Catholic cardinal presides over Rosary Rally in Holland, Norway celebrates 100 years since first Mass, Scottish sisters to stand trial for abuse, and more in this week’s world news round up.
Commissioner appointee Heidi Overton has criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s chemical abortion policies in the past. She is now poised to be in a position to change them.
![Archbishop Wenski meets lawmakers to gain support for Haitian migrants amid deportation fears #Catholic Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski traveled to Washington, D.C., on July 28 to advocate on behalf of Haitian migrants who fear they will soon be targets of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.Wenski’s meetings with lawmakers came one day after the expiration of the automatic work‑permit extension under temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians. The Supreme Court ruled last month that the administration has the authority to terminate TPS, which ended their work authorization and could subject them to deportation orders. “Haiti is a house on fire,” Wenski told “EWTN News Nightly” Capitol Hill correspondent Erik Rosales before entering the office of Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia.The archbishop said TPS expiration and possible deportation of hundreds of thousands of Haitians is bad for the migrants — who would be sent back to an unstable country — and for the American communities in which the migrants live and work. About 353,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS status in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“To think that we can send 350,000 people back to Haiti without that having very bad consequences in Haiti — but also here because these people are working, they’re not on the dole, they’re working, and if they’re removed from their jobs, if they lose their work permits, that’s going to have a negative economic impact on the communities in which they live,” Wenski said.As Haitian TPS status ends, some lawmakers have introduced bills to compel the DHS to extend the status. In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation, H.R. 1689, that would extend TPS for Haitians for three more years. No legislative efforts have gained traction in the Senate.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated strongly on behalf of Haitian migrants, asking the Trump administration and lawmakers to extend TPS. About two-thirds of Haiti is Catholic.Chieko Noguchi, spokeswoman for the USCCB, told EWTN News that Bishop Brendan J. Cahill, USCCB Committee on Migration chair, “has encouraged his brother bishops across the country to engage with their elected officials” on Haitian TPS status and broader immigration reform efforts.“As pastors committed to upholding the common good, the bishops are actively engaging in this dialogue and continue to be grateful for the opportunity to do so, which they acknowledged in their special message last November,” she said.In November 2025, the USCCB adopted a message in a 216-5 vote that opposed the “indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and policies that revoke the legal status of migrants, such as the terminations of TPS for various groups of migrants.Kaine, an advocate for extending TPS, told EWTN News after meeting with Wenski that he was glad “to discuss the critical need for Congress to do what is right and protect TPS holders who have been in the U.S. legally for years” and looks forward to working with the USCCB to advocate for TPS holders.TPS holders “have made countless contributions in important sectors such as healthcare and construction, and developed deep roots in our communities through their U.S. citizen families and businesses,” he added. “Many TPS holders, such as those from Haiti, should not be forced to return to the extremely dangerous conditions that made them seek safety in the United States.”Status of Haitian migrantsOn July 27, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin reposted a DHS post on X, which said “temporary protected status is exactly that — TEMPORARY” and urged anyone whose TPS has expired to self-deport out of the U.S.“For those with terminated TPS: it’s closing time,” the post read. “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”When asked whether DHS intends to specifically target Haitians for deportation amid the TPS expiration, a spokesperson told EWTN News that the department “does not discuss ongoing or future operations” but is conducting law enforcement activities daily.“For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent,” the spokesperson said.Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, told EWTN News that TPS was initially approved for Haiti in 2010 after a devastating earthquake.Although Haiti continues to face serious safety and political stability concerns, he said the effects of the earthquake no longer impact the country. He noted that Haitians can apply for permanent status under other programs, such as if they are eligible for asylum, but that TPS is not a permanent resettlement program.Arthur said Haitians who are in the U.S. under temporary legal status “had the opportunity to work in the United States and make money” and learn skills, which they can take back “to Haiti and [it can] help them make Haiti a better country.”The former judge said he expects immigration enforcement toward Haitians to be part of “the larger enforcement efforts” rather than a targeted campaign against Haitians, with a priority toward people who have been convicted of crimes.“The response [now] is foreign aid on the part of the United States and aid from the Catholic Church toward making Haiti a better place,” Arthur said.TPS status for Syrian migrants also ended on July 27. El Salvador’s TPS designation is set to expire Sept. 9.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/archbishop-wenski-meets-lawmakers-to-gain-support-for-haitian-migrants-amid-deportation-fears-catholic-miami-archbishop-thomas-wenski-traveled-to-washington-d-c-on-july-28-to-advocate-on-behalf-of.png "Archbishop Wenski meets lawmakers to gain support for Haitian migrants amid deportation fears #Catholic Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski traveled to Washington, D.C., on July 28 to advocate on behalf of Haitian migrants who fear they will soon be targets of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.Wenski’s meetings with lawmakers came one day after the expiration of the automatic work‑permit extension under temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians. The Supreme Court ruled last month that the administration has the authority to terminate TPS, which ended their work authorization and could subject them to deportation orders. “Haiti is a house on fire,” Wenski told “EWTN News Nightly” Capitol Hill correspondent Erik Rosales before entering the office of Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia.The archbishop said TPS expiration and possible deportation of hundreds of thousands of Haitians is bad for the migrants — who would be sent back to an unstable country — and for the American communities in which the migrants live and work. About 353,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS status in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“To think that we can send 350,000 people back to Haiti without that having very bad consequences in Haiti — but also here because these people are working, they’re not on the dole, they’re working, and if they’re removed from their jobs, if they lose their work permits, that’s going to have a negative economic impact on the communities in which they live,” Wenski said.As Haitian TPS status ends, some lawmakers have introduced bills to compel the DHS to extend the status. In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation, H.R. 1689, that would extend TPS for Haitians for three more years. No legislative efforts have gained traction in the Senate.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated strongly on behalf of Haitian migrants, asking the Trump administration and lawmakers to extend TPS. About two-thirds of Haiti is Catholic.Chieko Noguchi, spokeswoman for the USCCB, told EWTN News that Bishop Brendan J. Cahill, USCCB Committee on Migration chair, “has encouraged his brother bishops across the country to engage with their elected officials” on Haitian TPS status and broader immigration reform efforts.“As pastors committed to upholding the common good, the bishops are actively engaging in this dialogue and continue to be grateful for the opportunity to do so, which they acknowledged in their special message last November,” she said.In November 2025, the USCCB adopted a message in a 216-5 vote that opposed the “indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and policies that revoke the legal status of migrants, such as the terminations of TPS for various groups of migrants.Kaine, an advocate for extending TPS, told EWTN News after meeting with Wenski that he was glad “to discuss the critical need for Congress to do what is right and protect TPS holders who have been in the U.S. legally for years” and looks forward to working with the USCCB to advocate for TPS holders.TPS holders “have made countless contributions in important sectors such as healthcare and construction, and developed deep roots in our communities through their U.S. citizen families and businesses,” he added. “Many TPS holders, such as those from Haiti, should not be forced to return to the extremely dangerous conditions that made them seek safety in the United States.”Status of Haitian migrantsOn July 27, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin reposted a DHS post on X, which said “temporary protected status is exactly that — TEMPORARY” and urged anyone whose TPS has expired to self-deport out of the U.S.“For those with terminated TPS: it’s closing time,” the post read. “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”When asked whether DHS intends to specifically target Haitians for deportation amid the TPS expiration, a spokesperson told EWTN News that the department “does not discuss ongoing or future operations” but is conducting law enforcement activities daily.“For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent,” the spokesperson said.Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, told EWTN News that TPS was initially approved for Haiti in 2010 after a devastating earthquake.Although Haiti continues to face serious safety and political stability concerns, he said the effects of the earthquake no longer impact the country. He noted that Haitians can apply for permanent status under other programs, such as if they are eligible for asylum, but that TPS is not a permanent resettlement program.Arthur said Haitians who are in the U.S. under temporary legal status “had the opportunity to work in the United States and make money” and learn skills, which they can take back “to Haiti and [it can] help them make Haiti a better country.”The former judge said he expects immigration enforcement toward Haitians to be part of “the larger enforcement efforts” rather than a targeted campaign against Haitians, with a priority toward people who have been convicted of crimes.“The response [now] is foreign aid on the part of the United States and aid from the Catholic Church toward making Haiti a better place,” Arthur said.TPS status for Syrian migrants also ended on July 27. El Salvador’s TPS designation is set to expire Sept. 9.")
The Department of Homeland Security defended its policy, saying temporary protected status was not meant to be permanent.
Catholic Health Services, one of the Archdiocese of Miami’s largest ministries, faces losing an estimated 40 to 50 employees, Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski said.
![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.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/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-expl.jpg "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.”")
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.
