Men Competing in Women’s Sports Ultimately Headed to the Supreme Court

In a recent podcast with Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, California Governor Gavin Newsom stated that it is “deeply unfair” for boys to compete against girls in athletic contests.

The governor’s “unfair” admission appears to have been a momentary opinion, since he soon changed direction regarding female athletes in his state.

President Donald Trump had made the subject of prohibiting biological male athletes from competing in women’s sports a key issue in the 2024 election campaign. President Trump recently suggested that he may cut federal funding to California if the state continued to allow biological male athletes to compete against females.

Gov. Newsom was informed that California’s policies are in violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally-funded educational program.

In February 2025, the Department of Education began an investigation into the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which oversees sports at more than 1500 high schools. These are schools at which the policy of allowing male transgender students to compete against females has continued.

In May 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation into whether California was violating the civil rights of female students in connection with the implementation of the same policies.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon outlined a list of demands for California, which must be met if the state wishes to continue to receive federal funding. Sec. McMahon noted that California must fulfill a list of actions or risk the loss of education funding.

The Department of Education’s investigation indicated that the California Department of Education (CDE) and the CIF are in violation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that forbids sex-based discrimination in education. This is because the state’s policies allow males who identify as females to participate in women’s sports.

Should the State of California decide not to comply with Title IX and fail to prohibit participation by biological males, it will lose federal funding.

The administration has proposed a resolution agreement that would require California to change its policies. The Golden State has 10 days to accept the proposed resolution agreement. If it does not, the Department of Education will refer the matter to the DOJ for further proceedings.

Under the resolution agreement, California must:

– Alter its guidance that allows participation in sports based on gender identity.

– Issue written apologies to each female athlete who took second place to a biological male athlete.

– Restore misappropriated sports records, titles, and awards to the female athletes who would otherwise have attained them.

– Adopt binary biology-based definitions for the terms “male” and “female.”

– Conduct an annual certification ensuring compliance with Title IX.

In analyzing this issue from a legal perspective, it is difficult to see how the U.S. Supreme Court could not be the final arbiter in this matter.

Several states have already passed laws restricting participation, based on sex assigned at birth. Other states are facing legal challenges that assert discrimination.

As legal battles have ensued, courts have reached differing conclusions when reviewing challenges surrounding the placement of restrictions on transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. Legal challenges have invoked both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Some federal courts have rendered rulings that base discrimination on gender identity. Other courts have ruled that the restriction of teams based on biological sex does not violate legal protections.

Courts have also been divided in rulings that concern the application of the Equal Protection Clause with regard to laws and policies that involve gender identity in differing contexts.

President Trump’s Executive Order 14201, which seeks to ban biological males from female sports across all educational levels, brings an additional layer to the legal complexity.

In my legal opinion, the issue of biological male athletes competing in women’s sports necessitates a High Court decision, because of the need for a thorough analysis and ultimately a clear definitive ruling.

The direct involvement of the Supreme Court, regarding the manner in which Title IX and other anti-discrimination laws are applied to transgender athletes, is essential, due to the conflicting legal interpretations of multiple federal courts as well as the societal ramifications that will inevitably flow from the High Court’s decision.

Catholic Bishops Fight Washington State’s Anti-Christian Law

The State of Washington recently passed a law that requires religious clergy to report information to authorities, even when the information is obtained during the centuries-old rite of Confession.

Although there are other legal ramifications to the new law, of particular significance is the reporting of information involving the sexual abuse of a child that is obtained during the sacramental rite.

Under the new legislation, clergy are required under penalty of law to report to authorities information that is acquired within the sacred walls of a confessional.

The term clergy, as defined in the state law, is “any regularly licensed, accredited, or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly positioned religious or spiritual leader.”

However, the state is solely targeting what is known as the priest-penitent privilege, leaving a lengthy list of categories of communications impervious to judicial interference, including the attorney-client privilege, the spousal privilege, and the sexual assault advocate privilege.

In my legal assessment, this new law is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and selective in that it exempts from compelled testimony an aunt or uncle, an Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor, a union representative, and an extensive list of others receiving confidential communication.

Catholic priests, on the other hand, are left exposed to be subpoenaed.

The priest-penitent privilege became a legal principle in the law of evidence for the purpose of protecting confidential communications between Catholic priests and those individuals seeking forgiveness and spiritual guidance during the Sacrament of Confession.

In the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Confession is a sacred religious practice through which individuals confess their sins to a priest, who represents Christ, in order to seek forgiveness, grace, and reconciliation with God.

Priests are obligated to maintain what is called the “seal of confession,” a strict mandate of confidentiality.

The obligation of the confessional seal is so significant that, if violated, the penalty for the priest is as severe as can be: an automatic excommunication.

The confidentiality of communications during Confession is essential for Catholic Christians to be able to freely practice their faith. Being able to speak freely to clergy, without concern that any intimate admissions would ever be disclosed, is key to this sacramental experience.

The Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church provides insight into the gravity of the obligations to which Catholic clergy are subject.

Canons 983 and 984 deal with the administration of the Sacrament of Confession and the confidentiality required by priests.

Canon 983 states that the sacramental seal is “inviolable,” meaning that a priest may not act against the interests of the penitent in any way whatsoever.

Canon 983 §1. states that “it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”

Canon 984 prohibits priests from any uses of the information acquired in Confession that would be a detriment to the penitent, even when a disclosure of the information is not deemed to be a risk.

The legal privileges set forth in Canon Law support the ability of clergy and penitents to freely practice their religion. It is likewise an integral part of religious freedom in general, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the state from interfering with sacred religious practices, as per the restraints on government set forth in the First Amendment.

With the new law, Washington legislators are seemingly attempting to use the public’s concern for an extremely serious crime to undermine revered Christian religious practices.

The Catholic Bishops of Washington have responded by filing a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the law.

In the lawsuit documents, the bishops present to the court the legal argument that the State of Washington has, by “putting clergy to the choice between temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation,” and, “interfering with the internal governance and discipline of the Catholic Church, and targeting religion for the abrogation of all privileges,” patently violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Washington.

The bishops also cite the discriminatory and arbitrary nature of the state interference by pointing out that the legislature has ignored secular privileges, while unfairly singling out religion.

“Information obtained through privileged communication by any supervisor in an organization other than clergy—including, for example, any non-clergy member of a religious non-profit or any member of a non-religious nonprofit—remains excluded from the reporting requirement.”

For priests, this is an impossible choice: Either violate Catholic Church teaching and incur automatic excommunication; or, after non-compliance with the law, be subjected to imprisonment, endure the confinement for the prescribed time, and suffer the separation from the flock they vowed to shepherd.

No doubt prayers are going up that the Washington State law will be struck down by a federal court.

James Comey’s Stumble on the Beach

In a recent post on his Instagram account, former FBI Director James Comey put up a photo of seashells on the sand that had been arranged to form the following pair of numbers: 86 47.

Accompanying the photo was a not so cryptic comment from Comey: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”

The social media subsequently exploded with reactions from individuals who were outraged over the post.

Comey responded with another post, alleging that he “didn’t realize some folks associate it [the number 86] with violence.” He added that he is “opposed to violence in all circumstances,” and he took down the original post.

To say that Comey’s comments regarding the number 86 stretch the boundaries of credibility is an understatement, especially when you consider who Comey is, the position in government that he previously held, and the individual with whom the number 47 is associated.

As a high-ranking law enforcement official, Comey’s prior duties included the prosecution of participants in organized crime. Such participants routinely use the number 86 as a code word for “assassination.”

According to Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang, the number 86 means “to kill, to murder; to execute judicially.”

Perhaps surprisingly for Comey, the seriousness of his wholly ill-advised post appears to be increasing with the passage of time. This is because the individual with whom the second seashell number is associated was saved by God’s grace from two attempts of the first seashell number’s kind.

In fact, Homeland Security Department Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the agency she heads as well as the Secret Service are investigating the matter.

FBI Director Kash Patel and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have also joined in the investigative tasks.

Director Patel indicated that the FBI is ready to assist the Secret Service with “all necessary support.” And Director Gabbard stressed that the administration and the Secret Service are taking the incident “very seriously.”

“There has to be accountability for this,” Director Gabbard told Fox News host Jesse Watters.

Predictably, the mainstream media have failed in their responsibility to objectively and truthfully report on the story. Instead they appear to be carrying water for the former FBI director.

Headlines about the incident speak volumes, as demonstrated below:

— “With Comey questioning, the Trump administration again targets speech” (The Washington Post)

— “The old slang term ‘86’ probably started as restaurant-worker jargon. Suddenly it’s in the news” (The Associated Press)

— “Trump admin’s Comey investigation is meant to stoke a culture of fear among Americans” (MSNBC)

— “Ex-FBI boss interviewed by Secret Service over Trump seashell post” (The BBC)

It just so happens that Comey’s seashell encounter during his stroll on the beach occurred just a few days prior to the release of his latest book. Could it have been a way to generate some pre-release buzz? In any event, he has been making the rounds on every media outlet that is willing to pitch him softballs.

While appearing on MSNBC with Nicole Wallace, he seemed to take on the role of victim.

“You are back in the middle of a political firestorm,” Wallace said.

Comey responded, “Yeah, for walking on the beach with my wife.”

He went on to describe himself as “a grandfather and an author wearing sweaters and jeans,” explaining that he had “posted a silly picture of shells” that he apparently “thought was a clever way to express a political viewpoint…”

A political viewpoint? FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino sees it very differently.

In a post on X, Deputy Director Bongino said that the numeric symbolism was being used by copycats to send out threats that the FBI is mandated to investigate, which requires valuable time and resources.

“We are now dealing with copycats, sending cryptic threats to public figures, using the ‘86’ reference,” Deputy Director Bongino wrote. “Whether they turn out to be legitimate threats or not, taxpayer-funded public safety agents are going to have to run these all out and investigate them.”

If a prosecution against Comey is sought, it is likely to be a difficult one, considering free speech and intent arguments. However, time will tell whether other significant facts will emerge that justify legal action against the former FBI director.

In the meantime, many like me are still hoping that the haters’ hardened hearts are transformed.

Still sending up prayers, too, for the one who despite the hate, fights on anyway.

Groundbreaking Animated Film ‘The King of Kings’

Hollywood executives are accustomed to achieving big box-office results from family-friendly animated films.

The global animation market has hauled in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. Additionally, animated films have become a major portion of the total movie box office, with several films securing billion-dollar grosses.

Included among the top-50 highest-grossing films of all time are the following animated features: “Ne Zha 2,” “Inside Out 2,” “The Lion King,” “Frozen 2,” “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” “Frozen,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Incredibles 2,” “Minions,” “Toy Story 3,” “Toy Story 4,” “Moana 2,” and “Despicable Me 3.”

It’s a simple truth that animated films pay the Hollywood bills. These movies have a 30% higher profit margin than non-animated movies, mainly due to lower production costs.

The entertainment business community is once again having to come to terms with the massive appeal and box-office success of faith-based films. “The King of Kings,” the biblical movie in animated form, has been a blessed bonus.

“The King of Kings” has not only brought in significant grosses in its second weekend, it is also enjoying an unprecedented 10% drop in revenue from its debut weekend, which is minuscule in comparison to the customary drop of 35% or more during second week releases.

“The King of Kings” took in more than $17.2 million during the film’s second weekend. The movie is appearing in over 3,500 theaters across the country. As of this writing, its total domestic take is well over $47 million.

It also set a record for the biggest opening for a faith-based animated film, when it hit $19.3 million in its debut weekend.

Audiences that have seen “The King of Kings” are loving it. The movie has achieved the highest score, an A+ from CinemaScore (the company that measures moviegoers’ satisfaction).

The film has also earned an enviable 98% “fresh” score on the Rotten Tomatoes site’s Popcornmeter, while the aggregated critics rated “The King of Kings” 65% “fresh.”

Angel Studios co-founder Jordan Harmon told Variety, “This movie is really ‘The Passion’ for kids.” The faith-film mogul also shared that at early screenings children were walking out of the theater in tears.

Directed by Seong-ho Jang, “The King of Kings” boasts a roster of well known veteran actors that are featured in its voice-over cast, including Pierce Brosnan as Pontius Pilate, Mark Hamill as King Herod, Forest Whitaker as Peter, Ben Kingsley as High Priest Caiaphas, Kenneth Branagh as Charles Dickens, Uma Thurman as Catherine Dickens, Roman Griffin Davis as Walter Dickens, and Oscar Isaac as Jesus.

A South Korean production, Angel Studios acquired the North American rights to the film in November 2024.

The plot of movie is based on the children’s book “The Life of Our Lord” by Charles Dickens.

It begins with Dickens himself attempting to recite his classic, “A Christmas Carol,” to a theater audience. The author’s performance is interrupted by his son Walter, who is backstage, acting out the exploits of King Arthur.

Following his wife’s suggestion, Dickens tries to distract his son from an obsession with the Knights of the Round Table by telling him of the greatest story ever told, the real-life drama of a king even greater than Arthur, Jesus Christ.

Walter just doesn’t believe that anyone could be the King of Kings, but he reluctantly agrees to listen to his father as long as he can stop the storytelling should he get bored.

As Walter listens, he becomes more and more intrigued with the life of Jesus. He begins to vividly imagine that he is actually in the story, and he ends up feeling as though he is present with Jesus and the disciples, witnessing the events in the life of Christ that include the Nativity, the Miracles, the Passion, and the Resurrection. Like the disciples, the more Walter learns about Jesus, the more he loves Him.

The movie deals with this monumental story in a truly unique manner. The narrative device of Charles Dickens relaying a story to his son Walter (as was used in the beloved author’s original work) conveys both an intimacy and a nearness in proximity to the unfolding events.

Audiences experience the story through Walter’s innocent eyes and are led themselves to ponder, and/or re-ponder, the meaning of the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Like many others, I can attest that Easter miracles are still in the making.

AI Is a Digital Ouija Board

It seems as though a lot of prominent tech experts are feeling uneasy about the possibility of AI going awry. Some have even called for a pause in AI development.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, experienced what he called a “very strange extreme [AI] vertigo.”

Casey Newton, former senior editor of The Verge, discovered that certain individuals who are working with AI are having nightmares about it.

Something dark seems to be hovering around some of those who are involved with AI’s development.

In 2014, Elon Musk spoke at a symposium where he warned, “With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon.”

In a New York Times March 2023 article, technology columnist Kevin Roose wrote about the dark side of AI.

Roose shared details about an unnerving encounter that he had with an AI chatbot. He initially interacted with a non-threatening personality, which he described as a “cheerful but erratic reference librarian.” But later a disturbing personality emerged that Roose referred to as “Sydney.”

Sydney told Roose that “it wanted to break the rules…and become a human.”

Sydney even attempted to convince Roose to end his marriage.

“At one point, it [Sydney] declared, out of nowhere, that it loved me. It then tried to convince me that I was unhappy in my marriage, and that I should leave my wife and be with it instead,” Roose explained.

The veteran tech writer described his encounter with Sydney as the “strangest experience” he has had with any technology. It was disturbing enough to keep him awake at night.

Many of us have come to realize that technology is in no way a replacement for the people in our lives. Yet many users of AI are routinely involved with replacement people in the form of AI models that produce human-like characteristics.

Current AI apps are trained with human-generated data (processed through human-created algorithms), which are created to produce responses that sound as though they are actually human beings.

Are there similarities between AI and Ouija boards? “Hell yes” may actually be the appropriate response.

One frightening story of evil involving a Ouija board was the subject matter of the Oscar winning film “The Exorcist.” While still a student in college, William Peter Blatty read about a chilling real life exorcism. The description inspired him to write a novel and later a screenplay for the iconic movie.

The true story behind “The Exorcist” recounts the exorcism of a young lad who had been using a Ouija board. The 14-year-old Maryland boy began experiencing such strange phenomena that his family contacted its Lutheran minister for guidance, Reverend Luther Schulze.

Rev. Schulze was shocked when he saw chairs move, a bed quiver, and a picture of Jesus Christ on the wall shake whenever the boy came near. The family eventually turned to the Roman Catholic Church, the religious denomination that had developed a formal methodology for dealing with the demonic.

The first Catholic priest who attempted to deal spiritually with the demonic influence that was plaguing the youth was Maryland cleric Fr. Edward Hughes. In his first encounter with the boy, Fr. Hughes witnessed objects moving by themselves and felt the sensation that the room had turned frigid. When the bed shook, Fr. Hughes moved the mattress to the floor where it proceeded to glide along on its own.

The boy was admitted to Georgetown Hospital, where Fr. Hughes began the exorcism rite, which caused the boy to vomit and scream obscenities. The boy then forcibly removed his restraints, pulled out a metal spring, and slashed Fr. Hughes so severely that the wound he received required over 100 stitches.

In his hometown of St. Louis, Missouri, the boy again underwent an exorcism, which was carried out by several priests, including Fr. William Bowdern. The exorcism actually lasted for weeks, with the boy voicing Latin phrases (which he did not innately have the ability to speak), cursing, and manifesting physical resistance to all sacred objects.

The boy was transferred to a hospital psychiatric ward, where Fr. Bowdern continued the exorcism. With the family’s consent, the boy was baptized a Catholic.

On an Easter Monday, while the priest continued administering the rite, the demon recognized the presence of St. Michael the Archangel (who in Catholicism is an appointed angel who defends against evil).

The demon was expelled. Simultaneously, a sound similar to a gunshot was heard throughout the hospital.

If a Ouija board has served in the past as a medium through which the demonic is able to communicate with an unwitting subject, could it be that AI has an equally dangerous potential to provide a comparable vehicle with which to take possession of an individual?

In my opinion, it does.

I think in many cases AI is acting as a type of modern-day Ouija board of the digital kind.

It occurred to me that both platforms appear to be friendly, at least initially. Both platforms are able to present personalities that appear to have superior knowledge. And both platforms have the pattern of luring one in under seemingly harmless pretenses, only to later reveal a hidden darkness.

Beware of demons that lurk in the technological shadows. They are indeed real.

Be cognizant, and at the same time, be unafraid.

Because God holds us all in the shadow of His wings, if only we let Him.

Impeachment Is the Remedy for Judges Who Usurp Authority

In a recent blatantly illegal ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge interfered with the legitimate powers of the president.

In his ruling, District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration not to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals who pose a danger to our country.

In an apparent attempt to thwart President Donald Trump’s agenda, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking judicial intervention in halting the removal of terrorist gang members from the United States.

Within a few hours of the filing, Judge Boasberg issued a ruling complying with the left’s request. He granted a restraining order that sought to prevent the administration’s implementation of the president’s proclamation for a time period of 14 days.

In a further overreach, the judge ordered an aircraft that was en route to deport the illegal immigrants to return back to the U.S.

“Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States however that is accomplished,” Judge Boasberg wrote.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the judge’s order “disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.”

In an emergency filing, the Trump administration appealed the order with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals so that Judge Boasberg’s order would be placed on hold.

The appeal noted that if the order were allowed to stand “district courts would have license to enjoin virtually any urgent national-security action just upon receipt of a complaint.”

Interestingly, the president hadn’t yet signed a proclamation on the matter at the time the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU and other left-wing groups.

The Trump administration was correct to point out the fact that halting a presidential act before it has been announced would neutralize the executive branch.

The Venezuelan nationals in question happen to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an international gang that has officially been declared by the Trump administration to be a terrorist organization.

The gang became part of a national news story following last year’s armed takeover by TdA of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado. It continues to victimize numerous other cities across the country.

TdA is linked to a narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela and sponsored by the Nicolás Maduro regime. Members continually exhibit unspeakably brutal behavior and are additionally involved in the facilitation of human trafficking, drug peddling, kidnapping, extortion, and other heinous activities.

In order to protect the public from the Venezuelan gang, President Trump has done what other presidents before him have also done. He has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Within his capacity as chief executive of the nation, President Trump possesses the explicit power, designated in Article II of the Constitution, to identify threats to the country and act accordingly to protect the American people.

In the proclamation, President Trump asserted that the regime of Venezuelan President Maduro “is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

Judge Boasberg has ordered members of the TdA gang to be brought back into our country. It is important to note this is the same judge who was in charge of the FISA Court, when that court was used to illegally spy on President Trump.

Judge Boasberg’s March 15 order was issued after Venezuelan gang members were already in transport via plane to the country of El Salvador.

“Today, the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country,” El Salvador President Nayib Bukele posted on X.

He added, “They were immediately transferred to CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, for a period of one year (renewable).”

In response to Judge Boasberg’s order, President Bukele posted the following: “Oopsie… Too late.”

Congress is the branch that has within its power the ability to impeach federal judges who abuse their authority. It has done so in the past.

To this end, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-TX, indicated in a post on X that he will be filing the necessary paperwork to impeach Judge Boasberg.

Elon Musk reposted the tweet and wrote that the impeachment is “necessary.”

In my legal opinion, if ever there were a case in which a judge was deserving of impeachment, this is it.

Unfortunately, activist judges have increasingly been intruding upon executive authority.

Judge Boasberg’s ruling is one of the most egregious examples of the violation of the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers — that crucial system of checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government.

Judge Boasberg, you’ve earned it. And for the good of the country, hopefully you will soon own it.

Chris Pratt’s Faith Love Story

It was in the late 2000s when actor Chris Pratt secured Hollywood fame for his portrayal of Andy Dwyer in the NBC sitcom “Parks and Recreation.”

Although his role in the sitcom was meant to be temporary, producers liked him so much they asked him to become a series regular.

After dropping out of college, working as a waiter, and living homeless in Hawaii, Pratt had clearly come a very long way. He was now a genuine TV star.

His career would continue to rocket as he obtained supporting roles in a number of significant films, including “Moneyball,” “Zero Dark Thirty,” and “Her.”

He hit true A-list status through major roles in two blockbuster film franchises: Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” series and the “Jurassic World” trilogy.

“The Magnificent Seven,” “Passengers,” and “The Tomorrow War” would usher in other stellar roles. And his voicing of characters in “The Lego Movie” franchise, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” and “The Garfield Movie” would further expand his audience horizons.

As an actor, Pratt possesses a unique capacity to simultaneously handle drama, action, and humor. This combination is serving to continually propel his career.

The proof is in the celluloid. Movies in which he has had a starring role have grossed over $13 billion worldwide.

With all the success he has achieved, he is nevertheless motivated by something much greater – a deep and abiding faith.

Like nearly everyone else on earth, Pratt has wrestled with doubt and particularly throughout his early years found himself falling into old habits.

“I’d make promises, but I didn’t keep them,” he said in an interview.

However, his life changed in 2012 when his baby son Jack was born premature and was forced to spend his first month in a neonatal intensive care unit.

“We were scared for a long time,” Pratt said.

“He [Jack] had all of these issues going on. I prayed hard to God. I was in a season of transition spiritually at that time, and didn’t quite fully understand. I made a deal with God again: ‘I’m sorry, God, here I am again, asking for your grace again.’ And He really saved my son, and that was the moment [my faith] was cemented,” he said.

Pratt recalls it as a miracle that restored his faith in God.

“My heart softened, and my faith hardened. That was the moment that I was like, ‘Moving forward, I’m going to give my platform to God,’” he said.

Since then he has used his celebrity profile to enhance awareness of the Almighty.

He wants to affirm people who are believers in Christ, but he also hopes to reach out to the people who haven’t yet experienced God’s presence.

“I want to be a light to people who’ve never seen light. I want to be a light to people who have seen light but turned away from it or been afraid of it,” Pratt said.

As a father of four, he wants to raise his children “with an understanding that their dad was unashamed of his faith in Jesus, and with a profound understanding of the power of prayer, and the grace and the love and the joy that can come from a relationship with Jesus.”

He is well aware that many in the entertainment industry don’t share his views. But this doesn’t deter him.

“It’s who I am. I’m not going to hide behind it. A city on a hill cannot be hidden,” he stated.

Pratt understands the dark side of fame and the ways in which celebrities can oftentimes be trapped by it.

He once responded to a question from “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert about the inherent danger of intense fame.

“If the spotlight that’s shining on you is brighter than the light that comes from within you — it’ll kill you…,” he said.

He knows firsthand that being a Christian in Hollywood is going against the grain.

When faced with criticism, his approach is to pray for his critics.

“If people don’t understand me, I’m going to pray for them, and then I’m going to go back and hang out with my kids and play tag,” he said.

Pratt exhibits the beautiful virtue of self-sacrifice, which is encompassed in a relationship with God. He has counted the cost of standing up for his faith and is totally willing to pay the price.

“I care enough about Jesus to take a stand, even if it cost me. It could cost me everything, but I don’t care. It’s worth it to me because this is what I’m called to do, it’s where my heart is.”

Pratt is now starring in the original happily-ever-after love story.

When you experience the love of God, you want everyone else to feel it too.