What People are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
No Women on the Altar,
No Secret Gender Transition
Man’s Role in Society
Ave Maria Purissima!
May I say how much I enjoyed the article by Joseph Reilly on a return to tradition in the home, with particular reference to the restoration of husbandly authority.
The family is the building block of society and it has been destroyed by feminism and the weakness of men, which has allowed the feminists carte blanche to spread their evil, misguided and deceitful doctrine. Feminism is a lie. It was clearly the Holy Will of God that men should be superior to women from the moment of creation. Man was created, woman was made. Man is in the image of God, woman is in the image of man.
What clearer indication could Our Creator give of His intentions for the roles of men and women? Man is to lead, woman is to follow, Man is to instruct, woman is to obey.
The authority of man is not a harsh, legalistic authority, but a loving authority which cherishes the woman. The authority of man does not preclude the woman from airing her views in a quiet, respectful way but man must always make the final decision.
By her virtue the wife can and does influence her husband. A virtuous wife is a great treasure in any marriage. A wife who is dutiful and dresses modestly, is veiled in church. A wife who prefers to spend her free time in prayer instead of gossiping with her former schoolmates or window shopping, pandering to her natural vanity. A wife who honors her husband in front of the children by showing her obedience and submission to the will of her husband in little but important ways. In such truly humble ways a wife can influence her husband. A good manager in business is very wise to take into account the views of his supervisor.
I look forward with great interest to part 2 of Mr Reilly's excellent article and I thank all at TIA for bringing this to us.
Yours sincerely
C.P., Ireland
______________________
SCOTUS Ends Secret Gender Transition
I received this letter from the Thomas More Society.
I am sure you will enjoy knowing about it as much as I did.
Salve Maria!
E.A.
Dear EA,
We have BREAKING NEWS from the United States Supreme Court.
Today, [March 2] the Supreme Court handed us a historic, groundbreaking victory – and I want you to hear about it directly.
In a landmark 6-3 ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta, the Supreme Court dismantled California's secret gender transition regime. The state had been forcing schools to secretly transition children – changing their names, their pronouns, their very identities – while deliberately keeping their own parents in the dark.
(Read the major Supreme Court opinion and our reactions here!)
This is the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation – and YOU made it possible. …
One family only discovered their daughter had been living as a boy at school after she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Even after that – even after their child nearly died – California's policies required school officials to keep hiding the truth.
When her parents begged for information, the school told them state law prohibited disclosure without their daughter's consent.
Today, the Supreme Court said what we have argued from the beginning: this is unconstitutional. The Court held that California "cut out the primary protectors of children's best interests: their parents."
Six justices found that these secrecy policies likely violate both the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of parental rights.
This is not a partial win. This is not a technicality. The Court reaffirmed that parents – not the state – hold primary authority over the upbringing and education of their children, including the right not to be shut out of decisions about their children's mental health. The Court declared that California's secret facilitation of gender transitions is an even greater violation of parental rights than the government overreach struck down in last year's Mahmoud v. Taylor.
The class-wide injunction protecting parents is restored. California's secrecy regime is blocked. And this precedent puts every secret gender transition policy in America on notice.
California was just the beginning
Right now, more than a thousand school districts across the country have policies that hide children's gender transitions from their parents. In blue states and purple states, in major cities and suburban towns, schools are doing exactly what California did – secretly changing children's names and pronouns, facilitating social transitions, and cutting parents out entirely.
Today's Supreme Court ruling gives us the weapon to tear down every single one of those policies. The Court has spoken: parents have a constitutional right to know what is happening with their children and to participate in decisions about their children's mental health. That right doesn't stop at the California border.
But precedent alone doesn't protect families. It has to be enforced – district by district, state by state, courtroom by courtroom.
Thomas More Society took this case from a federal courtroom in San Diego all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States – and we won. Our legal team went toe-to-toe with the State of California and prevailed on every front: on religious liberty, on substantive due process, and on class certification. Now we need to take this fight beyond California's school system. That means filing suits against school districts that refuse to comply. It means challenging state policies from coast to coast. It means doing what Thomas More Society does best: fighting for families who have nowhere else to turn.
Thomas More Society
Posted March 19, 2026
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
TIA’s picture of women dancers in the Sanctuary connects to the first encyclical of St. Pius X. The official version in Latin did not have the words "ACTICE PARTICIPATION," the unofficial Italian did.
The Popes have considered males in cassock and surplice in choir as acting and performing a clerical function. Contemplative nuns chanting in the privacy of a convent was different, but females officiating during Mass at church went against the mind of the Church.
In those days the clergy was considered to be the Church and laity was in the church. The priest said or sang Mass and laity heard Mass. Participation during Mass was silent and interior. The modernist back then could [not] stand the idea of silent adoration.
St. Alphonsus said: If a priest takes a female into the Sanctuary and offers Mass he commits a sacrilege. What would he say nowadays? St. Pius X would view the N.O. Mass and New Church it gave birth to as not only not Catholic but as Anti-Catholic.
St. Pius V and St. Pius X, pray for us.
Z.L.