Consensus

At annual meeting, Catholic historians assess impact of first American pope #Catholic University of Notre Dame professor Kathleen Sprows Cummings. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNA Jan 10, 2026 / 10:12 am (CNA). Assessing the impact of the Catholic Church's first American pope was front and center at the 106th annual meeting of the American Catholic Historical Association (ACHA), which met in Pope Leo XIV's hometown of Chicago from Jan. 8-11.During a panel on the subject, Catholic scholars noted some of the historic caricatures of what an American papacy would be like and compared that to the first eight months of Leo's actual papacy.American Catholic History Association panelists (from left to right) Brian Flanagan, Colleen Dulle, Miguel Diaz and Kathleen Sprows Cummings. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNAAt the outset of the panel, University of Notre Dame history professor Kathleen Sprows Cummings referenced the 1894 Puck magazine cartoon titled “ The American Pope,” which depicts the first apostolic delegate to the United States, Cardinal Francesco Satolli, sitting atop a church labeled the “American headquarters” and casting a shadow of then Pope Leo XIII over the entire country.Sprows Cummings noted the cartoon illustrates “fears about papal intervention in the United States” at a time when the country was receiving waves of Catholic immigrants from countries such as Ireland and Italy.As Catholics became more settled in American society in the subsequent decades, she said some of those prejudices began to lessen and pointed to the 1918 election of Catholic Democrat Al Smith as New York’s governor. By this point, Catholics had become “much more confident about their place in American culture.” During the same early 20th century period, the United States also began to rise as a superpower. Sprows Cummings noted that predominant concerns about an American pope shifted to Vatican concerns over the “Americanization of the Catholic Church.”America magazine's Vatican correspondent, Colleen Dulle, said some of those concerns were evidently mitigated in the person of then Cardinal Robert Prevost, whose service to the Church included many years as a missionary and bishop in Peru as well as in Rome as the head of a global religious order, the Augustinians.Sprows Cummings said the College of Cardinals clearly saw in Cardinal Prevost the "pastoral presence, administrative savvy and global vision" that the Church needed at this time and that he was “not elected in some flex of American power.”Miguel Diaz, the John Courtney Murray, S.J. Chair in Public Service at Loyola University Chicago, noted that some of Leo’s actions have actually amounted to the opposite of flexing American power, such as his focus on the dignity of migrants, which he contrasted to the policies of the Trump administration.Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Miguel Diaz. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNADiaz, who served as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See under former President Barack Obama, said Leo is “a different symbol, from America first to America cares.”He emphasized that having an American pope is significant amid the country’s political debates because “he can say things and he will be listened to.”The panelists also discussed what Leo’s papacy may look like moving forward, with Dulle noting that only this year are there clear signs of him charting his own programmatic course, as the events and itinerary of the 2025 Jubilee were primarily developed for Pope Francis. Up until now, she said, he has been mostly “continuing the Francis initiatives in a different style.”She noted Pope Leo's management of this week's consistory — a meeting between the pope and the College of Cardinals — where the pontiff gave them four topics to choose from, which were all in line with Francis’s priorities: synodality, evangelization, reform of the curia, and the liturgy. The cardinals chose synodality and evangelization.Dulle said Leo is seen as "a consensus builder” who aims to build consensus around the Church's priorities. She noted Pope Leo's announcement this week of a regular schedule of consistories, with the next one set for this June. This approach is emerging as a "hallmark of how he governs the Church" Dulle said.Brian Flanagan, the John Cardinal Cody Chair of Catholic Theology at Loyola University Chicago, also emphasized Leo’s strong appeal to the cardinals and bishops in efforts to reach consensus, in keeping with the Pope's role as a preserver of unity.Flanagan said he sees Leo exercising the papacy as not so much "at the top of the pyramid, but as at the center of conversation.” He said this is likely influenced by Leo's past as leader of a religious order — the Order of Saint Augustine — rather than a diocese because the orders are “global, diverse, and somewhat fractious.”“You can’t govern a global religious community without getting people on board,” he said.
Read More

At annual meeting, Catholic historians assess impact of first American pope #Catholic University of Notre Dame professor Kathleen Sprows Cummings. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNA Jan 10, 2026 / 10:12 am (CNA). Assessing the impact of the Catholic Church's first American pope was front and center at the 106th annual meeting of the American Catholic Historical Association (ACHA), which met in Pope Leo XIV's hometown of Chicago from Jan. 8-11.During a panel on the subject, Catholic scholars noted some of the historic caricatures of what an American papacy would be like and compared that to the first eight months of Leo's actual papacy.American Catholic History Association panelists (from left to right) Brian Flanagan, Colleen Dulle, Miguel Diaz and Kathleen Sprows Cummings. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNAAt the outset of the panel, University of Notre Dame history professor Kathleen Sprows Cummings referenced the 1894 Puck magazine cartoon titled “ The American Pope,” which depicts the first apostolic delegate to the United States, Cardinal Francesco Satolli, sitting atop a church labeled the “American headquarters” and casting a shadow of then Pope Leo XIII over the entire country.Sprows Cummings noted the cartoon illustrates “fears about papal intervention in the United States” at a time when the country was receiving waves of Catholic immigrants from countries such as Ireland and Italy.As Catholics became more settled in American society in the subsequent decades, she said some of those prejudices began to lessen and pointed to the 1918 election of Catholic Democrat Al Smith as New York’s governor. By this point, Catholics had become “much more confident about their place in American culture.” During the same early 20th century period, the United States also began to rise as a superpower. Sprows Cummings noted that predominant concerns about an American pope shifted to Vatican concerns over the “Americanization of the Catholic Church.”America magazine's Vatican correspondent, Colleen Dulle, said some of those concerns were evidently mitigated in the person of then Cardinal Robert Prevost, whose service to the Church included many years as a missionary and bishop in Peru as well as in Rome as the head of a global religious order, the Augustinians.Sprows Cummings said the College of Cardinals clearly saw in Cardinal Prevost the "pastoral presence, administrative savvy and global vision" that the Church needed at this time and that he was “not elected in some flex of American power.”Miguel Diaz, the John Courtney Murray, S.J. Chair in Public Service at Loyola University Chicago, noted that some of Leo’s actions have actually amounted to the opposite of flexing American power, such as his focus on the dignity of migrants, which he contrasted to the policies of the Trump administration.Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Miguel Diaz. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNADiaz, who served as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See under former President Barack Obama, said Leo is “a different symbol, from America first to America cares.”He emphasized that having an American pope is significant amid the country’s political debates because “he can say things and he will be listened to.”The panelists also discussed what Leo’s papacy may look like moving forward, with Dulle noting that only this year are there clear signs of him charting his own programmatic course, as the events and itinerary of the 2025 Jubilee were primarily developed for Pope Francis. Up until now, she said, he has been mostly “continuing the Francis initiatives in a different style.”She noted Pope Leo's management of this week's consistory — a meeting between the pope and the College of Cardinals — where the pontiff gave them four topics to choose from, which were all in line with Francis’s priorities: synodality, evangelization, reform of the curia, and the liturgy. The cardinals chose synodality and evangelization.Dulle said Leo is seen as "a consensus builder” who aims to build consensus around the Church's priorities. She noted Pope Leo's announcement this week of a regular schedule of consistories, with the next one set for this June. This approach is emerging as a "hallmark of how he governs the Church" Dulle said.Brian Flanagan, the John Cardinal Cody Chair of Catholic Theology at Loyola University Chicago, also emphasized Leo’s strong appeal to the cardinals and bishops in efforts to reach consensus, in keeping with the Pope's role as a preserver of unity.Flanagan said he sees Leo exercising the papacy as not so much "at the top of the pyramid, but as at the center of conversation.” He said this is likely influenced by Leo's past as leader of a religious order — the Order of Saint Augustine — rather than a diocese because the orders are “global, diverse, and somewhat fractious.”“You can’t govern a global religious community without getting people on board,” he said.

unitedyam

University of Notre Dame professor Kathleen Sprows Cummings. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNA

Jan 10, 2026 / 10:12 am (CNA).

Assessing the impact of the Catholic Church's first American pope was front and center at the 106th annual meeting of the American Catholic Historical Association (ACHA), which met in Pope Leo XIV's hometown of Chicago from Jan. 8-11.

During a panel on the subject, Catholic scholars noted some of the historic caricatures of what an American papacy would be like and compared that to the first eight months of Leo's actual papacy.

American Catholic History Association panelists (from left to right) Brian Flanagan, Colleen Dulle, Miguel Diaz and Kathleen Sprows Cummings. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNA
American Catholic History Association panelists (from left to right) Brian Flanagan, Colleen Dulle, Miguel Diaz and Kathleen Sprows Cummings. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNA

At the outset of the panel, University of Notre Dame history professor Kathleen Sprows Cummings referenced the 1894 Puck magazine cartoon titled “ The American Pope,” which depicts the first apostolic delegate to the United States, Cardinal Francesco Satolli, sitting atop a church labeled the “American headquarters” and casting a shadow of then Pope Leo XIII over the entire country.

Sprows Cummings noted the cartoon illustrates “fears about papal intervention in the United States” at a time when the country was receiving waves of Catholic immigrants from countries such as Ireland and Italy.

As Catholics became more settled in American society in the subsequent decades, she said some of those prejudices began to lessen and pointed to the 1918 election of Catholic Democrat Al Smith as New York’s governor. By this point, Catholics had become “much more confident about their place in American culture.”

During the same early 20th century period, the United States also began to rise as a superpower. Sprows Cummings noted that predominant concerns about an American pope shifted to Vatican concerns over the “Americanization of the Catholic Church.”

America magazine's Vatican correspondent, Colleen Dulle, said some of those concerns were evidently mitigated in the person of then Cardinal Robert Prevost, whose service to the Church included many years as a missionary and bishop in Peru as well as in Rome as the head of a global religious order, the Augustinians.

Sprows Cummings said the College of Cardinals clearly saw in Cardinal Prevost the "pastoral presence, administrative savvy and global vision" that the Church needed at this time and that he was “not elected in some flex of American power.”

Miguel Diaz, the John Courtney Murray, S.J. Chair in Public Service at Loyola University Chicago, noted that some of Leo’s actions have actually amounted to the opposite of flexing American power, such as his focus on the dignity of migrants, which he contrasted to the policies of the Trump administration.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Miguel Diaz. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNA
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Miguel Diaz. Credit: Ken Oliver-Méndez/CNA

Diaz, who served as U.S. ambassador to the Holy See under former President Barack Obama, said Leo is “a different symbol, from America first to America cares.”

He emphasized that having an American pope is significant amid the country’s political debates because “he can say things and he will be listened to.”

The panelists also discussed what Leo’s papacy may look like moving forward, with Dulle noting that only this year are there clear signs of him charting his own programmatic course, as the events and itinerary of the 2025 Jubilee were primarily developed for Pope Francis.

Up until now, she said, he has been mostly “continuing the Francis initiatives in a different style.”

She noted Pope Leo's management of this week's consistory — a meeting between the pope and the College of Cardinals — where the pontiff gave them four topics to choose from, which were all in line with Francis’s priorities: synodality, evangelization, reform of the curia, and the liturgy. The cardinals chose synodality and evangelization.

Dulle said Leo is seen as "a consensus builder” who aims to build consensus around the Church's priorities. She noted Pope Leo's announcement this week of a regular schedule of consistories, with the next one set for this June. This approach is emerging as a "hallmark of how he governs the Church" Dulle said.

Brian Flanagan, the John Cardinal Cody Chair of Catholic Theology at Loyola University Chicago, also emphasized Leo’s strong appeal to the cardinals and bishops in efforts to reach consensus, in keeping with the Pope's role as a preserver of unity.

Flanagan said he sees Leo exercising the papacy as not so much "at the top of the pyramid, but as at the center of conversation.” He said this is likely influenced by Leo's past as leader of a religious order — the Order of Saint Augustine — rather than a diocese because the orders are “global, diverse, and somewhat fractious.”

“You can’t govern a global religious community without getting people on board,” he said.

Read More
Trump urges Republican ‘flexibility’ on taxpayer-funded abortions #Catholic President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA). President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.
Read More

Trump urges Republican ‘flexibility’ on taxpayer-funded abortions #Catholic President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA). President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.

unitedyam

President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA).

President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.

Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.

“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.

“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”

The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.

A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.

However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”

Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”

“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.

Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”

“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.

“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.

Read More
In interview with Bishop Barron, Justice Barrett opens up about her faith  #Catholic Judge Amy Coney Barrett. – Rachel Malehorn/wikimedia CC BY SA 3.0 Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA). U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her Catholic faith “grounds her” and gives her “perspective.”During an interview with Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Barrett tackled a number of topics including free speech, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and her law career. The U.S. Supreme Court justice also opened up about her Catholic faith, including how she prays and her relationship with the saints.A ‘love for the saints’When asked which spiritual figures have influenced her, Barrett shared about her relationships with the saints, specifically her love for St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.“My favorite was Thérèse of Lisieux. We have a daughter named Thérèse,” Barrett said. “I was captivated when I was young by how young she was when she just completely gave her life over to the Lord.”“Her Little Way is so accessible to so many,” she said. “I minored in French and I studied in France. It was actually Lisieux, where I was … that’s where I decided to go that summer. So I spent a lot of time in the gardens of the Martin home. I think those examples of faith were important to me.”“One thing that we’ve tried to do with our children is really cultivate in them a love for the saints, because I do think they are great examples that can inspire our love of the faith.”Barrett said she has “prayed in different ways at different phases” of her life. As a law professor, she often prayed a “ lectio divina.” Now as a judge, she said she tends “to do more reading reflections” and will “read the daily ‘ Magnificat.’”A “personal struggle in these last couple of years has been an ability to quiet my mind so that I can pray in a very deep and focused way,” she said. Listening to reflections “helps me, if my mind is wandering, to be able to focus on reading something and the task at hand.”The Constitution and the common goodDespite her faith, Barrett also discussed how it is not what can influence her decisions as a judge. “The Constitution distributes authority in a particular way,” she said. “The authority that I have is circumscribed.”“I believe in natural law, and I certainly believe in the common good,” Barrett said. “I think legislators have the duty to pursue the common good within the confines of the Constitution and respect for religious freedom.”“You have to imagine, ‘What if I didn’t like the composition of the court I was in front of, the court that was making these decisions, and they view the common good quite differently than I do?’ That’s the reason why we have a document like the Constitution, because it’s a point of consensus and common ground.”“And if we start veering away from that and reading into it our own individual ideas of the common good, it’s going to go nowhere good fast.”Roe v. WadeBarrett said both people who agreed with the Dobbs decision and those who did not “may well assume” she cast her vote based on her “faith” and “personal views about abortion.”“But especially given the framework with which I view the Constitution, there are plenty of people who support abortion rights but who recognize that Roe was ill-reasoned and inconsistent with the Constitution itself,” she said.Barrett further discussed “the trouble with Roe.”“There’s nothing in the Constitution … that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” she said. “The best defense of Roe, the commonly thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ and the due process clause, that we protect life, liberty, and property and it can’t be taken away without due process of law.”The “word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise, we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” Barrett said.The problem with Roe “is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution.”The reason why it’s difficult to amend the Constitution is because “it reflects a super-majority consensus,” she said. “The rights that are protected in the Constitution, as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution, are not of my making. They are ones that Americans have agreed to.”“Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution.”Free speech and freedom of religion“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” Barrett said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas … we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”If the United States were to have “an established religion, then it would be very difficult to simultaneously guarantee freedom of religion because there would be one voice with which the government was speaking,” Barrett explained.An established religion would “sacrifice the religious liberty,” she said. “But by the same token, the religious liberty, it would become self-defeating if the logical end to it was to force everyone to see things your way.”DiscernmentAt the end of the conversation, Barron asked Barrett what advice she would give young Catholics who want to be involved in public life, law, or the government.“Discern first,” Barrett said. Ask: “What are you called to do?”“If you do feel like this is a vocation and something you’re called to do, I think it can never be the most important thing,” Barrett said. “I think being grounded in your faith and who you are and being right in the Lord, so that you’re not tossed like a ship everywhere because there are enormous pressures.”Faith “grounds me as a person,” Barrett said. “Not because my faith informs the substance of the decisions that I make, it emphatically does not, but I think it grounds me as a person. It’s who I am as a person.”“So it’s what enables me to keep my job in public life in perspective and remain the person who I am and continue to try to be the person I hope to be despite the pressures of public life,” she said.
Read More

In interview with Bishop Barron, Justice Barrett opens up about her faith  #Catholic Judge Amy Coney Barrett. – Rachel Malehorn/wikimedia CC BY SA 3.0 Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA). U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her Catholic faith “grounds her” and gives her “perspective.”During an interview with Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Barrett tackled a number of topics including free speech, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and her law career. The U.S. Supreme Court justice also opened up about her Catholic faith, including how she prays and her relationship with the saints.A ‘love for the saints’When asked which spiritual figures have influenced her, Barrett shared about her relationships with the saints, specifically her love for St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.“My favorite was Thérèse of Lisieux. We have a daughter named Thérèse,” Barrett said. “I was captivated when I was young by how young she was when she just completely gave her life over to the Lord.”“Her Little Way is so accessible to so many,” she said. “I minored in French and I studied in France. It was actually Lisieux, where I was … that’s where I decided to go that summer. So I spent a lot of time in the gardens of the Martin home. I think those examples of faith were important to me.”“One thing that we’ve tried to do with our children is really cultivate in them a love for the saints, because I do think they are great examples that can inspire our love of the faith.”Barrett said she has “prayed in different ways at different phases” of her life. As a law professor, she often prayed a “ lectio divina.” Now as a judge, she said she tends “to do more reading reflections” and will “read the daily ‘ Magnificat.’”A “personal struggle in these last couple of years has been an ability to quiet my mind so that I can pray in a very deep and focused way,” she said. Listening to reflections “helps me, if my mind is wandering, to be able to focus on reading something and the task at hand.”The Constitution and the common goodDespite her faith, Barrett also discussed how it is not what can influence her decisions as a judge. “The Constitution distributes authority in a particular way,” she said. “The authority that I have is circumscribed.”“I believe in natural law, and I certainly believe in the common good,” Barrett said. “I think legislators have the duty to pursue the common good within the confines of the Constitution and respect for religious freedom.”“You have to imagine, ‘What if I didn’t like the composition of the court I was in front of, the court that was making these decisions, and they view the common good quite differently than I do?’ That’s the reason why we have a document like the Constitution, because it’s a point of consensus and common ground.”“And if we start veering away from that and reading into it our own individual ideas of the common good, it’s going to go nowhere good fast.”Roe v. WadeBarrett said both people who agreed with the Dobbs decision and those who did not “may well assume” she cast her vote based on her “faith” and “personal views about abortion.”“But especially given the framework with which I view the Constitution, there are plenty of people who support abortion rights but who recognize that Roe was ill-reasoned and inconsistent with the Constitution itself,” she said.Barrett further discussed “the trouble with Roe.”“There’s nothing in the Constitution … that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” she said. “The best defense of Roe, the commonly thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ and the due process clause, that we protect life, liberty, and property and it can’t be taken away without due process of law.”The “word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise, we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” Barrett said.The problem with Roe “is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution.”The reason why it’s difficult to amend the Constitution is because “it reflects a super-majority consensus,” she said. “The rights that are protected in the Constitution, as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution, are not of my making. They are ones that Americans have agreed to.”“Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution.”Free speech and freedom of religion“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” Barrett said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas … we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”If the United States were to have “an established religion, then it would be very difficult to simultaneously guarantee freedom of religion because there would be one voice with which the government was speaking,” Barrett explained.An established religion would “sacrifice the religious liberty,” she said. “But by the same token, the religious liberty, it would become self-defeating if the logical end to it was to force everyone to see things your way.”DiscernmentAt the end of the conversation, Barron asked Barrett what advice she would give young Catholics who want to be involved in public life, law, or the government.“Discern first,” Barrett said. Ask: “What are you called to do?”“If you do feel like this is a vocation and something you’re called to do, I think it can never be the most important thing,” Barrett said. “I think being grounded in your faith and who you are and being right in the Lord, so that you’re not tossed like a ship everywhere because there are enormous pressures.”Faith “grounds me as a person,” Barrett said. “Not because my faith informs the substance of the decisions that I make, it emphatically does not, but I think it grounds me as a person. It’s who I am as a person.”“So it’s what enables me to keep my job in public life in perspective and remain the person who I am and continue to try to be the person I hope to be despite the pressures of public life,” she said.

unitedyam

Judge Amy Coney Barrett. – Rachel Malehorn/wikimedia CC BY SA 3.0

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her Catholic faith “grounds her” and gives her “perspective.”

During an interview with Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Barrett tackled a number of topics including free speech, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and her law career. The U.S. Supreme Court justice also opened up about her Catholic faith, including how she prays and her relationship with the saints.

A ‘love for the saints’

When asked which spiritual figures have influenced her, Barrett shared about her relationships with the saints, specifically her love for St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

“My favorite was Thérèse of Lisieux. We have a daughter named Thérèse,” Barrett said. “I was captivated when I was young by how young she was when she just completely gave her life over to the Lord.”

“Her Little Way is so accessible to so many,” she said. “I minored in French and I studied in France. It was actually Lisieux, where I was … that’s where I decided to go that summer. So I spent a lot of time in the gardens of the Martin home. I think those examples of faith were important to me.”

“One thing that we’ve tried to do with our children is really cultivate in them a love for the saints, because I do think they are great examples that can inspire our love of the faith.”

Barrett said she has “prayed in different ways at different phases” of her life. As a law professor, she often prayed a “ lectio divina.” Now as a judge, she said she tends “to do more reading reflections” and will “read the daily ‘ Magnificat.’”

A “personal struggle in these last couple of years has been an ability to quiet my mind so that I can pray in a very deep and focused way,” she said. Listening to reflections “helps me, if my mind is wandering, to be able to focus on reading something and the task at hand.”

The Constitution and the common good

Despite her faith, Barrett also discussed how it is not what can influence her decisions as a judge. “The Constitution distributes authority in a particular way,” she said. “The authority that I have is circumscribed.”

“I believe in natural law, and I certainly believe in the common good,” Barrett said. “I think legislators have the duty to pursue the common good within the confines of the Constitution and respect for religious freedom.”

“You have to imagine, ‘What if I didn’t like the composition of the court I was in front of, the court that was making these decisions, and they view the common good quite differently than I do?’ That’s the reason why we have a document like the Constitution, because it’s a point of consensus and common ground.”

“And if we start veering away from that and reading into it our own individual ideas of the common good, it’s going to go nowhere good fast.”

Roe v. Wade

Barrett said both people who agreed with the Dobbs decision and those who did not “may well assume” she cast her vote based on her “faith” and “personal views about abortion.”

“But especially given the framework with which I view the Constitution, there are plenty of people who support abortion rights but who recognize that Roe was ill-reasoned and inconsistent with the Constitution itself,” she said.

Barrett further discussed “the trouble with Roe.”

“There’s nothing in the Constitution … that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” she said. “The best defense of Roe, the commonly thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ and the due process clause, that we protect life, liberty, and property and it can’t be taken away without due process of law.”

The “word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise, we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” Barrett said.

The problem with Roe “is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution.”

The reason why it’s difficult to amend the Constitution is because “it reflects a super-majority consensus,” she said. “The rights that are protected in the Constitution, as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution, are not of my making. They are ones that Americans have agreed to.”

“Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution.”

Free speech and freedom of religion

“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” Barrett said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas … we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”

“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”

If the United States were to have “an established religion, then it would be very difficult to simultaneously guarantee freedom of religion because there would be one voice with which the government was speaking,” Barrett explained.

An established religion would “sacrifice the religious liberty,” she said. “But by the same token, the religious liberty, it would become self-defeating if the logical end to it was to force everyone to see things your way.”

Discernment

At the end of the conversation, Barron asked Barrett what advice she would give young Catholics who want to be involved in public life, law, or the government.

“Discern first,” Barrett said. Ask: “What are you called to do?”

“If you do feel like this is a vocation and something you’re called to do, I think it can never be the most important thing,” Barrett said. “I think being grounded in your faith and who you are and being right in the Lord, so that you’re not tossed like a ship everywhere because there are enormous pressures.”

Faith “grounds me as a person,” Barrett said. “Not because my faith informs the substance of the decisions that I make, it emphatically does not, but I think it grounds me as a person. It’s who I am as a person.”

“So it’s what enables me to keep my job in public life in perspective and remain the person who I am and continue to try to be the person I hope to be despite the pressures of public life,” she said.

Read More