Latest news with #UkrainianOrthodox
The Age
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Almost biblical in its timing, Francis' funeral falls under the same shadow as his papacy
Rome: As the world teeters under the weight of war, displacement and disillusionment, the death of Pope Francis this week was not just a religious milestone but a moment that seems almost biblical in its timing. On Saturday, in St Peter's Square, an extraordinary gathering will unfold – one of the most historically charged funerals in living memory. World leaders, adversaries and allies alike will sit shoulder to shoulder to mourn the death of a pope who, for over a decade, sought to reconcile the irreconcilable. Among them, US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and dignitaries representing both war rooms and refugee camps. Their presence is a potent final symbol of Francis's legacy: a man who often failed to say enough, but who tried – sometimes quietly, sometimes stubbornly – to act. While the late pontiff, who died aged 88 on Easter Monday, has been remembered as a champion of the poor, of climate change and of inclusion, his papacy unfolded under the long, grim shadow of conflict – particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which erupted into full-scale violence nine years into his reign. From the beginning, his response was both bold and baffling. On February 25, 2022, just one day after Russian forces rolled into Ukraine, Francis made an unannounced visit to the Russian embassy in Rome. Breaking with Vatican diplomatic protocol, he went in person to express concern and call for peace. The gesture was unprecedented, but it also raised questions. He didn't name Russian President Vladimir Putin. He didn't outright condemn the invasion. The ambiguity would come to define his response. By May, that ambiguity turned into controversy. Francis suggested NATO's expansion might have 'provoked' the Kremlin – remarks that seemed to echo Russian talking points. When asked about the morality of supplying Ukraine with weapons, he dodged, criticising the global arms trade but declining to speak directly on the matter. Many in Ukraine and throughout Eastern Europe were outraged. They wanted clarity. What they got was caution. That caution, however frustrating, was deeply rooted in history. 'He was on the right side of history,' Professor Cyril Hovorun, a Ukrainian Orthodox theologian and former adviser to the Moscow Patriarchate, said this week.
The Age
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Pope's funeral set to be one of the most historically charged in living memory
Rome: As the world teeters under the weight of war, displacement and disillusionment, the death of Pope Francis this week was not just a religious milestone, but a moment that seems almost biblical in its timing. On Saturday, in St Peter's Square, an extraordinary gathering will unfold – one of the most historically charged funerals in living memory. World leaders, adversaries and allies alike, will sit shoulder to shoulder to mourn the death of a pope who, for over a decade, sought to reconcile the irreconcilable. Among them, US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and dignitaries representing both war rooms and refugee camps. Their presence is a potent, final symbol of Francis's legacy: a man who often failed to say enough, but who tried – sometimes quietly, sometimes stubbornly – to act. While the late pontiff, who died aged 88 on Easter Monday, has been remembered as a champion of the poor, of climate change and of inclusion, his papacy unfolded under the long, grim shadow of conflict – particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which erupted into full-scale violence nine years into his reign. From the beginning, his response was both bold and baffling. On February 25, 2022, just one day after Russian forces rolled into Ukraine, Francis made an unannounced visit to the Russian embassy in Rome. Breaking with Vatican diplomatic protocol, he went in person to express concern and call for peace. The gesture was unprecedented, but it also raised questions. He didn't name Russian President Vladimir Putin. He didn't outright condemn the invasion. The ambiguity would come to define his response. By May, that ambiguity turned into controversy. Francis suggested NATO's expansion might have 'provoked' the Kremlin – remarks that seemed to echo Russian talking points. When asked about the morality of supplying Ukraine with weapons, he dodged, criticising the global arms trade but declining to speak directly on the matter. Many in Ukraine and throughout Eastern Europe were outraged. They wanted clarity. What they got was caution. That caution, however frustrating, was deeply rooted in history. 'He was on the right side of history,' Professor Cyril Hovorun, a Ukrainian Orthodox theologian and former adviser to the Moscow Patriarchate, said this week.
Sydney Morning Herald
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Pope's funeral set to be one of the most historically charged in living memory
Rome: As the world teeters under the weight of war, displacement and disillusionment, the death of Pope Francis this week was not just a religious milestone, but a moment that seems almost biblical in its timing. On Saturday, in St Peter's Square, an extraordinary gathering will unfold – one of the most historically charged funerals in living memory. World leaders, adversaries and allies alike, will sit shoulder to shoulder to mourn the death of a pope who, for over a decade, sought to reconcile the irreconcilable. Among them, US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and dignitaries representing both war rooms and refugee camps. Their presence is a potent, final symbol of Francis's legacy: a man who often failed to say enough, but who tried – sometimes quietly, sometimes stubbornly – to act. While the late pontiff, who died aged 88 on Easter Monday, has been remembered as a champion of the poor, of climate change and of inclusion, his papacy unfolded under the long, grim shadow of conflict – particularly the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which erupted into full-scale violence nine years into his reign. From the beginning, his response was both bold and baffling. On February 25, 2022, just one day after Russian forces rolled into Ukraine, Francis made an unannounced visit to the Russian embassy in Rome. Breaking with Vatican diplomatic protocol, he went in person to express concern and call for peace. The gesture was unprecedented, but it also raised questions. He didn't name Russian President Vladimir Putin. He didn't outright condemn the invasion. The ambiguity would come to define his response. By May, that ambiguity turned into controversy. Francis suggested NATO's expansion might have 'provoked' the Kremlin – remarks that seemed to echo Russian talking points. When asked about the morality of supplying Ukraine with weapons, he dodged, criticising the global arms trade but declining to speak directly on the matter. Many in Ukraine and throughout Eastern Europe were outraged. They wanted clarity. What they got was caution. That caution, however frustrating, was deeply rooted in history. 'He was on the right side of history,' Professor Cyril Hovorun, a Ukrainian Orthodox theologian and former adviser to the Moscow Patriarchate, said this week.
New York Post
22-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Supreme Court signals support for parents who object to LGBTQ books in Maryland school system
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 [school] board does not dispute that under its theory, it could compel instruction using pornography, and parents would have no rights,' argued Eric Baxter, an attorney for parent Tamer Mahmoud. Advertisement 'The First Amendment demands more. Parents, not school boards, should have the final say on such religious matters.' 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. 4 Parents sued Montgomery County Public Schools over its decision to scrap the opt-out. Courtesy of Grace Morrison Advertisement 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. Both a federal judge and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously backed the school board in denying a preliminary injunction sought by the parents. The 4th Circuit concluded the plaintiffs needed to show that their children were being coerced to act differently than their religious beliefs. 'We don't have to decide whether you get the opt-out,' conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett mused at one point. 'We just have to decide if the 4th Circuit accurately defined what a burden is.' Later, Barrett 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.' Advertisement At times, some of the conservative justices sounded uneasy about the content of some of the books in question. 4 Supreme Court justices referenced some of the books in question during oral arguments. Simon & Schuster '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. 'Do you think it's fair to say that all that is done in 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?' Justice Samuel Alito asked Baxter, before answering his own question. Advertisement 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.' MCPS attorney Alan Schoenfeld argued that the school system already provides parents with ample opportunity to provide input. 'The school board here is democratically elected,' he contended. 'The entire process of adopting this curriculum is open and transparent. These books are on review for 30 days before they're even made part of the curriculum. There's then a multi-level appeal process. 'There's plenty of opportunity for parental insight.' 4 Activists in the Christian and Muslim communities argued that the lessons violated their religious rights. MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Justice Brett Kavanaugh said at one point that he was 'a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this.' 'The other Maryland counties have opt-outs for all sorts of things,' the justice added. Schoenfeld explained that there had been 'dozens of students walking out' of classes and that schools were struggling to figure out the logistics of alternative spaces and supervision for them. Advertisement 'They don't do it for all sorts of other opt-outs,' the attorney countered. 'There's a limited universe of things that students can opt out from.' 'The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,' Alito rejoined. 'They're just saying, 'Look, we want out.' Why is that not feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' 4 Protesters on both sides of the issue demonstrated outside of the Supreme Court. FOX NEWS Schoenfeld sought to impress upon the high court that schools across the country teach a variety of lessons that conflict with parents' beliefs. Advertisement 'Children encounter real and fictional women who forego motherhood and work outside the home,' he said. 'Children read books valorizing our nation's veterans who fought in violent wars. Each of these things is deeply offensive to some people of faith.' Liberal justices seemed particularly concerned about redefining the 'burden' definition. 'How do we make very clear that the mere exposure to things that you object to is not coercion?' Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Baxter at one point. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed that parents 'can choose to put their kid elsewhere' and are not required to send their children to public schools if they disagree with what is being taught. Advertisement 'I guess I'm struggling to see how it burdens a parent's religious exercise if the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with,' she admitted. 'You have a choice, you don't have to send your kids to that school.' Jackson also listed a series of hypotheticals — such as a gay teacher talking to children about their spouse or transgender students — and got Baxter to admit that he probably would not support an opt-out in those scenarios. Justice Elena Kagan suggested attorneys for the parents 'did not want to draw lines' on where an opt-out would not be honored. Advertisement 'You're still not giving me anything other than if it's in a school and a sincere religious parent has an objection, that objection is always going to result in an opt-out, no matter what the instruction is like,' she vented. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor by the end of June.
Los Angeles Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court appears to favor parents' right to opt out of LGBTQ+ stories for their children
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded ready on Tuesday to give parents a constitutional right to opt out of public school lessons for their children that offend their religious beliefs. At issue are new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks used for classroom reading for pre-kindergarten to 5th grade in Montgomery County, Md., a suburb of Washington where three justices reside. In recent years, the court's six conservatives have invoked the 'free exercise of religion' to protect Catholic schools from illegal job-bias claims from teachers and to give parents an equal right to use state grants to send their children to religious schools. During an argument on Tuesday, they strongly suggested they would extend religious liberty rights to parents with children in public schools. 'They are not asking to change what is taught in the classroom,' Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh told an attorney for the court. 'As a lifelong resident of the county, I'm mystified at how it came to this. They had promised parents they would be notified and allow to opt out' if they objected to the new storybooks, he said. 'But the next day, they changed the rule.' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch also live in Montgomery County, and both have been reliable supporters of religious liberty claims. Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. When the new storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when 'unsustainably high numbers' of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule. They explained this state rule applied to older students and sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary children. In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children be removed from class during the reading lessons. They said the books conflicted with the religious and moral views they taught their children. A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court refused to intervene. Those judges said the 'free exercise' of religion protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs, neither of which were at issue in the school case. But the Supreme Court voted to hear the parents' appeal in the case of Mahmoud vs. Taylor. Representing the parents, Eric Baxter, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stressed they 'were not objecting to books being on the shelf or in the library. No student has a right to tell the school which books to choose,' he said. 'Here, the school board is imposing indoctrination on these children.' Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the school board, said its goal for the new storybooks was 'to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect.' He cautioned the court against adding a broad new right for parents and students to object to ideas or messages that offend them. The Becket attorneys in their legal brief described seven books they found objectionable. One of them, 'Pride Puppy,' is a picture book directed at 3- and 4-year-olds. It 'describes a Pride parade and what a child might find there,' they said. 'The book invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' [drag] king' and [drag] queen.'' Another — 'Love, Violet' — is about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. 'Born Ready' tells the story of a biological girl named Penelope who identifies as a boy. 'Intersection Allies' is a picture book also intended for early elementary school classes. 'It invites children to ponder what it means to be 'transgender' or 'non-binary' and asks 'what pronouns fit you?'' they said. Teachers were told 'to instruct students that, at birth, doctors 'guess about our gender,' but '[w]e know ourselves best.'' They said teachers were instructed to 'disrupt the either/or thinking' of elementary students about biological sex. After the case reached the Supreme Court, two of the seven books were dropped by the school board, including 'Pride Puppy.'
