The 3 - April 27, 2025

Pope Francis laid to rest, Catholic Church deals with its direction

There has been no shortage of coverage and response to the death of Pope Francis.  His funeral took place this past weekend, and according to WORLD Magazine:

The Vatican estimated that more than a quarter of a million people filled St. Peter’s Square in the Vatican for the service. The 88-year-old head of the Roman Catholic Church died of a stroke on April 21, Easter Monday, after a dozen years of leadership.

Before the mass, uniformed pallbearers carried Francis’ simple wooden coffin from St. Peter’s Basilica, where his body had lain in state, to the square outside. Cardinals lined the basilica’s central aisle until the pope’s coffin passed through.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals, gave the funeral sermon. He said Francis was a pope of the people, a simple pastor with an informal and spontaneous speaking style.

The article went on to say: "After the funeral mass, a modified popemobile carried Francis’ coffin to the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, where he had asked to be buried."

Another WORLD article noted that the conclave to select a new Pope will begin next week:

Catholic cardinals on Monday said they will begin next week the conclave process to elect Pope Francis’ successor, according to the Vatican’s news service. Until the conclave begins, cardinals are working on getting to know one another as the mourning period for Francis continues, British Cardinal Vincent Nichols told the Associated Press. One of them will be chosen by the rest as the new pope.

A total of 135 cardinals are qualified as electors for the conclave, according to Vatican statistics. Only cardinals younger than 80 can be electors. The majority of them were appointed by Francis. But some of them may not actually travel to Rome to participate in the vote—just over a hundred electors were in Rome on Monday, Vatican News reported. About 22 cardinals worldwide are considered papabili, or leading candidates for the job of pope, by Catholic journalists and researchers at the College of Cardinals Report.

The death of Pope Francis marks a potential pivot point for the Roman Catholic Church.  As a practicing Protestant, I think it is very clear within a variety of Protestant denominations that choices are being made - are these bodies going to pursue a more traditional direction based on Scripture or a more progressive direction based on a worldly interpretation of Holy Writ?

It is also happened within the Catholic Church - and while many have praised the character and compassion of Pope Francis, there are, among conservative, or traditional Catholics, concerns about the direction of the Church.

I came across several commentaries over at The Stream, the Founder and President of which is evangelical minister James Robison. 

Jules Gomes wrote:

The pope’s cheerleaders portrayed him as the long-awaited messianic reformer who spoke truth to political power — and even in his final days, challenged their nemesis, Donald Trump, by egging the U.S. bishops to defy his efforts to deport illegal aliens.

For his detractors Francis was nothing short of Machiavellian — a manipulative micromanager, a megalomaniacal dictator, and a Neville Chamberlain redivivus who struck Faustian bargains with Islamic jihadists, globalist vaccine peddlers, pro-Palestinian antisemites, and Beijing’s communist nabobs while trading Catholicism for kitsch.

Gomes added: "For the media, it was love at first sight...," adding, "It seemed like the pope’s honeymoon with the chattering classes would last forever, with the media devouring his daily soundbites that veered dangerously off script, especially during high-altitude press conferences on the papal plane."  He also wrote:

Francis, ad libbing on how atheists would go to Heaven and the existence of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican, confirmed that his would be a papacy of improvisation — and, adventurous, perhaps even risky, innovation.

And then on July 29, 2013, during an press conference on the plane while flying back from Brazil, he uttered five little words that would become the signature of his papacy: “Who am I to judge?” he said when asked about gay priests in the Church.

Also in the Stream piece, Gomes wrote:

As his health continued to fail, Francis devoted his attention to creating the optimal conditions for his successor to seal his legacy. In a series of consistories, the pope nominated cardinal-electors who align with his agenda on LGBT rights, synodality, climate change, migrant issues, and social justice, most recently in October 2024.

Another Stream piece, by Auguste Meyrat, included his comments how Pope Francis' predecessor, Pope Benedict "labored to reform the church," relating about Benedict, that "however brilliantly he articulated the profundities of Catholicism, most people simply remembered how he made them feel: guilty, mediocre, and incredibly stupid. For conservative Catholics like myself, this seemed appropriate when we were seeing our beloved religion succumb to hollow ideologies of multiculturalism, relativism, and neopaganism. For everyone else, it was an unpardonable offense."  So, as Meyrat points out:

Naturally, Pope Francis went in the opposite direction, doing his utmost to convert the Church into a leftist NGO. He prioritized the same things as leftist secular governments, had the same soft spots for dictators and communist regimes, and treated moral controversies with unbelievable flippancy. As promised, he “made a mess” by promoting shameless cronies and demoting principled detractors, allowing chronic problems to fester, and stomping on the few instances of growth in the Church.

Stream Senior Editor John Zmirak, a notable Catholic writer, said regarding Pope Francis:

But must we pretend that we will miss him? Or that it would be anything but a catastrophe if the cardinals Francis handpicked — many of them proteges of the child-molesting leftist Machiavelli Theodore McCarrick — were to elect another pope with Francis’s theology and politics? Indeed, if the next pope follows Francis even further into surrendering before the secular world and refashioning the Gospel to accommodate sexual perversion and woke politics, it would discredit the authority of the papacy itself.

He goes on to say:

Must we spin webs of words about Francis’s “compassion” and “humility” that even his supporters don’t really believe? His carefully staged humility photo ops were markedly at odds with his rigorous grasp on power, and his persecution of traditional Catholics who dared to question his doctrinal deviations from Catholic tradition and Scripture: convents seized, religious orders dissolved, bishops fired, cardinals stripped of office.

Francis has largely forbidden the traditional liturgy of the Church around the world, even though it has been the center of religious revival among young Catholics, fostering large faithful families and many religious vocations. Francis has seen the green shoots springing up in the Church, and sprayed them with weed killer.

So, we recognize the Catholic Church as a powerful force for good in this world, and a recognized spiritual force, even though there are deep theological differences between Protestants and Catholics. But, leadership can certainly shape the direction of the Church, and it does seem that there are concerns about a progressive bent over which Pope Francis presided.  Will the cardinals who are tasked with selecting a new Pope continue in this direction?  Or will they signal a return to the steady traditionalism of Pope Benedict?   People who name the name of Christ worldwide can certainly watch and pray.

EEOC Commissioner sues to get job back, Christian organizations stand with President in lawsuit

An article at The Daily Signal relates that two commissioners serving on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, "used their years on the...Commission to require employers to facilitate gender transitions and abortions. Shortly after his Jan. 20 inauguration, Trump ordered the independent agency to rescind its gender-identity mandate."

They chose not to comply, so the President fired them.  Samuels wants her job back, so she's filed a lawsuit against the President. 

The article notes that, "On Thursday, the Christian Employers Alliance and Choices Pregnancy Center of Greater Phoenix moved to intervene in a lawsuit opposite...Jocelyn Samuels, who they say imposed unlawful gender identity and abortion mandates on them, violating their religious freedom."

Julie Marie Blake, who serves as Senior Counsel for Regulatory Litigation at Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the two Christian organizations; she is quoted as saying: “Our clients are both Christian organizations. They recognize the biological reality that humans are male and female, and the biological reality that life begins at conception, and so neither of them can comply with these unlawful mandates." She adds: "Our clients are the real people who will be harmed if [Samuels] gets back into office and is able to reinforce and continue to go after employers through these mandates..."

The Daily Signal article provided more information about these mandates, stating:

The gender-identity mandate imposed by Samuels required employers to treat males as females and allow employee access to private spaces based on gender identity. The abortion mandate misused the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which is supposed to protect pregnant women, to promote a pro-abortion agenda, silence pro-life speech by employers, and force employers to facilitate elective abortions.

SCOTUS hears case involving parents wishing to "opt-out" their children from LGBT materials

In a key case involving parental rights, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case out of Maryland in which parents in a school district had filed a lawsuit after they were denied the right to remove their children from classes where LGBT-friendly materials were being used.  The New York Post reported:

The Supreme Court indicated Tuesday it would rule in favor of a group of parents who sued a suburban Maryland school board over its refusal to allow parents of elementary school children to opt out of classes with LGBTQ-themed storybooks.

Plaintiffs argue that the school system in Montgomery County, just outside Washington, DC, cannot require children to sit through lessons involving the books if their family has religious objections.

The article goes on to say:

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) approved certain LGBTQ-themed curriculum books in late 2022. Initially, MCPS allowed an opt-out for parents with religious concerns, but by March of 2023, it reversed course, citing concerns about absenteeism and administrative burdens.

A group of parents from Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox faiths, sued the school district, arguing the lack of an opt-out system trampled upon their religious rights as parents.

The New York Post highlighted comments from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who "expressed concerns that the LGBTQ-laced classroom instructions aren’t merely trying to expose students to different ideas, but are about trying to impress upon students that 'this is the right view of the world' and 'how you should think about things.'” The article noted: "At times, some of the conservative justices sounded uneasy about the content of some of the books in question."

For example...

...“That’s the one where they were supposed to look for the leather and bondage things like that,” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about the “Pride Puppy” book for pre-K students, which was later removed from the curriculum by the board.

“Pride Puppy” is a picture book aimed at three- and four-year-olds that instructs kids to look for items they might find at a gay pride parade, such as underwear, lip rings, drag kings, and late gay liberation activist Marsha Johnson, whom critics noted was once a sex worker.

Eric Baxter, attorney for one of the parents, said, “The [school] board does not dispute that under its theory, it could compel instruction using pornography, and parents would have no rights,” adding, “The First Amendment demands more. Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.”

The 3 - April 20, 2025

South African missionary taken at gunpoint released without harm

Last week, I told you about Josh Sullivan, a missionary from America to South Africa who was abducted from the church where he was preaching.  Prayers were requested, and late last week, it was announced that prayers were answered in a dramatic fashion.  

The Christian Post reported that:

Five days after he was kidnapped by armed men from his church in Motherwell, South Africa, Tennessee missionary Josh Sullivan was rescued and “miraculously unharmed” following a “high-intensity shootout” that left three people dead.

The article went on to say that, "A statement from the South African Police Service said the shootout happened at a safe house...where the 34-year-old pastor was being held captive." The statement said:

“As officers approached the house, they observed a vehicle on the premises. The suspects inside the vehicle upon seeing law enforcement allegedly attempted to flee and opened fire on the team. The officers responded with tactical precision, leading to a high-intensity shootout in which three unidentified suspects were fatally wounded..."

Now, listen to what the official statement had to say: “The victim was found inside the same vehicle from which the suspects had launched their attack. Miraculously unharmed, he was immediately assessed by medical personnel and is currently in an excellent condition.”

A previous Christian Post article gave insight into the character of Pastor Sullivan: 

Months before he was abducted from his growing church in the impoverished Motherwell township in South Africa last Thursday, Tennessee missionary and married father of four, Josh Sullivan, said he was robbed of his wallet by a young neighborhood man who almost got killed for the crime.

The article said that "Sullivan...recounted the robbery during a sermon at Tri-City Baptist Church in late December. He said members of the community offered to put the thief to death on his behalf after he was caught but he forgave the man and used the opportunity to preach the Gospel to the community instead." 

New AR law protects children, prevents faith-based adoption agencies from placing kids with gay couples

Recently, the state of Arkansas passed a law called the Keep Kids First Act, which was signed by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, according to a WORLD Magazine article, which reported:

Under the Keep Kids First Act, state officials cannot force faith-based groups to place children in homes not aligned with the groups’ religious beliefs. Agencies can continue to place children with families who affirm Biblical beliefs about gender and marriage. The bill also protects Christian adoptive or foster parents from discrimination if they refuse to accept government policy about sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with Biblical truth.

The article has a link to an article on an Alliance Defending Freedom website, in which Senior Counsel Greg Chafuen is quoted as saying that the new law "...prioritizes the well-being of kids by prohibiting state and local government officials from discriminating against adoption and foster care providers and parents simply because of their religious beliefs and moral convictions."
 

Lawmakers in Washington make attempt to advance and protect the work of pregnancy resource centers

Members of Congress, recognizing the incredible work of pro-life pregnancy resource centers, have introduced legislation that counterbalances actions against these centers - physical and legislative - in several states across the nation.  A CBN.com article notes:

For decades, pro-life pregnancy centers have faced attacks from abortion providers and their political allies including federal, state, and local governments.

Recently, several pro-life lawmakers on Capitol Hill have set out to change that by introducing legislation designed to keep these centers and their employees safe.

In addition to protection, the "Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2025" would prohibit government discrimination and retaliation against care centers that refuse to point to abortion as an option. Pro-life lawmakers maintain the measure is needed now more than ever.

Pro-life House member Chris Smith, who joined with other members of the House to introduce that legislation, is quoted as saying: "Notwithstanding any other law, the federal government and any individual or entity that receives federal financial assistance, including any state or local government, may not penalize or retaliate against an entity because the entity offers life-affirming support and resources to women facing unexpected pregnancy or offers life-affirming alternatives to abortion or refrains from abortion actions..."

The CBN article related that:

Following the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe versus Wade, violent attacks on crisis pregnancy centers increased. In 2022 alone, more than 100 such attacks took place nationwide, including firebombings, vandalism and deadly threats, yet authorities did not make one single arrest at that time.

Now certain states are joining the fight against pro-life centers, weaponizing various laws to stop them from saving lives.

The article pointed out examples, provided by Gabriella McIntyre, Legal Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, including New Jersey's Attorney General investigating a group of centers and demanding certain documents that invade the center's privacy.  Plus New York's AG is attempting to prevent centers from talking to women about abortion pill reversal, which is possible after the first pill is taken.  And, the CBN article refers to an Illinois law that would force pregnancy centers to hire employees that do not share their beliefs.  

The 3 - April 13, 2025

Court rules that pro-life centers in IL do not have to promote abortion

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, a consortium of pro-life pregnancy resources centers, in the face of an attempt by the state of California to force centers there to promote abortion.

Illinois lawmakers apparently wanted to do something similar, passing a law that would force pro-life centers to refer clients to abortion clinics in the state.  Alliance Defending Freedom announced online:

A federal district court permanently blocked an Illinois law that forced pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion in violation of their deeply held beliefs about protecting unborn life. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and three pro-life pregnancy centers in a seven-year-old lawsuit against the state of Illinois.

ADF, on one of its websites, said:

In its decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that a provision of the law compelling the centers to promote abortion and its supposed “benefits,” regardless of their ethical, medical, or moral views, violated their freedom of speech...

ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot stated: "The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional. Pro-life pregnancy centers must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment.”

Colorado bill passes House that would remove children from homes if parents do not affirm "gender identity"

Colorado lawmakers last Sunday passed legislation that could result in children being removed from their homes if their parents do not go along with the LGBT agenda and affirm their children's supposed "gender identity."  The Daily Signal stated: 

The Colorado House of Representatives passed a bill Sunday that would remove kids from parents’ custody for behaviors like “misgendering” and “deadnaming”...

Rep. Jarvis Caldwell, an opponent of the legislation, said: "It’s codifying into law that if their ideology confuses your child, and you don’t affirm that delusion, you’re committing child abuse and can lose custody of your child.” Caldwell also said: “We have now crossed the Rubicon of parental rights with this bill...” The article says:

According to the bill summary, HB 1312 defines “coercive control” as including “deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health care services.” 

The bill's summary states, "A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child..."  The Daily Signal article offered this glossary:

“Deadnaming” involves referring to an individual who claims to be transgender by the name that person has rejected. “Misgendering” involves referring to a person who claims to be transgender with the pronouns associated with their biological sex, rather than their preferred pronouns. “Gender-affirming health care” is a euphemism for experimental medical interventions designed to make a man appear female or vice versa.

The Washington Stand, in an article that was published prior to the passage of the bill, known as the Kelly Loving Act, through the House, quoted from Jeff Johnston, described as a "culture and policy analyst" from Focus on the Family; the article relates:

He deemed the bill as “an unconstitutional assault on parents’ rights, religious freedom, and freedom of speech.” Johnston emphasized that parents should “have the right to raise their children according to what their beliefs are,” overseeing their nurture and care. Yet, the Kelly Loving Act would shift that authority to the government.

Additionally, Johnston continued, “It forces businesses and employees to lie and use names and pronouns of those who believe they are the opposite sex or some other so-called gender altogether.” Citing the decade-long legal battle of Colorado baker Jack Philips, he argued that such laws compel individuals “to use language that would violate their free speech and their religious freedom” and that doesn’t “comport with reality.”

Lawmakers attempt to expand freedom of speech for pastors on political issues

Recently, Michael Farris, General Counsel for National Religious Broadcasters, visited with me at the NRB Convention in Dallas - that conversation can be found in our Media Center at FaithRadio.org.  One of the topics that we discussed was the Johnson Amendment, which has been characterized as restricting freedom of speech for pastors with regard to political issues, including endorsing candidates.

NRB, in a recent e-mail newsletter, highlighted proposed legislation by Rep. Mark Harris and Sen. 
James Lankford, who have...

...introduced the "Free Speech Fairness Act" which would prevent the IRS from silencing the voices of America's pastors, churches, and non-profits. The bill targets the Johnson Amendment, a tax code provision which has stripped the ability of churches and non-profits to speak out for or against any political candidate by threatening to pull their tax-exempt status.

The newsletter linked to an article on Rep. Harris' website, which said:

Since 1954, the Johnson Amendment in the tax code has suppressed the free speech of religious leaders, churches, and nonprofits by threatening the loss of tax-exempt status if they simply speak for or against any political candidate.

Representative Harris said, “People of faith should not fear exercising their First Amendment rights at the risk of the IRS coming after them. For too long, the Johnson Amendment has silenced pastors, churches, and non-profits from engaging on moral and political issues of our day for fear of losing their tax-exempt status. This attempt to muzzle people of faith must end – the Constitution is clear: Americans’ right to free speech shall not be infringed.”

The article noted that, "In 2017, President Trump signed an executive order to stop the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment while he was in office." It also said that Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise "have previously led the legislation to fix this provision in the tax code."

The bill has a total of 16 co-sponsors, including Alabama's Barry Moore.

The 3 - April 6, 2025

Justices at high court hear case on whether or not states can refuse to allocate funds to Planned Parenthood

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important case that could have a dramatic impact on the amount of taxpayer funding going to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

The case comes out of the state of South Carolina.  According to Liberty Counsel's website:

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one of its Medicaid clients challenged Governor Henry McMaster’s 2018 executive order claiming it violated federal law under the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” language. The law’s “any qualified provider” language grants beneficiaries the right to choose their provider from a pool of providers the state has deemed qualified.

The website goes on to say: 

Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in the case noting the law’s language allows for states to disqualify providers that engage in unethical and illegal practices, in which Planned Parenthood has been credibly implicated in these types of practices.

The Christian legal organization notes: "The decision could either allow states to defund and weaken the abortion industry, or require pro-life states to keep subsidizing abortion access by having to direct Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood." It reported:

The Justices focused their questions largely around whether federal laws need to use certain “magic words” to explicitly acknowledge an individual right, and whether the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision gives beneficiaries a mechanism to sue a state when their choice of doctor is denied.

Alliance Defending Freedom represented a South Carolina state agency, and in a post on one of its websites prior to the hearing, it included a quote from Senior Counsel John Bursch, who stated: "State officials should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood—a multi-billion-dollar activist organization—is not a real healthcare provider and is not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid.”

Federal judge says Alabama cannot prosecute those who assist ladies in traveling to other states for abortions

A key federal court ruling occurred recently involving the state of Alabama.  The same judge that had put Alabama's strong pro-life law on hold after the Legislature passed it, who also allowed it to go into effect after the overturning of Roe v. Wade ended up with another case related to abortion - whether or not Alabama residents who assist ladies traveling to other states to obtain abortions can be prosecuted for committing a crime.

USA Today reported:

Alabama can’t prosecute people and groups who help women travel across state lines to end a pregnancy, a federal judge ruled Monday in a case that tested how far states can go to prevent residents from getting an abortion.

The decision came in response to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s threat to use criminal conspiracy laws to stop people from providing logistical or other help for out-of-state abortions.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said that would violate a person's right to travel and the First Amendment.

The article provided a historical perspective, stating:

Before Alabama’s strict abortion ban kicked in two years ago, the Yellowhammer Fund offered financial and logistical assistance to women seeking abortions both in Alabama and, if necessary, out of state.

The nonprofit group had prepared for the ban by developing ties with clinics in states where abortion was likely to remain legal and budgeting for more staff.

It went on to say:

But those plans were canceled after the attorney general warned − including in an August 2022 interview − “if someone was promoting themselves out as a funder of abortion out of state, then that is potentially criminally actionable for us.”

Yellowhammer was one of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit against the Attorney General filed in federal court.

Man who has used signs to communicate Biblical messages about gender facing legal action for social media post, X assisting in his defense

At the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Dallas a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to sit down with Chris Elston, a Canadian man who is using signage that he carries into strategic locations to present a Biblically-inspired message about gender. He has come to be known as "Billboard Chris."

A recent Christian Post article relates that an online post has garnered legal action in Australia, stating:

The case concerns a Canadian man, Chris Elston, also known as Billboard Chris, who in February 2024 wrote a post on X that was critical of the World Health Organization's decision to appoint Australian trans activist Teddy Cook as an “expert” on trans issues.

The post also included a link to a graphically descriptive article at the Daily Mail website. The article goes on to say:

Cook took exception to Elston apparently questioning his credentials to work for the WHO, and submitted a complaint to Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner.

The commissioner demanded that X remove the post, which they initially refused to do. However, following a formal order, X geo-blocked the post, making it unavailable to view in Australia.

The Post article opened with these words:

Elon Musk’s personal crusade against the “woke mind virus” is a global one and the latest frontline is to be found in Australia, where his company X is joining in a case against the country’s “e-Safety Commissioner.”

It also reported: 

Elston, together with Musk’s X, the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and ADF International, are appealing the decision, saying it breaches Elston’s right to free expression.

Elston had been "threatened with arrest," and a fine of over 500 U.S. dollars was levied against him, according to ADF International. The article says that Elston was "forcibly moved in Brisbane by police after conducting what it says were consensual conversations with members of the Australian public about trans issues."

Prior to last week's trial, Elston said:

“No child has ever been born in the wrong body. As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s well-being.

“This reality is being increasingly recognized around the world, with government after government ordering a review into the use of toxic puberty blockers. This is a serious issue with real world implications for families across the globe and we need to be able to discuss it."