Analysis

Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News "we refer you to our published releases" and "we have nothing further to add."In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.”
Read More

Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News "we refer you to our published releases" and "we have nothing further to add."In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.”

unitedyam

A battle over the Strait of Hormuz rekindled the war in the Middle East after a ceasefire ended. Intent to harm civilians, including attacks on civilian infrastructure, is immoral, theologians said.

Read More
France becomes first European country to ban social media for minors under 15 #Catholic The French Parliament on July 21 definitively passed a law banning children under the age of 15 from accessing social media, making France the first country in Europe to enshrine such a restriction in its national legislation. The measure is the culmination of a campaign led by President Emmanuel Macron since 2017 in which he has denounced anonymity on social media as a gateway to online abuse.The law, presented as a child protection measure against all the risks associated with the use of social media, from addiction to bullying and abuse, has also reignited concerns about increased government oversight of internet users, as the age verification requirements — intended to target minors — entail identity checks for everyone.“France is leading the way in Europe by becoming the first country to establish a ‘digital age of majority’ to better protect our children online,” said Anne Le Hénanff, minister delegate for digital sovereignty, following the vote.The Senate adopted the compromise bill by a vote of 243 to 2, and the National Assembly followed suit a few hours later, paving the way for Macron to sign the measure into law, subject to review by the Constitutional Council.The bill’s central provision bars minors under 15 from accessing “an online social network service.” Leading platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat are expected to fall under the ban, though lawmakers left the precise scope undefined. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias, along with open-source software and educational platforms, are explicitly exempted. Responsibility for verifying users’ ages falls to the platforms themselves, which must offer at least two different verification methods.Enforcement will unfold in two different stages. New accounts will be subject to age checks starting Sept. 1, while existing accounts belonging to minors under 15 will have until Jan. 1, 2027, before they are suspended.The law also extends France’s existing smartphone ban in middle schools to high schools starting in the 2026 school year.France’s move makes it the first EU member state to enact a blanket social-network age floor, though it follows Australia, which imposed a minimum age of 16 in December 2025. Officials say a coalition of roughly 15 European countries is interested in adopting a similar standard. Le Hénanff confirmed Greece is ready to transpose the French model, with Spain expected to follow in the fall. The European Commission is separately developing its own EU-wide age-verification tool, expected to be available to member states by the end of the year.Under the model France has adopted — built around the “double anonymity” principle found in the EU’s Digital Services Act, the bloc’s main online-platform law — a trusted third party would verify a user’s age from an ID document or bank card and issue an anonymous token confirming only whether the user is over or under 15, without revealing the user’s identity or which platform requested the check. Le Hénanff has described this as a way of avoiding data collection by the platforms themselves. Critics, however, argue the system’s implementation is far less safe than officials suggest.The underlying concern is that this child-protection measure could evolve into a broader mechanism for verifying and tracking the identity of internet users generally. Opponents of the law claim that the mechanics of age verification remain largely undefined barely a month before the law takes effect.They also point to recent history of large-scale personal data breaches across government agencies as a reason for caution about centralizing age- or identity-verification data.La Quadrature du Net, France’s leading digital-rights advocacy group, and the Conseil national du numérique, an official government advisory body, both warned that the law amounted to what they termed “generalized surveillance disguised as child protection.”The European Center for Law and Justice, along the same lines, argues that France and the European Commission are each independently pushing to generalize identity checks across the EU under the banner of online safety policy.Several digital-rights groups are reportedly preparing separate challenges before France’s Council of State and the EU’s Court of Justice, arguing the law violates free-expression and proportionality principles.For now, all eyes are on Australia, the only country with a comparable ban already in force. An early analysis of survey data from roughly 400 young social media users, published in The BMJ on June 24, found little evidence that Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act had produced any substantial early drop in social media use among adolescents in its first three months — although researchers cautioned that legislative effects can take time to appear and called for longer-term evaluation.A companion analysis reported that roughly 85% of Australians aged 12 to 15 were still using restricted platforms, the most common workarounds being fake accounts and private browsers.
Read More

France becomes first European country to ban social media for minors under 15 #Catholic The French Parliament on July 21 definitively passed a law banning children under the age of 15 from accessing social media, making France the first country in Europe to enshrine such a restriction in its national legislation. The measure is the culmination of a campaign led by President Emmanuel Macron since 2017 in which he has denounced anonymity on social media as a gateway to online abuse.The law, presented as a child protection measure against all the risks associated with the use of social media, from addiction to bullying and abuse, has also reignited concerns about increased government oversight of internet users, as the age verification requirements — intended to target minors — entail identity checks for everyone.“France is leading the way in Europe by becoming the first country to establish a ‘digital age of majority’ to better protect our children online,” said Anne Le Hénanff, minister delegate for digital sovereignty, following the vote.The Senate adopted the compromise bill by a vote of 243 to 2, and the National Assembly followed suit a few hours later, paving the way for Macron to sign the measure into law, subject to review by the Constitutional Council.The bill’s central provision bars minors under 15 from accessing “an online social network service.” Leading platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat are expected to fall under the ban, though lawmakers left the precise scope undefined. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias, along with open-source software and educational platforms, are explicitly exempted. Responsibility for verifying users’ ages falls to the platforms themselves, which must offer at least two different verification methods.Enforcement will unfold in two different stages. New accounts will be subject to age checks starting Sept. 1, while existing accounts belonging to minors under 15 will have until Jan. 1, 2027, before they are suspended.The law also extends France’s existing smartphone ban in middle schools to high schools starting in the 2026 school year.France’s move makes it the first EU member state to enact a blanket social-network age floor, though it follows Australia, which imposed a minimum age of 16 in December 2025. Officials say a coalition of roughly 15 European countries is interested in adopting a similar standard. Le Hénanff confirmed Greece is ready to transpose the French model, with Spain expected to follow in the fall. The European Commission is separately developing its own EU-wide age-verification tool, expected to be available to member states by the end of the year.Under the model France has adopted — built around the “double anonymity” principle found in the EU’s Digital Services Act, the bloc’s main online-platform law — a trusted third party would verify a user’s age from an ID document or bank card and issue an anonymous token confirming only whether the user is over or under 15, without revealing the user’s identity or which platform requested the check. Le Hénanff has described this as a way of avoiding data collection by the platforms themselves. Critics, however, argue the system’s implementation is far less safe than officials suggest.The underlying concern is that this child-protection measure could evolve into a broader mechanism for verifying and tracking the identity of internet users generally. Opponents of the law claim that the mechanics of age verification remain largely undefined barely a month before the law takes effect.They also point to recent history of large-scale personal data breaches across government agencies as a reason for caution about centralizing age- or identity-verification data.La Quadrature du Net, France’s leading digital-rights advocacy group, and the Conseil national du numérique, an official government advisory body, both warned that the law amounted to what they termed “generalized surveillance disguised as child protection.”The European Center for Law and Justice, along the same lines, argues that France and the European Commission are each independently pushing to generalize identity checks across the EU under the banner of online safety policy.Several digital-rights groups are reportedly preparing separate challenges before France’s Council of State and the EU’s Court of Justice, arguing the law violates free-expression and proportionality principles.For now, all eyes are on Australia, the only country with a comparable ban already in force. An early analysis of survey data from roughly 400 young social media users, published in The BMJ on June 24, found little evidence that Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act had produced any substantial early drop in social media use among adolescents in its first three months — although researchers cautioned that legislative effects can take time to appear and called for longer-term evaluation.A companion analysis reported that roughly 85% of Australians aged 12 to 15 were still using restricted platforms, the most common workarounds being fake accounts and private browsers.

unitedyam

“France is leading the way in Europe by becoming the first country to establish a ‘digital age of majority,’” said the country’s minister delegate for digital sovereignty.

Read More
Nigeria, Nicaragua, Syria, India cited in index of rising Christian persecution #Catholic International Christian Concern (ICC) released its 2026 Global Persecution Index, offering an in-depth analysis of the persecution Christians face in more than 20 countries and recommendations for how policymakers and organizations can combat escalating violations.“This year’s Global Persecution Index is a sobering reminder that millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ continue to pay a high price for their faith,” Shawn Wright, president of ICC, said in a statement.ICC is a nonprofit organization assisting the persecuted Christian church through assistance, advocacy, and awareness across the globe.The index, “Faces of the Persecuted,” was created by ICC as more than 388 million Christians worldwide — or 1 in 7 believers — live under "high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith,” according to the report.The index highlights the leaders of countries where persecution is worsening including Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.The index outlines trends in religious freedom that are aiding the rise of persecution including religious nationalism, transnational repression, state control over religious organizations, terrorism, authoritarianism, restrictions on women, and the use of the West to persecute.The report states: “Despite these challenges, the church continues to grow in some of the most hostile environments, and resistance to repression is rising as individuals and communities push back against injustice and demand greater freedom.”“Behind every statistic is a real person: someone who has chosen faithfulness to Jesus over safety, comfort, or even life itself,” Wright said. “Our hope is that this report not only informs decision-makers and stakeholders but moves readers to act with urgency, conviction, and compassion.”Recommendations to ‘ease the burden of persecuted Christians’The index details Christian persecution in African, Latin American, Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian, and Southeast Asian countries, and it specifically offers recommendations to aid the faithful in Nigeria, Nicaragua, Syria, and India.As Nigerians face political persecution, mob violence, and other actions aiding the nation’s religious persecution, ICC recommends immediate and independent investigations into the reported mass killings against the faithful in the country.It also calls for international leadership to reverse legal barriers, including blasphemy laws in the nation that criminalize disfavored religious beliefs.In Nicaragua, ICC notes that hundreds of priests, nuns, and other religious workers have disappeared or been detained. The nation’s regime also engages in systematic attempts to control religious sermons and media, and surveil members of independent religious organizations.To combat the issues, ICC recommends expedited asylum pathways for the exiled clergy and calls for the support of aid to parishes and civil society organizations shuttered by the regime. It also urges expanded international sanctions against Nicaraguan officials, including regime leaders Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo.In Syria, religious people face numerous challenges despite a shift of government following the Assad regime. They experience reprisals, detentions, and discrimination that prevents their participation in governance councils and denies them property restitution.In its index, ICC recommends support for programs that aid displaced communities and protect targeted Christians in Syria. It also calls for accountability for war crimes committed by both Assad and post-Assad actors.As India’s persecution is on the rise, ICC urges the protection of independent nongovernmental organizations and media working to provide aid and to report on the persecuted groups as the faithful in the nation face mob attacks and other acts of violence.
Read More

Nigeria, Nicaragua, Syria, India cited in index of rising Christian persecution #Catholic International Christian Concern (ICC) released its 2026 Global Persecution Index, offering an in-depth analysis of the persecution Christians face in more than 20 countries and recommendations for how policymakers and organizations can combat escalating violations.“This year’s Global Persecution Index is a sobering reminder that millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ continue to pay a high price for their faith,” Shawn Wright, president of ICC, said in a statement.ICC is a nonprofit organization assisting the persecuted Christian church through assistance, advocacy, and awareness across the globe.The index, “Faces of the Persecuted,” was created by ICC as more than 388 million Christians worldwide — or 1 in 7 believers — live under "high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith,” according to the report.The index highlights the leaders of countries where persecution is worsening including Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.The index outlines trends in religious freedom that are aiding the rise of persecution including religious nationalism, transnational repression, state control over religious organizations, terrorism, authoritarianism, restrictions on women, and the use of the West to persecute.The report states: “Despite these challenges, the church continues to grow in some of the most hostile environments, and resistance to repression is rising as individuals and communities push back against injustice and demand greater freedom.”“Behind every statistic is a real person: someone who has chosen faithfulness to Jesus over safety, comfort, or even life itself,” Wright said. “Our hope is that this report not only informs decision-makers and stakeholders but moves readers to act with urgency, conviction, and compassion.”Recommendations to ‘ease the burden of persecuted Christians’The index details Christian persecution in African, Latin American, Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian, and Southeast Asian countries, and it specifically offers recommendations to aid the faithful in Nigeria, Nicaragua, Syria, and India.As Nigerians face political persecution, mob violence, and other actions aiding the nation’s religious persecution, ICC recommends immediate and independent investigations into the reported mass killings against the faithful in the country.It also calls for international leadership to reverse legal barriers, including blasphemy laws in the nation that criminalize disfavored religious beliefs.In Nicaragua, ICC notes that hundreds of priests, nuns, and other religious workers have disappeared or been detained. The nation’s regime also engages in systematic attempts to control religious sermons and media, and surveil members of independent religious organizations.To combat the issues, ICC recommends expedited asylum pathways for the exiled clergy and calls for the support of aid to parishes and civil society organizations shuttered by the regime. It also urges expanded international sanctions against Nicaraguan officials, including regime leaders Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo.In Syria, religious people face numerous challenges despite a shift of government following the Assad regime. They experience reprisals, detentions, and discrimination that prevents their participation in governance councils and denies them property restitution.In its index, ICC recommends support for programs that aid displaced communities and protect targeted Christians in Syria. It also calls for accountability for war crimes committed by both Assad and post-Assad actors.As India’s persecution is on the rise, ICC urges the protection of independent nongovernmental organizations and media working to provide aid and to report on the persecuted groups as the faithful in the nation face mob attacks and other acts of violence.

unitedyam

Religious nationalism, state control, terrorism, authoritarianism, and limits on women are among drivers of rising persecution globally, the International Christian Concern (ICC) report said.

Read More
France legalizes euthanasia after forceful push through Parliament #Catholic The French National Assembly gave final approval on July 15 to a bill legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, making France one of the few European countries to legalize the practice along with Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain. The 291-241 vote came three years after President Emmanuel Macron, who had made it one of his key campaign promises, first opened the question to national debate.The vote ended an unusual parliamentary stalemate between the National Assembly and the Senate. Members of the National Assembly passed the bill three times over the course of 14 months — most recently on June 30 by a vote of 295 to 232 — and senators rejected it just as many times. On July 7, the Senate passed, by a narrow majority of 169 to 164, with 11 abstentions, a preliminary motion to outright reject the bill rather than debate it, and this motion itself called on the government to end the legislative process. Rather than heeding this call, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu invoked Article 45 of the Constitution, which allows the government to give the National Assembly the final say when repeated readings fail to produce an agreement between the two chambers. He then referred the bill back to the National Assembly for a fourth and final vote instead of a fourth reading in the Senate.The July 15 vote, however, did not close the matter. On July 14, Lecornu announced he would refer part of the text to the Constitutional Council, a step Senate President Gérard Larcher had also urged, citing in particular how the billʼs conscience clause would interact with health and social care facilities built around end-of-life accompaniment that exclude assisted dying. The council must rule within a month, or eight days if the government asks for an expedited review, meaning the law cannot be promulgated until that review is complete even though the Assembly has now adopted it.The end-of-life law covers both euthanasia, administered by a doctor or nurse, and assisted suicide, in which the patient self-administers a lethal substance, under five cumulative conditions: A person must be an adult, a stable resident of France, diagnosed with a serious and incurable condition, in an advanced or terminal phase of that condition, and suffering in a way current treatment cannot relieve, while remaining able to express a free and informed decision. Self-administration is supposed to be the default rule, with the law providing for intervention by a healthcare professional only when the patient is physically unable to act.A supporting measure aimed at expanding access to palliative care was adopted with much broader support, passing its first reading in the Senate by a vote of 307 to 17. To date, more than 20% of French departments still lack a palliative care unit, according to figures cited repeatedly by the Bishops’ Conference of France during the debate.The push to legalize assisted dying traces back to September 2022, when the National Consultative Ethics Committee reversed its earlier opposition to assisted dying and endorsed an “ethical” application of the practice. A citizens’ panel Macron had convened spent the following winter weighing the question and backed legalization.The French president unveiled the outline of a bill in March 2024, but the initiative stalled when he dissolved the Assembly in June the same year. Deputy Olivier Falorni, who had filed an earlier and unsuccessful end-of-life bill, revived it in 2025.Critics argue the newly adopted framework is among the most permissive of its kind in the world. Grégor Puppinck, a Catholic lawyer and director general of the European Centre for Law and Justice, has published a point-by-point analysis contending that the entire process rests on the judgment of a single physician, who may meet the patient for the first time on the day of the request and need not be the one already treating them.The two additional professionals that physician must consult are chosen by the same person, are not required to examine the patient in person, and may be consulted by videoconference. Puppinck noted the statute sets no minimum interval between the decision and the act itself beyond a two-day reflection window, relatives have no guaranteed right to be informed beforehand, and they cannot challenge the outcome in court. Doctors who object in conscience must still refer patients to a colleague willing to proceed, and private and religious institutions, including nursing homes, must accommodate mobile euthanasia teams under threat of administrative penalties. Oversight, in Puppinck’s account, comes only after death, based on a report filed by the same clinician who carried it out.The founders of the ethics collective Democracy, Ethics, and Solidarity, Laurent Frémont and Emmanuel Hirsch, wrote in Le Journal du Dimanche that the law’s eligibility criteria — primarily a “serious and incurable condition” causing “unbearable suffering,” are defined vaguely enough that a strict medical interpretation could make more than 1 million people eligible, including patients with chronic illnesses, psychiatric disorders, or advanced age, without requiring a prior written request, a peer review by medical colleagues, or a psychiatric evaluation.A 2025 study by the Fondation pour l’innovation politique estimated the measure could save the state around 1.4 billion euros (.6 billion) a year in health, eldercare, and pension spending, a projection critics have cited as evidence of the pressures vulnerable and elderly patients could face once the law takes effect.The French bishops’ conference called the text a threat to “the most fragile” among French citizens in a statement issued in May 2025 ahead of the Assembly’s first vote on the bill. The archbishop of Paris, Laurent Ulrich, has repeatedly urged lawmakers to reconsider their position, asserting that true solidarity is built through caring for others rather than through death. “More than assistance in dying, our society needs assistance in living,” he has repeatedly stated.In a video appeal to lawmakers released before the vote, Archbishop Vincent Jordy of Tours invoked François Rabelais’ centuries-old warning that “science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul.” What is underway, he said, is “an anthropological shift,” a new way of viewing life and its end that will gradually reshape the country, touching caregivers, families, people with disabilities, and the relationship between generations. He pointed to the Netherlands, where regulators had layered on safeguards for two decades and where health officials confirmed in June that a child under 12 had been euthanized for the first time, under a 2024 expansion of the law to children between the ages of 1 and 12. Making a law, Jordy said, is also opening doors toward things “one had perhaps not imagined” when it was written.
Read More

France legalizes euthanasia after forceful push through Parliament #Catholic The French National Assembly gave final approval on July 15 to a bill legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, making France one of the few European countries to legalize the practice along with Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain. The 291-241 vote came three years after President Emmanuel Macron, who had made it one of his key campaign promises, first opened the question to national debate.The vote ended an unusual parliamentary stalemate between the National Assembly and the Senate. Members of the National Assembly passed the bill three times over the course of 14 months — most recently on June 30 by a vote of 295 to 232 — and senators rejected it just as many times. On July 7, the Senate passed, by a narrow majority of 169 to 164, with 11 abstentions, a preliminary motion to outright reject the bill rather than debate it, and this motion itself called on the government to end the legislative process. Rather than heeding this call, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu invoked Article 45 of the Constitution, which allows the government to give the National Assembly the final say when repeated readings fail to produce an agreement between the two chambers. He then referred the bill back to the National Assembly for a fourth and final vote instead of a fourth reading in the Senate.The July 15 vote, however, did not close the matter. On July 14, Lecornu announced he would refer part of the text to the Constitutional Council, a step Senate President Gérard Larcher had also urged, citing in particular how the billʼs conscience clause would interact with health and social care facilities built around end-of-life accompaniment that exclude assisted dying. The council must rule within a month, or eight days if the government asks for an expedited review, meaning the law cannot be promulgated until that review is complete even though the Assembly has now adopted it.The end-of-life law covers both euthanasia, administered by a doctor or nurse, and assisted suicide, in which the patient self-administers a lethal substance, under five cumulative conditions: A person must be an adult, a stable resident of France, diagnosed with a serious and incurable condition, in an advanced or terminal phase of that condition, and suffering in a way current treatment cannot relieve, while remaining able to express a free and informed decision. Self-administration is supposed to be the default rule, with the law providing for intervention by a healthcare professional only when the patient is physically unable to act.A supporting measure aimed at expanding access to palliative care was adopted with much broader support, passing its first reading in the Senate by a vote of 307 to 17. To date, more than 20% of French departments still lack a palliative care unit, according to figures cited repeatedly by the Bishops’ Conference of France during the debate.The push to legalize assisted dying traces back to September 2022, when the National Consultative Ethics Committee reversed its earlier opposition to assisted dying and endorsed an “ethical” application of the practice. A citizens’ panel Macron had convened spent the following winter weighing the question and backed legalization.The French president unveiled the outline of a bill in March 2024, but the initiative stalled when he dissolved the Assembly in June the same year. Deputy Olivier Falorni, who had filed an earlier and unsuccessful end-of-life bill, revived it in 2025.Critics argue the newly adopted framework is among the most permissive of its kind in the world. Grégor Puppinck, a Catholic lawyer and director general of the European Centre for Law and Justice, has published a point-by-point analysis contending that the entire process rests on the judgment of a single physician, who may meet the patient for the first time on the day of the request and need not be the one already treating them.The two additional professionals that physician must consult are chosen by the same person, are not required to examine the patient in person, and may be consulted by videoconference. Puppinck noted the statute sets no minimum interval between the decision and the act itself beyond a two-day reflection window, relatives have no guaranteed right to be informed beforehand, and they cannot challenge the outcome in court. Doctors who object in conscience must still refer patients to a colleague willing to proceed, and private and religious institutions, including nursing homes, must accommodate mobile euthanasia teams under threat of administrative penalties. Oversight, in Puppinck’s account, comes only after death, based on a report filed by the same clinician who carried it out.The founders of the ethics collective Democracy, Ethics, and Solidarity, Laurent Frémont and Emmanuel Hirsch, wrote in Le Journal du Dimanche that the law’s eligibility criteria — primarily a “serious and incurable condition” causing “unbearable suffering,” are defined vaguely enough that a strict medical interpretation could make more than 1 million people eligible, including patients with chronic illnesses, psychiatric disorders, or advanced age, without requiring a prior written request, a peer review by medical colleagues, or a psychiatric evaluation.A 2025 study by the Fondation pour l’innovation politique estimated the measure could save the state around 1.4 billion euros ($1.6 billion) a year in health, eldercare, and pension spending, a projection critics have cited as evidence of the pressures vulnerable and elderly patients could face once the law takes effect.The French bishops’ conference called the text a threat to “the most fragile” among French citizens in a statement issued in May 2025 ahead of the Assembly’s first vote on the bill. The archbishop of Paris, Laurent Ulrich, has repeatedly urged lawmakers to reconsider their position, asserting that true solidarity is built through caring for others rather than through death. “More than assistance in dying, our society needs assistance in living,” he has repeatedly stated.In a video appeal to lawmakers released before the vote, Archbishop Vincent Jordy of Tours invoked François Rabelais’ centuries-old warning that “science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul.” What is underway, he said, is “an anthropological shift,” a new way of viewing life and its end that will gradually reshape the country, touching caregivers, families, people with disabilities, and the relationship between generations. He pointed to the Netherlands, where regulators had layered on safeguards for two decades and where health officials confirmed in June that a child under 12 had been euthanized for the first time, under a 2024 expansion of the law to children between the ages of 1 and 12. Making a law, Jordy said, is also opening doors toward things “one had perhaps not imagined” when it was written.

unitedyam

The vote, ending an unusual parliamentary stalemate between the National Assembly and the Senate, came three years after President Emmanuel Macron first opened the question to national debate.

Read More