![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.
Through her own spiritual journey seeking God, Mother María Elena Martínez founded a community and a retreat movement that is touching the lives of thousands of young people in Latin America.
![Cardinal O’Malley at Catholic-Orthodox conference: ‘Come together and pray for unity’ #Catholic WASHINGTON — Cardinal Seán Patrick OʼMalley, retired archbishop of Boston, encouraged Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians to pray together for reunification at a joint conference focused on healing the nearly 1,000-year schism between the churches.“Come together and pray for unity,” O’Malley said at the conference, hosted by the Orientale Lumen Foundation at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine on July 13–15.Speakers included Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox bishops, and a few dozen laity and clergy focused on ecumenism attended. Along with O’Malley, speakers included Archbishop Flavio Pace — secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity — and Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard, primate of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).O’Malley encouraged concrete steps to integrate Catholic and Orthodox communities, one of the most important of which was “praying together.” Just prior to his speech, the Catholic and Orthodox clergy — including O’Malley, Pace, and Mollard — prayed daily vespers together in the form used in Eastern churches.The cardinal, speaking to those gathered, said unity will ultimately be achieved as a gift to the faithful granted by Christ and will come about “how he wills [it].” He said he considers joint prayer to be crucial because it is the Holy Spirit who will “illuminate the way” toward East-West communion.‘Work for unity’In his address, O’Malley discussed his concern with the disunity of Christianity, which he said “weakens our ability [as Christians] to proclaim the Gospel with coherence and authority.”He recalled his early work in the 1970s with the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. The order was deeply involved in missionary work in Papua New Guinea. Although O’Malley himself was not a missionary there, he spoke about conversations with colleagues who were working with people accepting Christianity in large numbers.O’Malley noted that when new converts had learned about the various Christian denominations, many felt “sad and embarrassed.” Although many Christians view the disunity as “normative,” he said, the people of Papua New Guinea correctly recognized it as “scandalous.”“All disciples of Jesus Christ must feel an impulse to work for unity among Christians,” O’Malley said.O’Malley said Catholics should see Orthodoxy as the “greatest possibility of success in this task in fulfilling Christ’s wish so that we all become one so the world may believe.” He noted that the two share “so many saints and devotions” and are more similar to Catholics in theology than any other Christian community.He expressed joy that many Orthodox churches send representatives to meetings held by the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and that the Catholic Church also sent representatives to the Orthodox Council of Crete in 2016. Yet, he encouraged a stronger bond.O’Malley urged the bodies to “consider the possibility of joint pastoral letters or statements” on issues of mutual agreement like world hunger, euthanasia, and abortion. He said they should establish committees together to organize joint prayer, study sessions, and works of mercy.His idea of unity, he explained, would be “communion without absorption” and said there is a difference between “unity and uniformity.” He said people should look to the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model, saying “they are bridges for reconciliation and laboratories for synodal communion.”Although Rome’s relationship with the Eastern Catholics was not always perfect (O’Malley noted historical attempts at forced Latinization), the cardinal said there is an opportunity to work more closely with Eastern Catholics as part of ecumenical efforts, focused on “greater respect for their uniqueness.”Mollard, speaking from the Orthodox position, echoed O’Malley’s desire for unity and the feeling of pain over continued separation.“It affects the faithful in the parishes and how they live their lives,” the metropolitan said. “And perhaps encourage[s] us all to not just reach out and educate but really inspire in people that faith in Christ and love for the Church can drive … [the path toward] unity.”O’Malley told EWTN News that ecumenism requires “different groups that would be Catholic and Orthodox, working together,” and Church leaders should be “letting people know the progress that has been made in the dialogue.”He said Eastern Orthodox Christians “have the sacraments,” they have apostolic succession, and “the differences are not great.” Although theological disputes remain a division between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, he said he believes the causes of the schism were more political and cultural.“Most Catholics and Orthodox in the pews are not focused on those fine points of theology,” O’Malley said.Ongoing Vatican ecumenical workMany theological disputes, however, are being hashed out at the highest levels of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Some of the biggest include questions of papal supremacy, primacy, and jurisdiction as well as the language of the Nicene Creed and subsequently certain details about the Holy Trinity.Pace, who flew in from Rome, discussed some of the history and recent progress on ecumenism related to these subjects during his speech, noting that the end goal is “full unity” between the East and the West.
Archbishop Flavio Pace, secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, speaks at the Orientale Lumen Foundation conference at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C., on July 15, 2026. | Credit: Tyler Arnold/EWTN News
The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, formed in 1980, created two subcommittees in 2024. One focuses on infallibility, which is the current priority. The other is about the dispute about the Nicene Creed."We have to prepare a very good draft,” Pace told EWTN News.He said once the subcommittee completes its draft on infallibility, the body will consider a call for a full meeting for approval. He said the subcommittee must “arrive to a good document that the [full committee] can discuss and approve.”The First Vatican Council teaches that the pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals when defining matters of doctrine and invoking his papal authority, binding the declaration on the entire Church.Bishop Anthony Vrame, a Greek Orthodox bishop and director of Holy Cross Orthodox Press, said in a panel discussion that Orthodoxy recognizes the indefectibility of councils: “When the Church gathers together in council, … no error is possible.” Yet, papal infallibility is different, as it is “designated to one person.”Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, offered a prerecorded video message for the conference, stating that he hopes the eventual documents will be received by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches.Koch emphasized the importance of clergy informing the laity when there are developments, so the progress is “not to be remained known only by experts.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/cardinal-omalley-at-catholic-orthodox-conference-come-together-and-pray-for-unity-catholic-washington-cardinal-sean-patrick-ocabcmalley-retired-archbishop-of-scaled.jpg)
Cardinal Seán O’Malley discussed ways in which Catholics and Orthodox Christians can build closer bonds. Archbishop Flavio Pace discussed ongoing Vatican efforts to help bring about unity.
![Iranian delegation visits Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica, engaging in ‘interfaith dialogue’ #Catholic An Iranian delegation recently visited Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica in Mexico City, the Marian shrine that displays the original image of the Virgin Mary that miraculously appeared on the tilma of the Indigenous St. Juan Diego nearly 500 years ago.On July 8, the Iranian Embassy in Mexico shared on social media that “at the spiritual heart of Mexico, Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica, we had the honor of sharing a fraternal meeting between representatives of Islam and Christianity.”The Iranian delegation consisted of Iranʼs ambassador to Mexico, Abolfazl Pasandideh; Ayatollah Dr. Emran Khanzadeh; and Mohammad Reza Gilani, the counselor of cultural affairs at the Iranian Embassy.
The Iranian delegation with Monsignor Edgar Alan Valtierra López during their visit to Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica. | Credit: Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica
The three were welcomed at the Marian shrine by Monsignor Edgar Alan Valtierra López, senior penitentiary canon and head of the Commission for Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue at the basilica.In its social media post, under the title “When respect opens the way, friendship is born,” the Iranian embassy highlighted that “during the conversation, Dr. Emran Khanzadeh recalled that the Virgin Mary (Maryam) occupies a unique place in Islam,” since “she is the only woman mentioned by name in the Quran and an eternal example of purity, faith, and dedication to God.”“We also share a little-known reality: In Iran, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians have lived together for centuries with mutual respect. Because when people know each other, prejudices disappear,” the Iranian delegation said.“Religions may have different paths, but they all lead to peace,” the embassy wrote.The Virgin Mary and her ‘very important’ role in dialogue between Catholics and MuslimsSpeaking to ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News, Valtierra said that “the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholic-Muslim dialogue is very important.”“Ambassador Abolfazl told us that in the Quran, their holy book, she is called Maryam, and she is the only woman to whom a surah, that is, a chapter of the Quran, is dedicated. Surah 3:42 states: ‘Oh Mary! God has chosen you, purified you, and selected you above the women of all worlds.’”“Although there are very profound differences regarding the figure of Jesus, Mary becomes a sign of rapprochement and respectful dialogue, as we discover shared values such as love for God, obedience, faith, humility, hope, and many others,” the Mexican priest said.Valtierra noted that the gathering took place in the context of the desire of the primatial archbishop of Mexico, Cardinal Carlos Aguiar Retes, for the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe to be a place where people of all faiths can learn about and draw closer to the message of Our Lady of Guadalupe and her son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.“Interfaith and ecumenical events are held in various areas of the shrine,” he said, noting that meetings have taken place with Lutheran, Anglican, and evangelical Christians as well as believers “from other religions such as Jews, Buddhists, and Hare Krishnas,” among others.“In this context, the Iranian embassy requested to visit the shrine on the occasion of a visit by a very important figure, Ayatollah Dr. Emran Khanzadeh, who wished to engage in interfaith dialogue,” he explained.
Monsignor Edgar Alan Valtierra López accompanies the Iranian delegation during a tour of Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica. | Credit: Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica
‘A testimony to the Church’s openness’Valtierra noted that during the visit, “we first toured the shrine, which included viewing the image head-on from the sanctuary. Afterward, we moved to a room where Ayatollah Emran spoke, drawing on profound Islamic theology, about the need for religions to work together.”The ayatollah, he said, “mentioned that in Iran there is a street where there is a Mazdean [Zoroastrian] temple, an Armenian Christian church, and a mosque,” and “noted that monotheistic religions share many common points, one of which is a merciful God who calls upon us to work in fraternity.”This meeting, the canon of the basilica noted, demonstrates “that the Church can welcome everyone with respect and without neglecting the proclamation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”Visitors who were ‘very devoted to Our Lady of Guadalupe’According to Valtierra, the Iranian visitors “showed themselves to be very devoted to Our Lady of Guadalupe” and noted that “in the sacristy, we gave them some holy cards featuring the image of the Virgin, and they liked them very much.” The ambassador and the ayatollah shared with him that both men have daughters named Mary.Furthermore, “they also told us that they have an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in their homes, and that in Iran there is even a metro station named ‘Holy Virgin Mary,’ which features a beautiful relief image of the Virgin on one of its walls.”“While the image in the station does not depict Guadalupe, it certainly speaks volumes about the respect held for Holy Mary,” the priest noted.Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica and interreligious dialogueValtierra clarified that when receiving visits from believers of other religions, “the basilica does not stop being a Catholic shrine; rites blending beliefs are not performed,” but rather “each participant fully retains their own religious identity.”The aim, he emphasized, is “to promote mutual understanding, respect, and collaboration for peace and human dignity, as called for by the Second Vatican Council and the contemporary magisterium of the popes.”“Visits by people of other faiths to Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica offer an opportunity to encounter the Catholic faith through its liturgy, devotion to the Virgin, and the witness of popular piety,” he said, noting that “interreligious dialogue does not promote relativism or syncretism; rather, it expresses the conviction that Christianity can bear witness to Christ with clarity while simultaneously listening to, learning from, and working alongside people of other religious traditions.”This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/iranian-delegation-visits-our-lady-of-guadalupe-basilica-engaging-in-interfaith-dialogue-catholic-an-iranian-delegation-recently-visited-our-lady-of-guadalupe-basilica-in-mexico-ci.jpg)
At their request, a delegation of the Iranian embassy in Mexico City was given a tour of the Marian shrine, highlighting the reverence for the Virgin Mary shared by both Islam and Christianity.
More U.S. bishops are instructing Catholics to avoid attending Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) events in light of the recent excommunications of SSPX leadership.
![Various U.S. bishops ‘invite home’ SSPX attendees after excommunications of leadership #Catholic A growing number of Catholic bishops are instructing the faithful to avoid illicit sacraments celebrated by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) after the traditionalist group’s bishops incurred the penalty of excommunication last week.The Vatican declared July 2 that six prelates involved in the SSPX’s unauthorized July 1 episcopal consecrations incurred automatic excommunication. Despite repeated warnings, SSPX bishops consecrated four new bishops without a pontifical mandate — an act of open disobedience to the authority of the pope that carries automatic excommunication for the six bishops involved.The SSPX is a fraternity of priests known for its celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass and opposition to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.Various Catholic bishops with SSPX locations in their areas are explicitly forbidding Catholics from attending SSPX services while also urging frequent attendees or SSPX priests to seek spiritual guidance and return to the Catholic Church.Invited ‘home’Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul and Minneapolis urged SSPX families in his community to stay with the Catholic Church.“In the 10 years that I have led this local Church, I have met many sincere people who worship regularly or occasionally at the chapels of the SSPX within the territory of our archdiocese,” Hebda said. “I have been impressed by the strength of their families and their commitment to traditional Catholic values.”“It is my hope they will not follow the above-mentioned bishops in separating themselves from the successor of Peter, Pope Leo XIV, and from the Church that he humbly leads,” Hebda continued. “Throughout the centuries, our Catholic Church has consistently echoed the teaching of St. Ambrose: Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia (Where there is Peter, there is the Church).”“At this difficult moment, we are blessed that the same traditional Eucharistic liturgy beloved by those who have worshipped with the SSPX in the past continues to be celebrated in six locations throughout the archdiocese,” Hebda said. “I am confident that those who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass could find a home here."Bishop Terry LaValley of Ogdensburg, New York, noted that in light of the “formal schism,” the disobedience “gravely harms the unity of the Church for which Christ so fervently prayed the night before he died.”LaValley said in a statement that Catholics are “forbidden” to participate in SSPX sacraments, the only exception being “when there is danger of death.” He noted that the schism “is not simply about the celebration of the Mass.”“The SSPX repudiates and denounces the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, in particular, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality of the bishops with the pope, and the Church’s understanding of and relationship with Judaism,” LaValley noted.LaValley instructed the faithful to avoid participation with SSPX and invited SSPX priests to remain with the Church.In a similar vein, Bishop Frank Caggiano of Bridgeport, Connecticut, invited anyone who previously worshipped with SSPX to come “home.”“The Holy See has made clear that the clergy of the society are now to be regarded as schismatic,” Caggiano said in a statement. “This means that, from this day forward, the sacraments they celebrate are illicit and, most significantly for the faithful, the confessions they hear and the marriages at which they preside are considered invalid by the Church.”“I know these words are difficult to hear, especially for those among us who have worshipped, whether regularly or on occasion, at liturgies celebrated by priests of the society,” Caggiano said. “Over the years I have come to know some of these families. I have been moved by their love for the beauty of the sacred liturgy, their devotion to our Catholic tradition, and the seriousness with which they seek to raise their children in the faith.”“My heart goes out to them at this painful moment, and I want them to know that they remain very much a part of our diocesan family,” Caggiano said.“I also wish to offer a word of reassurance. This excommunication does not fall upon those who have simply attended these liturgies out of a sincere desire to worship and who have never intended to reject the authority of the Holy Father or the teaching of the Church,” Caggiano said. “What the Church now asks is straightforward: Knowing the situation as it now stands, the faithful of the Catholic Church can no longer take part in the liturgies of the society, for to do so knowingly would be to share in a separation from the successor of Peter.”Caggiano noted that the “vetus ordo,” also known as the Traditional Latin Mass, is still celebrated in his diocese at several parishes throughout the diocese.He emphasized that the diocese also welcomes any SSPX priest who wants to return to full communion “with open arms and great tenderness.”Bishop James Johnston of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri, said he will “be preparing guidance to assist our clergy, lay faithful, and especially any of the lay faithful who have worshipped locally with the SSPX at St. Vincent de Paul Kansas City.”“While it is imperative to not abandon future efforts toward full communion and to fervently pray for such, those who wish to maintain communion with the Catholic Church, including valid reception of the sacraments of matrimony and penance (confession), will no longer find that possible within the SSPX,” Johnston said in the statement.“In this moment, I wish to reassure the members of the SSPX within this diocese of my pastoral concern as a shepherd with a desire to assist you in this time of crisis,” Johnston said.Schism ‘wounds’ the body of ChristBishop Douglas Lucia of Syracuse, New York, emphasized that the announcement “forbids Roman Catholics of good standing to participate in and to receive the sacraments from bishops and priests associated with the Society of St. Pius X.”“[F]ormal adherence to schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Churchʼs law,” Lucia wrote July 2.“I grieve over the wound that has been inflicted on Christʼs body, the Church, and its effect on the spiritual good of the faithful,” Lucia said. “Although todayʼs action relates to a specific event, I would caution that such wounds occur in the Church, when peopleʼs pain and concerns are ignored and the universal call to holiness is subjugated to personal agenda.”“I regret that the communion and trust that has been built in my seven years as bishop here in Syracuse is now so imperiled, but there cannot be accord when discord has been sown,” Lucia said.Bishop Donald Hying of Madison, Wisconsin, instructed Catholics “to refrain from attending Mass at any SSPX chapels.”“The Catholic faithful should attend Mass at a Catholic church with a Catholic priest where they can receive licit and valid sacraments,” Hying said.
Bishop Donald Hying instructed Catholics “to refrain from attending Mass at any SSPX chapels.” | Credit: “EWTN News Nightly”/Screenshot
“For many years, the Church has been in dialogue with the leadership of SSPX in the hope that the group would return to full communion with the Catholic Church,” Hying said. “Their continued rejection of papal authority and decision to undertake blatantly schismatic acts have harmed these discussions and wounded the path to unity.”Archbishop Shawn McKnight of Kansas City, Kansas, called the bishopʼs consecrations "a source of profound sorrow for the whole Church because it wounds the visible unity that Christ desires for his body.” He noted that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI took several steps toward communion and acceptance of the society.“Fidelity to sacred tradition is never opposed to fidelity to the successor of Peter,” McKnight said in his letter. “Rather, both are gifts entrusted by Christ to his Church and serve together to safeguard the deposit of faith and promote the salvation of souls.”“The Church’s living tradition is preserved by remaining close to the successor of Peter, by adhering to the apostolic faith handed down through the centuries and safeguarded within the communion of the Church,” McKnight said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/various-u-s-bishops-invite-home-sspx-attendees-after-excommunications-of-leadership-catholic-a-growing-number-of-catholic-bishops-are-instructing-the-faithful-to-avoid-illicit-sacr-scaled.jpg)
Catholic bishops with Society of St. Pius X locations in their areas are forbidding Catholics from attending SSPX services and urging attendees and SSPX priests to return to the Catholic Church.
The pope delivered livestreamed remarks, praising the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Author and professor calls on Catholics to revive American culture through faith and classical learning.
Euthanasia is on the rise in Spain, and as its destructive effects become more apparent, ethics professionals are offering recommendations to prevent and ultimately eliminate the practice.
At the Angelus, the pontiff said Christ sees the wounds of war, broken families, and young people misled by false ideals.
