Can't Figure Out What A Girl Or A Woman Is? Far-Left ACLU "Lawyer" Says There Is No Clear Definition!

 This is precisely what happens when the Left denies the Natural Law, the Ten Commandments, and rejects God outright.

These folks are truly living in a parallel universe!

These modernist monsters would -- are! -- worshiping the "golden calf"!

Make no mistake: these maniacs are true believers!

From thegatewaypundit.com, and written by Patty McMurray Jan. 13, 2026 7:20 pm: YIKES! ACLU Lawyer Can't Answer When Justice Alito Asks Her to "Define man or woman, boy or girl" During Questioning on Transgenders In Sports Case [VIDEO] | The Gateway Pundit | by Patty McMurray

YIKES! ACLU Lawyer Can’t Answer When Justice Alito Asks Her to “Define man or woman, boy or girl” During Questioning on Transgenders In Sports Case [VIDEO]

"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices listened to arguments from attorneys on whether states can ban biological boys who identify as “transgender” from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams in public schools and colleges.

The two controversial cases the Supreme Court heard were: Little v. Hecox, from Idaho, where a law says sports teams must be based on biological sex at birth. West Virginia v. B.P.J. (or Becky Pepper-Jackson) — from West Virginia, where a similar law (“Save Women’s Sports Act”) bars transgender girls from female teams. The West Virginia case involves a 15-year-old high school student named Becky who has been on hormone therapy and wants to compete in track and field.

The cases were heard by a conservative majority court, with leftist Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and the far-left Biden-appointed Ketanji Jackson (the most low-IQ justice on the court) arguing in favor of stripping young girls and women of the opportunity to privacy in the locker rooms and from being able to achieve the top spots in their sport when competing against biological men.

Conservative lawyers argued that states have every right to BAN biological males from invading girls’ and women’s sports teams, while lawyers representing the Left appeared to be hell-bent on blurring the lines between sexes.

At one point during their pro-trans boys in girls’ locker/bathrooms argument, the ACLU lawyer Kathleen Hartnett was asked by Justice Samuel Alito to define a man, boy, woman, or girl. Hartnett appeared to panic as she realized Alito had brilliantly set a trap for her. Unable to answer the question, Hartnett appears to panic, telling him “they” don’t have a definition.

Here is the transcript from the exchange:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: Well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, let me just go back to—let me go to some basics. Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?

 ACLU Lawyer Kathleen Hartnett: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Alito:  If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

Hartnett: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Alito: And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

Hartnett: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the—we’d have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the Court.

And we don’t take issue with the—we’re not disputing the definition here. What we’re saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women’s teams and that there’s a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so according to the state’s own interest.

Justice Alito: Well, how can you—how can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?

Hartnett: I think here we just know—we basically know that the—that they’ve identified pursuant to their own statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she’s being excluded categorically from the women’s teams as the statute. So we’re taking the statute’s definitions as we find them and we don’t dispute them. We’re just trying to figure out do they create an equal protection problem.

Watch:

The truth is, Republican-led laws that are already protecting girls in several states across America provide girls and women with the assurances that all of the hard work they’ve dedicated to becoming the best at their sport will not be stolen from them by confused biological boys or men, or worse yet, boys pretending to be women. These “trans” athletes are stealing top spots in sports that they would only be considered “mediocre” at best if they were forced to compete with other males."

End of article...

Pray for strength and honor!

Viva Cristo Rey!  Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

St. Joseph pray for us!!

Gene DeLalla

Submit additional information.

Patty McMurray

You can email Patty McMurray here, and read more of Patty McMurray's articles here.

What Universe Is This Archbishop Living In????

 To have a meaningful conversation between adults, it is essential to be in the same universe and discuss topics that matter to both parties, without bias or a slanted agenda.

We have become accustomed to having real Church teaching homogenized with secular and political topics, making it difficult to separate one from the other.  This "seamless garment" argument was started by the deviant "cardinal" Bernadin -- the former cardinal archbishop of Chicago.

(And let us remember that the salvation of souls is the primary function and duty of the Church in the first place!)

For instance, the idea that the killing of the pre-born can be placed on the same plane as the illegal alien invasion of our country over the previous years under the apostate Biden is ludicrous.

Yet, since President Trump is attempting to enforce our immigration laws and remove the bad guys, all hell has broken out among those church officials who've made millions in taxpayer dollars from the NGOs, who supposedly support the illegals. Now that the spigot has been shut down!  And the NGOs, such as Catholic Charities, don't like it one bit!

Here is an article from lifesitenews.com, written by Antonino Cambria 

Mon Jan 12, 2026 - 11:27 pm EST: USCCB president meets with Trump, Vance at White House - LifeSite

"WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Paul Coakley, the new president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), met privately with President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and other administration officials at the White House on Monday.

While it is unknown what exactly was discussed during Coakley’s White House meeting, which was closed to the press, a USCCB statement emphasized that areas of “mutual concern” were addressed. The meeting comes after the bishops’ conference has clashed with the Trump administration for the past year over its crackdown on illegal immigration and its slashing of the USCCB’s federal funding.

“Archbishop Coakley had the opportunity for introductory meetings with President Trump, Vice President Vance, and other Administration officials, in which they discussed areas of mutual concern, as well as areas for further dialogue,” a statement from the USCCB posted to X read. “Archbishop Coakley is grateful for the engagement and looks forward to ongoing discussions.”

Soon after Trump returned to the White House last January, the administration began cutting funds to both the USCCB as well as Catholic Charities, which have both been sharply criticized, including by Catholics, for their alleged aiding of illegal immigration.

Catholic Charities manages the day-to-day care for many unaccompanied alien children (UACs) and, along with the USCCB, has received $449 million from the U.S. government to shelter and transport unaccompanied immigrant children over the years.

READ: Concerned Catholics request RICO investigation of bishops’ actions in letter to JD Vance

Catholic Charities has also been scrutinized for placing these children with unvetted sponsors, even after reports emerged that some of these children ended up in forced labor, sex trafficking, or other forms of abuse.

The day he began his second term, Trump signed the executive order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” that stipulated the removal of foreign nationals in violation of immigration laws and the review of funds to NGOs, including Catholic Charities and the USCCB, that support or provide services to illegal aliens.

Shortly after signing that order, the Trump administration issued a major blow to both organizations by placing a 90-day freeze on foreign aid dispersed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which provides significant funding, along with other NGOs backing abortion and the “LGBTQ” agenda.

The USCCB responded to the freeze by suing the administration over previously committed funds. The State Department, in turn, canceled its multimillion-dollar refugee resettlement contracts with the USCCB, prompting the USCCB to end its migrant resettlement contracts with the government.

The USCCB has also released numerous statements denouncing the administration’s immigration policy, most notably in its “Special Message” approved during the conference’s November Plenary Assembly, during which Coakley was elected as USCCB president.

READ: US bishops denounce Trump’s deportations in first ‘special message’ in over a decade

“Catholic teaching exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants,” the message read.

“We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures. Human dignity and national security are not in conflict. Both are possible if people of good will work together … We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”

During a December interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, Archbishop Coakley slammed the administration’s deportation campaign for purportedly “instilling fear in a rather widespread manner,” adding, “People have a right to live in security and without fear of random deportations.” The USCCB president failed to mention any of the dangers of illegal or mass immigration, such as the displacement of American workers or the heinous crimes committed by MS-13 gang members and others entering the country illegally.

READ: USCCB president criticizes Trump border policies but fails to recognize harms of immigration

Several bishops, such as Bishop Joseph Strickland, have denounced the USCCB for urging the faithful to welcome “migrants” and staunchly opposing the enforcement of immigration law while remaining silent about the hordes of criminals who cross the border illegally.

“You harm the little ones when you promote lawlessness and turn a blind eye to the rapes, the murders and the attacks of nefarious criminals who waltz across open borders,” Strickland said in November.

It’s also worth noting that current deportation numbers under Trump are not as “record-breaking” as they are made out to be by the media and by the bishops. In the first half of 2025, ICE deportations were estimated at around 800 per day – far fewer than under President Barack Obama, who oversaw more than 400,000 removals in fiscal year 2012 alone.

Coakley, who is also known for his support of the Church’s doctrine on abortion, may have also discussed Trump’s recent troubling comments to House Republicans about compromising on their opposition to the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. The president also asked GOP lawmakers to “own” his administration’s policies, making in vitro fertilization (IVF) easier to obtain, which also contradicts Catholic teaching."

End of very revealing article...

Pray for strength and honor!

Viva Cristo Rey!  Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, Fr. Vicent Capodanno, pray for us...

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, pray for us...

St. Joseph, pray for us!!

Gene DeLalla

Doing The Work Of Satan! Former Irish President Claims Infant Baptism Violates ‘Children’s Rights’!

 Let me see if I understand this: this lunatic female -- who has no problem with homosexuality and the killing of the pre-born -- is complaining that infant Baptism violates children's rights?

How about you look in the mirror and try to justify the killing of the pre-born -- and your criticism of baptizing infants?

Is this all part of the "seamless garment" argument?

It's about children's rights, just as Biden -- a rabid apostate! -- continued to hammer home during the four years of the false presidency of the debilitated, corrupt, and sexually deviant maniac.

See if you can pick out the pain and anguish of trying to "split hairs" and, at the same time, rejecting all that the real Catholic Church teaches...

From lifesitenews.com and written by Andreas Wailzer, Mon Jan 12, 2026 - 12:18 pm EST: Former Irish president claims infant baptism violates ‘children’s rights’ - LifeSite

"(LifeSiteNews) — The former president of Ireland claimed that infant baptism violates children’s human rights.

The Irish Times published an excerpt from a recent talk by Mary McAleese at University College Cork (UCC), in which the heterodox Catholic made her case against infant baptism.

“Throughout the world, there continues a long-standing, systemic and overlooked severe restriction on children’s rights with regard to religion,” the former president of Ireland wrote.

“It restricts children’s rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1989, to which both Ireland and the Holy See – which governs the Catholic Church and is effectively the author of canon law – are State Parties.”

McAleese, who was president of Ireland from 1997 to 2011, argued that children are restricted in their religious freedom by infant baptism, to which they cannot personally consent, and through which they become “a member for life” in the Catholic Church.

“Catholic parents are under a strict Catholic canon law obligation to have their children baptised at the earliest opportunity, hence infant Baptism is normative,” she said.

“I am not challenging the routine practice of infant Baptism itself, insofar as Baptism concerns gratuitous spiritual effects which the Church claims are indelible, like expunging original sin, opening up the possibility of salvation and the flow of God’s grace.”

However, she challenged the “imposed life membership without sentient consent” in the institution of the Catholic Church.

“Nothing else was to shape my life so powerfully or impose such formidable restrictions on my inalienable intellectual human rights as that brief Sunday Baptism ceremony 7½ decades ago,” McAleese said regarding her own baptism. “It does the same to the almost 40,000 children baptised every day across five continents, enrolling them as life members of the Church with a no-exit policy and without their consent.”

The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation and that denying infants this sacrament endangers their soul and their eternal salvation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.“

While it is true that baptism confers imprints and an indelible character on the soul that cannot be reversed, McAleese’s claim that infant baptism violates the right to religious freedom is highly dubious. A Catholic who leaves the Church or is excommunicated does, in a sense, remain a member of the body of Christ through the imprint of baptism; however, they are not in full communion anymore and cannot receive the sacraments. In practice, anyone can leave the Church without Catholic authorities imposing any physical restriction on them, as millions have done in recent decades.

While separating oneself from the Church does have severe spiritual consequences, i.e., endangering one’s eternal salvation, there is no physical punishment for it. Even those who apostatize and join another religion are not physically prevented by Church authorities from doing so. Therefore, the “religious freedom” in the modern sense of these individuals is not violated.

In contrast, in the Islamic religion, apostasy is to be punished by death, and converts from Islam to Christianity often live under constant fear for their lives and are frequently threatened, sometimes even by their own family members.

McAleese has claimed before that infant baptism violates a baby’s human rights, as LifeSiteNews reported in 2018. In 2019, she published a study titled Children’s Rights and Obligations in Canon Law, which examines the application of Canon Law to children and its potential violations of so-called “children’s rights.”

The former Irish president is a heretical self-professed Catholic who has been outspoken in her support of homosexuality and “women priests,” and has criticized Catholic teaching on marriage and family as “homophobic” and “completely contradictory to modern understanding.”

In 2018, she referred to the Catholic Church as “one of the last great bastions of misogyny.”

End of article...

This is what happens when a "Catholic" apostatizes from the faith and completely embraces evil!

Pray for strength and honor!

Viva Cristo Rey!  Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

St. Joseph, pray for us!!

Gene DeLalla 

Live In Florida? Watch Out! (Catholic) Gov. DeSantis "...Signs ‘Unconstitutional,’ ‘Immoral’ Law During ‘Humiliation’ Ritual In Israel..."

 Is free speech dead in the "great" state of Florida?

It is, especially when it comes to any -- any! -- criticism of Zionist Israel.

I'm going to present an article that was posted on lifesitenews.com and written by Patrick Delaney, Fri Jan 9, 2026 - 6:57 pm EST: (For the entire article, go here.) Tucker Carlson denounces Florida’s ‘hate speech’ law criminalizing criticism of Israel - LifeSite.

This article will show the horrendous influence and power of the Zionist lobby in the state legislature of the state of Florida!

"(LifeSiteNews) — Within a broader discussion regarding threats to free speech across the Western world on Thursday, Tucker Carlson focused on Florida’s “antisemitism” law that criminalizes criticism of Israel or its advocates in the United States.

During an interview with former Fox News hostess and podcaster Megyn Kelly, Carlson expressed amazement on how “a bunch of different states, including Florida,” have “codified antisemitism as a crime. They’ve defined it in a way that is so expansive that criticism of Israel is (considered) ‘antisemitic.’ The claim that someone is ‘Israel first’ is a crime in the state of Florida,” he said with amazement.

Expressing how many of these laws seemed to go unnoticed, he lamented, “I think we’re going to wake up one morning with European hate crimes laws written in a way that is not fair at all, that doesn’t affect justice.”

READ: How the ‘antisemitism industry’ became the biggest threat to freedom in the West

In a Friday interview with Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback, Carlson recalled his admiration for Gov. Ron DeSantis but how his foreign policy priorities made him question the level of influence Zionist donors had over his policies.

“Then he had this moment where he … flew to a foreign country, Israel, to sign a hate speech law for Florida,” the former Fox News flagship host recalled. “This is obviously unconstitutional, it’s immoral, but it’s also part of an elaborate humiliation where you have to go, (and) not just enslave your own people with a hate speech law — which that is, it’s slavery — but you have to go kiss someone else’s wall to show your obedience.”

At this point, he indicated DeSantis lost his support.

‘Insurrection’ proper response to loss of free speech

In his Thursday monologue raising alarm regarding the loss of free speech, Carlson highlighted a clip of Florida Lt. Gov. Jay Collins, who stated in a recent interview after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to harm other people with your words. And you don’t have the right to say things that have really negative, really horrible meanings. When you want people to destroy Israel, that matters.

Carlson lampooned, “Oh, you don’t have the right to say things that people in charge don’t like. You don’t? That’s the whole point (of free speech)! If you don’t have that right, you are a slave and Jay Collins is your master.”

“Notice, by the way, he didn’t say you can’t attack America. That’s totally fine,” he continued. Instead, this former military officer asserts, “you can’t attack Israel. You can’t call for the destruction of Israel.”

“Of course, you can call for the destruction of any foreign country you want. It’s a staple on Fox News. Lindsey Graham does it every single day. You just can’t call for the destruction of Israel. That’s a crime,” Carlson mocked.

Affirming it is not a crime to make such statements, the pundit said that “it may be an ugly opinion. It may be an unsustainable argument. You may be an idiot, but you have a God given right to that opinion and a God given right to express it.”

“And again, if they try and take that away, you need to have an insurrection against the government because you’re done at that point,” Carlson warned. “An insurrection against the government (is necessary) if they try and take away your right to say what you think, (and) your right to your own conscience. Period.”

“It’s fine to attack America, but you can’t attack Israel,” he lampooned again.

Kelly, who is also an attorney, affirmed Carlson, saying he was “spot-on” and then went on to respond directly to Collins’ statement “you don’t have the right to harm other people with your words.”

On the contrary, “I absolutely do!” Kelly celebrated with laughter. “And it’s actually what makes us fundamentally American. It’s awesome! I have every right to insult you, to speak hatefully about you. And it’s glorious! It’s what makes it wonderful to live here.”

“The First Amendment, of course, is there to protect hate speech. Hate speech is not only constitutional, it’s written right in there that you can say the most hateful things possible,” she confirmed. “Sorry, but I can. And if you don’t like it, you’re the one who needs to move … out of the United States of America. That’s my fundamental (legal) right, to say things that offend.”

Irony: ‘Antisemitism’ laws ‘engender the very hatred’ they seek to remedy

Regarding Florida’s antisemitism law, Kelly highlighted the irony that such legislation will actually result in significant increases in antisemitic attitudes.

“So the Jews who push those laws, and there’s a lot of Jews down in Florida … they think that the answer to antisemitism — which is a problem to some extent, of course — is to get themselves recategorized as one of the protected DEI groups. And of course it’s not. The answer is to demolish DEI. The answer is to stop separating us by group,” she said.

“The more you start cracking down on people’s thought crimes against Israel, or even their antisemitism — truly, like this is America, you’re allowed to be a racist, you’re allowed to be a misogynist, (and) you’re allowed to be an antisemite,” Kelly explained. “You’re not allowed to make hiring and firing decisions based on that, but that’s not what we’re arguing over here. We’re talking about what’s in your head and your heart.”

“The more you try to criminalize that or ruin someone’s life over those thoughts, the more you engender the very hatred you say you’re objecting to,” Kelly concluded.

The end of a very revealing — and scary! -- article.

Pray for strength and honor!

Viva Cristo Rey!  Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

St. Joseph, pray for us!!

Gene DeLalla

STILL Another Attempt To Force Priests To Violate The Seal Of Confession! C.J. Doyle Responds...

 "The law is the latest attempt by Democrat Stacey Travers to punish priests who refuse to violate the Seal of Confession. A priest who does so incurs an automatic excommunication. Travers proposed a similar law in 2023 that ultimately died."

You have to give these nutty Democrats credit: they never give up and their hate for the Catholic Church is worn on their shirtsleeves for all to see, and the thing is, they don't care, all they want to do is to destroy, destroy, and destroy whatever is left of the priesthood!

You will see C.J. Doyle's response to this lunacy...

From lifesitenews.com and written by Matt Lamb Tue Jan 6, 2026 - 2:40 pm EST: Arizona bill could jail, fine priests $150k for refusing to violate Seal of Confession - LifeSite

"(LifeSiteNews) — A new bill in Arizona would threaten Catholic priests with massive fines and up to two years in prison if they refuse to break the sacred Seal of Confession.

The law is the latest attempt by Democrat Stacey Travers to punish priests who refuse to violate the Seal of Confession. A priest who does so incurs an automatic excommunication. Travers proposed a similar law in 2023 that ultimately died.

House Bill 2039 orders priests to report any time they learn of “ongoing abuse” or even the “threat” of abuse in the confessional. Those who fail to follow the law can be found guilty of a class 6 felony, which can carry fines up to $150,000 and two years in prison. However, that is just for a first offense. Priests who continued to violate the law, as required by Canon Law and the Catholic Church, could face years in prison.

The law also requires priests to predict what may happen in the future. While the law appears to offer a “clergy-penitent privilege,” this does not apply if “the member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest determines that the abuse or neglect is still occurring or will occur in the future.”

LifeSiteNews called Rep. Travers’ office on Monday and also emailed her asking about the proposed law. LifeSiteNews asked if a religious freedom expert reviewed the proposal, particularly in light of a similar law in Washington that has since been revoked following a federal ruling. Travers did not respond to this question or others about efforts she made to reach out to Catholic leaders.

LifeSiteNews also asked Travers about other potential legal difficulties with the bill, considering the Supreme Court’s recent rulings in favor of religious freedom, such as a June 2025 decision that protected the rights of parents to opt out of sexualized school curricula.

In July, a federal judge blocked a similar law in Washington, as previously reported by LifeSiteNews. The law came under scrutiny from Catholic bishops, Orthodox Catholics, and the Department of Justice.

“There is no question that SB 5375 burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion,” Judge David Estudillo concluded. “In situations where Plaintiffs hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, SB 5375 places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the federal judge wrote.

READ: Judge blocks Washington law that forces priests to break Seal of Confession

The state subsequently agreed in October to revoke the law in order to end the lawsuit.

LifeSiteNews contacted the Arizona Catholic Conference, which represents Roman Catholics and Byzantine Catholics, to ask for any plans to oppose the law or to discuss the issue with Travers. Executive Director Ron Johnson was out of the office Monday when contacted via email. A subsequent email to Johnson and a legislative assistant was not answered Tuesday morning.

LifeSiteNews called executive legislative assistant Carolina Escarcega on Tuesday afternoon but she also did not answer the phone.

‘Would not pass constitutional muster’

A Catholic leader criticized the law and said it is headed for a legal demise if passed. He also pointed out Travers has a leftist voting record, which explains her animosity toward Catholics.

Catholic Action League Executive Director CJ Doyle told LifeSiteNews:

The inevitability of a legal challenge should the Arizona legislation become law, the recent decision by the U.S. District Court in the State of Washington, and the likelihood of intervention by the U.S. Department of Justice, all supported by two centuries of common law and American jurisprudence, suggest that such a statute would not pass constitutional muster.

“The sanctity of the Seal of the Confessional – known in civil law as the priest-penitent privilege – has been upheld in American law since People v. Philips in 1813,” Doyle told LifeSiteNews in his emailed comments. The New York court case confirmed Catholic priests cannot be forced to testify about what they hear in the confessional.

Doyle said the law looks like “political posturing.”

He said Travers’ motives are clear, given that she has been endorsed by pro-abortion and pro-LGBT groups.

Doyle noted:

She has co-sponsored legislation to repeal the state’s former 15 week abortion ban; to eliminate abortion reporting requirements; to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment; to erase conscience protections for health care professionals in the provision of contraceptives; to prohibit conversion therapy; to legalize assisted suicide; and to establish same sex marriage as a right under the Arizona Constitution.

“For Travers, and other left-wing Democrats, the Catholic Church is an ideological adversary which can be vilified and discredited by portraying it as indifferent to sexual abuse,” he said. “Their motives are cynical, malicious and punitive.”

The Catholic Action League executive director called on his fellow Catholics to resist the proposal.

“Catholics must make clear that any attempt to violate the seal will be regarded as an attempt to criminalize Catholicism, which will be resisted by all appropriate means,” Doyle told LifeSiteNews.

He concluded by citing well-respected legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Catholic, who criticized Washington for its law.

Turley, a George Washington University law professor, said such a law would violate the rights of the accused to be warned that their statements can be used against them, commonly called “Miranda rights.”

“Putting aside the unconstitutionality, it is a law ripe for abuse,” Turley wrote on his commentary website.

“The state [of Washington] would be using the church as an agent to compel confessions on the threat of damnation and then turn over the evidence to the police,” Turley said. “Worse yet, if the priest does not give a type of ministerial Miranda, the confessant may not realize the danger.”

Turley noted: “[I]t is rather hard for a priest to say that a person must confess their sin while reminding them of the right to remain silent.”'

End of very revealing article...

Pray for strength and honor!

Viva Cristo Rey!  Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

St. Joseph pray for us!!

Gene DeLalla