The EWTN portal reports (October 20, 2026) that two companies in the southern United States have settled federal religious discrimination complaints, paying $65,000 each to a Muslim worker denied a holiday accommodation and a Christian worker refused Sundays off for Sabbath observance. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) invoked the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while its deputy director, Patricia Carrasco, declared religious freedom a “fundamental American right” and insisted no American should choose between “practicing their faith and keeping their job.” A third suit against Blue Bell Creameries for denying a Jewish worker a beard accommodation is also noted. This report does not merely document legal settlements; it celebrates the positive law of the Masonic state as the guarantor of religious indifferentism, exposing EWTN as a mouthpiece for the neo-church’s capitulation to the secular order.
The Naturalistic Framework of the Civil Rights Act
The article’s entire premise rests upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a statute born of the laicist revolution that denies Christus Rex His rights over civil society. Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, teaches that “when God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed”. The Civil Rights Act does precisely this: it derives the “right” to religious exercise from the sovereign will of the people, not from the Divine Law. By treating the free exercise of false religions (Islam, Judaism) as legally identical to the profession of the one true Faith, the Act enshrines the heresy of indifferentism condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (Propositions 15, 16, 17, 18): “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true… Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation.” The EEOC, and EWTN in its wake, proclaim this condemnable error as a “fundamental American right.”
Indifferentism Enshrined as Positive Law
The settlements reveal the practical fruit of this heresy. The Muslim worker’s “religious holiday” and the Jewish worker’s beard are placed on the exact same legal plane as the Christian worker’s Sunday observance. The EEOC’s “interactive process” and “reasonable accommodation” mandate forces employers to treat error as if it possessed rights. Error non habet ius (error has no rights) — a principle of sound Catholic political theology utterly foreign to the “deputy director” Carrasco and the “senior editor” Daniel Payne. The Syllabus condemns the proposition that “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” (Prop. 77). Yet the article presents this very expedience as justice. The “Christian worker” at Piggly Wiggly sought the Lord’s Day — a divine precept — yet the law protects her claim only as a species of the genus “religious belief,” indistinguishable from the Muslim’s feast or the Jew’s custom. This is not the liberty of the children of God (libertas filiorum Dei); it is the license of the children of darkness.
The Silence on Christ’s Social Kingship
Nowhere in the EWTN report — nor in the EEOC statements it amplifies — is there the slightest acknowledgment that Jesus Christ is King of nations (Quas Primas: “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ”). The “fundamental American right” invoked by Carrasco is a droit de l’homme severed from droit de Dieu. Pius XI warns: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church and contribute most to the expansion and establishment of Christ’s Kingdom.” The “freedom” here demanded is not the libertas Ecclesiae (freedom of the Church to fulfill her divine mission) but the libertas perditionis (liberty of perdition) — the liberty to propagate false worship under color of law. The article’s silence on the Social Kingship of Christ is not an omission; it is the theological signature of the antichurch.
EWTN as Propagandist for the Neo-Church
That this report appears on EWTN — the flagship media apparatus of the conciliar sect — is telling. The portal uncritically transmits the EEOC’s naturalistic rhetoric, framing the settlements as victories for “religious liberty” rather than as the legal imposition of indifferentism. The “senior editor” Payne functions as a scribe for the abomination of desolation, presenting the Masonic state’s enforcement of religious equality as consonant with the Gospel. Lamentabili Sane Exitu (Prop. 59) condemns the Modernist error: “Christ did not proclaim any specific, all-encompassing doctrine suitable for all times and peoples, but rather initiated a certain religious movement, applied or applicable to different times and places.” EWTN’s “news” embodies this error: the immutable doctrine of the Catholic State (the Confessional State) is replaced by the evolving “civil rights” of the secularist dispensation. The portal does not defend the Faith; it sanitizes the surrender.
The Theological Bankruptcy of “Accommodation”
The language of “accommodation” and “undue hardship” reduces the First Commandment to a bargaining chip in labor relations. The Christian worker’s request for Sunday rest is a matter of divine precept (Serva diem sabbati), not a “preference” to be weighed against “business needs.” The manager’s alleged retort — “if the store gave the employee Sundays off, it would have to do the same for all other employees” — inadvertently exposes the logic of the secular order: it cannot privilege the true religion without privileging the false, so it privileges none. This is the laicist trap foretold by Pius XI: “the Christian religion began to be equated with other false religions and shamelessly placed in the same category.” The settlement does not restore the worker’s right to worship; it purchases her complicity in a system that legally equates the Bride of Christ with the synagogue of Satan and the sect of Muhammad. The $65,000 is not justice; it is the price of the neo-church’s peace with the world.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in Action
The article is a microcosm of the post-conciliar catastrophe. A “Catholic” news agency celebrates the enforcement of a Masonic statute that guarantees the public propagation of false religions as a civil right. It quotes a federal official proclaiming a “fundamental American right” that the Syllabus anathematizes. It treats the Social Kingship of Christ as non-existent. Quas Primas declares: “If rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but let them fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.” The EEOC, the settling companies, and EWTN all refuse this duty. They have chosen Barabbas. The settlements are not victories for the faithful; they are acts of homage to the neo-church’s true sovereign: the secular state.
Source:
U.S. companies settle religious discrimination claims by Christian, Muslim workers, government says (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 20.10.2026