church is trying to contribute to the transition to democracy and freedom.
“All work, no matter what the work is, is essential,” said Father Sinclair Oubre, spiritual moderator of the Catholic Labor Network.
Archbishop François Sylla challenged the youth delegation to see themselves as active members of the Church as they head to the youth celebration in Ghana.
The guide is meant to assist in priestly formation on Catholic Social Teaching, so they can better communicate those teachings to their congregations.
Such restrictions on federal funding are made “without any compelling government interest,” the Justice Department said in a memorandum opinion.
A student challenges a 2004 Supreme Court decision, the Diocese of Scranton reopens its seminary, and Benedictine College names a speaker for its library dedication in this week’s education roundup.
Last year, 18-year-old Lexi Arguello died after complications from a late-term abortion. Activists say staff waited too long to call 911 — and note that women continue to be injured at the clinic.
![U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to require 12-person juries for criminal cases #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases. The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license. Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules. Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term. In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.” The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.” The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases. That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.” They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/u-s-bishops-urge-supreme-court-to-require-12-person-juries-for-criminal-cases-catholic-the-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-is-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-require-12-person-juries-in-crimina-scaled.jpg "U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to require 12-person juries for criminal cases #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases. The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license. Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules. Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term. In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.” The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.” The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases. That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.” They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.")
The bishops argue that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors.
Several homes were looted and vandalized in a mainly Catholic village after the body of a Muslim man was found nearby, and 19 Indigenous villagers were arrested.
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) criticized an executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The U.S. Catholic bishops are reviewing and monitoring the order.
Texas Children’s will pay $10 million to resolve the claims, with $8,576,000 going to the state of Texas, as well as fund, for five years, a first-of-its kind detransition clinic.
![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.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/federal-court-hears-arguments-on-oklahomas-ban-for-religious-charter-schools-catholic-a-federal-court-heard-oral-arguments-on-aug-5-about-whether-an-oklahoma-law-banning-religious-charter-s.jpg "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.")
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.
Bishop Daniel E. Garcia said the Voting Rights Act was born from the sacrifice of those who fought to secure equal access to the ballot, especially for communities of color long denied that right.
But even if you should suffer for doing what is right, how happy you are! Do not be afraid of anyone, and do not worry.
Read More