A reading from the First Letter of St. Paul to Corinthians
8:1b-7, 11-13
Brothers and sisters:
Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up.
If anyone supposes he knows something,
he does not yet know as he ought to know.
But if one loves God, one is known by him.
So about the eating of meat sacrificed to idols:
we know that there is no idol in the world,
and that there is no God but one.
Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth
(there are, to be sure, many “gods” and many “lords”),
yet for us there is one God, the Father,
from whom all things are and for whom we exist,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom all things are and through whom we exist.
But not all have this knowledge.
There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now
that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols,
their conscience, which is weak, is defiled.
Thus, through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction,
the brother for whom Christ died.
When you sin in this way against your brothers
and wound their consciences, weak as they are,
you are sinning against Christ.
Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin,
I will never eat meat again,
so that I may not cause my brother to sin.
From the Gospel according to Luke
6:27-38
Jesus said to his disciples:
“To you who hear I say, love your enemies,
do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you,
pray for those who mistreat you.
To the person who strikes you on one cheek,
offer the other one as well,
and from the person who takes your cloak,
do not withhold even your tunic.
Give to everyone who asks of you,
and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
For if you love those who love you,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners love those who love them.
And if you do good to those who do good to you,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners do the same.
If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners lend to sinners,
and get back the same amount.
But rather, love your enemies and do good to them,
and lend expecting nothing back;
then your reward will be great
and you will be children of the Most High,
for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Be merciful, just as also your Father is merciful.
“Stop judging and you will not be judged.
Stop condemning and you will not be condemned.
Forgive and you will be forgiven.
Give and gifts will be given to you;
a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing,
will be poured into your lap.
For the measure with which you measure
will in return be measured out to you.”
Is it possible for a person to come to love his or her enemies? If it depended only on us, it would be impossible. But let us recall that, when the Lord asks for something, he wishes to give it. The Lord never asks for something he has not already given us first. When he tells me to love my enemies, he wants to give me the capacity to do so. Without that ability, we would not be able, but he tells you to “love your enemy” and gives you the capacity to love. Saint Augustine prayed in this way — listen to this beautiful prayer: Lord, “give what You command, and command what You will” (Confessions , X, 29.40), because you have already given it to me. What should we ask of him? What is God happy to give us? The strength to love, which is not a thing, but rather the Holy Spirit. The strength to love is the Holy Spirit, and with the Spirit of Jesus, we can respond to evil with good, we can love those who do us harm. (…) And we, do we try to live following Jesus’ invitations? Let us think about someone who has wronged us. (…) And then let us ask the Holy Spirit to act in our heart. Finally, let us pray for that person: praying for those who have done us harm (cf. Lk 6:28). When someone has wronged us, we immediately go and tell others and we feel we are victims. Let us stop, and pray to the Lord for that person, that he might help him or her, and so this feeling of resentment will be dispelled. Praying for those who have wronged us is the first step to transforming evil into good. (Pope Francis, Angelus, 20 February 2022)
Read More![Catholic mother denied vaccine exemption in New York – #Catholic – The U.S. Supreme Court this week denied an emergency request that would have allowed a Catholic mother in New York to send her 5-year-old son to kindergarten without the vaccinations required by state law.The mother, identified in court papers as Jane Doe, wanted her son, C.F., to start at Waverly School in Eastchester this month and is seeking a religious exemption to required vaccines. New York dropped religious exemptions from school vaccine rules in 2019 after a measles outbreak, however, though medical exemptions remain.Doe had asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction so C.F. could start school as the fight continues in court.Two other courts had already denied her request for a temporary injunction. A federal judge in New York and then a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit panel turned her down. The application was then presented to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the circuit justice for the 2nd Circuit, who referred it to the full Supreme Court, which denied it. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have granted it.The unsigned order does not address the case’s merits, and Doe’s underlying appeal remains pending in the 2nd Circuit.State officials have said a religious carve-out would undercut efforts to keep disease from spreading among children, pointing to an earlier appeals court ruling that left the vaccine law in place.Doe, who is Catholic, says the state policy puts her faith and her child’s schooling at odds. In an April statement she gave the school, she wrote that her beliefs now “require me to categorically refuse vaccination for myself and for my children.”Referring to the abortions from which fetal cells were taken to produce the original vaccines, she said: “The taking of an innocent human life is a grave sin. My Catholic beliefs have always held this.” She said that for her and her son, vaccination would be “a genuine, serious sin.”“I will not do it,” she stated.She also expressed serious reservations about other aspects of vaccine development: “Defiling the blood by mixing it with the blood of animals, with the remains of aborted human beings, or with foreign biological material, violates God’s Word,” she said, according to her statement of religious beliefs filed in the case. “Vaccination injects biological material derived from unclean sources directly into the bloodstream. My faith forbids this.”Church teaching on conscience and vaccinationWhile the Church does not teach that the use of biological materials from nonhuman animals is categorically wrong, it absolutely condemns abortion and the use of tissue from aborted fetuses used to create the original cell lines. It teaches that a parent may receive or give a child a vaccine developed with those cell lines when there is no alternative and there is a serious health reason. The vaccine recipient’s participation in the evil act of abortion, the Church teaches, is “remote,” and therefore permitted.However, in the 2008 instruction Dignitas Personae, the Church said that Catholics utilizing vaccines have “a duty” to let drugmakers and their healthcare providers know they oppose the way the vaccines were developed and demand vaccines created without the use of aborted fetal cells.A 2020 note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says vaccination “is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” Those who refuse for reasons of conscience, it adds, should take other steps so they do not spread disease.New York law has a provision that children unvaccinated for medical reasons must stay at home during outbreaks, and Doe agreed to abide by that if granted an exemption.According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a person must not be forced to act against a conscience formed well through Scripture, reason, and Church teaching, even when others would make a different choice. Forcing one to act against his or her conscience could be a sin against charity, which calls for others to respect the consciences of others.The catechism also teaches that “[m]an has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience.’”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/catholic-mother-denied-vaccine-exemption-in-new-york-catholic-the-u-s-supreme-court-this-week-denied-an-emergency-request-that-would-have-allowed-a-catholic-mother-in-new-york-to-send-her-5-year.jpg "Catholic mother denied vaccine exemption in New York – #Catholic – The U.S. Supreme Court this week denied an emergency request that would have allowed a Catholic mother in New York to send her 5-year-old son to kindergarten without the vaccinations required by state law.The mother, identified in court papers as Jane Doe, wanted her son, C.F., to start at Waverly School in Eastchester this month and is seeking a religious exemption to required vaccines. New York dropped religious exemptions from school vaccine rules in 2019 after a measles outbreak, however, though medical exemptions remain.Doe had asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction so C.F. could start school as the fight continues in court.Two other courts had already denied her request for a temporary injunction. A federal judge in New York and then a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit panel turned her down. The application was then presented to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the circuit justice for the 2nd Circuit, who referred it to the full Supreme Court, which denied it. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have granted it.The unsigned order does not address the case’s merits, and Doe’s underlying appeal remains pending in the 2nd Circuit.State officials have said a religious carve-out would undercut efforts to keep disease from spreading among children, pointing to an earlier appeals court ruling that left the vaccine law in place.Doe, who is Catholic, says the state policy puts her faith and her child’s schooling at odds. In an April statement she gave the school, she wrote that her beliefs now “require me to categorically refuse vaccination for myself and for my children.”Referring to the abortions from which fetal cells were taken to produce the original vaccines, she said: “The taking of an innocent human life is a grave sin. My Catholic beliefs have always held this.” She said that for her and her son, vaccination would be “a genuine, serious sin.”“I will not do it,” she stated.She also expressed serious reservations about other aspects of vaccine development: “Defiling the blood by mixing it with the blood of animals, with the remains of aborted human beings, or with foreign biological material, violates God’s Word,” she said, according to her statement of religious beliefs filed in the case. “Vaccination injects biological material derived from unclean sources directly into the bloodstream. My faith forbids this.”Church teaching on conscience and vaccinationWhile the Church does not teach that the use of biological materials from nonhuman animals is categorically wrong, it absolutely condemns abortion and the use of tissue from aborted fetuses used to create the original cell lines. It teaches that a parent may receive or give a child a vaccine developed with those cell lines when there is no alternative and there is a serious health reason. The vaccine recipient’s participation in the evil act of abortion, the Church teaches, is “remote,” and therefore permitted.However, in the 2008 instruction Dignitas Personae, the Church said that Catholics utilizing vaccines have “a duty” to let drugmakers and their healthcare providers know they oppose the way the vaccines were developed and demand vaccines created without the use of aborted fetal cells.A 2020 note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says vaccination “is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.” Those who refuse for reasons of conscience, it adds, should take other steps so they do not spread disease.New York law has a provision that children unvaccinated for medical reasons must stay at home during outbreaks, and Doe agreed to abide by that if granted an exemption.According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a person must not be forced to act against a conscience formed well through Scripture, reason, and Church teaching, even when others would make a different choice. Forcing one to act against his or her conscience could be a sin against charity, which calls for others to respect the consciences of others.The catechism also teaches that “[m]an has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience.’”")
![U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to rule against indefinite detention of noncitizens – #Catholic – The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of stronger due process rights for noncitizens who are facing deportation proceedings and against indefinite detention without judicial review.In a legal filing to the Supreme Court, the USCCB and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) argued that stronger due process protections would help uphold the human dignity of noncitizens and safeguard the common good, based on Catholic teaching.The bishops sent the petition in relation to the ongoing case Genalo v. Keisy G.M., in which a U.S. permanent resident from the Dominican Republic argues that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process.Keisy G.M., whose full name is not public, was detained for 21 months. Although he did appear before a judge, he did not receive a bond hearing to determine whether he could be released on bond.In spite of his permanent residency status, he faced deportation proceedings after he was convicted of felonious assault. He was later pardoned by the State of New York, ending the threat of deportation.Dignity of the human personIn their legal brief, the bishops argued that due process protections are consistent with the law, American tradition, and Catholic teaching, saying “executive detention has never been wholly insulated from judicial scrutiny,” adding that “this accords with Catholic social teaching, which recognizes both the legitimate authority of the state and the dignity of the individual.”“Indefinite confinement without individualized review by a neutral tribunal is anathema to our constitutional system and the ordered liberty it enshrines,” the bishops said. “The consequences of abandoning that system are severe and concrete.”“Prolonged detention can cost people their jobs, homes, health, and the ability to participate meaningfully in their own legal proceedings,” they said. “It can separate parents from children, destabilize entire families, and inflict harms that cannot be undone by eventual release. Although such detention may at times be necessary to further important state interests, such as ensuring public safety, it must be subject to justification before a neutral tribunal.”In the court filing, they cited Pope John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, which teaches that “the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed.”Quoting from the document, they said authorities must “ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily” because “safeguard[ing] the inviolable rights of the human person” and “facilitat[ing] the performance of his duties” is “the principal duty of every public authority.”The bishops also quoted Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Holy See’s secretary for relations with states, from his statement during the general debate at the opening of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly’s high‑level week.In his statement, Gallagher said the “principles of equality before the law, accountability, the equitable application of the law, the separation of [four] powers, legal certainty, due process, the prevention of arbitrariness, as well as transparency in both procedural and legal matters, must always be observed.”“Those principles,” the bishops continued, “are effectuated by procedures that require the government to justify significant deprivations of liberty based on individualized circumstances rather than categorical assumptions.”Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for Oct. 13. Keisy G.M. is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil liberties organizations.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/u-s-bishops-urge-supreme-court-to-rule-against-indefinite-detention-of-noncitizens-catholic-the-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-usccb-is-asking-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-rule-in-favor-of-s.jpg "U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to rule against indefinite detention of noncitizens – #Catholic – The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of stronger due process rights for noncitizens who are facing deportation proceedings and against indefinite detention without judicial review.In a legal filing to the Supreme Court, the USCCB and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) argued that stronger due process protections would help uphold the human dignity of noncitizens and safeguard the common good, based on Catholic teaching.The bishops sent the petition in relation to the ongoing case Genalo v. Keisy G.M., in which a U.S. permanent resident from the Dominican Republic argues that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process.Keisy G.M., whose full name is not public, was detained for 21 months. Although he did appear before a judge, he did not receive a bond hearing to determine whether he could be released on bond.In spite of his permanent residency status, he faced deportation proceedings after he was convicted of felonious assault. He was later pardoned by the State of New York, ending the threat of deportation.Dignity of the human personIn their legal brief, the bishops argued that due process protections are consistent with the law, American tradition, and Catholic teaching, saying “executive detention has never been wholly insulated from judicial scrutiny,” adding that “this accords with Catholic social teaching, which recognizes both the legitimate authority of the state and the dignity of the individual.”“Indefinite confinement without individualized review by a neutral tribunal is anathema to our constitutional system and the ordered liberty it enshrines,” the bishops said. “The consequences of abandoning that system are severe and concrete.”“Prolonged detention can cost people their jobs, homes, health, and the ability to participate meaningfully in their own legal proceedings,” they said. “It can separate parents from children, destabilize entire families, and inflict harms that cannot be undone by eventual release. Although such detention may at times be necessary to further important state interests, such as ensuring public safety, it must be subject to justification before a neutral tribunal.”In the court filing, they cited Pope John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, which teaches that “the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed.”Quoting from the document, they said authorities must “ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily” because “safeguard[ing] the inviolable rights of the human person” and “facilitat[ing] the performance of his duties” is “the principal duty of every public authority.”The bishops also quoted Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Holy See’s secretary for relations with states, from his statement during the general debate at the opening of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly’s high‑level week.In his statement, Gallagher said the “principles of equality before the law, accountability, the equitable application of the law, the separation of [four] powers, legal certainty, due process, the prevention of arbitrariness, as well as transparency in both procedural and legal matters, must always be observed.”“Those principles,” the bishops continued, “are effectuated by procedures that require the government to justify significant deprivations of liberty based on individualized circumstances rather than categorical assumptions.”Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for Oct. 13. Keisy G.M. is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil liberties organizations.")
![U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to allow communities to regulate firearms under Second Amendment #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local communities to regulate firearm ownership, weighing in on a high-profile federal case that could significantly reshape the nation’s gun laws. The case before the high court, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerns a regulation enacted by Cook County, Illinois, banning more than 100 types of semiautomatic weapons, including the popular AR-15 platform.Two plaintiffs, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, sued to dispute the regulations under the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Supreme Court should rule on the case “to guarantee fundamental Second Amendment rights and to address the confusion in the lower courts” regarding Supreme Court precedent.In their amicus brief regarding the legal dispute, the U.S. bishops urge the court to “[preserve] the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons.” The “autonomy of local authority” is a significant part of “America’s historical tradition of federalism,” the bishops write, comparing it to the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the authority closest to a local need is best suited to tackle the issue. The principle of federalism does not allow for the wholesale redefinition of the Second Amendment, the bishops write. But, they argue, a “uniform constitutional standard need not require uniform firearm policy.” Guns have historically been regulated differently throughout the U.S. depending on the locality, the bishops say, and the U.S. Constitution “does not require every community to exercise … its authority to regulate weapons identically.” The prelates further argue that modern advances in weaponry mean firearms like AR-15s are “fundamentally dissimilar” from the standards of the 18th century; such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the bishops suggest, and are thus open to reasonable regulation. Though the issue was brought to trial due to the local regulation, the ultimate question before the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the right to possess [the] AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” In the past 20 years the Supreme Court has significantly affirmed Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, including in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a state militia. Those rights were broadly expanded in subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago and the 2022 decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. The latter decision upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. In the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does allow for individuals to be disarmed if they have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of someone else.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/u-s-bishops-urge-supreme-court-to-allow-communities-to-regulate-firearms-under-second-amendment-catholic-the-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-is-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-allow-local-commu.jpg "U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to allow communities to regulate firearms under Second Amendment #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow local communities to regulate firearm ownership, weighing in on a high-profile federal case that could significantly reshape the nation’s gun laws. The case before the high court, Viramontes v. Cook County, concerns a regulation enacted by Cook County, Illinois, banning more than 100 types of semiautomatic weapons, including the popular AR-15 platform.Two plaintiffs, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, sued to dispute the regulations under the Second and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Supreme Court should rule on the case “to guarantee fundamental Second Amendment rights and to address the confusion in the lower courts” regarding Supreme Court precedent.In their amicus brief regarding the legal dispute, the U.S. bishops urge the court to “[preserve] the traditional authority of political communities to regulate weapons.” The “autonomy of local authority” is a significant part of “America’s historical tradition of federalism,” the bishops write, comparing it to the long-standing Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that the authority closest to a local need is best suited to tackle the issue. The principle of federalism does not allow for the wholesale redefinition of the Second Amendment, the bishops write. But, they argue, a “uniform constitutional standard need not require uniform firearm policy.” Guns have historically been regulated differently throughout the U.S. depending on the locality, the bishops say, and the U.S. Constitution “does not require every community to exercise … its authority to regulate weapons identically.” The prelates further argue that modern advances in weaponry mean firearms like AR-15s are “fundamentally dissimilar” from the standards of the 18th century; such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” the bishops suggest, and are thus open to reasonable regulation. Though the issue was brought to trial due to the local regulation, the ultimate question before the Supreme Court is whether the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the right to possess [the] AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” In the past 20 years the Supreme Court has significantly affirmed Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, including in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld the right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a state militia. Those rights were broadly expanded in subsequent Supreme Court rulings such as 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago and the 2022 decision NYSRPA v. Bruen. The latter decision upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms for self-defense. In the 2024 decision United States v. Rahimi, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does allow for individuals to be disarmed if they have been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of someone else.")
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/TAL-header-exterior-taiwan-dessert-train-sea-breeze-TAIWANDESSERTTRAIN0425-62220d87acc54c0597fc5f1ae2a868f7.jpg)
,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2025-08-31_01.jpg)
