United Yam

You Never Know

UK bishops welcome child safety but cautious on social media ban for under 16 #Catholic Catholic bishops across the United Kingdom say they need to see more legislative detail before supporting government proposals to ban social media for youth under 16. On June 15, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation, and Technology Liz Kendall announced to the House of Commons that the government "will ban social media companies providing their services to under 16s.”Kendall said that the UK would be following the same model as Australia, which was the first country in the world to ban social media for youth under 16. The UK ban is due to come into effect early next year.In an email response to EWTN News on June 17 regarding whether bishops of England and Wales support the proposed ban, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Bishops' Conference for England and Wales said: “Until the government publishes further details it’s hard to give a yes or no answer.” But Bishop John Arnold, the lead bishop for communications for the conference, “is very keen to ensure that the safety and protection of the dignity of young people online is a central concern for all,” the statement said.In a separate email to EWTN News, Bishop Arnold wrote that the “safety of children and young people in the digital world is paramount. Young people face many pressures today, which are often exacerbated by unrealistic and harmful material which they have accessed online.”“When it comes to the responsible and appropriate use of technology, the protection of children and young people is a shared responsibility among parents, schools, government and society,” he said.“I urge all people to work together to protect and place the dignity of the human person, especially children, the young and vulnerable, at the center of technological and legislative developments,” the bishop said.The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, meanwhile, said it would “prefer not to comment directly on the specific policy issue, but rather give a considered response to the noble principles behind online safety measures.” “The bishops support the introduction of any new measures which increase online safety for children and young people,” the conference said."We have a responsibility to ensure that children and young people are protected from harmful and age-inappropriate content, and from online environments that can negatively affect their wellbeing, relationships and healthy development,” the statement continued.The UK governmentʼs proposal includes banning youth usage of platforms like Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and X. They do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the ban.Livestreamers and strangers being able to contact children will also be restricted for those under‑16 on other online services like gaming.“Who should take responsibility?”Edwin Fawcett, a Catholic psychotherapist based in England and Wales, is also unsure about the benefits and drawbacks of the proposal.“At this point the toll taken on mental and emotional health by social media, especially for developing brains, is virtually undisputed. Who should take responsibility for young peopleʼs formation and education?” he told EWTN News. “The Churchʼs wise answer: parents. Yet in a busy, driven and fragmented society the tsunami of digital hyper-reality is almost impossible to avoid or withstand,” he said.Fawcett argued that there is “a pandemic of relational wounds and deficits in the real world” which “has set the stage for widespread mental health issues, which are being activated and worsened by addictive online behavior — behavior chosen in an attempt to anesthetize the same wounds.”He continued: “Whether the ban is designed to support the rights and responsibilities of the family is hard to say. But letʼs pray that a deep renewal of family life, communities and culture will begin filling the void which social media has falsely promised to do — a void which may now be exposed by the incoming ban.”Lucy Marsh, a spokeswoman for the Family Education Trust — a secular research body which supports traditional family values — said that the ban has not been sufficiently “thought through.”“Children should not have unsupervised access to social media, but the government’s rushed plan to ban under-16s from using certain platforms is the wrong way to go about it,” she told EWTN News.“Rather than educating parents on how to restrict their child’s access to the internet and raising awareness about why young children should not have smartphones, the government is trying to introduce digital ID via the back door. This means using facial recognition and biometrics which involve giving even more information to tech companies. In the name of protecting children, those children will be under even more surveillance.”The government “should focus on ensuring tech companies make phones for children which cannot access social media apps, including WhatsApp, which is used by predatory adults to share pornography and groom children,” she said.

UK bishops welcome child safety but cautious on social media ban for under 16 #Catholic Catholic bishops across the United Kingdom say they need to see more legislative detail before supporting government proposals to ban social media for youth under 16. On June 15, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation, and Technology Liz Kendall announced to the House of Commons that the government "will ban social media companies providing their services to under 16s.”Kendall said that the UK would be following the same model as Australia, which was the first country in the world to ban social media for youth under 16. The UK ban is due to come into effect early next year.In an email response to EWTN News on June 17 regarding whether bishops of England and Wales support the proposed ban, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Bishops' Conference for England and Wales said: “Until the government publishes further details it’s hard to give a yes or no answer.” But Bishop John Arnold, the lead bishop for communications for the conference, “is very keen to ensure that the safety and protection of the dignity of young people online is a central concern for all,” the statement said.In a separate email to EWTN News, Bishop Arnold wrote that the “safety of children and young people in the digital world is paramount. Young people face many pressures today, which are often exacerbated by unrealistic and harmful material which they have accessed online.”“When it comes to the responsible and appropriate use of technology, the protection of children and young people is a shared responsibility among parents, schools, government and society,” he said.“I urge all people to work together to protect and place the dignity of the human person, especially children, the young and vulnerable, at the center of technological and legislative developments,” the bishop said.The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, meanwhile, said it would “prefer not to comment directly on the specific policy issue, but rather give a considered response to the noble principles behind online safety measures.” “The bishops support the introduction of any new measures which increase online safety for children and young people,” the conference said."We have a responsibility to ensure that children and young people are protected from harmful and age-inappropriate content, and from online environments that can negatively affect their wellbeing, relationships and healthy development,” the statement continued.The UK governmentʼs proposal includes banning youth usage of platforms like Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and X. They do not intend for messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal to be included in the ban.Livestreamers and strangers being able to contact children will also be restricted for those under‑16 on other online services like gaming.“Who should take responsibility?”Edwin Fawcett, a Catholic psychotherapist based in England and Wales, is also unsure about the benefits and drawbacks of the proposal.“At this point the toll taken on mental and emotional health by social media, especially for developing brains, is virtually undisputed. Who should take responsibility for young peopleʼs formation and education?” he told EWTN News. “The Churchʼs wise answer: parents. Yet in a busy, driven and fragmented society the tsunami of digital hyper-reality is almost impossible to avoid or withstand,” he said.Fawcett argued that there is “a pandemic of relational wounds and deficits in the real world” which “has set the stage for widespread mental health issues, which are being activated and worsened by addictive online behavior — behavior chosen in an attempt to anesthetize the same wounds.”He continued: “Whether the ban is designed to support the rights and responsibilities of the family is hard to say. But letʼs pray that a deep renewal of family life, communities and culture will begin filling the void which social media has falsely promised to do — a void which may now be exposed by the incoming ban.”Lucy Marsh, a spokeswoman for the Family Education Trust — a secular research body which supports traditional family values — said that the ban has not been sufficiently “thought through.”“Children should not have unsupervised access to social media, but the government’s rushed plan to ban under-16s from using certain platforms is the wrong way to go about it,” she told EWTN News.“Rather than educating parents on how to restrict their child’s access to the internet and raising awareness about why young children should not have smartphones, the government is trying to introduce digital ID via the back door. This means using facial recognition and biometrics which involve giving even more information to tech companies. In the name of protecting children, those children will be under even more surveillance.”The government “should focus on ensuring tech companies make phones for children which cannot access social media apps, including WhatsApp, which is used by predatory adults to share pornography and groom children,” she said.

unitedyam June 23, 2026June 23, 2026

Bishops across the UK and other Catholic leaders say they want more information before endorsing a proposal to ban social media for youth under 16.

Malta pro-life campaign challenges 6 parties on abortion, euthanasia #Catholic Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela called a surprise general election for May 30, announcing the vote nine months before his Labour Partyʼs five-year term was scheduled to end. Citing geopolitical turmoil, particularly the war in Iran and volatile oil prices affecting Maltaʼs energy costs, Abela framed the early election as necessary to provide “stability” at a critical moment.The timing is politically advantageous. Abelaʼs Labour government holds a comfortable parliamentary majority, and opinion polls hint the party is on track to win a record fourth consecutive term.Yet the election has forced an uncomfortable conversation about abortion, a topic observers note that Maltese politicians often keep deliberately vague.A country deeply divided on abortionSince Maltaʼs constitution explicitly names Catholicism as the state religion, the nationʼs legal framework reflects that foundation by having a near-total prohibition on abortion. In line with Church teaching, treatment for ectopic pregnancies is permitted.Critics have often labeled the nation as having the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe and regularly called for more abortion rights. As external pressure for liberalization continues to mount, there is also deep internal division between younger, more urban voters who support some abortion access and a significant portion of the electorate that opposes it on moral or religious grounds.Some note that this tension has made abortion a political minefield. Rather than clearly stating whether they are “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” Maltese politicians allegedly employ careful ambiguity. They frame positions using broader language centered on “womenʼs health,” “medical emergencies,” “human rights,” or “legal clarity.” The use of such technical language allows them to address sensitive cases without explicitly endorsing wider abortion access.Pro-life advocates demand clarityAhead of the May 30 election, one of Maltaʼs largest and most prolific pro-life groups, the Life Network Foundation, issued a direct question to all political parties.It demanded that each of Maltaʼs six major political parties participating in the elections clearly state whether they will support changes to Maltese law that would introduce abortion and voluntary assisted euthanasia in the next legislature. The foundation asked for a simple yes-or-no answer.Notably, the Labour government has already broken ranks on one issue. On May 15, it pledged to hold a referendum on voluntary assisted euthanasia if reelected but remained silent on abortion.As of May 22, four of the six parties had responded to the Life Network Foundationʼs questionnaire. The foundation has pledged to publish all responses or publicly note which parties refused to answer.By asking for a direct answer on pro-life issues, it gives Maltaʼs political factions no room to avoid stating their values directly to voters on these key issues. It also allows for more accountability and transparency in the political arena ahead of elections.Pro-abortion encroachmentGiven Maltaʼs strong anti-abortion history and stance, there has been increased activity by pro-abortion organizations to slowly increase abortion rights in the country. Most notably, Women on Waves, a Dutch pro-abortion organization, announced in mid-April that it had installed approximately 15 abortion lock safes around Malta.Each safe contains one mifepristone pill and four misoprostol pills, collectively making up the chemical abortion pill regimen. Women interested in accessing abortion would email the organization, which would provide the location of the abortion safes and the code to unlock the safe.In response to this, the National Council of Women Malta called for legal action into the placement of these abortion pill safes. “Any initiative which appears to facilitate access to abortion pills in Malta raises serious concerns about respect for the law, public safety, the protection of vulnerable women, and the protection of unborn life,” the council stated, requesting authorities investigate the placement of these safes.Questions were also raised about the verification aspects of obtaining these abortion pills and what medical safeguards were in place to ensure they did not fall into the wrong hands. In response, Rebecca Gomperts, the founder of Women on Waves, noted that her organization was simply fulfilling an “unmet demand.”Women on Waves has operated in Malta since 2007. It gained notoriety and visibility in recent years through high-profile campaigns, including at the Malta Maritime Museum, featuring pro-abortion art. The organization has faced backlash in Spain and Poland from citizens and municipalities alike, but its Malta operation is particularly provocative given the countryʼs near-total prohibition on abortion.

unitedyam May 22, 2026May 22, 2026

A leading pro-life nongovernmental organization is asking Malta’s six political parties to declare publicly — yes or no — whether they would back abortion or euthanasia laws ahead of the May 30 vote.