The Church of St. Luke

Opponents of transgender treatments on children gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 4, 2024, as justices hear oral arguments for a challenge to a Tennessee law banning transgender surgeries and hormones for minors. / Credit: Madalaine Elhabbal/CNA

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 4, 2024 / 16:10 pm (CNA).

Several United States Supreme Court justices during oral arguments on Wednesday morning challenged claims that a Tennessee law banning transgender drugs or surgeries for minors constitutes a form of “sex” discrimination.

The state law, which went into effect in July 2023, prohibits doctors from performing transgender surgeries on anyone under the age of 18 and does not allow doctors to prescribe them any drugs to facilitate a gender transition, such as puberty blockers or hormones.

Tennessee’s law is being challenged by President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and by families who live in the state, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Tennessee.

The Supreme Court’s decision could have a wide-ranging effect across the country. There are currently 24 states that prohibit both transgender surgeries and drugs for minors. Another two states — New Hampshire and Arizona — prohibit the surgeries but not the drugs. Numerous state-level laws currently face legal challenges.

DOJ and ACLU argue ‘sex’ discrimination

United States Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who made oral arguments on behalf of the DOJ, told the justices that the state law “regulates by drawing sex-based lines” and that this constitutes a “facial sex classification, full stop,” which implicates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. 

Attorney Chase Strangio, who argued on behalf of the ACLU, built on that claim, stating that a male can legally access puberty blockers and hormone treatments if he has early-onset puberty to ensure he goes through puberty at a normal age. However, Strangio said, a biological girl could not access the same drugs if she desires to go through puberty like a boy would.

“It is clearly a sex classification on its face,” Strangio added.

Prelogar said that under the law, “your access to drugs depends on your birth sex.”

“The state has left no out for those patients to obtain those medications when there’s a showing of individualized medical need,” she added. 

Many of the Republican-appointed justices, who make up six of the nine members of the court, appeared skeptical of that argument. They noted that the court ought to be cautious when ruling on questions when the medical standards are evolving and questioned whether this was a form of sex discrimination or simply a health and safety regulation. 

During oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that several European countries are “pumping the brakes” on transgender drugs for children with heavy restrictions. He said when medical standards are evolving, that should be a “heavy yellow light, if not a red light” for the court when deciding whether to weigh in.

Kavanaugh further disagreed with the sex discrimination claim, stating that “it prohibits all boys and girls from transitioning.”

Justice Samuel Alito went further, citing a comprehensive review in the United Kingdom that prompted a near-total ban on transgender drugs for minors and legislative actions in other European countries to restrict those drugs.

In response, Prelogar claimed “there is a consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescents” but acknowledged there could be some room for regulations that do not categorically ban transgender drugs for children.

The ACLU and DOJ received more sympathy from the three justices appointed by Democrats, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said “there are inherent differences between the sexes” but that “there are some children that actually need this treatment.” 

Tennessee argues against discrimination claim

Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice, who argued on behalf of the state, told the court that the law “protects minors from risky … medication” and is entirely based on “medical purpose — not a patient’s sex,” adding that the equal protection clause “does not require the states to blind themselves to medical reality or to treat unlike things the same.”

“These interventions often carry irreversible and life-altering consequences,” he said, claiming that there are “no established benefits.”

Sotomayor quickly interrupted Rice, saying: “I’m sorry counselor, every medical treatment has a risk.” She said that a boy with early onset puberty could obtain a puberty blocker to delay the growth of unwanted facial hair but that a girl could not access the same drug to delay the development of unwanted breasts, adding that one “can get that drug but the other can’t — that’s the sex-based difference.”

Rice countered, saying: “Those are not the same medical treatment.”

“I don’t think that is an example where a sex-based line is being drawn,” he said, adding that the only thing that matters is “medical purpose.” He noted that there are already other laws restricting the prescription of hormones, arguing “you cannot use testosterone for purely cosmetic reasons” regardless of whether it is for a gender transition. 

“There is no medical treatment that boys can receive that girls can’t,” he said. 

Rice added that giving testosterone to a boy with a “deficiency” is not the same as giving testosterone to a girl who has “healthy” hormone levels and that such treatments for a girl could make her “infertile and permanently damaged.”

What the legislation does

The surgeries prohibited in the legislation include operations to remove or alter a child’s genitals to make them resemble the genitals of the opposite sex. It further prohibits chest surgeries and other aesthetic surgeries that would make the child appear more similar to the opposite sex.

Under the law, doctors cannot prescribe puberty blockers to facilitate a gender transition, which are drugs that halt a child’s natural development during puberty. When prescribed to facilitate a gender transition, the children normally begin receiving them before they are teenagers. The law also prevents doctors from prescribing excessive estrogen to boys and excessive testosterone to girls when intended to facilitate a gender transition.

Doctors and health care providers who violate the law can be fined up to $25,000. Some states have stricter penalties, including six that make it a felony. 

A report published in October by the medical watchdog group Do No Harm found that doctors in the United States provided at least 13,944 children with either transgender drugs or surgeries based on information that is publicly available — but warned that the number could be even higher. This included more than 5,700 children receiving surgeries.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has filed a legal brief in which he argued that Missouri’s regulations on abortion providers are consistent with Amendment 3 and are justified on grounds of patient safety and informed consent. / Credit: DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

St. Louis, Mo., Dec 4, 2024 / 15:40 pm (CNA).

A new amendment enshrining a right to “reproductive freedom” in Missouri is set to go into effect Thursday as the state attorney general argues that certain pro-life provisions should remain in effect despite the new amendment.

Missouri’s Amendment 3, which passed narrowly Nov. 5, mandates that the government “shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” including “prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”

Although the amendment language mentions that laws could be passed to restrict abortion past the point of “fetal viability,” the amendment simultaneously prohibits any interference with an abortion that a doctor determines is necessary to “protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.”

On Election Day, a handful of the state’s most populous counties — which include urban areas such as Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia — carried the amendment to victory by an overall statewide margin of less than 2%. Meanwhile, over 100 of Missouri’s counties voted no.

Planned Parenthood asks judge to block pro-life measures

Planned Parenthood filed a 221-page lawsuit the day after the election asking a judge to block all of Missouri’s numerous pro-life protections in light of the new amendment, most notably the state’s 2019 “trigger law” that banned nearly all abortions in Missouri immediately after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Planned Parenthood went on to enumerate and challenge myriad other pro-life protections in Missouri, including the state’s 72-hour waiting period for abortions; the state’s ban on abortions done specifically for reasons of the race, sex, or a Down syndrome diagnosis of the baby; the state’s ban on “telemedicine” abortions; and the state’s requirement that only licensed physicians may perform abortions.

In addition, Missouri lawmakers in recent years have passed numerous laws designed to protect patients and limit the abortion industry’s influence, including 2017 regulations requiring that abortion doctors have surgical and admitting privileges to nearby hospitals; that abortion clinics must be licensed with the state; and that clinics must meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.

By 2018, regulatory violations had shut down surgical abortions at all but one of the state’s abortion clinics.

In 2019, Missouri revoked the license of the state’s last abortion clinic, located in St. Louis, over safety concerns including reports of at least four botched abortions that took place there. The clinic ultimately won a 2020 decision from an independent state commission that allowed it to continue performing abortions until the overturning of Roe v. Wade allowed Missouri to ban abortion entirely, with a few exceptions. 

Missouri attorney general argues some pro-life regulations remain law 

In response to Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a legal brief in which he argued that Missouri’s regulations on abortion providers are consistent with Amendment 3 and are justified on grounds of patient safety and informed consent.

He also pointed out that Planned Parenthood has a history of violating Missouri’s abortion laws, many of which he said were passed in order to address specific problems that have occurred at Planned Parenthood facilities. 

Bailey also referenced an earlier letter he wrote to incoming Gov. Mike Kehoe in which he acknowledged that Amendment 3 coming into effect would render the state’s gestational bans on abortion “unenforceable” in most circumstances but would not “remove these statutes from the books,” meaning they could come back into effect immediately if Amendment 3 is altered in the future. 

Bailey noted that the amendment allows the state to “protect innocent life after viability,” about 24 weeks, a provision he said his office will “vigorously enforce.” In addition, Bailey said his office will continue to enforce laws designed to protect women from being coerced into abortion, as well as the state’s parental consent law that allows parents to prevent a minor child from getting an abortion. 

Despite the setback that the passage of Amendment 3 represented for the pro-life movement in Missouri, some leaders have expressed optimism that the closeness of the vote and the unity displayed by pro-life advocates in the state suggest a repeal of the amendment in the future remains a possibility. A St. Louis-area Republican representative has already introduced a resolution that could lead to a stateside vote to overturn Amendment 3. 

In a Dec. 3 press conference, Brian Westbrook of the St. Louis pro-life group Coalition Life urged Missourians to support Bailey’s efforts to keep the state’s regulations on abortion providers in place. He urged Missourians to oppose Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit, contact their representatives, and support Bailey’s efforts to hold Planned Parenthood accountable.

“We cannot allow these facilities to operate without regulations and protections that have been put in place over decades to protect Missouri women,” Westbrook said.

“Simply put, the public needs to be aware of prior unsafe practices by Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers and the need to maintain commonsense safety standards that hold them accountable.”

The amendment’s appearance on the ballot was the subject of a protracted court battle earlier this year, with pro-lifers arguing that the final proposed language not only violated state law by failing to list which laws it would repeal but also misled voters about the scope and gravity of what they would be voting for. The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately voted 4-3 to allow the measure to appear before voters.

Palliative care. / Credit: Photographee.eu/Shutterstock

London, England, Dec 4, 2024 / 14:30 pm (CNA).

The Association of Palliative Medicine in the U.K. is opposed to changing the law on assisted suicide in England and Wales.

Father Lawrence Hecker pleaded guilty this week to kidnapping and raping a teenage boy in the 1970s, heading off a long-delayed trial that launched with an indictment last year.  / Credit: New Orleans Police Department

CNA Staff, Dec 4, 2024 / 14:00 pm (CNA).

A priest in New Orleans pleaded guilty this week to kidnapping and raping a teenage boy in the 1970s, heading off a long-delayed trial that launched with an indictment last year. 

In September of last year, 93-year-old Father Lawrence Hecker was indicted on charges of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, an aggravated crime against nature, and theft. 

The sex abuse crimes are alleged to have occurred between Jan. 1, 1975, and Dec. 31, 1976, according to the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. 

His trial was repeatedly delayed this year amid Hecker’s ill health and uncertainty over his mental competency to stand trial. Orleans Parish First Assistant District Attorney Ned McGowan had promised to “roll him in on a gurney” to try him.

On Tuesday, meanwhile, the priest filed a guilty plea with the court, with his lawyer saying the priest “decid[ed] that he wanted to take responsibility for the crimes that he committed.”

“I think it was just a matter of, we were on the finish line, this was the day before the trial, I think he came to the realization of what that was going to look like, and he made the decision to enter the guilty plea,” Hecker’s attorney, Bobby Hjortsberg, said outside of Orleans Criminal Court on Tuesday. 

Asked why the trial had been delayed for so long, Hjortsberg told reporters that Hecker is “an old, old man” who is “deteriorating.” 

The trial “has been a long, difficult process for everybody involved, especially obviously the victims,” Hjortsberg noted. 

Orleans Parish District Attorney Jason Williams told reporters that when Hecker returns for sentencing, “the judge is going to sentence him to a life sentence.”

“I believe this investigation and this prosecution represents a critical moment for some little boys who are now men — some of them who are now grandfathers — who have lived with this horrific abuse for years,” Williams said. 

The Archdiocese of New Orleans lists Hecker as among the priests who “are alive and have been accused of sexually abusing a minor, which led to their removal from ministry.”

The archdiocesan website says it received allegations against Hecker in 1996 and removed him from ministry in 2002. The archdiocese says the “time frame” of Hecker’s abuse spans the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The priest had in 1999 reportedly confessed to abusing multiple teenage boys during those years.

In a statement on Wednesday, the archdiocese said: “It is our hope and prayer that the court proceedings bring healing and peace to the survivor and all survivors of sexual abuse.” 

“We continue to hold all survivors in prayer,” the statement added. 

Main lobby of Orr Elementary in Tyler, Texas. / Credit: Buddpaul, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Dec 4, 2024 / 09:45 am (CNA).

The Texas State Board of Education has sparked renewed debate over the role of religion in public schools in the wake of the agency’s approval of a new language arts curriculum that includes the Bible.

The K–5 curriculum, which will become available this spring, features a cross-disciplinary approach that uses reading and language arts to reinforce other subjects. The Blue Bonnet Learning curriculum has come under scrutiny due to its references to Christianity and the Bible, including lessons from Genesis and Psalms as well as the New Testament. 

For example, the parable of the good Samaritan is part of a lesson plan about the Golden Rule. The program is optional, though schools receive funding per student to cover the cost of the program if they participate. Participating schools will begin the program in the 2025-2026 school year. 

According to a report by the Texas Tribune, critics of the curriculum cite fear it will “entrench religion in public life” and could “diminish the protections that are afforded to religious minorities.” Other critics fear that this could ostracize students of different faith backgrounds, while one parent called the curriculum “indoctrination.”  

But Mary Elizabeth Castle, director of government relations for Texas Values, a group that supports the curriculum, pointed out that understanding the Bible helps deepen students’ understanding of Western history.

“These materials were attacked for no other reason but to completely erase any mention of religion or the Bible from the classroom, which would create a hostile environment for free speech,” Castle said in a statement.

Catholic takes

When asked about the Texas Bible curriculum, Father Steve Grunow, CEO of Word on Fire, told CNA that the goal of the curriculum — to stress “the cultural influence and moral perspectives of the Scriptures” — is “commendable.”  

Grunow emphasized that the Bible’s vast global influence “is such that it should not be ignored in any academic curriculum.” 

But he noted that this goal is difficult to implement. “The open and often volatile question has been how to best do this,” he pointed out. 

“The Bible is not only culturally valuable but holds the status for believers to be revelatory of God,” he noted. “No interpretation of its meaning or significance can [be] characterized as neutral, and it is clear that the Bible itself does not present its purpose as relative — the text intends to convince us of the truth of its claims.”

Grunow noted that parish schools were founded with this concern in mind. 

“Contemporary Catholics might not remember, but one of the contributing factors to the founding of parochial schools was that the public school curriculum was suffused with Protestantism, particularly in regards to presentations of the Bible,” Grunow explained. “The first conflict of Catholics with public schools and other institutions in this country was not that they were secular but that they were Protestant.” 

Does the curriculum cross a line? 

Weighing in with legal perspective on the curriculum, a professor at the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America pointed out that proselytizing is unconstitutional, but education about religions is not. 

Marc DeGirolami, co-director at CUA’s Center for Law and the Human Person, said that “from a constitutional point of view as the law now stands, in principle, there is nothing illegal about what Texas is doing.”

“What is not permitted at present is to ‘proselytize’ — to teach a particular set of religious views as true and other religious views as false,” he told CNA. “From what I could see in the proposed curriculum, though, this is not what Texas is now proposing. And teaching about religion, including the historical and cultural connections of the American republic to Christianity, is not forbidden.”

However, this can be a hard line to walk. “Of course, the line between teaching about religion and teaching religion can be gray. So much will depend upon the implementation of these curricular policies,” DeGirolami said.

When asked if he thinks the curriculum could be a violation of religious freedom, Grunow agreed with DeGirolami — it’s only unconstitutional “if its purposes were sectarian and to proselytize.” 

“I do think that most Americans would not have an issue [with] the presentation of the Bible in the public schools; that’s not the point of contention,” Grunow said. “The issue is how to do this in a way that respects ... the Bible, those who hold it to be God’s revelation, those who ascribe to differing interpretations, and those who might appreciate its cultural significance but are wary of any encroachment of religion in public institutions.”

“The Texas curriculum is trying to navigate these concerns,” Grunow said. “I give them credit for their efforts, but time will show us the efficacy of this endeavor.” 

Some critics have threatened legal action, but DeGirolami said objections like these “are on awkward footing.”

For DeGirolami, excluding a particular religion in education “seems discriminatory to me, especially in a world where what children are taught in public schools seems, at least to me, to be neck deep in moral and religious teaching.”

In other words, religious and moral values manifest throughout education anyway, so excluding Christianity would be discriminatory.   

“School curricula are meant to develop in children certain civic, moral, political, and cultural views, together with teaching them certain basic skills,” he explained. “Those civic, moral, political, and cultural views presuppose answers to some very basic questions that are also questions addressed by Christianity and many other religions.” 

For DeGirolami, Christianity should not be excluded from the civic and moral discussion. 

“To say that Christianity, because it is ‘religious,’ is not to be included in that discussion, is to gerrymander a category (‘religion’) so as to exclude particular substantive positions that are unwelcome or that critics think are wrong,” he said. “But if they are wrong, critics should just say so and explain why, rather than excluding them from the get-go as categorically inappropriate or out of bounds.”

Bishop Carlos Herrera is president of the Bishops’ Conference of Nicaragua. / Credit: Bishops Conference of Nicaragua

Lima Newsroom, Dec 4, 2024 / 07:00 am (CNA).

The bishops of Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala are inviting the faithful to participate in a day of prayer for the Church in Nicaragua.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Homilies must be prepared with the help of the Holy Spirit, be shorter than 10 minutes and put the spotlight on the Lord, not oneself, Pope Francis said.

Those who preach must convey "one idea, one sentiment and an invitation to action," he said.

Preaching loses its power and starts to ramble after eight minutes, he said to the applause of visitors gathered for his general audience in St. Peter's Square Dec. 4.

The pope continued his series of audience talks on the Holy Spirit, focusing on its role in evangelization and preaching in the church.

It was also the first general audience to include a greeting and a summary of the pope's catechesis in Mandarin Chinese. The pope gives his catechesis in Italian, and aides read summaries in English, Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Polish, Arabic and, from Dec. 4, standard Chinese. 

In his main audience talk, the pope said, "The church must do precisely what Jesus says at the beginning of his public ministry," which, according to St. Luke's Gospel, is to accept the anointing of the Holy Spirit "to bring glad tidings to the poor."

"Preaching with the anointing of the Holy Spirit means transmitting, together with the ideas and the doctrine, the life and profound conviction of our faith. It means doing so 'not with persuasive (words of) wisdom, but with a demonstration of spirit and power,'" he said, citing the First Letter to the Corinthians.

The Holy Spirit comes to those who pray, which is the first thing a preacher must do, he said.

"Woe to those who preach without praying," he said, because they become, as St. Paul described, "a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal." 

"The second thing is not wanting to preach ourselves, but to preach Jesus, the Lord," Pope Francis said.

Often homilies are so long, 20 or 30 minutes, that people will go outside to smoke a cigarette and come back, he said.

"Please," he said, "do not go longer than 10 minutes, ever! This is very important."

"Not wanting to preach oneself also implies not always giving priority to pastoral initiatives promoted by us and linked to our own name, but willingly collaborating, if requested, in community initiatives or (those) entrusted to us by obedience," he said.

The pope asked that the Holy Spirit, "help us, accompany us and teach us" how to preach the Gospel to men and women today.

Pope to preachers: Keep it brief!

During his general audience Dec. 4, Pope Francis told preachers to keep homilies short.

Church of Panagia tou Arakos, triumphal arch, wall paintings, Lagoudera, Cyprus — north side, St. John of Damascus. / Credit: Winfield, David, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

National Catholic Register, Dec 4, 2024 / 04:00 am (CNA).

On Dec. 4 we celebrate St. John of Damascus, also known as St. John Damascene.

A priest and religious, he became a doctor of the Church. He’s also the last Church Father.

Here are seven things to know and share about St. John of Damascus.

1. Why is he the last of the Church Fathers?

We need to divide history into different periods. The age of the Church Fathers was not the same as the ages that came before it or the ages that followed it.

But to do this, we have to divide history at somewhat arbitrary points.

Thus, it is customary to regard the age of the Church Fathers as ending in the East with the life of St. John of Damascus, who died around A.D. 749.

(In the West, the age of the Church Fathers is commonly reckoned as ending with St. Isidore of Seville, who died in A.D. 636.)

2. Who was St. John of Damascus?

As his name implies, he was born in the city of Damascus, in the modern state of Syria, which is just north of Israel.

It’s the same city that St. Paul was travelling to when he experienced his conversion on “the Damascus Road.” (In fact, it’s quite close by modern standards; Damascus is about 135 miles north of Jerusalem.)

John was born in A.D. 675 or 676, and he lived to about 75 years of age, dying around A.D. 749. He spent most of his life in the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem.

He is also known by the Greek nickname “Chrysorrhoas,” which means “streaming with gold” or “gold-pouring,” indicating the quality of his writings.

3. Why is he significant?

Pope Benedict XVI explained:

“Above all he was an eyewitness of the passage from the Greek and Syrian Christian cultures shared by the Eastern part of the Byzantine Empire to the Islamic culture, which spread through its military conquests in the territory commonly known as the Middle or Near East.”

4. What happened in his early life?

Pope Benedict XVI explained:

“John, born into a wealthy Christian family, at an early age assumed the role, perhaps already held by his father, of treasurer of the Caliphate.

“Very soon, however, dissatisfied with life at court, he decided on a monastic life and entered the monastery of Mar Saba, near Jerusalem. This was around the year 700.

“He never again left the monastery but dedicated all his energy to ascesis and literary work, not disdaining a certain amount of pastoral activity, as is shown by his numerous homilies.”

5. What theological controversy made him important?

It was the eighth-century controversy over whether images should be venerated — the so-called “iconoclast controversy.”

Pope Benedict XVI explained:

“In the East, his best remembered works are the three ‘Discourses Against Those Who Calumniate the Holy Images,’ which were condemned after his death by the iconoclastic Council of Hieria (754).

“These discourses, however, were also the fundamental grounds for his rehabilitation and canonization on the part of the Orthodox Fathers summoned to the Council of Nicaea (787), the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

“In these texts it is possible to trace the first important theological attempts to legitimize the veneration of sacred images, relating them to the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary.”

6. How did St. John Damascene contribute to the discussion?

Pope Benedict XVI explained:

“John Damascene was also among the first to distinguish, in the cult, both public and private, of the Christians, between worship (‘latreia’), and veneration (‘proskynesis’): The first can only be offered to God, spiritual above all else, the second, on the other hand, can make use of an image to address the one whom the image represents.

“Obviously the saint can in no way be identified with the material of which the icon is composed.

“This distinction was immediately seen to be very important in finding an answer in Christian terms to those who considered universal and eternal the strict Old Testament prohibition against the use of cult images.

“This was also a matter of great debate in the Islamic world, which accepts the Jewish tradition of the total exclusion of cult images.

“Christians, on the other hand, in this context, have discussed the problem and found a justification for the veneration of images.”

7. What did St. John Damascene write about this?

As Pope Benedict XVI explained, John Damascene wrote:

“In other ages God had not been represented in images, being incorporate and faceless.

“But since God has now been seen in the flesh, and lived among men, I represent that part of God which is visible.

“I do not venerate matter, but the Creator of matter, who became matter for my sake and deigned to live in matter and bring about my salvation through matter.

“I will not cease therefore to venerate that matter through which my salvation was achieved.

“But I do not venerate it in absolute terms as God! How could that which, from nonexistence, has been given existence, be God? ...

“But I also venerate and respect all the rest of matter which has brought me salvation, since it is full of energy and holy graces.

“Is not the wood of the cross, three times blessed, matter? ... And the ink, and the most holy book of the Gospels, are they not matter? The redeeming altar which dispenses the Bread of Life, is it not matter? ... And, before all else, are not the flesh and blood of Our Lord matter?

“Either we must suppress the sacred nature of all these things, or we must concede to the tradition of the Church the veneration of the images of God and that of the friends of God who are sanctified by the name they bear, and for this reason are possessed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

“Do not, therefore, offend matter: It is not contemptible, because nothing that God has made is contemptible” (cf. “Contra Imaginum Calumniatores,” I, 16, ed. Kotter, p. 89-90).

This story was first published by the National Catholic Register and has been adapted by CNA.

Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, Texas, and Rev. Mother Teresa Agnes Gerlach of the Most Holy Trinity Monastery in Arlington, Texas. / Credit: Diocese of Fort Worth; Monastery of the Most Holy Trinity Discalced Carmelite Nuns

CNA Staff, Dec 3, 2024 / 16:35 pm (CNA).

Bishop Michael Olson of the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, announced on Monday that the Vatican had issued a decree of suppression to forcibly close the Carmelite Monastery of the Most Holy Trinity in Arlington, Texas. 

For nearly 19 months, a dispute between the bishop of Fort Worth and seven women who are members of the Discalced Carmelite Nuns of Arlington, Texas, a Latin Mass religious community, has played out in court papers and public statements. 

Olson said the de facto head of the monastery, Reverend Mother Teresa Agnes Gerlach, had admitted to engaging in illicit sexual activity with a priest and that he therefore removed her as prioress, in accord with his proper authority. Gerlach has denied the accusations and has claimed that the bishop has overstepped his rightful authority because he wants to acquire the monastery’s land. The bishop denies that claim.

The following timeline is based on court documents; news stories; public statements on the website of the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas; and public statements on the website of the Discalced Carmelite Nuns of Arlington. 

1958: Discalced Carmelite nuns take up residence in Fort Worth, Texas. 

1984: Discalced Carmelite nuns move to a new monastery (Monastery of the Most Holy Trinity) on a 72-acre wooded property in Arlington, Texas. 

2013: Bishop Michael Olson becomes bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth.

August 2020: Discalced Carmelite nuns ask permission from the Vatican to join a new association of Carmelites (known as the Discalced Carmelite Association of Christ the King), thus moving from the jurisdiction of a Discalced Carmelites provincial to the bishop of Fort Worth; in October 2020 the Vatican’s Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life grants the request.

April 24, 2023: Olson visits the Discalced Carmelite monastery in Arlington, Texas, saying he had gotten a report that the prioress, Reverend Mother Teresa Agnes Gerlach, had “committed sins against the Sixth Commandment and violated her vow of chastity with a priest from outside the Diocese of Fort Worth”; the bishop takes Gerlach’s computer, iPad, and cellphone, according to subsequent court papers.

May 3, 2023: Gerlach and another nun, Sister Francis Therese, file a state lawsuit in Tarrant County district court in Fort Worth against Olson and the Diocese of Fort Worth, claiming the bishop has abused his power and overstepped his authority and calling his charges of misconduct against Gerlach “patently false and defamatory.” 

May 16, 2023: Olson issues a statement saying that on April 24, 2023, he began a Church investigation of Gerlach after he received a report of misconduct by Gerlach; his statement notes that the Carmelite nuns filed a civil lawsuit against him. 

May 31, 2023: Olson announces that the Vatican has issued a decree appointing him “pontifical commissary” of the Carmelite monastery in Arlington, meaning he is what he calls “the pope’s representative in this matter.” 

June 1, 2023: Olson issues a statement saying he has dismissed Gerlach from the Order of Discalced Carmelites, saying he has found her “guilty of having violated the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue and her vow of chastity”; Gerlach appeals to Rome.

June 14, 2023: Diocese of Fort Worth releases photos that diocesan officials say show marijuana edibles and marijuana paraphernalia at the monastery; the diocese says the photos came from a confidential informant. A lawyer for the nuns suggests the drugs in the photos were staged by the diocese.

June 27, 2023: A lawyer for the Diocese of Fort Worth plays in open court a recording of a conversation between Olson and Gerlach in which Gerlach admits to having had inappropriate telephone contact with a priest, at one point saying: “I made a horrible, horrible mistake,” according to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Gerlach has before and since the court proceeding denied allegations of misconduct — a lawyer for Gerlach says she has serious physical ailments and was suffering from the effects of medications designed to control seizures when she spoke with the bishop that day and that she underwent surgery the day after the interview.

June 30, 2023: A judge dismisses the nuns’ lawsuit, saying the court lacks jurisdiction.

Aug. 18, 2023: Gerlach announces that the Carmelite Monastery of Arlington is no longer under the authority of Olson and forbids him from coming onto the property.

Aug. 19, 2023: Olson issues a statement saying that Gerlach may have incurred “latae sententiae excommunication” — which canon law defines as automatic excommunication “upon the commission of an offense” (Canon 1314) — for what he calls her “scandalous and schismatic actions.”

According to the bishop, the statement Gerlach issued the previous day “publicly rejected my authority as diocesan bishop and pontifical commissary.” The bishop’s statement says the other nuns might have incurred the same type of excommunication, “depending on their complicity” in Gerlach’s actions; the bishop declares the monastery “closed to public access.” 

April 18, 2024: Olson announces that Mother Marie of the Incarnation, a Discalced Carmelite who is president of the Discalced Carmelite Association of Christ the King but who does not live at the Carmelite monastery in Arlington, is now the “lawful superior” of the monastery; the announcement is accompanied by a decree from the Vatican dicastery that oversees religious orders.

May 22, 2024: Olson announces that the Vatican has overturned his decree dismissing Gerlach from the Carmelites on the grounds that she did not abuse her authority as head of the monastery because she had no authority over the priest who Olson says took part in illicit sexual activity with Gerlach; the Vatican on April 30 also issues a decree upholding the bishop’s investigation and another decree upholding the bishop’s suspension of Gerlach as prioress. 

Sept. 14, 2024: The Discalced Carmelite Nuns of Arlington announce a formal association with the Society of St. Pius X, which will supply a priest for the nuns’ spiritual needs. (The Society of St. Pius X is a canonically irregular traditionalist Catholic association.) The nuns also announce that they reelected Gerlach as their prioress in August. 

Sept. 17, 2024: Olson announces that the Carmelite nuns’ actions are “scandalous” and “permeated with the odor of schism,” and he warns Catholics not to partake of sacraments at the monastery or give money to the nuns. 

Oct. 28, 2024: Olson announces that the prioress he appointed as what he calls the “legitimate superior” of the Arlington monastery, Mother Marie of the Incarnation, has dismissed the seven women of the monastery from the Order of Discalced Carmelites, returning them to lay status. 

Oct. 30, 2024: The Discalced Carmelite Nuns of Arlington post a statement on the monastery’s website saying that “any ‘dismissal’ declared by Mother Marie of the Association of Christ the King is a moot point” because of the monastery’s association with the Society of St. Pius X. The nuns say their religious vows were “professed to God” and “cannot be dismissed or taken away.” They also say that they pray for Pope Francis and Olson every day and that “any claim that we have departed from the Catholic faith is ridiculous.”

Oct. 31, 2024: Olson announces that the Society of St. Pius X is “not in full communion or good standing with the Catholic Church” and that sacraments offered by the society under ordinary circumstances are valid but illicit. 

Dec. 2, 2024: Olson announces that the Holy See’s Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has suppressed the Carmelite Monastery of the Most Holy Trinity as of Nov. 28.

Nicaraguan academic and political activist Felix Maradiaga speaks during an interview with AFP in Managua on Feb. 11, 2021. / Credit: STR/AFP via Getty Images

Lima Newsroom, Dec 3, 2024 / 16:05 pm (CNA).

Catholics exiled from Nicaragua are expressing their gratitude for the recent letter of encouragement Pope Francis sent to the persecuted Church in the country.