Court Declares California’s Gender Quota for Corporate Boards Unconstitutional

In a historic victory for the rule of a law, a California court found California’s gender quota law for corporate boards unconstitutional. The verdict comes after a 28-day trial (Robin Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla (Case No. 19STCV27561)).

This verdict follows a similar ruling in our favor last month that found California’s diversity mandate for corporate boards unconstitutional.

We filed the gender quota lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2019 on behalf of California taxpayers Robin Crest, Earl De Vries and Judy De Vries. The lawsuit challenged a 2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826, which required every publicly held corporation headquartered in California to have at least one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its board of directors by December 31, 2019.

The law also required corporations to have up to three such persons on their boards by December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board. We argued that the quota for women on corporate boards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.

California Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis agreed with us and “determine[d] that SB 826 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution and is thus enjoined.”

In the court’s 23-page verdict, it specifically found that “S.B. 826’s goal was to achieve general equity or parity; its goal was not to boost California’s economy, not to improve opportunities for women in the workplace nor not to protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees.” Further, the court found that “putting more women on boards demonstrated that the Legislature’s actual purpose was gender-balancing, not remedying discrimination…” And, “[t]here is no Compelling Governmental interest in remedying discrimination in the board selection process because neither the Legislature nor Defendant could identify any specific, purposeful, intentional and unlawful discrimination to be remedied,” Judge Duffy-Lewis wrote.

The court also found that California had “offered the testimony of the stereotypical virtues of women such as “consensus builders” and “less risky behavior in investments…. The Court is unpersuaded by this offer of stereotypes for a justification of S.B. 826.”  The court also found that Judicial Watch attorneys presented persuasive evidence in “ILLEGALITY OF ACTIVITY” (emphasis original) in the implementation of the gender quota mandate.

The court eviscerated California’s unconstitutional gender quota mandate. This is the second California court decision finding that quotas for corporate boards are unconstitutional. The radical Left’s unprecedented attacks on anti-discrimination law has suffered another stinging defeat.

Thankfully, California courts have upheld the core American value of equal protection under the law. Our taxpayer clients are heroes for standing up for civil rights against the Left’s pernicious efforts to undo anti-discrimination protections. We have helped protect the civil rights of every American with these successful lawsuits.

Tips For Dealing With Psychopaths and Narcissists

By David Mc Dermott 

Many people, who are leaving or have left a cult, often have contradictory feelings. The same thing happens in the breakup with a psychopath or narcissist.

The individual may feel love for the manipulator and, at the same time, hate them for the abusive behavior. There may be concern for the ex partner as well as anger. Speaking out about the controlling behavior may provide relief while also causing guilt because of a sense of betraying the manipulator. Grief and a sense of freedom, rage and affection, disgust and sexual excitement are some other combinations but there are many more.

As the person learns more about mind control, there are often differences between thoughts and feelings, too. The victim feels compassion for the manipulator but knows consciously that this person was taking advantage of them. They feel that the person was helping them, but is aware that the psychopath was only interested in taking their money. They feel the manipulator is basically a good person, but realize that the level of name-calling and criticism puts it in the category of psychological abuse. The victim may feel like the manipulator loves them even though the manipulator has disappeared and left them homeless and broke.

The disconnect between thoughts and feelings can be very disconcerting and disturbing and often causes a lot of stress. People sometimes feel like they are literally going mad.

The best way to make sense of these contradictions is by using the model of the pseudopersonality. Remember the pseudopersonality is imposed by the psychopaths and narcissists on their victims and is programmed to believe the manipulator, to take care of the manipulator, to put the wants and needs of the manipulator first and it is also very dependent on the manipulator. This pseudopersonality never completely destroys the real personality; rather the real personality is repressed most of the time by the pseudopersonality.

While in the cult or the abusive relationship, the pseudopersonality dominates most of the time. When the real personality comes to the surface, so to speak, this is when the conflicts become more prominent. The pseudopersonality is programmed in one way, the real personality thinks and acts in another way.

The contradictory feelings occur because the real personality is experiencing one thing while the pseudopersonality is programmed to feel something else.

The real personality has a desire to leave but the pseudopersonality is programmed to stay and feels a lot of fear when even thinking of leaving. The real personality wants to take a particular job but the pseudopersonality is programmed to do the work of the cult. The real personality believes that the way the leader is acting is unacceptable, but the pseudopersonality is programmed to accept severe punishments for minor things.

This model is a good way of explaining why a person would have such contradictions and as the person works to rid themselves of this pseudopersonality, the contradictory feelings also disappear. Similarly, with the contradictory thoughts and feelings. As the pseudopersonality disappears, the profound preprogramed feelings disappear, too, and the person is finally in a position where their thoughts and feeling match up again.

The pseudopersonality is put in place with very strong influence techniques and is often maintained with equally strong techniques over many months and even years. It quickly becomes the default position for cult members and victims in intimate relationships and they learn to live like this with frequent reinforcement from the manipulators. This means that when the person leaves the mind control environment the pseudopersonality does not disappear on it’s own. Aspects of it may get weaker with time, but unless the individual works to rid himself or herself of this set of beliefs, ideas, feelings and behaviors, the pseudopersonality persists for many years, continuing to cause problems of one sort or another.

Often these problems start after the person has left the mind control environment so that they do not associate the problems with the group or the psychopath or narcissist, especially if the person does not realize the group is a cult or that their spouse was a psychopath or narcissist. (This may reinforce the belief that the victim has that there is something wrong with them, a belief that was installed in the cult or by the manipulative spouse, further compounding their problems.)

Once a person starts into a recovery process where they get to understand the concept of the pseudopersonality and when it is dominant and when not, it helps relieve some of the tension caused by the contradictory feelings and thoughts, because the person has a ’cause’ for them. The recovering victim also realizes that these contradictions are temporary and that they will end.

So having these contradictory feelings are a normal part of being in mind control environments. They especially occur in the recovery process when the person is becoming aware of the reality that they were living in that was based on lies and deception, and what the ‘truth’ of the matter really is.

Values Are Guardrails

05.20.22

SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP is based on positive values that form our character. Values are like guardrails. When we are driving, we find guardrails in areas of danger or uncertainty. They are placed there to keep us on the road and not into the ditch or off the cliff. Values are like that.

Values protect us from life’s pressures and temptations. In this way, we can avoid ethical and moral lapses in the heat of the moment. Negative outside influences are all around us. They can force us to react rather than respond and derail our leadership by compromising our judgment and common sense.

Values are the principles and beliefs by which we live our lives and make decisions. Values are about doing the right thing—a predetermined action—when we have a choice to make. Values can be difficult because they draw a line in the sand—a guardrail. But that guardrail strengthens you and helps you to make calm, rational decisions in otherwise emotional situations.

Values form your character. Your character becomes the culture of the organization—the organizational operating system. Values lived build trust.

10 Things to Remember About Values

  1. Values that you don’t live by might at best be aspirations, but not values. How will we conduct ourselves? What will we value and reward in our organization and, more specifically, in our individual lives? Actions reflect values. There’s no hiding there. Values guide actions and create conditions for success.
  2. When codifying your values, limit the list to three to seven and explain them in actionable detail. A list of 30 values will be glossed over.
  3. Listing cookie-cutter values like integrity and teamwork are too vague and easily dismissed. Values are action items. Be specific as to what that much-overused word means. Integrity means I will tell the truth even when it might hurt me. Honesty, yes, but what does that mean? Humility means I listen to other perspectives and will change direction when necessary. You’re looking to bring simplicity and clarity to each value.
  4. Our values—based on our beliefs—form the foundation of our character or organizational culture. Culture is the organization’s character.
  5. Hire only people that align with your values—you know, the ones you live by. You want people whose actions align with the values of the organization because these people will flourish and grow for their good and for the good of the organization. Choose your values carefully because they attract similar values and people with similar beliefs.
  6. When something gets derailed, there is a value misalignment or a value that was never stated. But responding to every problem by introducing a new value is disingenuous. It feels like you are doing something about the issue but it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. In this case, you may need a strategy discussion, not a values discussion.
  7. As leaders, we are looking for input, not consensus when pulling together your organization’s values.
  8. Values override rules. Rules make us aware of the value. They lead us to it. While rules should be based on values, when the application is not clear, the default is the value, not the rule.
  9. Values should be based on positive beliefs because they build others up. Values based on negative beliefs tear people down.
  10. Values transcend goals and strategies. After goals and strategies are gone, values remain.

Common mistakes made with team Emotional Intelligence

Illustration of team emotional intelligence, or team EQ(Image credit: SmartBrief illustration)This post is by Evan Watkins in partnership with Weaving Influence, a full-service digital marketing agency. Since launching 10 years ago, Weaving Influence has helped clients launch more than 150 books, carving its niche in working with authors, thought leaders, coaches, consultants, trainers, nonprofit leaders and speakers to market their services and books.

When Dr. Jean Greaves and I set out to write our recent book on teams and emotional intelligence (EQ), we started with a review of the substantial amount of data TalentSmartEQ had collected over the last decade in our work with teams. We analyzed the data from the hundreds of teams (and thousands of team members) who took our team EQ assessment.

 As we poured through 2,133 comments, a number of clear patterns, themes and insights formed. Each insight helped shed some light on the challenges teams face as they try to connect and deal with the emotions that inevitably arise in their work together.

 What follows are three of the most common comments we heard from teams, along with specific EQ strategies that we recommend using in those situations. Apply these strategies to address these issues in your team, and you’ll see improvement to your team EQ.

“One or a few members of the team dominate our group.”

What the comment tells us:

  • Teams want to tap into diversity of perspective and opinion. We read things like, “So and so thinks their opinion is the only one that matters,” or “This team is run by two or three individuals with too much power.” Or on the other end of the spectrum, “It’s so tough to get everyone to speak up. I feel like only a few of us participate even in important meetings.”
  • Teams resent people who dominate the discussion. A team wants to feel like the whole group matters. When one or few members get too much of the attention or power, others complain.

What your team can do:

  • Set aside time for problem-solving. Try this strategy out for your next important meeting or problem. Give everyone a chance to prepare and set an expectation that everyone will share. If you need to, you can create a formalized process to ensure that people don’t dominate the conversation (like taking turns). Establish a mutually agreed-upon structure and purpose for the meeting that includes how each person will contribute. At first, the structure may seem rigid and unnatural, but in time, your team will adopt the structure and grow used to it. More voices and perspectives will surface.

“Go directly! I don’t want to hear about it!”

What the comment tells us:

  • Teammates talk behind each other’s backs – a lot. Team member comments say things like, “Talk to the person that has the problem and not to someone else that doesn’t have anything to do with it.”
  • Surprisingly, the third party doesn’t want to hear that negativity. It’s really tough to bring issues directly to the source to work them out. But, the complaining and negativity wears on people and disrupts the team dynamic.
  • Gossip is like a drug. Research shows that gossip stimulates pleasure in the brain, which is why your co-workers can’t help but hear you out and act genuinely curious in the moment. But, as the comments show, it wears off fast and leaves a lingering sense of negativity.

What your team can do:

  • Make it a team norm to have tough conversations directly. Enforce this norm when you hear other people talking behind backs. Refuse to engage unless it is a direct conversation, and encourage people around you to approach their conflicts directly. Model this behavior yourself by having effective and direct conversations.
Team EQ tree
Credit: TalentSmartEQ

“Set your feelings aside.”

What the comment tells us:

  • The sentiment that “there’s no place for emotions at work” is, unfortunately, still alive. People constantly comment on this. They say, “You need to separate personal feelings from the work at hand,” or “Understand that what we are discussing is business and only business. A challenge on people or job quality is not a personal attack.”
  • People use “no place for emotions” as an excuse to be rude. Like the second comment above, teammates use the idea that emotions don’t belong in the workplace to justify delivering a message in a disrespectful way. However, there should be responsibility for how a message is delivered. It’s not physically possible to set all feelings aside.

What your team can do:

  • Notice and acknowledge discomfort. Acknowledge that emotions are real and make an active effort to work with them, not against them. To begin to manage how emotions impact your group, practice noticing and acknowledging discomfort. When a team member is uncomfortable, resistant or reactive, another team member can acknowledge this and make it clear that reactions are valid and important and that the team wants to understand.
  • Ask questions and listen actively. This will break down the idea that “emotions get in the way of work” and reinforce the idea that emotions are inevitable so you better pay attention to and learn from them.  

The Little-Known Father of the Abortion Movement

RUSSELL SHAW

In the uproar over the leak of an early draft of a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, the rhetoric of editorialists and commentators friendly to abortion has been short on light but long on heat. Even the conclusion of the New York Times editorial — “If you thought Roe v. Wade itself led to discord and division, just wait until it’s gone”— left you wondering: Is that a prediction or a threat?

At this time of unbridled passions it makes sense to recall T.S. Eliot’s wise saying, “The end is where you start from,” and reflect on what the founders of the abortion movement really saw as ultimate ends. And on that question no source speaks with more authority than Lawrence Lader.

Probably few people today remember Lader, but feminist writer Betty Friedan admiringly declared him “the father of the abortion movement.” Among other things, he wrote the most influential abortion advocacy book before Roe, and his handiwork was cited nine times by the majority opinion in that case. He remained a stalwart of the pro-abortion crusade up to his death in 2006 at the age of 86.

Lader was a journalist who wrote for magazines in the years after World War II. His eleven books included a biography of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and a volume arguing the case for the abortion drug RU-486.  As a leader in the abortion movement, he was a co-founder of a group called the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws—now, NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Among the targets of Lader’s zealotry was the Catholic Church. In his book Politics, Power, and the Church he argued that on divorce, school prayer, abortion, and other issues the  Church “sought to legalize its moral codes.” In 1988-89 he brought suit against the Internal Revenue Service demanding an end to the Church’s tax-exempt status, but that effort went nowhere.

The high point of his abortion advocacy unquestionably was Abortion. Published by Bobbs-Merrill, the book came out in 1966 shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut overturned an antique Connecticut anti-contraception statute. Griswold was notable for asserting a constitutionally protected right to privacy, something Lader correctly recognized as the pathway to legalized abortion. A followup volume, Abortion II, was even more upfront in acknowledging its author’s radical goals.

So what exactly did Lader have in mind? Let him speak for himself.

Abortion, he declared, was “the final freedom” for women. But freedom for what? Abortion would be “the prime weapon against sexism and the ‘biological imperative’–the prison of unwanted childbearing.” But that wasn’t all. “Once sex had been detached from pregnancy, Women’s Liberation could construct its own ethics on the ash-heap of puritan morality.” And ultimately the “most radical feminist” (and, it would seem, Lawrence Lader himself) “wants an even more sweeping revolt—the end of the nuclear family.”

Worth noting is the tinge of eugenics in Lader’s writing. Usually it’s cloaked in high-sounding language (“every child a wanted child”), but here and there it breaks through, as in this: “Above all, society must grasp the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups.”

Abortion, eugenics, destroying the nuclear family, stamping out sexual morality, silencing the Catholic Church. These were among the ends pursued by the father of the abortion movement in a long, notably successful, and highly destructive career. If the movement Lawrence Lader launched has disavowed them, I’m sorry to say I missed it.

Jesus Speaks Through His Apostles

GAYLE SOMERS

During His conversation with the apostles on the night of His arrest, Jesus looks into the future.  What does He see?

Gospel (Read Jn 14:23-29)

In a long section of St. John’s Gospel that we call “the Last Supper Discourse” (see Jn 13-17), Jesus begins to anticipate His departure from this world and what that will mean for His friends, the apostles.  He emphasizes that to love Him means to live as He taught them.  Those who love Jesus in word and action will live in communion with the Trinity here on earth, even before they reach heaven.

Then, Jesus moves on to describe something that is yet to happen and is of vital importance as we seek to understand how His followers will know what they need to know about Him and His Word after His departure.  How will the Gospel move from this band of apostles and those who traveled with them into all the world?  Once Jesus leaves, how can we know we have the truth about Him and thus be able to live it?

Jesus has a plan to make sure all those who wish to follow Him, in all the years that must pass before His return, will know what they need to know:  “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.”  If we have read the Gospels carefully, this promise by Jesus has to bring some relief.  We have seen how little the apostles actually understood of what Jesus said and did while He was still with them.  Notice that this promise is made uniquely to the apostles in this conversation.  Jesus switches from speaking about “whoever” (all believers) in vss 23-24 to “you” (the eleven who were with Him at the Last Supper) in vss 25-29.  We can understand by this that although the Holy Spirit will be sent to all believers, He will do a particular work of teaching and reminding the apostles.  Later in this same discourse, Jesus tells the apostles that the Holy Spirit will “guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:13).  This is an even more expansive promise, because it anticipates that the apostles will, in the future, need to know more than they did on this night.  In all this, the work of the Holy Spirit is of supreme importance.  Jesus knew that He had chosen mere men upon whom to build His Church.  The worldwide proclamation of the Gospel, through all the ages of the Church’s history, would have to come through ordinary flesh and blood.  How could this be anything other than risky?  There is only one way:  a supernatural charism of the Holy Spirit, working in the apostles and their successors, would guarantee “all the truth.”

Because of this magnificent promise, Jesus can leave His apostles with “Peace.”  How is this peace different from what “the world gives”?  Peace in the world depends on circumstances.  The peace of Jesus goes much deeper than that.  His peace grounds us in the truth of God’s love and power, no matter what our circumstances might be.  How can we be sure of this truth?  We look to these promises right here.  The charism given first to the apostles and then passed on through the laying on of hands to their successors enables us to know “all the truth,” expressed now in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

What an incredible plan!  Did it work?  Our first reading gives us the evidence we need to answer this question.

Possible response:  Lord Jesus, please help me love You in ways that go beyond words and emotions.

First Reading (Read Acts 15:1-2, 22-29)

In Christendom, ever since the Reformation, there are Christians who interpret our Gospel reading differently from the Catholic Church.  They believe the Holy Spirit’s charism of teaching, reminding, and guiding into “all the truth” is given to every believer, not just those who are ordained successors to the apostles (the bishops).  Certainly Catholics recognize the way the Holy Spirit teaches and guides us in our individual lives with God.  However, the Church makes a distinction between that universal work of the Holy Spirit and this particular work of revealing “all the truth,” which we understand to be the dogma we must all believe and the way of life we must all live in order to have the fullness of what Jesus intended to give us.  The Church believes this teaching charism is a gift given exclusively to the apostles and those appointed to follow them.

Fortunately, we can look to the Book of Acts for evidence about which interpretation is the most biblical.  St. Luke tells us about the first episode of confusion over truth experienced by the New Testament Church.  In Antioch, where many Gentile pagans converted to Christianity, some Jewish Christians, “who had come down from Judea,” told the believers that they needed to be circumcised (always a sign of being in covenant with God) in order to be saved.  This caused quite a rift in the Church there, with Paul and Barnabas insisting that circumcision wasn’t necessary.  Which group had “all the truth”?  They were all believers; they all had the Holy Spirit.  The circumcision group had the Old Testament Scriptures on their side (the New Testament didn’t exist yet).  Jesus hadn’t said anything about a situation like this.  How would it be resolved?

“It was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (emphasis added).  Here we see that the Christians in Antioch knew they couldn’t arrive at the truth about circumcision on their own.  They did not expect the Holy Spirit to lead them into “all the truth” on this question.  They did expect that the apostles in Jerusalem could settle it, because Jesus had promised that charism to them.  However, notice that it was not only the apostles but also “the elders” who were called upon to render a decision.  Who were they?  The “elders” (or “bishops”) were those appointed by the apostles to help lead the new Church (see Acts 14:23).  We can see that right away the apostles were passing along their special charism through the laying on of hands (the growing Church would need many more than twelve leaders).  Because the elders, by their ordination, received this gift of truth from the Holy Spirit, they were included in the decision about “all the truth” concerning Gentile circumcision.

This meeting of apostles and elders (the Council of Jerusalem), led by Peter, declared that salvation is by grace (see Acts 15:6-11).  They also sent out a letter explaining how Jewish and Christian converts could peacefully coexist without undue provocation of Jewish sensibilities or undue emphasis on Jewish legal requirements.  These pronouncements were for all Christians.  The Council’s ruling prevented a split in the Church, which surely would have happened if individual Christians followed their individual convictions about circumcision of Gentiles.  Some of our non-Catholic brethren will suggest that this apostolic conciliar method of arriving at “all the truth” was only necessary until all the New Testament was written.   Once that was done, according to this way of thinking, the only teaching authority was the Bible itself.  History before the Reformation refutes this, however.  Even when the New Testament had been completed, the question of its interpretation needed to be addressed.  Major dogmas like the Trinity, the Incarnation, and even which books actually were Scripture were all resolved by apostolic conciliar declarations.  There were many good-hearted, devout, holy Christians who had many different ideas about what the words in Scripture actually meant.  It was, in all these dogmatic matters, ultimately up to the bishops of the Church, in union with the Pope, to make a final determination.  History makes this very clear.

So, we see that the New Testament Church understood apostolic authority in the way it has been preserved in the Catholic Church.  If we are looking for “all the truth” in the many dogmatic and moral questions that arise during the course of human history, we will need to look to those who can trace their ordinations back through a succession of hands to the apostles.   Jesus made His promise of the Holy Spirit’s charism of truth to them, and Scripture tells us they passed it on to others.  Today, by that gift, the Voice of Jesus continues to ring out through His Church to the whole world.  The plan worked!

Possible response:  Lord Jesus, thank You for building a Church that will always be able to teach us “all the truth” about life with You.

Psalm (Read Ps 67:2-3, 5-6, 8)

The psalm captures for us the joy that comes to “all nations” when God’s way may “be known upon earth.”  In the Gospel, when Jesus looked out to the future, He saw God’s plan for that to happen through His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.  Two thousand years later, we can see its fruit.  Therefore, we want to sing: “O God, let all the nations praise You!”

Possible response:  The psalm is, itself, a response to our other readings.  Read it again prayerfully to make it your own.

Second Reading (Read Rev 21:10-14, 22-23)

Here we see a splendid vision of the Church at the end of time.  Notice how it is built on the foundation of the “twelve apostles of the Lamb.”  It is not built solely on the bible; it is built on twelve fallible human beings who were given the charism of infallible truth to build it.   All the teaching and preaching authority of the Catholic Church rests right there.  The beauty of this vision, written by an apostle to whom the charism of truth through the Holy Spirit had been given (see Rev 1:10), helps us understand why Jesus promised His peace in the Gospel.  The past, the present, and the future all belong to “the Lord God and the Lamb.”  Alleluia!

Catholic Archbishop Denies Nancy Pelosi Communion For Promoting Abortion

National  |  Micaiah Bilger  |   May 20, 2022 

Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone said he formally notified U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week that she is not allowed to receive communion unless she repents of her abortion advocacy.

Cordileone, who serves Pelosi’s home district of San Francisco, said he informed the congresswoman of his decision Thursday after repeated attempts to speak with her about the “grave evil” that she is supporting.

Pelosi professes to be a devout Catholic but supports the killing of unborn babies in abortions up to birth and wants to force taxpayers to pay for their deaths.

In a letter published Friday on the archdiocese website, Cordileone explained his decision to deny communion to the Democrat leader:

“After numerous attempts to speak with her to help her understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, and the danger to her own soul she is risking, I have determined that the point has come in which I must make a public declaration that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion unless and until she publicly repudiate her support for abortion ‘rights’ and confess and receive absolution for her cooperation in this evil in the sacrament of Penance.”

The archbishop stressed that his decision is “pastoral, not political” and he did not find any pleasure in it. Cordileone said he also has been praying for Pelosi and urging others to join him in the hopes that she will repent and recognize the value of all human life.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democratic members of the House hold a news conference to call on Republicans to fund programs to...

Pelosi, a Democrat leader, often mentions her Catholic faith while supporting radical pro-abortion policies that most Americans oppose. Under her leadership, the U.S. House passed a radical pro-abortion bill last fall that would legalize abortions for basically any reason up to birth nation-wide even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

At the time, Cordileone said the legislation amounts to “child sacrifice” and chastised Catholic politicians who support it. He said the bill is what “one would expect from a devout Satanist, not a devout Catholic.”

A few days later, Pelosi laughed at the archbishop’s statement at a press conference, saying she and Cordileone “have a disagreement about who should decide this.”

This week, Cordileone said he has received many letters from concerned Catholics about Pelosi misleading the public about abortion. And for a long time, he said he tried to be cautious, giving Pelosi the chance to repent and making attempts to talk with her before taking any action.

However, Cordileone said Pelosi’s continuous refusal to repent, her increasingly extreme pro-abortion actions and her public contempt for even Pope Francis’s pro-life teachings prompted him to act.

He thanked everyone who has joined him in praying for Pelosi through the Rose and Rosary for Nancy Campaign and asked people to continue praying for her change of heart.

Cordileone also encouraged people support pro-life advocates who help pregnant mothers in crisis through the archdiocese Stand With Moms programs.

“May God grant us the grace to be true advocates for the dignity of human life, in every stage and condition of life, and to accompany, support and love women who otherwise would be alone and afraid at a most vulnerable time in their lives,” the archbishop said.

Many U.S. bishops and priests have expressed concerns that pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Pelosi and President Joe Biden are “creating scandal” for the Catholic Church by encouraging evil. They have said the church must do something to make it clear that Catholics cannot support the killing of unborn babies in abortions and must repent before participating in Communion.

When the party replaces the sacrament, what happens?

By Phil Lawler ( bio – articles – email ) | May 19, 2022

Holy Eucharist

Back in April I commented on “An epidemic of unbaptized Catholics, which began with the Covid lockdowns. As I wrote at the time:

For many thousands of “cultural Catholics,” Baptism is a social event. The family gathers to welcome a newborn baby. The baby born in 2020 is now two years old; does that party still seem appropriate?

Today, reflecting on the steady decline in church marriages, I began to wonder whether the same unhappy logic applies.

Of course there were fewer weddings in 2020, when the churches closed their doors, and the numbers only began to increase in 2021 as the lockdowns were gradually lifted. As with infant baptisms, the decline in marriages has been a long-term trend in the US. You cannot blame Covid for the American marriage rate in 2018, which set an all-time low. But you can be quite sure that the rate for 2020—for which official government statistics are not yet available—was much lower.

Five years from now, what will the statistics show? After the dramatic drop in 2020-2021, will the rate of baptisms and marriages pop back up again—only to resume the long-term downward trend? Or will the rates simply continue to fall, from their new low base? I hope I am wrong, but I suspect the latter.

Think again of those cultural Catholics, for whom a marriage, like a baptism, is primarily a social event. The long-term trends tell us that those cultural Catholics are less and less likely to bother with the sacraments themselves. In 2020, their pastors told them that they could not have the sacraments—and, more, that they shouldn’t worry too much about missing them. Now the sacraments are available again. But did that discouraging message accelerate the trend?

For the cultural Catholic, of the sort who shows up in church once or twice a year, each sacrament is a rite of passage, which entails an appropriate celebration. A baby is born, and the parents throw a party after the baptism. A child is confirmed, or receives First Holy Communion, and the relatives are invited. A wedding reception is an elaborate affair, and if a friend’s son is ordained to the priesthood (not likely anyone in the immediate family), that’s an occasion to celebrate as well. Even Extreme Unction is associated with a family gathering, at the wake and/or after the funeral. (You may notice that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is missing from this list. But then it is also missing from the lives of cultural Catholics.)

There’s nothing wrong with celebrating the major events in our lives; on the contrary, it’s a healthy instinct. But if the party is the only reason for scheduling the sacrament, and if Church leaders meekly surrender when civic leaders proclaim that the sacraments are not essential, sooner or later apathetic Catholics are bound to realize that they can skip the ceremony and move straight to the party.