LINK TO PDF
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. B. P. J. and Little v. Hecox that states may limit participation in female sports to female students. It’s a step in the right direction, especially for Catholic families and educators, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion might prove valuable to future decisions.
But the return to sanity is still a few steps away.
To be precise: the Court agreed unanimously that the statutes of West Virginia and Idaho—and presumably the laws of 25 other states that prevent biologically male, “transgender” students from competing in female athletics—do not violate Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funding. The Court also voted 6-3 that such laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The ruling is an important win for female athletes and helps protect Catholic education. In the sensible states that preserve female sports, Catholic schools and colleges can uphold Catholic teaching on gender and sexuality and compete against public schools and colleges without discrimination and pressure to conform to gender ideology.
Nevertheless, gender ideology remains a serious threat. Here’s what the Supreme Court did not do:
- Although the ruling allows states to protect female sports, the Court explicitly warns, “nothing in this opinion should be interpreted to address or limit participation by biological females on male or co-ed sports teams.” Laws that limit male sports to biological males—which are extremely rare—could still be declared violations of Title IX and/or the 14th Amendment.
- The ruling also does not rein in the sabotage of both male and female sports by states that force schools and colleges to accommodate “transgender” students. This subverts the purpose of sex-segregated sports, threatens the safety of female athletes, and puts them at a significant disadvantage. But whether such laws violate Title IX or the 14th Amendment is “currently the subject of litigation in some lower courts” and will surely reach the high court within the next few years.
- This ruling is narrowly focused on competitive female sports, and so it does not confront the dangerous dictates of gender ideology regarding bathrooms, locker rooms, pronouns, dress codes, school admissions, etc. Accommodating students’ gender illusions means compromising the physical safety, mental health, and moral purity of other students. These fights will continue.
- The ruling does not determine whether “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are included within Title IX’s scope of “sex discrimination.” The Court avoids that looming question in these two cases.
The Court, therefore, has not addressed the Trump administration’s claim that Title IX prohibits gender ideology in schools and colleges, nor the Biden administration’s opposite claim that Title IX mandates gender ideology in education. The ruling does thwart part of the Biden administration’s radical policy agenda, which tried to force states to accept “transgender” athletes in female sports, but the rest of that agenda could be resumed by a new administration.
Among the 73 Newman Guide Recommended elementary and secondary schools, only 31 are in states with laws protecting female sports, which leaves the others vulnerable to discrimination and coercion opposed to their Catholic beliefs. Of the 18 Newman Guide Recommended colleges in the U.S., 13 are in states with laws that protect female sports—and of the remaining five, only The Catholic University of America (D.C.) has an interscholastic sports program.
Nearly all Newman Guide Recommended schools and colleges are in states that allow females to compete in male sports, including “transgender” students. In Texas—the home of the University of Dallas, University of St. Thomas (Houston), and eight Newman Guide recommended schools—females cannot participate on male teams if there is a female team in the same sport. Likewise in South Carolina, where three recommended schools are located.
Limited scope
The Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. B. P. J. and Little v. Hecox: “[M]ay schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes.”
In Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, he frames the question before the Court as whether “schools may maintain women’s and girls’ sports teams for biological females.” But this, of course, has long been a settled question. Single-sex sports have never been deemed discriminatory, because there is a rational and biological reason for separating male and female students in competitive athletics, which protects females rather than discriminate against them.
Kavanaugh’s opinion relies on the plain fact that federal law explicitly permits segregation in sports by biological sex. Although Title IX, part of the Education Amendments of 1972, says nothing specifically about athletics, the Javits Amendment approved by Congress two years later directed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to issue regulations implementing Title IX, including “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports.” The resulting 1975 regulations authorize “separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.”
The Court finds, “By referring to contact sports and competitive skill, the regulations plainly recognized the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women—as well as the safety and competitive fairness concerns that would arise if males were allowed to compete in female sports.”
Because the 1975 regulations interpreted Title IX “contemporaneously with the statute,” and because Title IX regulations have “remained consistent over time” on the matter of single-sex sports, Kavanaugh asserts that they are “especially useful in determining the statute’s meaning.” Bottom line: the law allows schools and colleges to limit sports teams according to biological sex.
What is unique in these two cases, however, is the context. The opinion says the male plaintiff B. P. J. “identifies as female” and hoped to join the girls’ track-and-field and cross-country teams at his school, in violation of West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act. The other plaintiff Hecox, also a male who “identifies as female,” wanted to compete with girls in soccer, track, and cross-country, but he was prevented by Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.
B. P. J. relied partly on Title IX for his complaint, acknowledging that Title IX permits single-sex sports based on biological sex but also seeking an exception for males claiming a female gender. He asked the Court to find room for nuance in the Javits Amendment’s instruction to implement “reasonable” regulations for athletics programs. The Justices, however, found it reasonable to limit female sports to biological females.
“Whether biological males may participate on women’s and girls’ sports teams may be a debated policy question,” notes the majority opinion. “But the legal question for Title IX purposes is whether West Virginia may limit women’s and girls’ sports teams to biological females. As a matter of text and history, West Virginia may do so.”
The more important argument by B. P. J.—concerning the question that has been raised repeatedly since the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County—was that “gender identity” must be protected by Title IX within the broad scope of “sex.” In Bostock, the Court found that employment decisions based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” constitute “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, because (it reasoned) any consideration of orientation or gender necessarily implies consideration of an employee’s sex, which is illegal.
In these cases, the Court chose not to apply or reject the same reasoning in the context of Title IX, finding it irrelevant to the cases at hand. Unlike Title VII, the majority opinion argues, Title IX explicitly invites segregation by biological sex in the context of athletics and requires no exceptions. “Stated simply, Title VII and Bostock are not relevant in this very different statutory and factual context,” it says.
Finally, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment does not mandate the exception to Title IX sought by both B. P. J. and Hecox. Under the 14th Amendment, the Court says, “Sex-based classifications are permissible only when the classification is ‘substantially related’ to achieving an ‘important’ government objective.” The Justices found that general classifications according to biological sex are appropriate in competitive sports, given all the reasons supporting Title IX’s distinctions, and maintaining biological distinctions without exception serves important purposes, including girls’ and women’s safety and equal opportunities.
Hope for the future
Looking forward, what might we expect in response to those lingering questions listed above? If the Supreme Court’s composition and reasoning are consistent, this ruling offers a few clues.
The Court’s interpretation of sex discrimination under Title IX seems to differ substantially from the Bostock ruling concerning Title VII.
With the Bostock ruling, many believed that gender ideology had won a major victory in federal law, effectively redefining “sex” to mean a person’s chosen or natural gender. But in its ruling last month, the Court reminds Americans that Bostock did no such thing. It did not agree that “sex” in Title VII means anything other than biological sex, and it did not formally endorse the claim that a person can choose their gender.
What Bostock declared is that, when an employment decision is based simply on an employee’s “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” it amounts to discrimination based on sex, because the employee’s biological sex “plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision.” This is a bad ruling that conflates discrimination against males or females, which Title VII was intended to address, with an employer’s appropriate judgment about behavior, mental fitness, and moral turpitude. Still, the Court arrived at the Bostock decision without redefining “sex” in Title VII.
Regardless, the Court told B. P. J. and Hecox that “Title VII and Bostock are not relevant in this very different statutory and factual context.” The factual difference between student athletics and employment is obvious, but the Court also says Title VII and Title IX are “vastly different” laws. Title VII, according to Kavanaugh, “requires that men and women be treated without regard to their sex.” Title IX says a student, “on the basis of sex,” cannot be “excluded” or “denied the benefits of” a federally funded education program or otherwise “discriminated against.” Under Title VII, sex discrimination occurs whenever sex is a factor in an employment decision—it should be irrelevant. Under Title IX, sex discrimination occurs when someone is treated unfairly because of their biological sex, but the law and its regulations recognize that a student’s sex is quite relevant to education and student formation.
The majority opinion says Title IX “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex,” and the Court sees no reason why states must make exceptions for gender-confused males wanting to compete in female sports. Presumably the same reasoning can be applied to single-sex schools, classrooms, and other activities that are permitted by Title IX. But in limited matters like student admissions to coed institutions, a Bostock-like expansion of Title IX to protect “sexual orientation” and “gender ideology” could emerge.
The Court could find it permissible to exclude “transgender” students from opposite-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and campus residences.
For reasons very similar to the Court’s decision last month, it seems likely that future rulings will find that Title IX and the 14th Amendment allow states to restrict restrooms, locker rooms, and campus residences to males or females—even without exceptions for “transgender” students. States should be able to show reasonable government objectives for such distinctions based on biological sex.
The Court could uphold the use of pronouns consistent with biological sex.
Again, a general policy with reasonable objectives should be permissible under both Title IX and the 14th Amendment. While “transgender” students may want exceptions, the general policy would uphold fair treatment based on biological sex. A pronoun case is also likely to turn on the First Amendment right to free speech.
The Court could allow states to protect male sports.
In its opinion last month, the Court noted that 27 states protect female sports, presumably supporting the argument that single-sex sports are reasonable. Very few states, however, forbid females (including “transgender” students) from participating in male sports. They include Alabama and Tennessee (the latter for primary and secondary schools only), while Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas permit females in male sports only when there is no female team available in a particular sport.
Nevertheless, the Court is likely to find all-male sports reasonable, even without exceptions for “transgender” students or especially strong female athletes. Last month’s ruling affirmed that separating athletes by biological sex is not only reasonable but also explicitly condoned by the Title IX regulations. If the Court could not find a mandate under Title IX or the 14th Amendment to make exceptions for “transgender” students seeking admission to female teams, it seems unlikely to force states to admit “transgender” students or other females to male teams. If it did, the Court would have to accept the exaggeration that refusing this exception to a small number of students hinders the general objective of ensuring equal opportunity for women.
Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion acknowledges that some “transgender” students could suffer under strict single-sex athletics policies, perhaps even excluded from a sport entirely, because they belong on neither a male team nor a female team: “We appreciate the desire of every student, including B. P. J., who wants to play school sports. And we recognize that student-athletes are understandably disappointed and upset when they do not make a team or otherwise cannot participate. But the Title IX regulations guarantee ‘equal athletic opportunity.’ The regulations cannot and do not guarantee every student a spot on a team’s roster.”
The Court could strike down state laws that force schools and colleges to admit “transgender” students to opposite-sex sports, restrooms, locker rooms, and campus residences.
In the majority opinion, the Court is careful only to say that Title IX allows for single-sex sports and does not require states to admit “transgender” students to female sports. There is nothing in Title IX that explicitly mandates any policy distinguishing between the sexes—only that there is no exclusion or denial of benefits to either sex.
A Court ruling against state laws that forcibly compromise single-sex sports—or restrooms, locker rooms, or campus residences—by requiring exceptions for “transgender” students could not rely on any explicit requirement under Title IX. Plaintiffs would probably have to make the case that such laws prevent the fair treatment of female students or deny them the benefit of privacy and safety that is generally promised to all students.
The majority opinion cites the arguments of Iowa and West Virginia in support of female sports, and the Court seems persuaded that refusing exceptions for “transgender” students who are biologically male is a reasonable policy for ensuring “equal athletic opportunities for the female sex.” The states argue that allowing males to compete with female students would put female athletes “at significant risk of sometimes severe injuries” and prevent “competitive fairness” because:
- “Every biological male who makes the team takes a roster spot from a female athlete.”
- “Every biological male who earns playing time reduces the playing time of a female athlete.”
- “Every biological male who starts takes a starting position from a female athlete.”
- “Every biological male who wins a race takes the gold medal away from a female athlete.”
Still, these are impacts on individual females, and in reference to the “transgender” students who suffer from state laws enforcing female sports, the Court argues that Title IX cannot “guarantee every student a spot on a team’s roster.” A successful argument probably needs to show a substantial disadvantage to all or at least many females. In addition to the risk of physical harm, the Court cites another broad argument for the unfairness of male athletes competing with women:
What is more, forcing women and girls to play against biological males can deter some women and girls who would otherwise participate in sports from doing so—out of understandable concern about suffering serious injury or participating in what they view as an unfair competition. That second-order effect of allowing biological males to play women’s and girls’ sports cannot be papered over, so the States say.
Having already accepted these arguments as reasonable, and having declared that Title IX is concerned with the fair treatment of students based only on biological sex, it is possible that the Supreme Court could strike down laws that compromise single-sex sports by forcing teams to accept athletes of the opposite sex.
Speculation about how the Court will rule on such matters is, of course, never certain. Catholic families and educators will need to stand firm in the Catholic faith, refusing to compromise the truth of sexuality and gender even when states and activists demand compliance with gender ideology. Title IX has a strong exemption for religious schools and colleges. With prayer and witness to faithful formation, we can hope that America’s courts will soon acknowledge the serious harm and injustice to girls and women that are caused by gender ideology.
The Cardinal Newman Society Partners with The Catholic Herald
/in Blog Latest, Statements and Press Releases/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffFounded in 1888 in London and now based in New York—with a readership primarily made up of U.S. Catholics—The Catholic Herald has been home to celebrated authors including G.K. Chesterton, Graham Greene, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Evelyn Waugh. It shares The Cardinal Newman Society’s admiration for St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Doctor of the Church and Patron of Catholic Education.
“Catholic education is under real pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, and The Cardinal Newman Society’s decades of expertise will strengthen how we cover it,” said Edward Barrett-Shortt, Editor-in-Chief of The Catholic Herald.
“The Catholic Herald is well-known for its hardy journalism, insightful commentary, and unflagging fidelity to the Catholic Church,” said Patrick Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “It’s the perfect publication to confront the crisis of modern education while reporting the good news of reform and renewal.”
About The Catholic Herald
The Catholic Herald is one of the world’s leading Catholic publications, providing news, analysis, essays, and cultural commentary from a faithful Catholic perspective. Founded in 1888, The Catholic Herald serves readers in the United Kingdom, the United States, and around the world.
About The Cardinal Newman Society
Founded in 1993, The Cardinal Newman Society promotes and defends faithful Catholic education in support of Catholic families, in fidelity to Jesus Christ and His Church, and according to the educational vision of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. Since 2007, The Cardinal Newman Society has published The Newman Guide—the gold standard of faithful Catholic education—which recommends exemplary schools, homeschool and school curricula, colleges, and graduate programs.
LGBTQ Activism at California Catholic High Schools
/in Blog Commentary Blog, Latest/by Patrick ReillyIt’s important for families to understand: the LGBTQ agenda has infiltrated many Catholic high schools from coast to coast.
Instead of helping young men and women navigate issues of gender and sexuality through the lens of Church teaching, wayward Catholic schools are sponsoring programs to affirm and encourage students in disordered LGBTQ “identities” and lifestyles.
Bishop O’Dowd High School in Oakland, California, is receiving national press attention this week for taking down gay pride rainbow flags at the school after the Diocese of Oakland reportedly asked them to be removed.
Unfortunately, O’Dowd decided to replace the pride flag with the school’s own LGBTQ-affirming symbol.
Instead of the rainbow flag, the school created a rainbow watercolor “O” symbol to represent “O’Dowd’s commitment” to “LGBTQ+ students, families, faculty, and staff.”
O’Dowd also posted a webpage boasting of the many ways the school promotes an “inclusive” atmosphere that affirms and celebrates teenagers’ LGBTQ identity. Examples include:
All this is woven through the school’s emphasis on social justice and DEI concerns. O’Dowd’s course catalog includes:
This story is a reminder of what our Cardinal Newman Society Podcast guest Anthony Scarpo said last year:
“Catholic parents, and all parents, can no longer remain silent.”
Mr. Scarpo was crushed when he discovered his daughters’ Catholic high school in Florida was teaching gender ideology, LGBTQ activism, and divisive lessons that pitted students against each other based on skin tone.
“Your most precious asset in the world, your child, is now at stake,” he told us. “And all that you’ve worked for to elevate and raise your child to a level of greatness, faith, and love of God deep in the Catholic Faith is—depending on where you send your children to school—being undermined daily.”
In California, O’Dowd is not alone in its corruption. The Cardinal Newman Society investigated nearby Catholic high schools and found:
A Catholic high school should help teenagers understand who they are in Jesus Christ. It should teach them the truth about the human person, the meaning of the body, the beauty of chastity, and the call to holiness.
It should never encourage young people to build their identity around sexual desire, gender confusion, or ideologies that contradict the Catholic faith.
The Church teaches that every person is made in the image and likeness of God. Every student has immeasurable dignity. Every young person deserves patience, pastoral care, friendship, and charity.
And dignity and care must be understood in the context of the Church’s teachings on the body, sexuality, marriage, chastity, sin, and salvation.
A Catholic school betrays its mission when it hides or weakens that truth.
It endangers souls when it encourages students to embrace identities and movements rooted in rebellion against God’s design.
This is the danger of LGBTQ ideology in Catholic education.
It takes words Catholics cherish—love, dignity, welcome, belonging—and empties them of Catholic meaning.
Then it uses those words to persuade young people that the Church’s teaching is somehow unloving. That is false!
The truth is not hateful.
The truth is liberating.
And Catholic students deserve to be formed in the truth.
Supreme Court Protects Female Athletes in 27 States, But Gender Ideology Plays On
/in Blog Research and Analysis Latest/by Patrick ReillyLINK TO PDF
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. B. P. J. and Little v. Hecox that states may limit participation in female sports to female students. It’s a step in the right direction, especially for Catholic families and educators, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion might prove valuable to future decisions.
But the return to sanity is still a few steps away.
To be precise: the Court agreed unanimously that the statutes of West Virginia and Idaho—and presumably the laws of 25 other states that prevent biologically male, “transgender” students from competing in female athletics—do not violate Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funding. The Court also voted 6-3 that such laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The ruling is an important win for female athletes and helps protect Catholic education. In the sensible states that preserve female sports, Catholic schools and colleges can uphold Catholic teaching on gender and sexuality and compete against public schools and colleges without discrimination and pressure to conform to gender ideology.
Nevertheless, gender ideology remains a serious threat. Here’s what the Supreme Court did not do:
The Court, therefore, has not addressed the Trump administration’s claim that Title IX prohibits gender ideology in schools and colleges, nor the Biden administration’s opposite claim that Title IX mandates gender ideology in education. The ruling does thwart part of the Biden administration’s radical policy agenda, which tried to force states to accept “transgender” athletes in female sports, but the rest of that agenda could be resumed by a new administration.
Among the 73 Newman Guide Recommended elementary and secondary schools, only 31 are in states with laws protecting female sports, which leaves the others vulnerable to discrimination and coercion opposed to their Catholic beliefs. Of the 18 Newman Guide Recommended colleges in the U.S., 13 are in states with laws that protect female sports—and of the remaining five, only The Catholic University of America (D.C.) has an interscholastic sports program.
Nearly all Newman Guide Recommended schools and colleges are in states that allow females to compete in male sports, including “transgender” students. In Texas—the home of the University of Dallas, University of St. Thomas (Houston), and eight Newman Guide recommended schools—females cannot participate on male teams if there is a female team in the same sport. Likewise in South Carolina, where three recommended schools are located.
Limited scope
The Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. B. P. J. and Little v. Hecox: “[M]ay schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes.”
In Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, he frames the question before the Court as whether “schools may maintain women’s and girls’ sports teams for biological females.” But this, of course, has long been a settled question. Single-sex sports have never been deemed discriminatory, because there is a rational and biological reason for separating male and female students in competitive athletics, which protects females rather than discriminate against them.
Kavanaugh’s opinion relies on the plain fact that federal law explicitly permits segregation in sports by biological sex. Although Title IX, part of the Education Amendments of 1972, says nothing specifically about athletics, the Javits Amendment approved by Congress two years later directed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to issue regulations implementing Title IX, including “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports.” The resulting 1975 regulations authorize “separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.”
The Court finds, “By referring to contact sports and competitive skill, the regulations plainly recognized the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women—as well as the safety and competitive fairness concerns that would arise if males were allowed to compete in female sports.”
Because the 1975 regulations interpreted Title IX “contemporaneously with the statute,” and because Title IX regulations have “remained consistent over time” on the matter of single-sex sports, Kavanaugh asserts that they are “especially useful in determining the statute’s meaning.” Bottom line: the law allows schools and colleges to limit sports teams according to biological sex.
What is unique in these two cases, however, is the context. The opinion says the male plaintiff B. P. J. “identifies as female” and hoped to join the girls’ track-and-field and cross-country teams at his school, in violation of West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act. The other plaintiff Hecox, also a male who “identifies as female,” wanted to compete with girls in soccer, track, and cross-country, but he was prevented by Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.
B. P. J. relied partly on Title IX for his complaint, acknowledging that Title IX permits single-sex sports based on biological sex but also seeking an exception for males claiming a female gender. He asked the Court to find room for nuance in the Javits Amendment’s instruction to implement “reasonable” regulations for athletics programs. The Justices, however, found it reasonable to limit female sports to biological females.
“Whether biological males may participate on women’s and girls’ sports teams may be a debated policy question,” notes the majority opinion. “But the legal question for Title IX purposes is whether West Virginia may limit women’s and girls’ sports teams to biological females. As a matter of text and history, West Virginia may do so.”
The more important argument by B. P. J.—concerning the question that has been raised repeatedly since the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County—was that “gender identity” must be protected by Title IX within the broad scope of “sex.” In Bostock, the Court found that employment decisions based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” constitute “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, because (it reasoned) any consideration of orientation or gender necessarily implies consideration of an employee’s sex, which is illegal.
In these cases, the Court chose not to apply or reject the same reasoning in the context of Title IX, finding it irrelevant to the cases at hand. Unlike Title VII, the majority opinion argues, Title IX explicitly invites segregation by biological sex in the context of athletics and requires no exceptions. “Stated simply, Title VII and Bostock are not relevant in this very different statutory and factual context,” it says.
Finally, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment does not mandate the exception to Title IX sought by both B. P. J. and Hecox. Under the 14th Amendment, the Court says, “Sex-based classifications are permissible only when the classification is ‘substantially related’ to achieving an ‘important’ government objective.” The Justices found that general classifications according to biological sex are appropriate in competitive sports, given all the reasons supporting Title IX’s distinctions, and maintaining biological distinctions without exception serves important purposes, including girls’ and women’s safety and equal opportunities.
Hope for the future
Looking forward, what might we expect in response to those lingering questions listed above? If the Supreme Court’s composition and reasoning are consistent, this ruling offers a few clues.
The Court’s interpretation of sex discrimination under Title IX seems to differ substantially from the Bostock ruling concerning Title VII.
With the Bostock ruling, many believed that gender ideology had won a major victory in federal law, effectively redefining “sex” to mean a person’s chosen or natural gender. But in its ruling last month, the Court reminds Americans that Bostock did no such thing. It did not agree that “sex” in Title VII means anything other than biological sex, and it did not formally endorse the claim that a person can choose their gender.
What Bostock declared is that, when an employment decision is based simply on an employee’s “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” it amounts to discrimination based on sex, because the employee’s biological sex “plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision.” This is a bad ruling that conflates discrimination against males or females, which Title VII was intended to address, with an employer’s appropriate judgment about behavior, mental fitness, and moral turpitude. Still, the Court arrived at the Bostock decision without redefining “sex” in Title VII.
Regardless, the Court told B. P. J. and Hecox that “Title VII and Bostock are not relevant in this very different statutory and factual context.” The factual difference between student athletics and employment is obvious, but the Court also says Title VII and Title IX are “vastly different” laws. Title VII, according to Kavanaugh, “requires that men and women be treated without regard to their sex.” Title IX says a student, “on the basis of sex,” cannot be “excluded” or “denied the benefits of” a federally funded education program or otherwise “discriminated against.” Under Title VII, sex discrimination occurs whenever sex is a factor in an employment decision—it should be irrelevant. Under Title IX, sex discrimination occurs when someone is treated unfairly because of their biological sex, but the law and its regulations recognize that a student’s sex is quite relevant to education and student formation.
The majority opinion says Title IX “cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex,” and the Court sees no reason why states must make exceptions for gender-confused males wanting to compete in female sports. Presumably the same reasoning can be applied to single-sex schools, classrooms, and other activities that are permitted by Title IX. But in limited matters like student admissions to coed institutions, a Bostock-like expansion of Title IX to protect “sexual orientation” and “gender ideology” could emerge.
The Court could find it permissible to exclude “transgender” students from opposite-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and campus residences.
For reasons very similar to the Court’s decision last month, it seems likely that future rulings will find that Title IX and the 14th Amendment allow states to restrict restrooms, locker rooms, and campus residences to males or females—even without exceptions for “transgender” students. States should be able to show reasonable government objectives for such distinctions based on biological sex.
The Court could uphold the use of pronouns consistent with biological sex.
Again, a general policy with reasonable objectives should be permissible under both Title IX and the 14th Amendment. While “transgender” students may want exceptions, the general policy would uphold fair treatment based on biological sex. A pronoun case is also likely to turn on the First Amendment right to free speech.
The Court could allow states to protect male sports.
In its opinion last month, the Court noted that 27 states protect female sports, presumably supporting the argument that single-sex sports are reasonable. Very few states, however, forbid females (including “transgender” students) from participating in male sports. They include Alabama and Tennessee (the latter for primary and secondary schools only), while Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas permit females in male sports only when there is no female team available in a particular sport.
Nevertheless, the Court is likely to find all-male sports reasonable, even without exceptions for “transgender” students or especially strong female athletes. Last month’s ruling affirmed that separating athletes by biological sex is not only reasonable but also explicitly condoned by the Title IX regulations. If the Court could not find a mandate under Title IX or the 14th Amendment to make exceptions for “transgender” students seeking admission to female teams, it seems unlikely to force states to admit “transgender” students or other females to male teams. If it did, the Court would have to accept the exaggeration that refusing this exception to a small number of students hinders the general objective of ensuring equal opportunity for women.
Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion acknowledges that some “transgender” students could suffer under strict single-sex athletics policies, perhaps even excluded from a sport entirely, because they belong on neither a male team nor a female team: “We appreciate the desire of every student, including B. P. J., who wants to play school sports. And we recognize that student-athletes are understandably disappointed and upset when they do not make a team or otherwise cannot participate. But the Title IX regulations guarantee ‘equal athletic opportunity.’ The regulations cannot and do not guarantee every student a spot on a team’s roster.”
The Court could strike down state laws that force schools and colleges to admit “transgender” students to opposite-sex sports, restrooms, locker rooms, and campus residences.
In the majority opinion, the Court is careful only to say that Title IX allows for single-sex sports and does not require states to admit “transgender” students to female sports. There is nothing in Title IX that explicitly mandates any policy distinguishing between the sexes—only that there is no exclusion or denial of benefits to either sex.
A Court ruling against state laws that forcibly compromise single-sex sports—or restrooms, locker rooms, or campus residences—by requiring exceptions for “transgender” students could not rely on any explicit requirement under Title IX. Plaintiffs would probably have to make the case that such laws prevent the fair treatment of female students or deny them the benefit of privacy and safety that is generally promised to all students.
The majority opinion cites the arguments of Iowa and West Virginia in support of female sports, and the Court seems persuaded that refusing exceptions for “transgender” students who are biologically male is a reasonable policy for ensuring “equal athletic opportunities for the female sex.” The states argue that allowing males to compete with female students would put female athletes “at significant risk of sometimes severe injuries” and prevent “competitive fairness” because:
Still, these are impacts on individual females, and in reference to the “transgender” students who suffer from state laws enforcing female sports, the Court argues that Title IX cannot “guarantee every student a spot on a team’s roster.” A successful argument probably needs to show a substantial disadvantage to all or at least many females. In addition to the risk of physical harm, the Court cites another broad argument for the unfairness of male athletes competing with women:
Having already accepted these arguments as reasonable, and having declared that Title IX is concerned with the fair treatment of students based only on biological sex, it is possible that the Supreme Court could strike down laws that compromise single-sex sports by forcing teams to accept athletes of the opposite sex.
Speculation about how the Court will rule on such matters is, of course, never certain. Catholic families and educators will need to stand firm in the Catholic faith, refusing to compromise the truth of sexuality and gender even when states and activists demand compliance with gender ideology. Title IX has a strong exemption for religious schools and colleges. With prayer and witness to faithful formation, we can hope that America’s courts will soon acknowledge the serious harm and injustice to girls and women that are caused by gender ideology.
The Cardinal Newman Society Awarded 2026 Heritage Innovation Prize for Catholic School Accreditation
/in Blog Latest, Newman Guide Articles/by Patrick ReillyThe Heritage Foundation recognizes innovative Newman Guide, NAPCIS project to expand faithful, parent-centered Catholic education
MANASSAS, Va. (June 25, 2026) — The Cardinal Newman Society has been awarded a prestigious 2026 Heritage Innovation Prize from The Heritage Foundation for its groundbreaking innovation in Catholic school accreditation, expanding families’ access to faithful Catholic education.
As a subsidiary to The Cardinal Newman Society, the National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools (NAPCIS) supports a wide variety of faith-based school options and increases their students’ access to school choice funding. It substitutes mission-focused academic standards for woke biases and meddlesome mandates, with a streamlined and low-cost application process.
“We are deeply honored and grateful that The Heritage Foundation, America’s leading public policy organization, recognizes our NAPCIS program as a model of accreditation reform and an important step toward renewing American families, culture, and citizenship,” said Patrick Reilly, president and founder of The Cardinal Newman Society.
Also receiving the Heritage Innovation Prize is the College of St. Joseph the Worker in Steubenville, Ohio, which is recommended in The Cardinal Newman Society’s Newman Guide for faithful Catholic education.
The Heritage Foundation has been a leading voice for school choice and education reform and an important resource to The Cardinal Newman Society. Heritage established the Innovation Prize to recognize and generously advance bold, results-oriented solutions to some of the most pressing challenges facing America.
“This prize affirms the importance of education that forms young people in faith, virtue, and reason without surrendering to ideological pressure,” said Dr. Denise Donohue, chairman of NAPCIS.
“The goal is to make accreditation easier, more affordable, and more impactful for schools that live out their Catholic mission with confidence and joy,” said Dr. Daniel Guernsey, executive director of NAPCIS.
The Cardinal Newman Society acquired NAPCIS in late 2025, beginning a new chapter for the 30-year-old accreditor. NAPCIS currently has 49 members including parochial, parent-led, and classical schools. The new structure integrates two important assurances for Catholic families:
Unlike many conventional accreditation systems, the renewed NAPCIS process is intended to be affordable, efficient, mission-centered, and respectful of subsidiarity. It emphasizes what matters most—faithful Catholic formation and academic excellence—rather than imposing ideological agendas, uniform educational models, excessive credential requirements, and intrusive bureaucracy.
“Accreditation should help schools fulfill their mission, not distract them from it,” Guernsey said. “Faithful Catholic schools need a process that respects parents, encourages innovation, protects religious freedom, and gives families confidence that a school is both authentically Catholic and well operated.”
The initiative is also intended to help Catholic families benefit from expanding school-choice opportunities. In many states, school accreditation is necessary for their families to participate in education savings accounts, scholarship programs, and other forms of school-choice assistance.
By providing an accessible pathway to accreditation, NAPCIS helps faithful Catholic schools remain independent while becoming more available to families of varied financial means.
The Heritage Foundation’s recognition highlights the broader importance of the project, beyond Catholic education. Schools that form young people in objective truth, moral virtue, personal responsibility, faith, and reason help prepare strong families, principled leaders, and responsible citizens needed for American self-government.
“This is about much more than an administrative process,” Donohue said. “It’s about strengthening schools that recognize parents as the primary educators of their children, resist destructive ideologies, and form young people to seek truth, serve others, and live with courage and integrity.”
“The renewal of America begins with the formation of its children,” Reilly said. “We are grateful to The Heritage Foundation for recognizing that faithful Catholic schools are providing a compelling and urgently needed model of education.”
The Cardinal Newman Society’s NAPCIS accreditation reform project will support the evaluation of current member schools, recruitment of new schools, continued development of streamlined accreditation standards, and integration with the growing Newman Guide network.
About The Cardinal Newman Society
Founded in 1993, The Cardinal Newman Society promotes and defends faithful Catholic education. Through The Newman Guide, the Society recognizes faithful Catholic schools, colleges, graduate programs, homeschool programs, and curricula. It also provides standards, resources, policy guidance, networking, and legal support to help Catholic educators strengthen and protect their religious mission.
About NAPCIS
The National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools supports and accredits PreK–12 schools faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. NAPCIS provides mission-centered, efficient, and affordable accreditation focused on faithful Catholic formation, academic quality, and operational health.
Courage Priest Says ‘Pride Month’ Events Inappropriate for Catholic Schools, Colleges
/in Blog Latest, Newman Guide Articles/by Adam CassandraResponding to The Cardinal Newman Society’s request for guidance on “Pride Month” celebrations at Catholic schools and colleges, Fr. Colin J. Blatchford, Associate Director of Courage International, warned that such celebrations are not appropriate for Catholic institutions and cause “scandal.”
The Cardinal Newman Society recently documented “Pride Month” events and promotions at colleges including DePaul University, Georgetown University, and the University of Notre Dame. Such events encourage students to take part in activities like “Big Gay Bingo” and “Pride Parades,” and they affirm students identifying as LGBTQ.
The Cardinal Newman Society also highlighted the disturbing reality of Catholic colleges hosting LGBTQ resource centers that offer numerous materials to affirm students in their LGBTQ attractions and “identities,” yet lack resources on Catholic Church teaching regarding human sexuality and the dangers of gender ideology.
Courage International is a Catholic apostolate that offers resources and guidance to men and women who experience same-sex attractions. Their EnCourage program provides pastoral care to family members and friends of persons who identify as LGBTQ.
Unlike other programs and resources that promote taking “pride” in disordered sexual attractions and gender confusion, Courage’s approach is rooted in Church teaching and the “Five Goals of Courage”:
In addition to causing “scandal,” Fr. Blatchford said that when Catholic schools and colleges encourage LGBTQ “pride,” it “leads to division and tribalism.”
“[I]f we are separated into different groups with different moral principles or rules, then there cannot be ‘communion’ in the Church, nor in society,” he stated.
Instead, Fr. Blatchford said Catholic schools and colleges should address same-sex attraction and gender confusion with authentic compassion rooted in God’s love.
“[W]e should enter into their suffering and make it our own,” he said. “By this loving sacrifice on our part, [students] will come to know the love of God, and as we build rapport with them, we can point out that they are loved and that God has a plan for their life.”
Below is The Cardinal Newman Society’s interview with Fr. Blatchford:
Is it appropriate for a Catholic school or college to promote “Pride Month” celebrations? Why or why not?
No, because the anthropological underpinnings of “Pride Month” include a dualistic view of the person and radical autonomy. Each of the last four popes has spoken about the necessity of recognizing the dignity of the human person and that no one thing here on this earth can sufficiently define who we are, beyond “beloved child of God.”
All other labels or identities exclude parts of the human person as good. The story of our life, due to our nature as beings with reason and created for interpersonal relationship, is written in concert with others and must be weighed against the truth of reality.
When we exalt our opinion over truth, we make of ourselves gods and responsible for all our triumphs and ills. This leads to despair when we become stuck in a place we don’t want to be, because we are the cause for our suffering and we cannot fix it, nor look outside ourselves for assistance.
What effect does it have on students when a Catholic school or college encourages these young people to take “pride” in and celebrate an LGBTQ+ “identity”?
It leads to division and tribalism. We are all “beloved children of God” “formed in His image and likeness,” and all of us who have been baptized have received a “universal call to holiness.” Every member of the Church is called to be holy—this vocation was given to them in baptism.
This call consists of two dimensions: First, we learn to receive sacrificial love from God as His beloved son or daughter. Next, we must respond to the love that He has given us by sharing it with other men and women in the world who do not know His love or who are suffering.
This dimension of the universal call to holiness could be called “being a spiritual parent.” Every baptized Christian is called to learn to receive God’s love and then to live out that sacrificial love by sharing it with others. But if we are separated into different groups with different moral principles or rules, then there cannot be “communion” in the Church, nor in society.
What impact does it have on the Church as a whole when the faithful, and those outside of communion with the Church, see a Catholic school or college encouraging students to take “pride” in and celebrate an LGBTQ+ “identity”?
It causes scandal, though not as often in the present culture. What made Catholic education great throughout history is that from a young age we required young people to take universal philosophical principles and apply them to their daily life. Then they would be mentored over the next 10-12, maybe even 16 or more years in how to best apply those philosophical principles.
When a Catholic college picks and chooses the theological or philosophical teachings of the Church that it will abide, it undermines that process. Indeed, it hollows it out and provides merely an empty emotional shell where there should be a full abiding relationship with God.
What advice would you give to Catholic schools and colleges in terms of addressing same-sex attraction and gender confusion among students?
The word “compassion” come from Latin and means “to suffer with.” We have a God who has suffered and knows intimately every type of suffering we will go through. And while He does not wish that suffering on us, like the wine producer, He will use the stresses that nature puts on the vine to prune it to produce the best grapes to make the best wine.
God does the same. He does not wish evil or suffering upon us, but since we live in a fallen world, He will use the sufferings that come about in our lives because of our experiences and others actions to draw us closer to Himself.
Because of this, and the fact that Christ himself took on human suffering and made it the key to open the gates of heaven, when we encounter suffering in someone’s life we cannot leave them there. But we oftentimes also cannot answer a sufficient answer or solution to their suffering. So like Job’s friends, we should enter into their suffering and make it our own. By this loving sacrifice on our part, they will come to know the love of God, and as we build rapport with them, we can point out that they are loved and that God has a plan for their life.
Practically we can do this by remembering three things when we encounter a person struggling with these questions, who is inviting us to be a part of their journey of faith: First, communicate that they are loved. Second, let them know that even if it does not seem so now, God has a unique plan for their life. And finally, ask if they would be willing to share their story.
We don’t have to agree on everything or approve of every action, but we walk together towards God. We are a group of imperfect people striving to grow closer to God, by means of His grace.
Your support promotes and defends faithful Catholic education!
The Cardinal Newman Society relies on the generosity of our supporters to promote and defend faithful Catholic education — which is the key to seeing the Church restored and our culture renewed. Will you partner with us today to ensure this critical mission continues and grows even as the culture becomes more hostile to Catholic values?
Some Catholic Colleges Push ‘Pride’ Confusion, While Pope Leo Tells Them to Teach the Truth
/in Blog Latest, Newman Guide Articles/by Adam Cassandra“Big Gay Bingo.”
“Fruity Party.”
“Pride Movie Night.”
These are all events promoted this June by DePaul University—the largest Catholic college in America—as part of its “Pride Month” celebration.
DePaul’s LGBTQIA+ Resource Center is sponsoring these and other “pride” events for students on campus. The Center offers students resources such as:
• training on “the use of gender-neutral and diverse pronouns,”
• guidance on how a student can change gender in DePaul’s systems,
• information about “all-gender housing” for co-ed roommates, and
• a list of “Trans, Non-Binary, Asexual, and Bisexual-focused websites.”
No information is listed on DePaul’s LGBTQIA+ Resource Center web page to help students understand Catholic teaching on human sexuality and the dangers of gender ideology.
Gonzaga University, Georgetown University, Fordham University, and Marquette University also feature resource centers with materials that affirm students in their “LGBTQ” attractions and “identities.”
Sadly, DePaul is not the only Catholic college encouraging students to celebrate disordered sexual attractions and embrace gender confusion as part of “Pride Month.”
The University of San Francisco, a Jesuit institution, invited “USF alumni, family, and friends” to march with USF at the NYC Pride Parade on June 28. The event page says the university is “excited to gather as a USF contingent and march in one of the world’s largest and longest-running Pride demonstrations.” It invites members of the LGBTQ+ community and “allies” to “represent USF and celebrate the spirit of inclusion, justice, and belonging together.”
USF also lists a separate event to march with University of San Francisco’s Pride Alumni Group at the San Francisco Pride Parade, open to “all USF community members.”
Georgetown University has a “Pride Month 2026 Schedule of Events” on its website, pointing students to events in Washington, D.C., including Pride Family Day, the Capital Pride Parade, and the Capital Pride Concert.
Other Catholic colleges made a point of posting on social media to celebrate “Pride Month,” including Notre Dame University, Seattle University, Loyola University Maryland, Loyola University New Orleans, Sacred Heart University, and St. Bonaventure University.
Villanova University, the alma mater of Pope Leo XIV, also posted on social media in June celebrating “Pride Month.”
Earlier this spring, the student newspaper at Villanova reported on the college’s annual Pride Week, featuring events such as “Gay Prom” and “Drag Bingo.”
A member of the college’s VU Pride student group was quoted in the report saying, “Drag is a good celebration of how gender is flexible and doesn’t have to be in the binary it is often presented as.”
In his 2021 pastoral letter re-affirming the Church’s teaching on the human person and gender ideology, Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Diocese of Arlington wrote, “The claim to ‘be transgender’ or the desire to seek ‘transition’ rests on a mistaken view of the human person, rejects the body as a gift from God, and leads to grave harm.”
He continued: “To affirm someone in an identity at odds with biological sex or to affirm a person’s desired ‘transition’ is to mislead that person. It involves speaking and interacting with that person in an untruthful manner.”
To lead students to the truth—specifically the truth of Jesus Christ—is a primary responsibility of any Catholic college.
“It is the honour and responsibility of a Catholic University to consecrate itself without reserve to the cause of truth,” Saint Pope John Paul II wrote in Ex Corde Ecclesiae. “This is its way of serving at one and the same time both the dignity of man and the good of the Church.”
Pope Leo XIV recently reiterated this responsibility of Catholic colleges during an address to presidents and senior administrators from Catholic institutions belonging to the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.
Pope Leo said Catholic education must instill in students a “passion for the truth”—not only intellectual truth, but “the Truth that is Christ Himself.”
He also reminded Catholic educators that their institutions are called to be places where the “Christian vision permeates every discipline and every interaction.”
An authentic Catholic education cannot affirm students in false identities rooted in sexual desire, confusion about the human person, or political ideology.
Instead, a Catholic college should help every student discover the truth of his or her deepest identity as a beloved son or daughter of God.
That is why these “Pride Month” events and public celebrations are so troubling. They do not merely welcome students with compassion. They risk confirming them in a worldview contrary to Catholic teaching on the human person, sexuality, chastity, marriage, and the family.
When Catholic colleges promote “pride” parades, LGBTQ celebrations, drag-themed campus events, Lavender Graduations, and identity-based activism, they imply that Catholic teaching is negotiable.
They send a message to students that the Church’s understanding of the human person can be set aside when it conflicts with secular culture.
Catholic students need pastoral care, friendship, and genuine love. But they also need clarity. They need the Church’s teaching presented with confidence, beauty, and mercy. They need to be formed in chastity, virtue, self-mastery, and holiness.
Above all, they need to be led to Christ.
That is why faithful Catholic education matters so urgently—and why The Newman Guide is so important.
The Newman Guide helps families identify schools, colleges, homeschool programs, and graduate programs that take the Catholic mission seriously. These are institutions committed to forming students in truth, virtue, and fidelity to Christ—not simply echoing the latest slogans of the culture.
Pope Leo has reminded Catholic educators of their mission. Catholic colleges should listen.
And Catholic families should not settle for anything less than faithful Catholic education.
Your support promotes and defends faithful Catholic education!
The Cardinal Newman Society relies on the generosity of our supporters to promote and defend faithful Catholic education — which is the key to seeing the Church restored and our culture renewed. Will you partner with us today to ensure this critical mission continues and grows even as the culture becomes more hostile to Catholic values?
CNS Joins Amicus Brief on Student Rights to Tuition Aid for Religious Majors – Johnson v Fleming, 4th Circuit
/in Blog Amicus Briefs, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffClick here to read.
Graduation Speakers at Newman Guide Schools Inspire Joyful Minds and Hearts
/in Blog Latest, Newman Guide Articles/by Cardinal Newman Society Staff“Graduation is always a solemn and festive occasion at The Lyceum. Having completed a rigorous liberal arts high school curriculum which includes up to six years of Latin and Greek and the readings of good and great books, our seniors will enthusiastically celebrate with joyful hearts and minds,” explained Luke Macik, headmaster of The Lyceum in South Euclid, Ohio. After their final theology exam, seniors enjoy a fine banquet with faculty, which is prepared by the junior class, and perform one last time on stage in Shakespeare comedy.
“The following morning, the seniors will sing one last time with The Lyceum Schola Cantorum at a Divine Liturgy. As is our custom after the final Mass or Liturgy of the year, but before the graduation ceremony, our Schola Cantorum, which consists of the entire student body and most of the faculty, will raise their voices in joyous thanks singing Handel’s Hallelujah chorus.”
The Lyceum, which is recommended on The Newman Guide’s growing list of Recommended Schools, has made the excellent choice to invite Fr. Deacon Kyle Washut, president of Wyoming Catholic College in Lander, WY, to serve as graduation speaker.
To become Newman Guide Recommended, we review an institution’s policy on speakers and honors. A Newman Guide Recommended school invites speakers, hosts events, and honors individuals to advance its mission of forming young people in truth.
Below are some of the speakers that Newman Guide Recommended schools have chosen to provide a graduation address. Many are leaders in Catholic education and witnesses to the Catholic faith.
Everest Collegiate High School & Academy (Clarkston, MI)
Faustina Academy (Irving Texas)
Brother Martin Mary, OP, is serving as the graduation speaker at Faustina Academy. He formerly served as a teacher at the Academy before discerning his religious vocation. In his graduation address, Brother Martin Mary discussed what makes Faustina Academy different than other schools and emphasized the importance of the senior year exit exam in which students present a defense of the Catholic faith in front of a panel of teachers.
Holy Rosary Academy (Anchorage, AK)
Dr. Kate Bazin, director of evangelization at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish in Anchorage, AK, is serving as the graduation speaker at Holy Rosary Academy. She earned her undergraduate degree at the University of Dallas in Irving, TX, and earned post-graduate degrees, including a Doctor of Education at the University of Mary in Bismarck, N.D. “She is a great choice for our school because of her deep love of literature, as evidenced by her photography blog, her love of beauty in the natural world, her tireless work at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish, where three of our graduates attend, and her educational background from UD and UMary,” said Marie-Louise Shirda, principal of Holy Rosary.
Immaculata Classical Academy (Louisville, KY)
Patrick Reilly, president and founder of The Cardinal Newman Society, is serving as the graduation speaker at Immaculata Classical Academy. “A few months ago, I announced that we had received national recognition as a Newman Guide Recommended school. Along with our NAPCIS (National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools) reaccreditation, this is an important milestone for Immaculata in the national Catholic landscape,” explained Justin Fout, principal at Immaculata. “I am very happy to announce that Patrick Reilly will be our commencement speaker to honor and mark this wonderful occasion for the class of 2026.”
Joseph Marchese, the mayor of Darien, IL, is serving as the graduation speaker for eighth graders at Kingswood Academy. “He is a former teacher and lifelong Catholic,” said Dominic Sepich, principal of Kingswood.
Kolbe Academy (Online)
Steve Minnis, president of Benedictine College in Atchison, KS, is serving as the graduation speaker for Kolbe Academy graduates. “President Steven Minnis represents the kind of Catholic leadership we hope our students encounter as they continue their education,” said Mary Rowles, CEO of Kolbe. “His work at Benedictine reflects the same commitment to academic excellence and faithful formation that we strive to support at Kolbe.”
The Lyceum (South Euclid, OH)
Mount Royal Academy (Sunapee, NH)
Saint Agnes School (Saint Paul, MN)
Dr. Patricia Connolly, a leader in technology and alumna of Saint Agnes School, is serving as the school’s graduation speaker. “Dr. Connolly exemplifies a remarkable combination of professional excellence and deep-rooted faith, with a career spanning global leadership roles, entrepreneurship, and service to the Church. As a graduate of the Class of 1982, her journey stands as a powerful witness to what it means to live out one’s vocation with purpose, integrity, and perseverance,” according to the school.
St. Benedict Catholic School (Richmond, VA)
Sean Cruess, principal of St. Benedict Catholic School, is delivering a brief graduation speech for the graduating eighth graders on “The Adventure of Living a Fully Christian Life.” There is a Baccalaureate Mass for graduates, and 6th and 7th-grade students sing in the choir. For the graduation, students wear gowns but no caps, tassels or other ornaments—saving those for high school graduation.
St. Ignatius Catholic School (Kaukauna, WI)
Fr. Tom Pomeroy, pastor of St. Anthony Catholic Church in Oconto Falls, WI, is serving as the graduation speaker for St. Ignatius Catholic School. “Fr. Pomeroy was the leader and architect in reinvigorating the faithful Catholic identity of St. Ignatius and transforming it into a classical school,” said Drew Mulloy, headmaster of St. Ignatius.
St. Joseph’s Catholic School (Greenville, SC)
Bishop Jacques Fabre-Jeune, CS., of Charleston, S.C., is serving as the graduation speaker for St. Joseph Catholic School. “Bishop Jacques Fabre-Jeune is an exceptional role model who beautifully embodies Saint Joseph’s core principle of affirming the infinite worth and dignity of every person,” said Michelle Curran, director of marketing at St. Joseph’s. “His lifelong ministry with the Scalabrinian Fathers serves as a powerful, real-world example of living out a missionary outlook and Christ-centered service. Fluent in five languages and deeply committed to listening to the youth, he models for our graduating seniors how to step out into an ever-evolving world with an open vision, a compassionate heart, and a steadfast faith.”
Fr. John Boles, chaplain of Western Academy and Westcott Study Center in Houston, TX, is serving as the graduation speaker at St. Monica Academy. Fr. Boles is the first alumnus priest of St. Monica Academy. The oldest of nine children, he continues to keep personal connections with the families at the school. Fr. Boles is “relatable, joyous, and approachable,” according to the school, and pointed to the school’s patroness, St. Monica, as a model for modern evangelization during the graduation speech.
St. William of York Catholic School (Stafford, VA)
Fr. Daniel Reuwer, chaplain of Bishop O’Connell High School in Arlington, VA, is serving as the graduation speaker for eighth graders at St. William of York Catholic School. The speaker choice is a homecoming of sorts. “Prior to entering the seminary, he was a middle school teacher at our school!” said Jennifer Schiller, principal of St. William of York.
True Cross Catholic School (Dickinson, TX)
Fr. Ricardo Arriola, pastor of Shrine of the True Cross Catholic Church and School in Dickinson, TX, is serving as graduation speaker for True Cross Catholic School. “Fr. Ricardo Arriola is the ideal speaker for our graduation because he has been a faithful spiritual leader and visible presence in the life of our school community, consistently encouraging our students to grow in wisdom, virtue, and devotion to Our Lady,” said Amanda Smith, principal of True Cross. “Through his leadership, our students are blessed with weekly Adoration and Confession, liturgical feast day celebrations and processions, and a deeper understanding of Catholic traditions and practices. His guidance and support of our mission to form students in faith and reason make him especially fitting to address our graduates as they prepare for their next chapter.”
Check back to this page regularly, as we will continue to provide updates.
Your support promotes and defends faithful Catholic education!
The Cardinal Newman Society relies on the generosity of our supporters to promote and defend faithful Catholic education — which is the key to seeing the Church restored and our culture renewed. Will you partner with us today to ensure this critical mission continues and grows even as the culture becomes more hostile to Catholic values?
CNS Comments on Student Tuition Loan Program
/in Blog Amicus Briefs, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffClick here to read.
Newman Guide Scholarship Winner Seeks Faith, Friendships, and Formation
/in Blog Latest, Newman Guide Articles/by Cardinal Newman Society Staff“It will be such a gift to be able to learn more about my faith in my classes,” says Gemma Walther of GlenOak High School in Ohio, who is the winner of The Cardinal Newman Society’s tenth annual Newman Guide Scholarship Contest.
Walther will receive a $5,000 scholarship from The Cardinal Newman Society toward her education this fall at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio. The University has agreed to another $15,000 in scholarships over the subsequent three years ($5,000 per year) if she continues meeting the University’s requirements.
“In going to Franciscan, I know that I will be able to fully immerse myself in the sacraments. I know that my classes will be filled with the good and true,” continued Walther, who plans to study nursing at Franciscan University. “I am so excited to be there and to make new, faith-centered friendships.”
The Contest is open to practicing Catholics in the United States who are high school juniors or seniors. Each entrant must:
Next year’s Contest will open in December 2026 and close in February 2027, with the winner being announced in May 2027.
Rising high school juniors and seniors who would like to be eligible for next year’s Contest should sign up for our Newman Guide Recruit Me program, which allows Newman Guide Recommended colleges to compete for them by sharing information about the college’s academic program, campus activities, spiritual life, and more.
The following Newman Guide Recommended colleges supplement the Newman Guide Scholarship, should a winning student choose to attend their institution:
Additional details about the Contest can be found here, and questions can be emailed to Programs@CardinalNewmanSociety.org.
The scholarship is made possible thanks to the generosity of the Guiffre family, supporters of The Cardinal Newman Society and faithful Catholic education.