Politico launches laughable hit job on Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic faith

The other day I read a piece in the National Review that was entitled “Get Ready to Hear A Lot about People of Praise”. In that piece Alexandra Desanctis explains that there is nothing remotely controversial about the ecumenical group to which Amy Coney Barrett belongs, noting that its membership includes Catholics and Protestants alike.

But that didn’t stop Politico from writing a hit piece today on the group, targeting Barrett for her membership in the group:

Her spiritual group, however, has drawn more questions. People of Praise is one of a number of groups that rose up in the 1960s and ’70s to offer intense, highly supportive religious communities, in the style of evangelical churches, within the Catholic tradition. The group, though mostly Catholic, is outside control of the church itself. The group has a website, but doesn’t let reporters visit its worship center. When Barrett was nominated for her federal judgeship in 2017, she didn’t disclose her involvement. Critics, even those wary of making religion an issue in a judicial appointment, have questioned what role its member agreements—it’s “neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment,” the website notes—plays in her legal philosophy. Former members have called it “secretive” and a “cult”—and, above all, it has remained something of an opaque chapter attached to the life of an increasingly public figure.

Got that? It’s a secretive cult to which Barrett has made a “personal commitment”, with the suggestion that this personal commitment to the group is what will control her on the court!

It continues:

The Barretts’ five oldest children attended Trinity School, founded in 1981. Trinity operates two other private schools, in Eagan, Minn., and in Falls Church, Va. (Though the institution was founded by People of Praise, now Trinity Schools, Inc. and the People of Praise are separate 501 (c)(3) corporations.) Group membership isn’t required to work there; faculty members, however, must be Christian and “assent in good faith to the tenets of the Nicene Creed,“ according to the Trinity cultural statement.

The school publishes a “cultural statement” laying out its views on social issues. It articulates a clear, conservative Christian set of values, including discouraging sex before marriage and cautioning students who experience same-sex attraction from “prematurely interpret[ing] any particular emotional experience as identity-defining.”



Here’s where they are trying to paint Barrett as a prude and a homophobe. But as Ed Morrissey pointed out, discouraging sex before marriage and same-sex attraction isn’t a conservative Christian view or unique to this group. It’s a Christian view, period.

In the same paragraph Politico continues their attack on Barrett and accused the schools, founded by the group, of being “at odds with American law”:

It also appears to have been at odds with American law while Barrett served on the board: A version of the statement from the 2018-19 school year, provided to POLITICO by the parent of an alum, says: “the only proper place for human sexual activity is marriage, where marriage is a legal and committed relationship between one man and one woman.” “Homosexual acts” are said to be “at odds with Scripture.” A spokesperson for the school said the language changed around the 2018-19 school year, meaning it would have been in place during Barrett’s tenure as a board member from 2015-17—and well after the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which in 2015 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Let me get this straight. Having the Christian view that homosexual acts are contrary to scripture is itself contrary to American law? Well if that isn’t putting the horse on the wrong side of the cart. It is better stated that American law legalizing gay marriage is very much contrary to God, who instituted these Christian values that Politico doesn’t like.

But even more so, what about the first amendment that protects freedom of religion? It doesn’t say in parenthesis that this right should be protected “unless someone is a judge and vying for the Supreme Court”. What poppycock. As Morrissey so eloquently states, “Americans are still free to believe, as most Christian denominations teach, that marriage is intended for one man and one woman. Churches are free to restrict its recognition of marriage to that specific form, too.”

Politico predicts that all of this is “likely to arise as issues in her Supreme Court nomination hearings.” Of course it will, her Catholic faith will be attacked just like it was last time when Dianne Feinstein said Barrett’s Catholic faith was ‘concerning’.

Let’s cut to the chase. Democrats will use an unconstitutional ‘religious test’ against Barrett because they are terrified that her appointment to the high court will mean the end of Roe v Wade. Just like with Kavanaugh this is all about abortion. There are certainly other peripheral issues, but the legalized killing of unborn babies is what Democrats most want to protect and that’s why they are fiercely opposed to Barrett’s nomination. And just like with Kavanaugh, the garbage media will do their bidding. But in the end, with God’s help, it will fail just like it did with Kavanaugh and Barrett will be confirmed.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.