President of the Catholic Teachers Association States 'Cross is Not Enough'

Leaked emails point to pride before a fall

EMPOWR

and

Cristina Bairos Fernandes

Apr 27, 2025

⚠️Warning: Some images contain nudity

The Pride Flag—where do you sit with this matter?

Is it just a flag?

Is the cross just a cross?

We’re going to talk about Jesus in this piece—because, well—He’s the Man. And if you spent last weekend reflecting on His death and resurrection, you already have an idea of the gravity of what He’s done for us - all of us. This lens is vital as we examine a leaked letter from the Catholic Teachers Association to trustees on the Pride Flag. In Catholic school boards, we must view this through a Christian perspective. Arguably, even in secular contexts, neutrality demands neither promoting nor opposing any belief. If the Pride Flag denounces Christianity, then it has no place in spaces claiming to be inclusive, as it is itself exclusive.

The Progress Pride movement functions as a new religion, complete with its own moral code, rituals, saints, and heresies. It demands unquestioning affirmation, promises salvation through identity, and punishes dissent with social excommunication. In doing so, it doesn’t merely diverge from Christianity—it actively replaces its teachings on creation, sin, forgiveness, and redemption with a radically different, secular creed. It states, ‘the cross is not enough’.

If the Pride Flag is right, then Jesus must be wrong.
Conversely, if Jesus is right, then the Pride Flag must be wrong.

Back to my first question: Where do you sit with the issue of the Pride Flag?

Think about what it means to you.

Or are you indifferent—thinking, ‘what’s the big deal? If you like it, fly it. If not, don’t.’

Well, let’s start with you picking a side.

“I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!”

- Revelation 3:15-16

This is a strong rebuke against spiritual apathy. It reflects Jesus’ desire for wholehearted commitment. For those of you who are brothers and sisters in Christ, you’ll know that Jesus warns us against complacency—even indifference. In today’s world, few issues test our moral conviction like the Pride movement. If this isn’t a matter of faith and principle, what is?

So—are you hot or cold on the Pride Flag, or lukewarm?

I pray you stay with me to the very end—or at the very least, skip to the end to the leaked letter to see, with your own eyes, how diabolical our nation has become.

I hope to offer a perspective that may help awaken your conscience—not through persuasion, but through truth. Simply by showing you a glimpse of the behaviours, accounts, and events unfolding around us. Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” If your heart is open to truth, pay attention. If you're willing to see and hear, you will.

And when we’re not sure—ask!

“Everyone on the side of the Truth hears and listens to My voice.”

-John 18:37

Do you want to see the truth?

Let’s start from the beginning of this WCDSB Pride Flag saga:

Trustee Conrad Stanley provided notice of a motion at the Board meeting on March 24th 2025, to be considered and ratified at the Board meeting tomorrow, April 28th, 2025.

Stanley believes that “As a Catholic school board and faith community, we already have everything we need to promote inclusiveness in the classroom—no additional political symbols can do the job better than our faith and trust in Jesus” and that both the Canadian and Ontario flags are “fully inclusive and representative of all the diverse people who reside under their jurisdiction.”

Crazy thought, right?

Does this sound hateful? Is there any suggestion that one group is above or below another? That the space would be unwelcoming?

Or maybe you don’t view Trustee Stanley’s motion as hateful, but think, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a flag.”

But is it just a flag?

If it were, why so much resistance? And notice—resistance must come from both sides of the issue. Otherwise, the flag would neither be kept nor removed with such vigour.

I couldn’t get into the Catholic Education Centre, let alone the board room, on March 24th—nor could many other parents or Christians. A protest arrived over two hours early, lining the building. This was presumed to be a coordinated group of activists—not parents of the students, not Catholics sharing their views, not students who attend the schools. In fact, the many I spoke with admitted they weren’t even Christian. They argued that the WCDSB is publicly funded and they want what they see fit: that the Pride Flag be flown.

It was no surprise to see such a high turnout of teachers after seeing that the President of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) Waterloo, Patrick Etmanski, emailed the Catholic teachers. Here are a few snippits—see the full email, attached at the end of this post.

This isn’t an email simply informing teachers about the motion. It’s a biased, ideological message putting them on notice about where they’re expected to stand. It doesn’t ask for input—whether for or against—nor does it invite thoughtful reflection on what’s best for the students or the broader school community. It presents one ideology as the only acceptable position.

And if that wasn’t enough, Patrick sent out yet another email after the protest. I’m no psychologist, but I couldn’t help wondering if there’s a clinical term for what’s happening here—repeatedly sending out personal opinions under the guise of urgency or obligation. Consider these lines:

“I’m sorry for another email today… I considered waiting on this, but after a couple of encouraging emails and phone calls, I thought that I’d send this out as well.”
“I hope nobody out there can say, ‘We never hear from our Unit President!’ You’re more likely saying, ‘Not another email…’ It’s a delicate balance, and sometimes there’s just more of a need to get things to you. I do feel the need, more now than ever, to keep you informed about what is going on with our board.”

This is the summary chart that ChatGPT spit out for me:

This isn’t professional communication. It’s a steady stream of ideological messaging—wrapped in desperate justificatory rhetoric—and it’s an abuse of authority.

This individual is projecting personal biases as if they represent the official stance of the Catholic Teachers' Association. That’s not okay. Nor would it be acceptable if they were pressuring teachers to support Trustee Stanley’s motion. Using a position of influence to push personal political or ideological views onto members is wrong. Full stop. It’s exactly the kind of rot that must be rooted out of our publicly funded institutions if they’re to survive.

There’s too much to unpack from the emails to cover it all here, but you’ll find the leaked emails attached at the end of this post.

This is what Patrick had to say to all of the Catholic teachers about the March 24^th protest:

See full email sent by Patrick Etmanski, President of the OECTA Waterloo, on Wednesday, March 26, 2025 | Subject: “Board meeting update and other information” attached at the end of this post.

At first, I thought this had to be made up—so I set out to confirm the authenticity of these leaked messages. I can now confirm, through several sources, that these messages were indeed sent by the President of OECTA Waterloo to Catholic teachers.

Isn’t it wild to describe the crowd as having “presented yourselves professionally and passionately” in the same breath as admitting, “The chanting and singing were very obvious distractions for some of the trustees” and “The banging on the windows was a little threatening”?

Reports from inside the boardroom indicate that some attendees disrupted the meeting by shouting, laughing, and banging on windows during presentations by supporters of the proposed policy. At least one person, concerned for safety, called the police. Officers arrived and instructed Pride protesters to stop the disruptive behaviour. The chaos not only prevented many from participating in the meeting but also raised serious concerns about access, intimidation, civil discourse, and—most critically—freedom of conscience.

Patrick goes on to state: “A vote is scheduled for the meeting on Monday, April 28th. We hope that more of you will join us in the parking lot as a show of solidarity and offer an even louder message to the trustees.” He then informs the teachers that there will be a letter prepared for them to sign, to “show all of the trustees what the public and staff really think about this issue.” (emphasis mine)

This is the messaging coming from leadership to our children’s teachers.

This is alarming behaviour.

And let’s not overlook the hypocrisy. “That is what we saw on Monday night”? Which part was loving and respectful, Patrick—the “obvious distractions,” the “threatening” banging on the windows, or the laughing and chanting?

Jesus calls us to follow and obey Him, not just in words, but in action. We are to love others in deed and truth—not through symbols, and certainly not through coercion and aggression.

The word hate gets thrown around far too easily when someone questions the narrative that the Pride Flag is inherently ‘kind’ or ‘inclusive.’ Those who disagree are often labeled as hateful, ignorant, or uneducated.

But not supporting the Pride Flag is not an act of hate. Symbols carry different meanings for different people. One can respect individuals without endorsing every political or ideological cause tied to them. Disagreement is not discrimination, and dissent is not oppression.

I then ask: What does God say about hate?

One of the seven things God hates is “a lying tongue” (Proverbs 6:16–17). Scripture also tells us that “a lying tongue hates those it hurts” (Proverbs 26:28). And anyone who hates another is seen by God as a murderer (1 John 3:15; 1 John 4:20).

So—who’s being hateful?

Is it the person who holds a dissenting view about a flag?

Or is it the one spreading lies about why that person holds that view?

Since we’re on the topic of the ‘greatest sins,’ let’s take a closer look:

“According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere flea bites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind. ... Pride has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began.”

- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity; Book III, Chapter 8: “The Great Sin.”

If C.S. Lewis doesn’t resonate with you, how about something directly from God?

“...whoever has haughty eyes and a proud heart, I will not tolerate.”
- God

Not to mention that:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

—1 Corinthians 13:4-7

I don’t know about you, but love stands in direct contrast to the Pride Flag.

Do you still think it’s okay to allow a political symbol that directly represents the greatest sin for anyone who believes in God, and then, with the same breath, claim that it’s inclusive or liberating?

Let’s stay on the topic of hate for a moment. You may find it interesting to know that

“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination unto Him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies, and
a person who stirs up conflict in the community."
- Proverbs 6:16-19

Hmm.

Let’s hold that thought and return to the aftermath of the March 24th protest and the notice sent to all Catholic teachers on March 26th.

If you could, I recommend reading the letter written to the trustees by high school teacher Michael Nicholas in this same email to Catholic teachers. It might offer some helpful perspective.

Again, there is much to be seen from this letter but what struck me most was his statement: “The Trustees should not even have entertained Trustee Stanley's motion, and should dismiss it as un-informed, exclusionary, and definitively un-Catholic.  And, even more importantly, un-Christian. Indeed, to suggest that it represents Catholic teachings and Board policy is in fact not true and therefore actually anti-Catholic.”

Michael continues by saying, “In Religion class we teach that the Catholic church has a contextual approach to reading the Scriptures (i.e. to understand the message conveyed) and never a literal approach.” (emphasis mine)

Yet, the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of writings composed over centuries. It includes historical narratives, laws, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, literature, and personal letters. These diverse genres are grounded in real events, real people, and real places. While the Bible certainly uses symbolism and literary forms, much of it—especially the Old Testament and the Gospels of the New Testament—presents literal history.

To teach the Bible merely as metaphor or "context" not only strips it of the truth, moral teachings, and God’s actions throughout history—it also contributes to believers distancing themselves from Christ. A faithful approach requires us to embrace both the Bible’s literary depth and its historical reality.

On April 2nd, Patrick sends out another email to the Catholic teachers about trustee Stanley’s motion (see full email attached at the end of this post).

He discloses that he sent a “rather stern letter” to the Trustees the week prior. Please take a look at this letter and allow your conscience to speak to you.

Patrick goes on to declare:

“The hope would be to fill the boardroom, the parking lot, and the sidewalks around the board office with folks supporting 2SLGBTQIA+, BLM, First Nations, and other equity-deserving students and staff, wearing visible support (like we did last Monday [March 24]....only bigger!)”

On April 9th, yet another reminder about the April 14th meeting:

Is this accurate? Patrick "confirmed that yes, as far as [he] knows, the majority of those came from teachers in the board."

I have several questions:

If 5400 emails sent to trustees came from teachers, how are there only 600 who had signed the petition?
How exactly did Patrick "confirm" this information?
How can we verify the accuracy of this claim?
Even if there is indeed strong support from teachers on this issue, why is there such an overwhelming teacher presence?
a. Are they fully aware of the impact their involvement may have?
b. What about the parents, who are the primary voices for their children—the students of these teachers? Does the teacher's voice carry more weight than that of the parents?
c. Do teachers believe they know what’s best for the students, even over the duty of parents to make decisions for their own children?

On April 14th, the day of the next WCDSB meeting, Patrick sends another message out with a petition reminder stating:

“It's not too late to send a message to the trustees about your feelings.”

See full email sent by Patrick Etmanski, President of the OECTA Waterloo, on April 14, 2025 | Subject: “Tonight’s Board Meetings Update”attached below

Patrick says he wants to “be very clear with everyone attending” that they are “there to support and show love for members of the community who deserve respect and recognition.” (What does that even mean?) He also tells Catholic teachers to “not engage with anyone who might have a view different from [theirs].”

This ought to be alarming—though sadly, it’s not surprising. At these protests, activists frequently disrupt civil conversations, attempting to break up respectful discussions under the guise of ‘not engaging.’ These interruptions aren’t ‘loving’—they involve physical barriers (signs, umbrellas, bodies) and noise barriers (yelling, noisemakers, megaphones). Name-calling is common. At the March 24th protest, I overheard ‘inclusively kind’ remarks like: “This is a homophobe, don’t pay attention to them” and “She’s a far-right extremist.” I even heard someone approaching from across a parking lot yelling to one of the activists I was speaking with, “Why do you do this to yourself? They’re not worth your time” as if anything contrary to their beliefs isn’t worth hearing—and anyone who holds said beliefs isn’t worth existing.

And of course, there’s swearing—middle fingers flying and random outbursts of nudity and profanity.

This was a sight citizens were forced to endure on the parking lot of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board at the April 14th meeting:

In fact, this is part of what the Pride Flag represents. And whether you want to admit it or not, those who endorse Pride also endorse this behaviour.

Toronto Pride Parade, where children are encouraged to attend (above).

Pride attendees throw rubber rings on dildos while children watch on during the Capital Pride parade in Ottawa, Canada (above).

Montreal Pride Parade (above).

The major school districts took part in Vancouver’s Pride parade (above)

“Math Drag Queen” “Uses Math to Bring Students Together for Pride Month”at the WRDSB (above)

A few samples of the books found in our publicly funded schools in the name of ‘inclusivity’ (above)

It’s high time we admit that the symbolism of the Pride Flag has gone far beyond any good it could have brought.

It was a bad investment. At best, it was a good idea that went terribly wrong. Anything that prevents us from facing the truth, owning our mistakes, and moving forward with what’s right—well, that’s pride, brothers and sisters.

I say "we" because I was there too, wearing the 'Love is Love' and 'Just Be Kind' T-shirts. I bought into the idea of placing a Pride sticker outside my office door after the ‘professional development’ (or rather, professional propaganda) training my colleagues and I were led into. After all, it seemed like just a kind, welcoming symbol of inclusion, right?

Wrong.

In fact, I argue that this has Satan written all over it. Satan cannot create from nothing, as God can—he distorts, deceives, distracts, and destroys.

I would argue that his arrogance and pride have reached such a level that he openly mocks God. Here we are, waving the very symbol meant to represent the Covenant God made with all people of this world – “that there would never be such an event again that would destroy all flesh on the land”. Yet now, this symbol carries a message that we worship fleshly pleasures and worldly identities, accompanied by a reminder: "You can't punish us, because you made a Covenant." It plays in my mind like an immature, taunting voice: "Nah, nah, nah, nah, you-can't-get-me because-of-the-Covenant." And if you saw the behaviour of some of the followers of such culture you see it and feel the demonic presence.

Here is one example of the many protests I have witnessed:

But God won't be mocked.

"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life."

- Galatians 6:7–8

The message is clear: choices have consequences, and God—just, holy, and all-seeing—will not be made a fool of by human arrogance or hypocrisy.

Is bringing Satan into this discussion too much?

That’s okay—let’s take a step back.

Can we at least agree on this: The symbol of the rainbow has been hijacked.

Let’s test that. When someone sees a rainbow here in Ontario, what comes to mind?

a) The 1990s hit song by Israel Kamakawiwoʻole
b) God’s Covenant with all people
c) Pride / 2SLGBTQIA+

If your thoughts go anywhere but to God, then Satan has done some of his finest work.
And you’d better believe he’s proud of it.

What an achievement—redefining the meaning of God's Covenant, turning a symbol of divine mercy and authority into a tool of virtue signalling, wrapped in a threat: ‘You’d better affirm this new meaning of the rainbow—and while you’re at it, you’d better affirm the new definitions of acceptance, kindness, and love too.’

Let’s take a closer look at the hypocrisy.

The (Progress) Pride Flag Is Not Inclusive—It’s Exclusive

Flags, by their nature, are exclusive. They define boundaries, authority, and allegiance. A flag marks who is within a movement, nation, or ideology—and who is not. This is especially true when flags are used politically: those who question their meaning or application are quickly cast as outsiders, regardless of their character or values.

The expectation that individuals must stand behind a flag to be accepted contradicts the very essence of inclusion. This contradiction is especially stark when comparing the Pride Flag to the traditional rainbow—again, a symbol of God’s Covenant with all people, without condition or qualification. By contrast, the Pride Flag demands affirmation of specific political and moral assertions. It is not a symbol of unity but a banner of division.

Ironically, those told they "need" a flag to feel included are, in reality, being conditioned into exclusion—believing that without visible symbols, they are unwelcome. It’s a tragic distortion. And it is often the very voices who claim to promote inclusivity that draw the hardest lines around who belongs.

Paradoxically, the loudest demands for "inclusion" come from those imposing ideological conformity—labeling dissent as hate and insisting on adherence to a singular worldview. Much of this is funded by public money, whether taxpayers agree or not. Fly the flag if you choose. But when you demand others fly it—or use shared resources to push a message others do not endorse—you cross a line. That is no longer expression; it is coercion—and it’s theft.

The exclusion began from the start. When the WCDSB first raised the Pride Flag in June 2021, there was no public consultation and no board vote. The only principled course now is the immediate removal of all Pride Flags, stickers, and paraphernalia — and ought not require a vote. That would be true neutrality. If the board intends to abandon neutrality, it must first engage the public openly and decide democratically.

The (Progress) Pride Flag is Not Liberating – It’s Oppressive

Today, the Pride Flag functions as a tool of ideological oppression. Disagreement is labeled as hate. Silence is interpreted as guilt. It does not invite dialogue—it demands allegiance. It pressures individuals to affirm beliefs they may not hold, suppressing freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent. It demands compliance - this is not liberation.

And how about the very people this flag claims to serve? It ties people to earthly identities that should never define the soul. Christ came to set us free from those very chains. Galatians 3:28 tells us, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” No ethnicity, status, or gender stands above another in His eyes.

Yet here we are—elevating a flag that celebrates all sexual orientation and preferences—all, except the one He designed for us. How absurd is that?

We are loved and accepted in spite of our faults and sins—all of them—and we all have them. That is the mercy and grace of God—a gift we should meet with humility and gratitude. Yet we are told to take pride in what separates us from God. To be “loud and proud” about being slaves to sin—even in our publicly funded Catholic schools.

Is this the message we should be sending to our children?
Is this the way of Christ?

The (Progress) Pride Flag Is Not Humble and Kind — It’s About Self-Preservation and Self-Interest

This flag does not quietly invite belonging—it demands recognition, affirmation, and validation. And not for the collective good, but for the constant reinforcement of personal identity. Even when framed as activism for the vulnerable, the message remains centred on self. “My identity. My truth. My validation.” It is the opposite of what we are called to in a Christ-centered life.

In an environment that ought to place God at the centre, there is no room for ego-driven ideology. True humility reaches outward. It serves quietly. It puts others first. But the Pride Flag turns everything inward, replacing shared truth with personal narrative—elevating individual desire over divine design.

This is not about accepting differences—it is about enforcing a single worldview, one some claim is righteous even as it contradicts what God, in His mercy and wisdom, desires for us. And we must remember: even God Himself does not force us to follow Him. Coercion belongs not to a loving Creator—but to those who seek control.

We must also ask: who profits from this?

In the name of "affirming identity," children are being led down paths that often result in irreversible decisions and damage. Behind it stands a powerful, growing industry—profiting from confusion and pain. Pharmaceutical companies are raking in billions through puberty blockers, hormone treatments, surgeries, and lifelong drug dependencies. Our schools promote this profit, all while avoiding, even concealing the known risks and harms. Anyone with eyes to see knows: this is not a road God would lead a child down.

This isn’t love. It’s not care. It’s exploitation—and it masquerades as compassion.

Our children deserve the truth. They deserve to know that they are already enough—not because of their chosen identity or the flag above their classroom, but because they are made in the image of God. That they are seen, known, and loved beyond comprehension.

To be Christian is to love without lying.

And the truth is this: a symbol that demands conformity, glorifies pride, and pressures children into self-focus is not humble, not holy, and not of God.

The (Progress) Pride Flag Is Not About Human Rights — It’s Dehumanizing

The Pride Flag claims to stand for Human Rights—but in reality, it undermines them. It demands ideological conformity over freedom of thought. It silences dissent in the name of inclusion. It redefines truth to serve a politicized identity agenda.

It chips away at the very things that make us human:
– our biological reality,
– our God-given right to ask questions,
– and our shared meaning rooted in something higher than the self.

By exalting subjective identity above objective truth, it does not uplift humanity—it unravels it.

To those who defend this flag, I ask: What other group requires a flag to be considered welcome?

I wouldn’t want a flag to validate my belonging. I wouldn’t require one to feel loved. And I wouldn’t wish that burden on anyone else.

This flag defines affirmation as requiring a ‘transition’ yet conversion as someone remaining as one was created. It celebrates transitions that symbolically, spiritually, and relationally mark the death of a son or daughter, every. single. time.

It applauds choices and behaviours—unless those choices reflect God's created order and the natural gift of procreation. This goes far beyond acceptance or freedom. It is about rejecting the design we were lovingly given — rejecting the human design.

The (Progress) Pride Flag Is Not Safe — It’s Harmful

The Pride Flag has become a tool of ideological enforcement—pressuring children, guilting parents, silencing dissent, and dividing communities. It cloaks political agendas in the language of compassion, demanding not understanding, but allegiance.

Psychologically, we’ve conditioned children to believe that if the flag isn’t present, they are unsafe. We have failed them. Schools should teach that belonging comes from shared humanity, not symbols. Instead, children are taught that the absence of a flag signals hatred—a tragic and damaging message.

Administrators in the WCDSB and WRDSB argue that "kids need the flag to feel included"—that staff "see it firsthand." But the very people claiming to protect students are creating the conditions for their distress. When a flag becomes the measure of acceptance or safety, we foster anxiety, not comfort. Worse, identity shifts from the person to the flag itself—turning disagreement into alleged hatred.

Teachers and principals tell parents that students “relax and open up” when they see the Pride Flag in the office. But what kind of disclosures are we encouraging—and why should these bypass parents and appropriate professionals? When educators move outside their scope of practice, it doesn’t just blur boundaries—it creates harm, breaks trust, and turns well-meaning intentions into dangerous outcomes. Their role is to teach, not to act as counsellors without authority or oversight. These moments should be rare exceptions—not institutionalized.

And let’s talk about education for a change. Where is the evidence that flying a Pride Flag improves student outcomes? If this were any other initiative, we would demand rigorous data—randomized studies, comparative analysis, long-term trends. We don’t have that—what we do have are rising rates of anxiety, lower academic scores, increased violence, shrinking classroom resources, declining enrolment, and overworked educators—all while DEI initiatives expand and senior staff salaries rise.

And what about the educators themselves—the ones we rely on to be at their best with our children? Many are speaking up, quietly and fearfully, reporting that morale has never been lower. Staff rooms are tense. Conversations are guarded. Teachers who believe the flag is harmful, divisive, and wrong feel shamed and silenced by their unions and associations.

So tell us: where is the benefit?

Because in the absence of real evidence supporting the use of this flag—and with mounting testimony of its harm—how confident can anyone be that any possible good outweighs the very real costs?

But hey—it's just a flag, right?

So let’s ask the big Christian question: What would Jesus do?

He is, after all, the gold standard. Even non-believers rarely dispute the timeless moral principles Jesus taught.

So—what would He do?

We know this much:
He would open the door.
He would sit with anyone who wanted to sit with Him.
He would invite, not impose.
He would encourage repentance—not demand it—because He knows our hearts must choose freely. And forced repentance isn’t repentance at all.

But would He stand behind the Pride Flag?

Would He be showing up at WCDSB “wearing visible support” to tell people like me how wrong I am for not bowing to the flag?

Maybe.

But I wonder…would He instead be storming through the school halls, tearing down every Pride Flag like He flipped the tables in the temple—calling out what does not belong and shaking people out of their demoralized slumber?

And the truth is—it doesn’t even matter which image is closer to ‘WWJD?’

You know why?

Because of that sacred gift God gave us: free will.

We can’t legislate kindness.

We are of free will. And as long as Satan holds sway over flesh and worldly pleasures, humanity will fall short. But we choose. And any kindness that’s mandated isn’t love. Any affirmation given under pressure means nothing.

Kindness must come from within—from hearts that genuinely love their neighbours, not from laws or policies dictating how we ought to respond to challenging circumstances that require honest discussion.

In a world that increasingly rejects faith, Catholic schools have an opportunity and a distinct duty: to teach children that their worth is not found in symbols, labels, or group identities—but in something far greater—the unchanging, everlasting love of God.

That in actuality—Love is not boastful. It is not proud. That Love rejoices in the truth.

The truth that life isn’t always fair—but He is.

That we cannot and are not meant to please everyone—but that we are never alone.

That when we all do our best to treat one another as God would, we draw closer to the oneness He desires for us—a heaven on earth.

For Christians—especially those called to teach—there is both a duty and an honour: to educate others in the pure, whole, and unconditional love of Jesus. And yet, in Patrick’s recent letter to the trustees, he writes something beyond inappropriate—something incomprehensible:

“The symbol of our faith (the cross) is integral, but for some it is not enough.”

When I read those words, my eyes widened, my jaw dropped and my heart broke.

Is this how far gone we are, as a people?

Those in leadership of our very own publicly funded Christian schools say and believe that not only is the cross not enough—but that what would make it ‘enough’ is a (Progress) Pride Flag.

Please pause and consider that for just a moment.

The statement “(the cross) is integral, but for some it is not enough.” directly contradicts foundational Christian belief that the cross is entirely enough —John 19:30, Hebrews 10:10-14, Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:21, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Colossians 2:13-14, Romans 5:8-9, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 8:1-2 —literally Hundreds of verses either directly state or clearly imply the sufficiency of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice — that it is complete, perfect, and final

Because at its core, Christianity teaches that faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross is fully sufficient for salvation — not human effort, rituals, or colourful mediators. The Pride Flag, by its very symbolism, suggests that the cross is not enough, which makes it anti-Christian. Patrick Etmanski, President of OECTA Waterloo, explicitly states this with his own words, rejecting a core Christian doctrine. By promoting this view, he is not just endorsing an anti-Christian idea, but actively opposing a foundational truth of Christianity — and, by definition, is anti-Christian.

I have news for Patrick—and anyone else who believes in Jesus and claims the cross isn’t enough: If the cross isn’t enough for you—nothing will ever be enough for you.

Watch the full video: “The Face of God” Michael & The Shroud of Turin | Dr.Jeremiah Johnston

And that’s the heart of the issue.

It began with a flag and the slogan “everyone belongs”—but that wasn’t enough.
Then came the ceremonies, the parades, the months of celebration. And still—it isn’t enough.

Why?
Because sin is never satisfied.

There may be no symbol more representative of flesh and desire, dressed up in the language of inclusivity, than the Progress Pride Flag.

And in that sense—I believe it represents everything Jesus stood against.

But—what do you think?

This remains largely unspoken—in WCDSB meetings and in our society at large: the underlying assumption that inclusion must be visibly demonstrated, that being “welcoming” requires a banner. Few ideas are more subtly oppressive.

Try telling the five-year-old in a new classroom who meets a kind smile from another child;
or the mother whose heart flutters when she feels how comforted her baby is by her embrace;
or the teacher who hears a humble “thank you” from a struggling student;
… the new family on the block invited to dinner by neighbours;
… the person who’s friend sacrificed their Saturday to help them move;
… the hospital patient whose hand is held by a nurse staying past their shift to listen;
or the person whose day is lifted when a stranger simply holds the door open,
that a flag is what’s needed to feel they belong.

These quiet moments—these small, human acts—are where kindness lives. Where Love lives. Where God is found.

When we insist a flag is necessary to make people feel valued, we send the opposite message: that without it, they are unwelcome. That’s not inclusion—it’s conditioning. It creates a culture where people feel excluded unless constantly affirmed by external signs or gratification.

But that’s not how belonging works. And it’s certainly not what Jesus taught.

In fact, the word “inclusion” appears exactly zero times in the Bible.

Jesus included everyone—but never at the expense of truth.

True inclusion does not require symbols. It requires recognizing the dignity of every person as created in the image of God.

This is what saves us all from oppression—what will break us from our chains.

All of our schools ought to teach children that they don’t need a flag to know they belong.

And those leading in our region’s Catholic schools have been given a rare and sacred opportunity to share the Good News—don’t pass that up, Christian educators!

The cross is not just enough — it is everything. It is more than we could ever earn, yet it was freely given to us by grace.

Our children must know: God’s plan is not just good and true — it is the greatest thing they could ever hope for.

And it is the cross — and the cross alone — that makes that hope possible.

----

The next WCDSB meeting is set to take place tomorrow, Monday, April 28^th at 6pm at the Catholic Education Centre: 35 Weber St. W., Kitchener. Check the link for any changes.

Please consider either attending and/or sharing your views on this matter with the WCDSB trustees:
bob.sikora@wcdsb.ca renee.kraft@wcdsb.ca tracey.weiler@wcdsb.ca david.guerin@wcdsb.ca linda.cuff@wcdsb.ca marisa.phillips@wcdsb.ca winston.francis@wcdsb.ca conrad.stanley@wcdsb.ca

Note: When the WCDSB first raised the Pride Flag in June 2021, there was no public consultation and no board vote. The principled course would be the immediate removal of all Pride Flags, stickers, and paraphernalia— and ought not require a vote. If the board intends to adopt such a procedure, it must engage the public openly and decide democratically.

Campaign Life Coalition is also calling for all who wish to meet before the meeting, from 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM, tomorrow, Monday, April 28^th, at 35 Weber St. W., Kitchener. CLC has been reporting on much of the unfolding of the WCDSB and the issue of the flag – take a look at the CLCBlog for more information.

Thank you to the people of Waterloo Region who met in prayer yesterday, at the Catholic Ed Centre, imploring God’s oversight of Conrad Stanley’s honourable motion.

My email to the WCDSB trustees: