Federal

Health spending bill would keep ban on tax-funded abortion #Catholic 
 
 An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA).
A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”

Health spending bill would keep ban on tax-funded abortion #Catholic An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA). A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”


An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA).

A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.

The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.

Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.

Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”

“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.

Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.

In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.

The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.

In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”

“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”

Read More
Pro-life movement has mixed reaction after Trump’s first year of second term #Catholic 
 
 Participants in a pro-life rally hold signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2023, at a rally marking the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. | Credit: Joseph Portolano/EWTN News

Jan 20, 2026 / 14:37 pm (CNA).
Members of the pro-life movement have mixed thoughts on the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, noting many wins early into his presidency but a number of shortfalls as time has gone by.Some wins include defunding Planned Parenthood, walking back some of President Joe Biden’s initiatives, and removing foreign aid funding for organizations that promote abortion. However, a lack of action on chemical abortions and weakened rhetoric surrounding taxpayer-funded abortions are causing concern.A notable pro-life win was included in the tax overhaul bill signed by Trump in July, which cut off all Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide a large number of abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.Amid funding cuts, nearly 70 Planned Parenthood affiliates shut down. The administration also initially cut off Title X family planning grants from the abortion giant, but those have resumed.The president pardoned pro-life protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and blocked foreign aid from supporting organizations that promote abortion. He rescinded several policies from the Biden administration, including one that paid Pentagon workers to travel for abortions. He also established strong conscience protections for pro-life doctors.“Right out the gate, we saw some progress on the pro-life issue,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), told EWTN.Yet, she cautioned: “We have also not seen progress in the one area that matters the most — and that’s on abortion drugs.”Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a study into the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone in September 2025, but so far no action has been taken to curtail the drug. Rather, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went in the opposite direction, approving a generic version of mifepristone later that same month.Pritchard said that move was “the opposite of what they should have done,” and referred to the generic mifepristone as “a new kill pill to increase the number of abortions that are done in this country.”She said Kennedy’s promised study has “absolutely been moving too slow” and added that there is no confirmation it even began or is taking place. SBA called for FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired following allegations he was “slow-walking the report for political reasons,” she said.Trump has said abortion should be regulated by the states, but Pritchard warned “those [pro-life] laws can’t be in effect at all, really, when mail-order abortion happens with the abortion drugs.”“They’re allowing [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom and [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul and their blue state friends to completely nullify the pro-life laws in states like Texas and Florida,” she said.Joseph Meaney, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly said “the delay in the promised review of the rushed process in which mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug by the FDA has frustrated pro-lifers.”“When the FDA approved a second generic version of mifepristone, … it highlighted the lack of progress in fighting the leading means of doing abortions in the [United States],” he said.Trump also began to waver on taxpayer-funded abortions early in 2026, asking Republicans to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment amid negotiations on extending health care subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Trump later unveiled “The Great Healthcare Plan” and said the White House intends to negotiate with Congress to ensure pro-life protections.Pritchard called taxpayer-funded abortion “a very basic red line” and said it’s “concerning to see Republicans back away from something so basic.”She warned Republicans to not take pro-life voters for granted in the upcoming midterms, saying “you’ll lose the elections and we won’t have the majority of Congress” without pro-life voters.“You must remain the pro-life party or you will lose the midterms if you decide to bow to the pro-death Democrat agenda,” Pritchard said.Meaney said there is “a widespread feeling that the second Trump administration has seemed to deprioritize issues important to the pro-life community,” adding he has “seen calls for pro-life groups to ‘flex their muscles’ and show that they cannot be taken for granted.”However, he said the shortfalls “should not obscure the fact that the Trump administration has rolled back the Biden-era pro-abortion measures internationally and domestically.”“It even achieved a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood domestically in legislation,” he said. “The federal government no longer funds research on fetal tissues and defends the conscience rights of health care professionals and others robustly.”Trump also signed an executive order that directed departments and agencies to boost access to and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church opposes IVF, which results in the destruction of human embryos, ending human lives.

Pro-life movement has mixed reaction after Trump’s first year of second term #Catholic Participants in a pro-life rally hold signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2023, at a rally marking the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. | Credit: Joseph Portolano/EWTN News Jan 20, 2026 / 14:37 pm (CNA). Members of the pro-life movement have mixed thoughts on the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, noting many wins early into his presidency but a number of shortfalls as time has gone by.Some wins include defunding Planned Parenthood, walking back some of President Joe Biden’s initiatives, and removing foreign aid funding for organizations that promote abortion. However, a lack of action on chemical abortions and weakened rhetoric surrounding taxpayer-funded abortions are causing concern.A notable pro-life win was included in the tax overhaul bill signed by Trump in July, which cut off all Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide a large number of abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.Amid funding cuts, nearly 70 Planned Parenthood affiliates shut down. The administration also initially cut off Title X family planning grants from the abortion giant, but those have resumed.The president pardoned pro-life protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and blocked foreign aid from supporting organizations that promote abortion. He rescinded several policies from the Biden administration, including one that paid Pentagon workers to travel for abortions. He also established strong conscience protections for pro-life doctors.“Right out the gate, we saw some progress on the pro-life issue,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), told EWTN.Yet, she cautioned: “We have also not seen progress in the one area that matters the most — and that’s on abortion drugs.”Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a study into the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone in September 2025, but so far no action has been taken to curtail the drug. Rather, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went in the opposite direction, approving a generic version of mifepristone later that same month.Pritchard said that move was “the opposite of what they should have done,” and referred to the generic mifepristone as “a new kill pill to increase the number of abortions that are done in this country.”She said Kennedy’s promised study has “absolutely been moving too slow” and added that there is no confirmation it even began or is taking place. SBA called for FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired following allegations he was “slow-walking the report for political reasons,” she said.Trump has said abortion should be regulated by the states, but Pritchard warned “those [pro-life] laws can’t be in effect at all, really, when mail-order abortion happens with the abortion drugs.”“They’re allowing [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom and [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul and their blue state friends to completely nullify the pro-life laws in states like Texas and Florida,” she said.Joseph Meaney, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly said “the delay in the promised review of the rushed process in which mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug by the FDA has frustrated pro-lifers.”“When the FDA approved a second generic version of mifepristone, … it highlighted the lack of progress in fighting the leading means of doing abortions in the [United States],” he said.Trump also began to waver on taxpayer-funded abortions early in 2026, asking Republicans to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment amid negotiations on extending health care subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Trump later unveiled “The Great Healthcare Plan” and said the White House intends to negotiate with Congress to ensure pro-life protections.Pritchard called taxpayer-funded abortion “a very basic red line” and said it’s “concerning to see Republicans back away from something so basic.”She warned Republicans to not take pro-life voters for granted in the upcoming midterms, saying “you’ll lose the elections and we won’t have the majority of Congress” without pro-life voters.“You must remain the pro-life party or you will lose the midterms if you decide to bow to the pro-death Democrat agenda,” Pritchard said.Meaney said there is “a widespread feeling that the second Trump administration has seemed to deprioritize issues important to the pro-life community,” adding he has “seen calls for pro-life groups to ‘flex their muscles’ and show that they cannot be taken for granted.”However, he said the shortfalls “should not obscure the fact that the Trump administration has rolled back the Biden-era pro-abortion measures internationally and domestically.”“It even achieved a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood domestically in legislation,” he said. “The federal government no longer funds research on fetal tissues and defends the conscience rights of health care professionals and others robustly.”Trump also signed an executive order that directed departments and agencies to boost access to and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church opposes IVF, which results in the destruction of human embryos, ending human lives.


Participants in a pro-life rally hold signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2023, at a rally marking the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. | Credit: Joseph Portolano/EWTN News

Jan 20, 2026 / 14:37 pm (CNA).

Members of the pro-life movement have mixed thoughts on the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, noting many wins early into his presidency but a number of shortfalls as time has gone by.

Some wins include defunding Planned Parenthood, walking back some of President Joe Biden’s initiatives, and removing foreign aid funding for organizations that promote abortion. However, a lack of action on chemical abortions and weakened rhetoric surrounding taxpayer-funded abortions are causing concern.

A notable pro-life win was included in the tax overhaul bill signed by Trump in July, which cut off all Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide a large number of abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.

Amid funding cuts, nearly 70 Planned Parenthood affiliates shut down. The administration also initially cut off Title X family planning grants from the abortion giant, but those have resumed.

The president pardoned pro-life protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and blocked foreign aid from supporting organizations that promote abortion. He rescinded several policies from the Biden administration, including one that paid Pentagon workers to travel for abortions. He also established strong conscience protections for pro-life doctors.

“Right out the gate, we saw some progress on the pro-life issue,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), told EWTN.

Yet, she cautioned: “We have also not seen progress in the one area that matters the most — and that’s on abortion drugs.”

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a study into the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone in September 2025, but so far no action has been taken to curtail the drug. Rather, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went in the opposite direction, approving a generic version of mifepristone later that same month.

Pritchard said that move was “the opposite of what they should have done,” and referred to the generic mifepristone as “a new kill pill to increase the number of abortions that are done in this country.”

She said Kennedy’s promised study has “absolutely been moving too slow” and added that there is no confirmation it even began or is taking place. SBA called for FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired following allegations he was “slow-walking the report for political reasons,” she said.

Trump has said abortion should be regulated by the states, but Pritchard warned “those [pro-life] laws can’t be in effect at all, really, when mail-order abortion happens with the abortion drugs.”

“They’re allowing [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom and [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul and their blue state friends to completely nullify the pro-life laws in states like Texas and Florida,” she said.

Joseph Meaney, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly said “the delay in the promised review of the rushed process in which mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug by the FDA has frustrated pro-lifers.”

“When the FDA approved a second generic version of mifepristone, … it highlighted the lack of progress in fighting the leading means of doing abortions in the [United States],” he said.

Trump also began to waver on taxpayer-funded abortions early in 2026, asking Republicans to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment amid negotiations on extending health care subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Trump later unveiled “The Great Healthcare Plan” and said the White House intends to negotiate with Congress to ensure pro-life protections.

Pritchard called taxpayer-funded abortion “a very basic red line” and said it’s “concerning to see Republicans back away from something so basic.”

She warned Republicans to not take pro-life voters for granted in the upcoming midterms, saying “you’ll lose the elections and we won’t have the majority of Congress” without pro-life voters.

“You must remain the pro-life party or you will lose the midterms if you decide to bow to the pro-death Democrat agenda,” Pritchard said.

Meaney said there is “a widespread feeling that the second Trump administration has seemed to deprioritize issues important to the pro-life community,” adding he has “seen calls for pro-life groups to ‘flex their muscles’ and show that they cannot be taken for granted.”

However, he said the shortfalls “should not obscure the fact that the Trump administration has rolled back the Biden-era pro-abortion measures internationally and domestically.”

“It even achieved a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood domestically in legislation,” he said. “The federal government no longer funds research on fetal tissues and defends the conscience rights of health care professionals and others robustly.”

Trump also signed an executive order that directed departments and agencies to boost access to and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church opposes IVF, which results in the destruction of human embryos, ending human lives.

Read More
Catholics express mixed views on first year of Trump’s second term #Catholic 
 
 With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson by his side, President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. | Credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Jan 20, 2026 / 12:21 pm (CNA).
Catholics are offering mixed reactions to the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, which included domestic policy actions that align with U.S. bishops on gender-related issues, and also tensions over immigration, expansion of the death penalty, and reduced funding for organizations that provide food and basic support to people in need.Trump secured his electoral victory in 2024 with the help of Catholics, who supported him by a double-digit margin, according to exit polls. A Pew Research Center report found that nearly a quarter of Trump’s voters in 2024 were Catholic.Throughout his first year, Trump — who calls himself a nondenominational Christian — has invoked Christianity and created a White House Faith Office. He created a Religious Liberty Commission by executive order in May 2025 and became the first president to issue a proclamation honoring the Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception in December.Last year, the president also launched the “America Prays” initiative, which encouraged people to dedicate one hour of prayer for the United States and its people in preparation for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026.Immigration, poverty, and NGOsJohn White, professor of politics at The Catholic University of America, said the first year of Trump’s second term “challenged Catholics on many levels.”“The brutality of ICE has caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to issue an extraordinary statement at the prompting of Pope Leo XIV,” White said, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a special message in November opposing indiscriminate mass deportations, calling for humane treatment, urging meaningful reform, and affirming the compatibility of national security with human dignity.The Trump administration, with JD Vance, the second Catholic vice president in U.S. history, cut billions of dollars in funding to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which financially damaged several Catholic nonprofits that had received funding. Trump also signed into law historic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.“The cuts to NGO funding, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits, alongside the huge increases in health care costs, have hurt the poor and middle class at home and around the world,” he said. “Instead of being the good Samaritan, Trump has challenged our Catholic values and narrowed our vision of who we are and what we believe. JD Vance’s interpretation of ‘Ordo Amoris’ of a hierarchy to those whom we love rather than a universal love is a case in point and has been repudiated by Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV,” he said.The cuts aligned federal policy with the administration’s agenda, which included strict immigration enforcement, mass deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally, and less foreign aid support.Catholic Charities USA was previously receiving more than $100 million annually for migrant services, and the Trump administration cut off those funds. In response, the organization scaled back its services.Since Trump took office, the administration said it has deported more than 600,000 people.Karen Sullivan, director of advocacy for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), which provides legal services to migrants, said she is “very concerned about the way that immigration enforcement has been carried out,” adding her organization is “very concerned that human dignity of all persons [needs to] be respected.”Sullivan said the administration is “enabling their officers to use excessive force as they are taking people into custody” and “denying access to oversight at their detention centers.” She also expressed concern about the administration increasing fees for asylum applications and giving agents more leeway to conduct immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.She said the large number of deportations and the increase in expedited removals has “been a strain” on organizations that seek to provide legal help to migrants.CLINIC receives inquiries from people who are facing deportation and also those who fear they may be deported. She said: “The worry and the fear among those people [who may face deportation] makes them seek out assistance and advice even more often.”“The pace of the changes that have been happening in the past year have been very difficult to manage,” she said. “We are having to respond very quickly to changes."Executive actions on genderSusan Hanssen, a history professor at the University of Dallas (a Catholic institution), viewed the first year of Trump’s second term in mostly successful terms.“As Catholics we know that the law educates, and during Trump’s first year in office we witnessed an actual shift in public opinion on the LGBT/transgender ideology due to his asserting the scientific and natural common sense that there are only male and female,” Hanssen said.Trump took executive action to prohibit what he called the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children, such as hormone therapy and surgical transition. He signed a policy restricting participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He legally recognized only two genders, determined by biology: male and female.“His strong executive action on this essential point — domestically in making the executive branch remove its trans-affirming language, the executive department of education stop subverting parental rights over their children, and women’s rights in sports, and (importantly) putting an end to USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] pushing this gender agenda on the countries who need our economic assistance,” she said.“This has led to a genuine public shift, with fewer independent corporations choosing to enforce June as LGBT Pride month on their customer base, fewer DEI programs pushing the gender agenda on hiring, and a shift (especially among young men) towards disapproval of gender transitioning children and even towards disapproval of the legalization of so-called same sex ‘marriage,’” she added. “We will need to see how these executive branch victories will affect judicial and legislative action moving forward.”Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, had a similar view of some of the social changes.“The current administration has focused significant energy on the important task of ‘putting folks on notice,’ so it’s hard to deny, for example, that the misguided medico-pharmaceutical industry that has profited handsomely from exploiting vulnerable youth and other gender dysphoric individuals can no longer miss the loud indicators that these practices will not be able to continue unabated,” he said.Death penaltyTrump signaled a renewed and more aggressive federal capital-punishment policy in 2025, in opposition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office directing the Justice Department to actively pursue the federal death penalty for serious crimes. He also directed federal prosecutors to seek death sentences in Washington, D.C., homicide cases. His administration lifted a moratorium on executions, reversing a pause in federal executions and following President Joe Biden’s commutations of federal death sentences.Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, then-president of the USCCB, in a Jan. 22, 2025, statement called Trump’s support for expanding the federal death penalty “deeply troubling.” Newly elected USCCB president Archbishop Paul Coakley likewise called for the abolition of the death penalty.

Catholics express mixed views on first year of Trump’s second term #Catholic With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson by his side, President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. | Credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images Jan 20, 2026 / 12:21 pm (CNA). Catholics are offering mixed reactions to the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, which included domestic policy actions that align with U.S. bishops on gender-related issues, and also tensions over immigration, expansion of the death penalty, and reduced funding for organizations that provide food and basic support to people in need.Trump secured his electoral victory in 2024 with the help of Catholics, who supported him by a double-digit margin, according to exit polls. A Pew Research Center report found that nearly a quarter of Trump’s voters in 2024 were Catholic.Throughout his first year, Trump — who calls himself a nondenominational Christian — has invoked Christianity and created a White House Faith Office. He created a Religious Liberty Commission by executive order in May 2025 and became the first president to issue a proclamation honoring the Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception in December.Last year, the president also launched the “America Prays” initiative, which encouraged people to dedicate one hour of prayer for the United States and its people in preparation for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026.Immigration, poverty, and NGOsJohn White, professor of politics at The Catholic University of America, said the first year of Trump’s second term “challenged Catholics on many levels.”“The brutality of ICE has caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to issue an extraordinary statement at the prompting of Pope Leo XIV,” White said, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a special message in November opposing indiscriminate mass deportations, calling for humane treatment, urging meaningful reform, and affirming the compatibility of national security with human dignity.The Trump administration, with JD Vance, the second Catholic vice president in U.S. history, cut billions of dollars in funding to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which financially damaged several Catholic nonprofits that had received funding. Trump also signed into law historic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.“The cuts to NGO funding, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits, alongside the huge increases in health care costs, have hurt the poor and middle class at home and around the world,” he said. “Instead of being the good Samaritan, Trump has challenged our Catholic values and narrowed our vision of who we are and what we believe. JD Vance’s interpretation of ‘Ordo Amoris’ of a hierarchy to those whom we love rather than a universal love is a case in point and has been repudiated by Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV,” he said.The cuts aligned federal policy with the administration’s agenda, which included strict immigration enforcement, mass deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally, and less foreign aid support.Catholic Charities USA was previously receiving more than $100 million annually for migrant services, and the Trump administration cut off those funds. In response, the organization scaled back its services.Since Trump took office, the administration said it has deported more than 600,000 people.Karen Sullivan, director of advocacy for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), which provides legal services to migrants, said she is “very concerned about the way that immigration enforcement has been carried out,” adding her organization is “very concerned that human dignity of all persons [needs to] be respected.”Sullivan said the administration is “enabling their officers to use excessive force as they are taking people into custody” and “denying access to oversight at their detention centers.” She also expressed concern about the administration increasing fees for asylum applications and giving agents more leeway to conduct immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.She said the large number of deportations and the increase in expedited removals has “been a strain” on organizations that seek to provide legal help to migrants.CLINIC receives inquiries from people who are facing deportation and also those who fear they may be deported. She said: “The worry and the fear among those people [who may face deportation] makes them seek out assistance and advice even more often.”“The pace of the changes that have been happening in the past year have been very difficult to manage,” she said. “We are having to respond very quickly to changes."Executive actions on genderSusan Hanssen, a history professor at the University of Dallas (a Catholic institution), viewed the first year of Trump’s second term in mostly successful terms.“As Catholics we know that the law educates, and during Trump’s first year in office we witnessed an actual shift in public opinion on the LGBT/transgender ideology due to his asserting the scientific and natural common sense that there are only male and female,” Hanssen said.Trump took executive action to prohibit what he called the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children, such as hormone therapy and surgical transition. He signed a policy restricting participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He legally recognized only two genders, determined by biology: male and female.“His strong executive action on this essential point — domestically in making the executive branch remove its trans-affirming language, the executive department of education stop subverting parental rights over their children, and women’s rights in sports, and (importantly) putting an end to USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] pushing this gender agenda on the countries who need our economic assistance,” she said.“This has led to a genuine public shift, with fewer independent corporations choosing to enforce June as LGBT Pride month on their customer base, fewer DEI programs pushing the gender agenda on hiring, and a shift (especially among young men) towards disapproval of gender transitioning children and even towards disapproval of the legalization of so-called same sex ‘marriage,’” she added. “We will need to see how these executive branch victories will affect judicial and legislative action moving forward.”Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, had a similar view of some of the social changes.“The current administration has focused significant energy on the important task of ‘putting folks on notice,’ so it’s hard to deny, for example, that the misguided medico-pharmaceutical industry that has profited handsomely from exploiting vulnerable youth and other gender dysphoric individuals can no longer miss the loud indicators that these practices will not be able to continue unabated,” he said.Death penaltyTrump signaled a renewed and more aggressive federal capital-punishment policy in 2025, in opposition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office directing the Justice Department to actively pursue the federal death penalty for serious crimes. He also directed federal prosecutors to seek death sentences in Washington, D.C., homicide cases. His administration lifted a moratorium on executions, reversing a pause in federal executions and following President Joe Biden’s commutations of federal death sentences.Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, then-president of the USCCB, in a Jan. 22, 2025, statement called Trump’s support for expanding the federal death penalty “deeply troubling.” Newly elected USCCB president Archbishop Paul Coakley likewise called for the abolition of the death penalty.


With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson by his side, President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. | Credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Jan 20, 2026 / 12:21 pm (CNA).

Catholics are offering mixed reactions to the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, which included domestic policy actions that align with U.S. bishops on gender-related issues, and also tensions over immigration, expansion of the death penalty, and reduced funding for organizations that provide food and basic support to people in need.

Trump secured his electoral victory in 2024 with the help of Catholics, who supported him by a double-digit margin, according to exit polls. A Pew Research Center report found that nearly a quarter of Trump’s voters in 2024 were Catholic.

Throughout his first year, Trump — who calls himself a nondenominational Christian — has invoked Christianity and created a White House Faith Office. He created a Religious Liberty Commission by executive order in May 2025 and became the first president to issue a proclamation honoring the Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception in December.

Last year, the president also launched the “America Prays” initiative, which encouraged people to dedicate one hour of prayer for the United States and its people in preparation for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026.

Immigration, poverty, and NGOs

John White, professor of politics at The Catholic University of America, said the first year of Trump’s second term “challenged Catholics on many levels.”

“The brutality of ICE has caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to issue an extraordinary statement at the prompting of Pope Leo XIV,” White said, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a special message in November opposing indiscriminate mass deportations, calling for humane treatment, urging meaningful reform, and affirming the compatibility of national security with human dignity.

The Trump administration, with JD Vance, the second Catholic vice president in U.S. history, cut billions of dollars in funding to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which financially damaged several Catholic nonprofits that had received funding. Trump also signed into law historic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“The cuts to NGO funding, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits, alongside the huge increases in health care costs, have hurt the poor and middle class at home and around the world,” he said. “Instead of being the good Samaritan, Trump has challenged our Catholic values and narrowed our vision of who we are and what we believe. JD Vance’s interpretation of ‘Ordo Amoris’ of a hierarchy to those whom we love rather than a universal love is a case in point and has been repudiated by Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV,” he said.

The cuts aligned federal policy with the administration’s agenda, which included strict immigration enforcement, mass deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally, and less foreign aid support.

Catholic Charities USA was previously receiving more than $100 million annually for migrant services, and the Trump administration cut off those funds. In response, the organization scaled back its services.

Since Trump took office, the administration said it has deported more than 600,000 people.

Karen Sullivan, director of advocacy for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), which provides legal services to migrants, said she is “very concerned about the way that immigration enforcement has been carried out,” adding her organization is “very concerned that human dignity of all persons [needs to] be respected.”

Sullivan said the administration is “enabling their officers to use excessive force as they are taking people into custody” and “denying access to oversight at their detention centers.” She also expressed concern about the administration increasing fees for asylum applications and giving agents more leeway to conduct immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.

She said the large number of deportations and the increase in expedited removals has “been a strain” on organizations that seek to provide legal help to migrants.

CLINIC receives inquiries from people who are facing deportation and also those who fear they may be deported. She said: “The worry and the fear among those people [who may face deportation] makes them seek out assistance and advice even more often.”

“The pace of the changes that have been happening in the past year have been very difficult to manage,” she said. “We are having to respond very quickly to changes."

Executive actions on gender

Susan Hanssen, a history professor at the University of Dallas (a Catholic institution), viewed the first year of Trump’s second term in mostly successful terms.

“As Catholics we know that the law educates, and during Trump’s first year in office we witnessed an actual shift in public opinion on the LGBT/transgender ideology due to his asserting the scientific and natural common sense that there are only male and female,” Hanssen said.

Trump took executive action to prohibit what he called the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children, such as hormone therapy and surgical transition. He signed a policy restricting participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He legally recognized only two genders, determined by biology: male and female.

“His strong executive action on this essential point — domestically in making the executive branch remove its trans-affirming language, the executive department of education stop subverting parental rights over their children, and women’s rights in sports, and (importantly) putting an end to USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] pushing this gender agenda on the countries who need our economic assistance,” she said.

“This has led to a genuine public shift, with fewer independent corporations choosing to enforce June as LGBT Pride month on their customer base, fewer DEI programs pushing the gender agenda on hiring, and a shift (especially among young men) towards disapproval of gender transitioning children and even towards disapproval of the legalization of so-called same sex ‘marriage,’” she added. “We will need to see how these executive branch victories will affect judicial and legislative action moving forward.”

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, had a similar view of some of the social changes.

“The current administration has focused significant energy on the important task of ‘putting folks on notice,’ so it’s hard to deny, for example, that the misguided medico-pharmaceutical industry that has profited handsomely from exploiting vulnerable youth and other gender dysphoric individuals can no longer miss the loud indicators that these practices will not be able to continue unabated,” he said.

Death penalty

Trump signaled a renewed and more aggressive federal capital-punishment policy in 2025, in opposition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”

Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office directing the Justice Department to actively pursue the federal death penalty for serious crimes. He also directed federal prosecutors to seek death sentences in Washington, D.C., homicide cases. His administration lifted a moratorium on executions, reversing a pause in federal executions and following President Joe Biden’s commutations of federal death sentences.

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, then-president of the USCCB, in a Jan. 22, 2025, statement called Trump’s support for expanding the federal death penalty “deeply troubling.” Newly elected USCCB president Archbishop Paul Coakley likewise called for the abolition of the death penalty.

Read More
Catholic women discuss beauty, difficulty, redemptive nature of Church’s teachings on sexuality #Catholic 
 
 Keynote speakers at “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman” conference, held Jan. 9-10, 2026, in Houston (left to right): Erika Bachiochi, Mary Eberstadt, Angela Franks, Pia de Solenni, and Leah Sargeant. | Credit: Photo courtesy of the University of St. Thomas

Jan 18, 2026 / 10:26 am (CNA).
This past week, nearly a quarter of U.S. states sued the federal government for defining biological sex as binary, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against legally allowing males to compete against females in sports, and a Vatican official called surrogacy a “new form of colonialism” that commodifies women and their children.These are just the latest legal and cultural effects of a “mass cultural confusion” surrounding the meaning and purpose of the human body, and particularly women’s bodies, according to Leah Jacobson, program coordinator of the Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.On Jan. 9–10, the program sponsored a symposium titled “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman,” which brought together a group of Catholic women who have used their gifts of intellect and faith to serve as what Jacobson calls an “antidote” to the “chaos and confusion” of the cultural moment.The speakers presented on a wide range of topics concerned with the beauty, truth, and necessity of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, while also acknowledging how difficult living according to those teachings can sometimes be.‘Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction’In one of the first talks, writer Mary Eberstadt argued that the question “Who am I?” became harder to answer due to the widespread use of the birth control pill, which has led to huge increases in abortion, divorce, fatherlessness, single parenthood, and childlessness. “Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction,” Eberstadt said. “I’m not trying to make a point about morality, but arithmetic.”“The number of people we can call our own” became smaller, she said. While she acknowledged that not everyone has been affected equally, “members of our species share a collective environment. Just as toxic waste affects everyone," she said, the reduction in the number of human connections “amounts to a massive disturbance to the human ecosystem,” leading to a crisis of human identity.This reduction in the number of people in an individual's life, she argued, resulted in widespread confusion over gender identity and the meaning and purpose of the body.Eberstadt also attributed the decline in religiosity to the smaller number of human connections modern people have.“The sexual revolution subtracted the number of role models,” she said. “Many children have no siblings, no cousins, no aunts or uncles, no father; yet that is how humans conduct social learning.”“Without children, adults are less likely to go to church,” she said. “Without birth, we lose knowledge of the transcendent. Without an earthly father, it is hard to grasp the paradigm of a heavenly father.”‘A love deficit’“Living without God is not liberating people,” she continued. “It’s tearing some individuals apart, making people miserable and lonely.”When the sexual revolution made sex "recreational and not procreative, what it produced above all is a love deficit,” Eberstadt said.At the same time, secularization produced “troubled, disconnected souls drifting through society without gravity, shattering the ability to answer ‘Who am I?’”“The Church is the answer to the love deficit because Church teachings about who we are and what we’re here for are true,” she said.She concluded with a final note on hope, saying “it is easy to feel embattled, but we must never lose sight of the faces of the sexual revolution’s victims,” she said, “who are sending up primal screams for a world more ordered than many of today’s people now know; more ordered to mercy, to community and redemption.”The Church’s teachings were ’truly beautiful’ but 'very, very hard to live'Erika Bachiochi, a legal scholar and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who has taught a class for the graduate program, shared her experience as a mother of seven who tried to live according to the Church’s “difficult” teachings.As her children began to arrive at “a breakneck pace” and each pregnancy was “a bit of a crucible,” Bachiochi said being a mother was “very hard” for her, partly due to wounds from her youth (among other troubles, her own mother had been married and divorced three times), and partly because of a lack of community. Echoing Eberstadt’s “arithmetic” problem, Bachiochi described having very few examples of Catholic family life and a very small support system.Bachiochi said she believes God heals us from our wounds through our “particular vocations,” however.Of motherhood, she said: “I think God really healed me through being faithful to teachings that I found quite hard, but truly beautiful. I was intellectually convinced by them and found them spiritually beautiful, but found them to be very, very hard to live.” “Motherhood has served to heal me profoundly," she said, encouraging young mothers to have faith that though it might be difficult now, there is an “amazing future” awaiting them. “It’s really an incredible gift that Church has given me … the gift of obedience,” she said. She also said by God’s grace, she was given an “excellent husband” and has found that “just as the Church promises, that leaning into motherhood, into the little things, the daily needs, the constant requests for my attention, has truly been a school of virtue.” The Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program is a new part of the Nesti Center for Faith and Culture at the University of St. Thomas, a recognized Catholic cultural center of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education.

Catholic women discuss beauty, difficulty, redemptive nature of Church’s teachings on sexuality #Catholic Keynote speakers at “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman” conference, held Jan. 9-10, 2026, in Houston (left to right): Erika Bachiochi, Mary Eberstadt, Angela Franks, Pia de Solenni, and Leah Sargeant. | Credit: Photo courtesy of the University of St. Thomas Jan 18, 2026 / 10:26 am (CNA). This past week, nearly a quarter of U.S. states sued the federal government for defining biological sex as binary, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against legally allowing males to compete against females in sports, and a Vatican official called surrogacy a “new form of colonialism” that commodifies women and their children.These are just the latest legal and cultural effects of a “mass cultural confusion” surrounding the meaning and purpose of the human body, and particularly women’s bodies, according to Leah Jacobson, program coordinator of the Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.On Jan. 9–10, the program sponsored a symposium titled “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman,” which brought together a group of Catholic women who have used their gifts of intellect and faith to serve as what Jacobson calls an “antidote” to the “chaos and confusion” of the cultural moment.The speakers presented on a wide range of topics concerned with the beauty, truth, and necessity of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, while also acknowledging how difficult living according to those teachings can sometimes be.‘Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction’In one of the first talks, writer Mary Eberstadt argued that the question “Who am I?” became harder to answer due to the widespread use of the birth control pill, which has led to huge increases in abortion, divorce, fatherlessness, single parenthood, and childlessness. “Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction,” Eberstadt said. “I’m not trying to make a point about morality, but arithmetic.”“The number of people we can call our own” became smaller, she said. While she acknowledged that not everyone has been affected equally, “members of our species share a collective environment. Just as toxic waste affects everyone," she said, the reduction in the number of human connections “amounts to a massive disturbance to the human ecosystem,” leading to a crisis of human identity.This reduction in the number of people in an individual's life, she argued, resulted in widespread confusion over gender identity and the meaning and purpose of the body.Eberstadt also attributed the decline in religiosity to the smaller number of human connections modern people have.“The sexual revolution subtracted the number of role models,” she said. “Many children have no siblings, no cousins, no aunts or uncles, no father; yet that is how humans conduct social learning.”“Without children, adults are less likely to go to church,” she said. “Without birth, we lose knowledge of the transcendent. Without an earthly father, it is hard to grasp the paradigm of a heavenly father.”‘A love deficit’“Living without God is not liberating people,” she continued. “It’s tearing some individuals apart, making people miserable and lonely.”When the sexual revolution made sex "recreational and not procreative, what it produced above all is a love deficit,” Eberstadt said.At the same time, secularization produced “troubled, disconnected souls drifting through society without gravity, shattering the ability to answer ‘Who am I?’”“The Church is the answer to the love deficit because Church teachings about who we are and what we’re here for are true,” she said.She concluded with a final note on hope, saying “it is easy to feel embattled, but we must never lose sight of the faces of the sexual revolution’s victims,” she said, “who are sending up primal screams for a world more ordered than many of today’s people now know; more ordered to mercy, to community and redemption.”The Church’s teachings were ’truly beautiful’ but 'very, very hard to live'Erika Bachiochi, a legal scholar and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who has taught a class for the graduate program, shared her experience as a mother of seven who tried to live according to the Church’s “difficult” teachings.As her children began to arrive at “a breakneck pace” and each pregnancy was “a bit of a crucible,” Bachiochi said being a mother was “very hard” for her, partly due to wounds from her youth (among other troubles, her own mother had been married and divorced three times), and partly because of a lack of community. Echoing Eberstadt’s “arithmetic” problem, Bachiochi described having very few examples of Catholic family life and a very small support system.Bachiochi said she believes God heals us from our wounds through our “particular vocations,” however.Of motherhood, she said: “I think God really healed me through being faithful to teachings that I found quite hard, but truly beautiful. I was intellectually convinced by them and found them spiritually beautiful, but found them to be very, very hard to live.” “Motherhood has served to heal me profoundly," she said, encouraging young mothers to have faith that though it might be difficult now, there is an “amazing future” awaiting them. “It’s really an incredible gift that Church has given me … the gift of obedience,” she said. She also said by God’s grace, she was given an “excellent husband” and has found that “just as the Church promises, that leaning into motherhood, into the little things, the daily needs, the constant requests for my attention, has truly been a school of virtue.” The Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program is a new part of the Nesti Center for Faith and Culture at the University of St. Thomas, a recognized Catholic cultural center of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education.


Keynote speakers at “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman” conference, held Jan. 9-10, 2026, in Houston (left to right): Erika Bachiochi, Mary Eberstadt, Angela Franks, Pia de Solenni, and Leah Sargeant. | Credit: Photo courtesy of the University of St. Thomas

Jan 18, 2026 / 10:26 am (CNA).

This past week, nearly a quarter of U.S. states sued the federal government for defining biological sex as binary, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against legally allowing males to compete against females in sports, and a Vatican official called surrogacy a “new form of colonialism” that commodifies women and their children.

These are just the latest legal and cultural effects of a “mass cultural confusion” surrounding the meaning and purpose of the human body, and particularly women’s bodies, according to Leah Jacobson, program coordinator of the Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.

On Jan. 9–10, the program sponsored a symposium titled “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman,” which brought together a group of Catholic women who have used their gifts of intellect and faith to serve as what Jacobson calls an “antidote” to the “chaos and confusion” of the cultural moment.

The speakers presented on a wide range of topics concerned with the beauty, truth, and necessity of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, while also acknowledging how difficult living according to those teachings can sometimes be.

‘Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction’

In one of the first talks, writer Mary Eberstadt argued that the question “Who am I?” became harder to answer due to the widespread use of the birth control pill, which has led to huge increases in abortion, divorce, fatherlessness, single parenthood, and childlessness.

“Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction,” Eberstadt said. “I’m not trying to make a point about morality, but arithmetic.”

“The number of people we can call our own” became smaller, she said.

While she acknowledged that not everyone has been affected equally, “members of our species share a collective environment. Just as toxic waste affects everyone," she said, the reduction in the number of human connections “amounts to a massive disturbance to the human ecosystem,” leading to a crisis of human identity.

This reduction in the number of people in an individual's life, she argued, resulted in widespread confusion over gender identity and the meaning and purpose of the body.

Eberstadt also attributed the decline in religiosity to the smaller number of human connections modern people have.

“The sexual revolution subtracted the number of role models,” she said. “Many children have no siblings, no cousins, no aunts or uncles, no father; yet that is how humans conduct social learning.”

“Without children, adults are less likely to go to church,” she said. “Without birth, we lose knowledge of the transcendent. Without an earthly father, it is hard to grasp the paradigm of a heavenly father.”

‘A love deficit’

“Living without God is not liberating people,” she continued. “It’s tearing some individuals apart, making people miserable and lonely.”

When the sexual revolution made sex "recreational and not procreative, what it produced above all is a love deficit,” Eberstadt said.

At the same time, secularization produced “troubled, disconnected souls drifting through society without gravity, shattering the ability to answer ‘Who am I?’”

“The Church is the answer to the love deficit because Church teachings about who we are and what we’re here for are true,” she said.

She concluded with a final note on hope, saying “it is easy to feel embattled, but we must never lose sight of the faces of the sexual revolution’s victims,” she said, “who are sending up primal screams for a world more ordered than many of today’s people now know; more ordered to mercy, to community and redemption.”

The Church’s teachings were ’truly beautiful’ but 'very, very hard to live'

Erika Bachiochi, a legal scholar and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who has taught a class for the graduate program, shared her experience as a mother of seven who tried to live according to the Church’s “difficult” teachings.

As her children began to arrive at “a breakneck pace” and each pregnancy was “a bit of a crucible,” Bachiochi said being a mother was “very hard” for her, partly due to wounds from her youth (among other troubles, her own mother had been married and divorced three times), and partly because of a lack of community.

Echoing Eberstadt’s “arithmetic” problem, Bachiochi described having very few examples of Catholic family life and a very small support system.

Bachiochi said she believes God heals us from our wounds through our “particular vocations,” however.

Of motherhood, she said: “I think God really healed me through being faithful to teachings that I found quite hard, but truly beautiful. I was intellectually convinced by them and found them spiritually beautiful, but found them to be very, very hard to live.”

“Motherhood has served to heal me profoundly," she said, encouraging young mothers to have faith that though it might be difficult now, there is an “amazing future” awaiting them.

“It’s really an incredible gift that Church has given me … the gift of obedience,” she said.

She also said by God’s grace, she was given an “excellent husband” and has found that “just as the Church promises, that leaning into motherhood, into the little things, the daily needs, the constant requests for my attention, has truly been a school of virtue.”

The Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program is a new part of the Nesti Center for Faith and Culture at the University of St. Thomas, a recognized Catholic cultural center of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education.

Read More
House Republican budget plan would permanently defund Planned Parenthood #Catholic 
 
 Republicans say they are crafting a bill to permanently defund Planned Parenthood Jan. 13, 2026. | Credit: usarmyband, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Jan 14, 2026 / 16:19 pm (CNA).
House Republican lawmakers unveiled a framework that outlines their budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, which includes permanently defunding large abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.The Republican Study Committee, which is the largest Republican-aligned caucus in the House, published the framework on Jan. 13. The document is a starting point for crafting the budget but does not include any of the specific language that will ultimately be included in the bill.According to the framework, House Republican leaders intend to “extend and make permanent” the temporary freeze on federal funds for abortion providers, which was included in the tax overhaul that President Donald Trump signed into law last July.That bill included a one-year freeze on Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide abortions on a large scale. Although existing law had already blocked direct taxpayer funds for elective abortions, the change in law expanded the ban to include non-abortive services that are offered by organizations that perform abortions on a large scale.If that provision is not extended or made permanent in the next fiscal year, Planned Parenthood would again be eligible for Medicaid reimbursements for its non-abortive services.Many Republicans had initially hoped to implement a more long-term freeze on reimbursements for Planned Parenthood in last year’s bill, but that effort failed. The original House proposal last year planned a 10-year freeze, but it was reduced to only one year following negotiations and compromise.A spokesperson for National Right to Life said the organization is “excited” by the framework, adding that “this proposal would benefit countless American families while also protecting unborn Americans by extending the current defunding of major abortion providers.”“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize abortion providers, and we are encouraged to see this principle reflected in the reconciliation framework,” the spokesperson said.The ongoing one-year freeze already had a major impact on Planned Parenthood. Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood facilities  closed last year, caused in part by the revenue stemming from those provisions in the tax overhaul.Republicans hold a narrow five-seat majority in the House and a six-seat majority in the Senate, which means a small number of Republicans defecting could ultimately sink certain provisions.The framework for the budget proposal also suggests an extension on the long-standing ban on direct federal funding for elective abortions, which has been included in federal budgets since 1976.It also extends a ban on funds for “gender transition/mutilation procedures,” which was included in the tax overhaul.According to the framework, both of these rules would apply to Medicaid reimbursements and tax credits provided through the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. According to the Republican Study Committee, the rules would save taxpayers about .9 billion in federal spending costs.The framework for the budget priorities comes about one week after President Donald Trump asked Republicans to be “flexible” on language related to taxpayer-funded abortion in relation to negotiations surrounding extensions to health care subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.Trump’s comments prompted criticism from some pro-life leaders, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.In an Oval Office press conference Jan. 14, Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said they didn’t know anything about HHS funds being released to Planned Parenthood in December.

House Republican budget plan would permanently defund Planned Parenthood #Catholic Republicans say they are crafting a bill to permanently defund Planned Parenthood Jan. 13, 2026. | Credit: usarmyband, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons Jan 14, 2026 / 16:19 pm (CNA). House Republican lawmakers unveiled a framework that outlines their budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, which includes permanently defunding large abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.The Republican Study Committee, which is the largest Republican-aligned caucus in the House, published the framework on Jan. 13. The document is a starting point for crafting the budget but does not include any of the specific language that will ultimately be included in the bill.According to the framework, House Republican leaders intend to “extend and make permanent” the temporary freeze on federal funds for abortion providers, which was included in the tax overhaul that President Donald Trump signed into law last July.That bill included a one-year freeze on Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide abortions on a large scale. Although existing law had already blocked direct taxpayer funds for elective abortions, the change in law expanded the ban to include non-abortive services that are offered by organizations that perform abortions on a large scale.If that provision is not extended or made permanent in the next fiscal year, Planned Parenthood would again be eligible for Medicaid reimbursements for its non-abortive services.Many Republicans had initially hoped to implement a more long-term freeze on reimbursements for Planned Parenthood in last year’s bill, but that effort failed. The original House proposal last year planned a 10-year freeze, but it was reduced to only one year following negotiations and compromise.A spokesperson for National Right to Life said the organization is “excited” by the framework, adding that “this proposal would benefit countless American families while also protecting unborn Americans by extending the current defunding of major abortion providers.”“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize abortion providers, and we are encouraged to see this principle reflected in the reconciliation framework,” the spokesperson said.The ongoing one-year freeze already had a major impact on Planned Parenthood. Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood facilities closed last year, caused in part by the revenue stemming from those provisions in the tax overhaul.Republicans hold a narrow five-seat majority in the House and a six-seat majority in the Senate, which means a small number of Republicans defecting could ultimately sink certain provisions.The framework for the budget proposal also suggests an extension on the long-standing ban on direct federal funding for elective abortions, which has been included in federal budgets since 1976.It also extends a ban on funds for “gender transition/mutilation procedures,” which was included in the tax overhaul.According to the framework, both of these rules would apply to Medicaid reimbursements and tax credits provided through the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. According to the Republican Study Committee, the rules would save taxpayers about $2.9 billion in federal spending costs.The framework for the budget priorities comes about one week after President Donald Trump asked Republicans to be “flexible” on language related to taxpayer-funded abortion in relation to negotiations surrounding extensions to health care subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.Trump’s comments prompted criticism from some pro-life leaders, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.In an Oval Office press conference Jan. 14, Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said they didn’t know anything about HHS funds being released to Planned Parenthood in December.


Republicans say they are crafting a bill to permanently defund Planned Parenthood Jan. 13, 2026. | Credit: usarmyband, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Jan 14, 2026 / 16:19 pm (CNA).

House Republican lawmakers unveiled a framework that outlines their budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, which includes permanently defunding large abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

The Republican Study Committee, which is the largest Republican-aligned caucus in the House, published the framework on Jan. 13. The document is a starting point for crafting the budget but does not include any of the specific language that will ultimately be included in the bill.

According to the framework, House Republican leaders intend to “extend and make permanent” the temporary freeze on federal funds for abortion providers, which was included in the tax overhaul that President Donald Trump signed into law last July.

That bill included a one-year freeze on Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide abortions on a large scale. Although existing law had already blocked direct taxpayer funds for elective abortions, the change in law expanded the ban to include non-abortive services that are offered by organizations that perform abortions on a large scale.

If that provision is not extended or made permanent in the next fiscal year, Planned Parenthood would again be eligible for Medicaid reimbursements for its non-abortive services.

Many Republicans had initially hoped to implement a more long-term freeze on reimbursements for Planned Parenthood in last year’s bill, but that effort failed. The original House proposal last year planned a 10-year freeze, but it was reduced to only one year following negotiations and compromise.

A spokesperson for National Right to Life said the organization is “excited” by the framework, adding that “this proposal would benefit countless American families while also protecting unborn Americans by extending the current defunding of major abortion providers.”

“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize abortion providers, and we are encouraged to see this principle reflected in the reconciliation framework,” the spokesperson said.

The ongoing one-year freeze already had a major impact on Planned Parenthood. Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood facilities closed last year, caused in part by the revenue stemming from those provisions in the tax overhaul.

Republicans hold a narrow five-seat majority in the House and a six-seat majority in the Senate, which means a small number of Republicans defecting could ultimately sink certain provisions.

The framework for the budget proposal also suggests an extension on the long-standing ban on direct federal funding for elective abortions, which has been included in federal budgets since 1976.

It also extends a ban on funds for “gender transition/mutilation procedures,” which was included in the tax overhaul.

According to the framework, both of these rules would apply to Medicaid reimbursements and tax credits provided through the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. According to the Republican Study Committee, the rules would save taxpayers about $2.9 billion in federal spending costs.

The framework for the budget priorities comes about one week after President Donald Trump asked Republicans to be “flexible” on language related to taxpayer-funded abortion in relation to negotiations surrounding extensions to health care subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.

Trump’s comments prompted criticism from some pro-life leaders, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

In an Oval Office press conference Jan. 14, Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said they didn’t know anything about HHS funds being released to Planned Parenthood in December.

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.

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.


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
At SEEK 2026, young Catholics urged to use technology intentionally, as a tool #Catholic 
 
 Andrew Laubacher, executive director of Humanality, ahead of his talk at SEEK 2026 in Denver, Colorado on Jan. 2, 2026. Credit: Francesca Fenton/EWTN News

Jan 3, 2026 / 17:56 pm (CNA).
In 2018, Andrew Laubacher, a touring Catholic musician at the time, decided to quit social media completely. Despite his recording label telling him that he was making a terrible decision, he was exhausted from the impact it was having on his life and felt God calling him to make this change.Fast-forward to today and Laubacher is now the executive director of Humanality, a nonprofit organization that “exists to help people discover freedom through an intentional relationship with technology” and offers individuals help to break their digital addiction through a 12-week digital detox program.Speaking to hundreds of young Catholics at SEEK 2026 in Denver, Colorado, on Jan. 2, he explained how social media can become addictive and have negative effects on the human person – including depression, anxiety, and body image issues – and offered tips on how individuals can use technology practically and intentionally.Laubacher began by highlighting data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which showed that the average U.S. life expectancy decreased for the first time between 2017 and 2019 and that “Americans are 10 times more likely to have a depressive illness than they were 60 years ago."Citing the federal data as well as research in Jonathan Haidt’s 2024 book “The Anxious Generation,” Laubacher explained that in 2010 a new feature was introduced on smartphones which led to “drastic increases in anxiety and depression.”What was this feature? The front-facing camera.“When that front-facing camera came out, all of a sudden our lives became self-defining,” he argued.Laubacher shared how he saw this play out in his own life – constantly comparing himself and his life to others, experiencing lust, feeling lonely, and wasting his time mindlessly scrolling through his feeds.“These technologies affected me in many different ways,” he said, “And when I made that leap [off social media] everything got better. My friendships got better, my purity, my productivity, my prayer got better. Everything started to improve.”“So you guys, the way that you've grown up with these technologies has literally changed everything… It's changed the way you think. It's changed the way you behave. It's changed the way you relate to one another. It's changed the way you sleep. It's changed the way you perceive reality,” Laubacher told those gathered. “You have to understand algorithms are literally shaping your perception of what is true. And if you are living your life scrolling and getting stuck into these platforms like me you're not necessarily as you want to be.”Laubacher said that the average 18-year-old in 2025 is on pace to have a 90-year life span. He then broke this down into how many months one might spend doing different activities such as eating, sleeping, going to school or work, and driving. Over the course of one's life, the average person is left with “334 months of free time – this is where you fall in love. This is where you create music, this is where you write that book, this is where you go on the trip with your loved ones. This is where you discover your vocation,” Laubacher said.“Right now, of those 334 months, 93% of that time is going to be spent on the screen,” he said. “At the end of your lives, you in this crowd will have looked at the screen for 27 years of your life." "And friends, my mission is to help you get that time back into your life. So you can invest that time and attention into the things that matter most.”Offering those gathered practical tools to gain more freedom from digital media, Laubacher highlighted three of the 11 ways Humanality’s digital detox program aims to help individuals gain a more human way to be – be light, be giving, and be present.“Be light” focuses on individuals stopping the nighttime scrolling and beginning to acknowledge the difference between daytime and nighttime. Laubacher explained that people spend 90% of their time indoors versus 100 years ago when people spent 90% of their time outdoors. Additionally, when people scroll on their phones at nighttime, the light from the screen tells the brain it’s daytime.“So, our separation from light in the daytime — and you scrolling yourself to sleep in the nighttime — is a huge reason for our mental health slash sleep disorder slash fatigue and exhaustion,” he said.“Be giving” turns the self-centered nature of social media to one where you “start to think outside of yourself,” which leads a person to be “more happy and more healthy when you live a life that is giving,” Laubacher explained.The last way Laubacher highlighted was “be present,” which aims to simply teach people how to be present with themselves, with others, and with God.
“Friends, I want to tell you right now, the scariest, best, most amazing adventure in your life is going to be learning to love God, your neighbor, and yourself,” Laubacher said. “And if I'm honest, I can love people pretty easily, but it's really hard for me to love myself most of the time. And I found that my technologies were not allowing me to get to know the person that God has created me to be.”“These three ways – there's a lot more – but these three ways I think if you start to implement in your day today you'll start to use technology as a tool and get out of these addictions.”

At SEEK 2026, young Catholics urged to use technology intentionally, as a tool #Catholic Andrew Laubacher, executive director of Humanality, ahead of his talk at SEEK 2026 in Denver, Colorado on Jan. 2, 2026. Credit: Francesca Fenton/EWTN News Jan 3, 2026 / 17:56 pm (CNA). In 2018, Andrew Laubacher, a touring Catholic musician at the time, decided to quit social media completely. Despite his recording label telling him that he was making a terrible decision, he was exhausted from the impact it was having on his life and felt God calling him to make this change.Fast-forward to today and Laubacher is now the executive director of Humanality, a nonprofit organization that “exists to help people discover freedom through an intentional relationship with technology” and offers individuals help to break their digital addiction through a 12-week digital detox program.Speaking to hundreds of young Catholics at SEEK 2026 in Denver, Colorado, on Jan. 2, he explained how social media can become addictive and have negative effects on the human person – including depression, anxiety, and body image issues – and offered tips on how individuals can use technology practically and intentionally.Laubacher began by highlighting data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which showed that the average U.S. life expectancy decreased for the first time between 2017 and 2019 and that “Americans are 10 times more likely to have a depressive illness than they were 60 years ago."Citing the federal data as well as research in Jonathan Haidt’s 2024 book “The Anxious Generation,” Laubacher explained that in 2010 a new feature was introduced on smartphones which led to “drastic increases in anxiety and depression.”What was this feature? The front-facing camera.“When that front-facing camera came out, all of a sudden our lives became self-defining,” he argued.Laubacher shared how he saw this play out in his own life – constantly comparing himself and his life to others, experiencing lust, feeling lonely, and wasting his time mindlessly scrolling through his feeds.“These technologies affected me in many different ways,” he said, “And when I made that leap [off social media] everything got better. My friendships got better, my purity, my productivity, my prayer got better. Everything started to improve.”“So you guys, the way that you've grown up with these technologies has literally changed everything… It's changed the way you think. It's changed the way you behave. It's changed the way you relate to one another. It's changed the way you sleep. It's changed the way you perceive reality,” Laubacher told those gathered. “You have to understand algorithms are literally shaping your perception of what is true. And if you are living your life scrolling and getting stuck into these platforms like me you're not necessarily as you want to be.”Laubacher said that the average 18-year-old in 2025 is on pace to have a 90-year life span. He then broke this down into how many months one might spend doing different activities such as eating, sleeping, going to school or work, and driving. Over the course of one's life, the average person is left with “334 months of free time – this is where you fall in love. This is where you create music, this is where you write that book, this is where you go on the trip with your loved ones. This is where you discover your vocation,” Laubacher said.“Right now, of those 334 months, 93% of that time is going to be spent on the screen,” he said. “At the end of your lives, you in this crowd will have looked at the screen for 27 years of your life." "And friends, my mission is to help you get that time back into your life. So you can invest that time and attention into the things that matter most.”Offering those gathered practical tools to gain more freedom from digital media, Laubacher highlighted three of the 11 ways Humanality’s digital detox program aims to help individuals gain a more human way to be – be light, be giving, and be present.“Be light” focuses on individuals stopping the nighttime scrolling and beginning to acknowledge the difference between daytime and nighttime. Laubacher explained that people spend 90% of their time indoors versus 100 years ago when people spent 90% of their time outdoors. Additionally, when people scroll on their phones at nighttime, the light from the screen tells the brain it’s daytime.“So, our separation from light in the daytime — and you scrolling yourself to sleep in the nighttime — is a huge reason for our mental health slash sleep disorder slash fatigue and exhaustion,” he said.“Be giving” turns the self-centered nature of social media to one where you “start to think outside of yourself,” which leads a person to be “more happy and more healthy when you live a life that is giving,” Laubacher explained.The last way Laubacher highlighted was “be present,” which aims to simply teach people how to be present with themselves, with others, and with God. “Friends, I want to tell you right now, the scariest, best, most amazing adventure in your life is going to be learning to love God, your neighbor, and yourself,” Laubacher said. “And if I'm honest, I can love people pretty easily, but it's really hard for me to love myself most of the time. And I found that my technologies were not allowing me to get to know the person that God has created me to be.”“These three ways – there's a lot more – but these three ways I think if you start to implement in your day today you'll start to use technology as a tool and get out of these addictions.”


Andrew Laubacher, executive director of Humanality, ahead of his talk at SEEK 2026 in Denver, Colorado on Jan. 2, 2026. Credit: Francesca Fenton/EWTN News

Jan 3, 2026 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

In 2018, Andrew Laubacher, a touring Catholic musician at the time, decided to quit social media completely. Despite his recording label telling him that he was making a terrible decision, he was exhausted from the impact it was having on his life and felt God calling him to make this change.

Fast-forward to today and Laubacher is now the executive director of Humanality, a nonprofit organization that “exists to help people discover freedom through an intentional relationship with technology” and offers individuals help to break their digital addiction through a 12-week digital detox program.

Speaking to hundreds of young Catholics at SEEK 2026 in Denver, Colorado, on Jan. 2, he explained how social media can become addictive and have negative effects on the human person – including depression, anxiety, and body image issues – and offered tips on how individuals can use technology practically and intentionally.

Laubacher began by highlighting data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which showed that the average U.S. life expectancy decreased for the first time between 2017 and 2019 and that “Americans are 10 times more likely to have a depressive illness than they were 60 years ago."

Citing the federal data as well as research in Jonathan Haidt’s 2024 book “The Anxious Generation,” Laubacher explained that in 2010 a new feature was introduced on smartphones which led to “drastic increases in anxiety and depression.”

What was this feature? The front-facing camera.

“When that front-facing camera came out, all of a sudden our lives became self-defining,” he argued.

Laubacher shared how he saw this play out in his own life – constantly comparing himself and his life to others, experiencing lust, feeling lonely, and wasting his time mindlessly scrolling through his feeds.

“These technologies affected me in many different ways,” he said, “And when I made that leap [off social media] everything got better. My friendships got better, my purity, my productivity, my prayer got better. Everything started to improve.”

“So you guys, the way that you've grown up with these technologies has literally changed everything… It's changed the way you think. It's changed the way you behave. It's changed the way you relate to one another. It's changed the way you sleep. It's changed the way you perceive reality,” Laubacher told those gathered.

“You have to understand algorithms are literally shaping your perception of what is true. And if you are living your life scrolling and getting stuck into these platforms like me you're not necessarily as you want to be.”

Laubacher said that the average 18-year-old in 2025 is on pace to have a 90-year life span. He then broke this down into how many months one might spend doing different activities such as eating, sleeping, going to school or work, and driving.

Over the course of one's life, the average person is left with “334 months of free time – this is where you fall in love. This is where you create music, this is where you write that book, this is where you go on the trip with your loved ones. This is where you discover your vocation,” Laubacher said.

“Right now, of those 334 months, 93% of that time is going to be spent on the screen,” he said. “At the end of your lives, you in this crowd will have looked at the screen for 27 years of your life."

"And friends, my mission is to help you get that time back into your life. So you can invest that time and attention into the things that matter most.”

Offering those gathered practical tools to gain more freedom from digital media, Laubacher highlighted three of the 11 ways Humanality’s digital detox program aims to help individuals gain a more human way to be – be light, be giving, and be present.

“Be light” focuses on individuals stopping the nighttime scrolling and beginning to acknowledge the difference between daytime and nighttime. Laubacher explained that people spend 90% of their time indoors versus 100 years ago when people spent 90% of their time outdoors.

Additionally, when people scroll on their phones at nighttime, the light from the screen tells the brain it’s daytime.

“So, our separation from light in the daytime — and you scrolling yourself to sleep in the nighttime — is a huge reason for our mental health slash sleep disorder slash fatigue and exhaustion,” he said.

“Be giving” turns the self-centered nature of social media to one where you “start to think outside of yourself,” which leads a person to be “more happy and more healthy when you live a life that is giving,” Laubacher explained.

The last way Laubacher highlighted was “be present,” which aims to simply teach people how to be present with themselves, with others, and with God.
“Friends, I want to tell you right now, the scariest, best, most amazing adventure in your life is going to be learning to love God, your neighbor, and yourself,” Laubacher said.

“And if I'm honest, I can love people pretty easily, but it's really hard for me to love myself most of the time. And I found that my technologies were not allowing me to get to know the person that God has created me to be.”

“These three ways – there's a lot more – but these three ways I think if you start to implement in your day today you'll start to use technology as a tool and get out of these addictions.”

Read More
Food assistance, housing top Catholic Charities’ policy wish list in 2026 #Catholic 
 
 Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum. Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”2026 wish listLooking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.Tax credits and economic trendsSome changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.

Food assistance, housing top Catholic Charities’ policy wish list in 2026 #Catholic Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA). Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum. Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”2026 wish listLooking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.Tax credits and economic trendsSome changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.


Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.

The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.

Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.

Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.

Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.

Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.

It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.

Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”

Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum.

Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.

Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.

Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”

She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”

2026 wish list

Looking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.

President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.

In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.

Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.

“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.

Tax credits and economic trends

Some changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.

Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.

Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.

The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.

Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.

Read More
Food assistance, housing top Catholic Charities’ policy wish list in 2026 #Catholic 
 
 Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum. Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”2026 wish listLooking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.Tax credits and economic trendsSome changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.

Food assistance, housing top Catholic Charities’ policy wish list in 2026 #Catholic Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA). Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum. Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”2026 wish listLooking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.Tax credits and economic trendsSome changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.


Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.

The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.

Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.

Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.

Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.

Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.

It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.

Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”

Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum.

Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.

Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.

Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”

She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”

2026 wish list

Looking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.

President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.

In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.

Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.

“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.

Tax credits and economic trends

Some changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.

Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.

Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.

The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.

Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.

Read More
How federal and state abortion policies shifted in 2025 #Catholic 
 
 Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock

Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.Federal: Trump administration shiftsAbortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing 0 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.

How federal and state abortion policies shifted in 2025 #Catholic Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA). Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.Federal: Trump administration shiftsAbortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing $140 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.


Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock

Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.

Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.

Federal: Trump administration shifts

Abortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.

Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.

Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.

Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.

The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.

In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.

Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.

There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.

In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.

In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.

Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.

About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing $140 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.

New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.

Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.

As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.

Read More
CNA explains: How does ‘Mass dispensation’ work, and when is it used? #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: FotoDax/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 26, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Amid heavy immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, several bishops in the U.S. have recently issued broad dispensations to Catholics in their dioceses, allowing them to refrain from attending Mass on Sundays if they fear arrest or deportation from federal officials.Bishops in North Carolina, California, and elsewhere have issued such dispensations, stating that those with legitimate concerns of being detained by immigration agents are free from the usual Sunday obligation.The Church’s canon law dictates that Sunday is considered the “primordial holy day of obligation,” one on which all Catholics are “obliged to participate in the Mass.” Several other holy days of obligation exist throughout the liturgical year, though Sunday (or the Saturday evening prior) is always considered obligatory for Mass attendance.The numerous dispensations issued recently in dioceses around the country have underscored, however, that bishops have some discretion in allowing Catholics to stay home from Mass for legitimate reasons.Dispensation must be ‘just,’ ‘reasonable’David Long, an assistant professor in the school of canon law at The Catholic University of America as well as the director of the school’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, told CNA that bishops have the authority to dispense the faithful in their diocese with, as the Code of Canon Law puts it, a “just and reasonable cause.”“This generally applies when a holy day of obligation falls on a Saturday or Monday, during severe weather events (snowstorms, hurricanes, floods, etc.), when there is no reasonable access to Mass, or during public emergencies such as pandemics or plagues,” he said. Once such circumstances end, he noted, the dispensation itself would cease.By virtue of their office, diocesan administrators, vicars general, and episcopal vicars also have the power to issue dispensations, Long said.Priests, however, normally do not have that authority “unless expressly granted by a higher authority, such as their diocesan bishop,” he said.Canon law, he said, dictates that a dispensation can only be granted when a bishop “judges that it contributes to [the] spiritual good” of his flock, for a just cause, and “after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given.”The lay faithful themselves can determine, in some cases, when they can refrain from going to Mass, though Long stressed that such instances do not constitute “dispensation,” as the laity “does not have the power to dispense at any time” that authority being tied to “executive power in the Church” via ordination.Canon law dictates, however, that Catholics are not bound to attend Mass when “participation in the Eucharistic celebration becomes impossible.”Long said such scenarios include “when [the faithful] are sick, contagious, or housebound, when they are the primary caregiver for someone else and cannot arrange coverage for that person, when traveling to Mass is dangerous, when there is no realistic access to Mass, or for some other grave cause.”“This is not a dispensation,” he said, “but instead is a legal recognition of moral and physical impossibility at times.”The recent immigration-related controversy isn’t the only large-scale dispensation in recent memory. Virtually every Catholic in the world was dispensed from Mass in the earliest days of the COVID-19 crisis, when government authorities sharply limited public gatherings, including religious gatherings, all over the world.In 2024, on the other hand, the Vatican said that Catholics in the United States must still attend Mass on holy days of obligation even when they are transferred to Mondays or Saturdays, correcting a long-standing practice in the U.S. Church and ending a dispensation with which many Catholics were familiar.‘The most incredible privilege we could possibly imagine’Though the obligation to attend Mass is a major aspect of Church canon law, Father Daniel Brandenburg, LC, cautioned against interpreting it uncharitably.“This ‘obligation’ is sort of like the obligation of eating,” he said. “If you don’t eat, you’ll die. Similarly, the Church simply recognizes that if we don’t nourish our soul, it withers away and dies. The bare minimum to survive is Mass once a week on Sundays.”“Most people find the ‘obligation’ of eating to be quite pleasurable,” he continued, “and I think anyone with a modicum of spiritual awareness finds deep joy in attending Mass and receiving the Creator of the universe into their soul. At least I do.”Like Long, Brandenburg stressed that the lay faithful lack the authority to “dispense” themselves from Mass. Instead, they are directed to follow their consciences when determining if they are incapable of attending Mass, particularly by applying the principle of moral theology “ad impossibilia, nemo tenetur” “(no one is obliged to do what is impossible”).Being too sick, facing dangerous inclement weather, or lacking the ability to transport themselves are among the reasons the faithful might determine they are unable to attend Mass, he said.“Here, beware the lax conscience which gives easy excuses,” Brandenburg warned, “and remember that the saints became holy not through excuses, but through heroic love.”

CNA explains: How does ‘Mass dispensation’ work, and when is it used? #Catholic null / Credit: FotoDax/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 26, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Amid heavy immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, several bishops in the U.S. have recently issued broad dispensations to Catholics in their dioceses, allowing them to refrain from attending Mass on Sundays if they fear arrest or deportation from federal officials.Bishops in North Carolina, California, and elsewhere have issued such dispensations, stating that those with legitimate concerns of being detained by immigration agents are free from the usual Sunday obligation.The Church’s canon law dictates that Sunday is considered the “primordial holy day of obligation,” one on which all Catholics are “obliged to participate in the Mass.” Several other holy days of obligation exist throughout the liturgical year, though Sunday (or the Saturday evening prior) is always considered obligatory for Mass attendance.The numerous dispensations issued recently in dioceses around the country have underscored, however, that bishops have some discretion in allowing Catholics to stay home from Mass for legitimate reasons.Dispensation must be ‘just,’ ‘reasonable’David Long, an assistant professor in the school of canon law at The Catholic University of America as well as the director of the school’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, told CNA that bishops have the authority to dispense the faithful in their diocese with, as the Code of Canon Law puts it, a “just and reasonable cause.”“This generally applies when a holy day of obligation falls on a Saturday or Monday, during severe weather events (snowstorms, hurricanes, floods, etc.), when there is no reasonable access to Mass, or during public emergencies such as pandemics or plagues,” he said. Once such circumstances end, he noted, the dispensation itself would cease.By virtue of their office, diocesan administrators, vicars general, and episcopal vicars also have the power to issue dispensations, Long said.Priests, however, normally do not have that authority “unless expressly granted by a higher authority, such as their diocesan bishop,” he said.Canon law, he said, dictates that a dispensation can only be granted when a bishop “judges that it contributes to [the] spiritual good” of his flock, for a just cause, and “after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given.”The lay faithful themselves can determine, in some cases, when they can refrain from going to Mass, though Long stressed that such instances do not constitute “dispensation,” as the laity “does not have the power to dispense at any time” that authority being tied to “executive power in the Church” via ordination.Canon law dictates, however, that Catholics are not bound to attend Mass when “participation in the Eucharistic celebration becomes impossible.”Long said such scenarios include “when [the faithful] are sick, contagious, or housebound, when they are the primary caregiver for someone else and cannot arrange coverage for that person, when traveling to Mass is dangerous, when there is no realistic access to Mass, or for some other grave cause.”“This is not a dispensation,” he said, “but instead is a legal recognition of moral and physical impossibility at times.”The recent immigration-related controversy isn’t the only large-scale dispensation in recent memory. Virtually every Catholic in the world was dispensed from Mass in the earliest days of the COVID-19 crisis, when government authorities sharply limited public gatherings, including religious gatherings, all over the world.In 2024, on the other hand, the Vatican said that Catholics in the United States must still attend Mass on holy days of obligation even when they are transferred to Mondays or Saturdays, correcting a long-standing practice in the U.S. Church and ending a dispensation with which many Catholics were familiar.‘The most incredible privilege we could possibly imagine’Though the obligation to attend Mass is a major aspect of Church canon law, Father Daniel Brandenburg, LC, cautioned against interpreting it uncharitably.“This ‘obligation’ is sort of like the obligation of eating,” he said. “If you don’t eat, you’ll die. Similarly, the Church simply recognizes that if we don’t nourish our soul, it withers away and dies. The bare minimum to survive is Mass once a week on Sundays.”“Most people find the ‘obligation’ of eating to be quite pleasurable,” he continued, “and I think anyone with a modicum of spiritual awareness finds deep joy in attending Mass and receiving the Creator of the universe into their soul. At least I do.”Like Long, Brandenburg stressed that the lay faithful lack the authority to “dispense” themselves from Mass. Instead, they are directed to follow their consciences when determining if they are incapable of attending Mass, particularly by applying the principle of moral theology “ad impossibilia, nemo tenetur” “(no one is obliged to do what is impossible”).Being too sick, facing dangerous inclement weather, or lacking the ability to transport themselves are among the reasons the faithful might determine they are unable to attend Mass, he said.“Here, beware the lax conscience which gives easy excuses,” Brandenburg warned, “and remember that the saints became holy not through excuses, but through heroic love.”


null / Credit: FotoDax/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 26, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Amid heavy immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, several bishops in the U.S. have recently issued broad dispensations to Catholics in their dioceses, allowing them to refrain from attending Mass on Sundays if they fear arrest or deportation from federal officials.

Bishops in North Carolina, California, and elsewhere have issued such dispensations, stating that those with legitimate concerns of being detained by immigration agents are free from the usual Sunday obligation.

The Church’s canon law dictates that Sunday is considered the “primordial holy day of obligation,” one on which all Catholics are “obliged to participate in the Mass.” Several other holy days of obligation exist throughout the liturgical year, though Sunday (or the Saturday evening prior) is always considered obligatory for Mass attendance.

The numerous dispensations issued recently in dioceses around the country have underscored, however, that bishops have some discretion in allowing Catholics to stay home from Mass for legitimate reasons.

Dispensation must be ‘just,’ ‘reasonable’

David Long, an assistant professor in the school of canon law at The Catholic University of America as well as the director of the school’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, told CNA that bishops have the authority to dispense the faithful in their diocese with, as the Code of Canon Law puts it, a “just and reasonable cause.”

“This generally applies when a holy day of obligation falls on a Saturday or Monday, during severe weather events (snowstorms, hurricanes, floods, etc.), when there is no reasonable access to Mass, or during public emergencies such as pandemics or plagues,” he said. Once such circumstances end, he noted, the dispensation itself would cease.

By virtue of their office, diocesan administrators, vicars general, and episcopal vicars also have the power to issue dispensations, Long said.

Priests, however, normally do not have that authority “unless expressly granted by a higher authority, such as their diocesan bishop,” he said.

Canon law, he said, dictates that a dispensation can only be granted when a bishop “judges that it contributes to [the] spiritual good” of his flock, for a just cause, and “after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given.”

The lay faithful themselves can determine, in some cases, when they can refrain from going to Mass, though Long stressed that such instances do not constitute “dispensation,” as the laity “does not have the power to dispense at any time” that authority being tied to “executive power in the Church” via ordination.

Canon law dictates, however, that Catholics are not bound to attend Mass when “participation in the Eucharistic celebration becomes impossible.”

Long said such scenarios include “when [the faithful] are sick, contagious, or housebound, when they are the primary caregiver for someone else and cannot arrange coverage for that person, when traveling to Mass is dangerous, when there is no realistic access to Mass, or for some other grave cause.”

“This is not a dispensation,” he said, “but instead is a legal recognition of moral and physical impossibility at times.”

The recent immigration-related controversy isn’t the only large-scale dispensation in recent memory. Virtually every Catholic in the world was dispensed from Mass in the earliest days of the COVID-19 crisis, when government authorities sharply limited public gatherings, including religious gatherings, all over the world.

In 2024, on the other hand, the Vatican said that Catholics in the United States must still attend Mass on holy days of obligation even when they are transferred to Mondays or Saturdays, correcting a long-standing practice in the U.S. Church and ending a dispensation with which many Catholics were familiar.

‘The most incredible privilege we could possibly imagine’

Though the obligation to attend Mass is a major aspect of Church canon law, Father Daniel Brandenburg, LC, cautioned against interpreting it uncharitably.

“This ‘obligation’ is sort of like the obligation of eating,” he said. “If you don’t eat, you’ll die. Similarly, the Church simply recognizes that if we don’t nourish our soul, it withers away and dies. The bare minimum to survive is Mass once a week on Sundays.”

“Most people find the ‘obligation’ of eating to be quite pleasurable,” he continued, “and I think anyone with a modicum of spiritual awareness finds deep joy in attending Mass and receiving the Creator of the universe into their soul. At least I do.”

Like Long, Brandenburg stressed that the lay faithful lack the authority to “dispense” themselves from Mass. Instead, they are directed to follow their consciences when determining if they are incapable of attending Mass, particularly by applying the principle of moral theology “ad impossibilia, nemo tenetur” “(no one is obliged to do what is impossible”).

Being too sick, facing dangerous inclement weather, or lacking the ability to transport themselves are among the reasons the faithful might determine they are unable to attend Mass, he said.

“Here, beware the lax conscience which gives easy excuses,” Brandenburg warned, “and remember that the saints became holy not through excuses, but through heroic love.”

Read More
Federal judge strikes down rules allowing schools to hide gender ‘transitions’ from parents #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: sergign/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 10:07 am (CNA).
A federal judge in California this week issued a permanent block against the state’s “gender secrecy policies” that have allowed schools to hide children’s so-called “gender transitions” from their parents.U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling in the class action lawsuit on Dec. 22, holding that parents “have a right” to the “gender information” of their children, while teachers themselves also possess the right to provide parents with that information. The order strikes down secretive policies in school districts across California that allowed schools to conceal when a child began identifying as the opposite sex or another LGBT-related identity. Benitez had allowed the legal dispute to proceed as a class action lawsuit in October. School districts in California “are ultimately state agents under state control,” the judge said at the time, and the issue of settling “statewide policy” meant the class action structure would be “superior to numerous individual actions by individual parents and teachers.” The case, Benitez said on Dec. 22, concerns “a parent’s rights to information … against a public school’s policy of secrecy when it comes to a student’s gender identification.” Parents, he said, have a right to such information on grounds of the 14th and First Amendments, he said, while teachers can assert similar First Amendment rights in sharing that information with parents. Teachers have historically informed parents of “physical injuries or questions about a student’s health and well-being,” the judge pointed out, yet lawmakers in California have enacted policies “prohibiting public school teachers from informing parents” when their child claims to have an LGBT identity. “Even if [the government] could demonstrate that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents’ constitutional rights,” Benitez wrote. The Thomas More Society, a religious liberty legal group, said in a press release that the decision “protects all California parents, students, and teachers” and “restores sanity and common sense.”School officials in California who work to conceal “gender identity” decisions from parents “should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences,” attorney Paul Jonna said in the release. Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, the Christian teachers who originally brought the suit, said they were “profoundly grateful” for the decision. “This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents,” they said. The Thomas More Society said on Dec. 22 that California officials had gone to “extreme lengths” to “evade responsibility” for their policies, up to and including claiming that the gender secrecy rules were no longer enforced even as they were allegedly continuing to require them. Gender- and LGBT-related school policies have come under fire over the past year from the White House. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in August directed U.S. states to remove gender ideology material from their curricula or else face the loss of federal funding. In February the Department of Education launched an investigation into several Virginia school districts to determine if they violated federal orders forbidding schools from supporting the so-called “transition” of children. In December, meanwhile, a Catholic school student in Virginia forced a school district to concede a lawsuit she brought alleging that her constitutional rights had been violated when the school subjected her to “extreme social pressure” to affirm transgender ideology.

Federal judge strikes down rules allowing schools to hide gender ‘transitions’ from parents #Catholic null / Credit: sergign/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 10:07 am (CNA). A federal judge in California this week issued a permanent block against the state’s “gender secrecy policies” that have allowed schools to hide children’s so-called “gender transitions” from their parents.U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling in the class action lawsuit on Dec. 22, holding that parents “have a right” to the “gender information” of their children, while teachers themselves also possess the right to provide parents with that information. The order strikes down secretive policies in school districts across California that allowed schools to conceal when a child began identifying as the opposite sex or another LGBT-related identity. Benitez had allowed the legal dispute to proceed as a class action lawsuit in October. School districts in California “are ultimately state agents under state control,” the judge said at the time, and the issue of settling “statewide policy” meant the class action structure would be “superior to numerous individual actions by individual parents and teachers.” The case, Benitez said on Dec. 22, concerns “a parent’s rights to information … against a public school’s policy of secrecy when it comes to a student’s gender identification.” Parents, he said, have a right to such information on grounds of the 14th and First Amendments, he said, while teachers can assert similar First Amendment rights in sharing that information with parents. Teachers have historically informed parents of “physical injuries or questions about a student’s health and well-being,” the judge pointed out, yet lawmakers in California have enacted policies “prohibiting public school teachers from informing parents” when their child claims to have an LGBT identity. “Even if [the government] could demonstrate that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents’ constitutional rights,” Benitez wrote. The Thomas More Society, a religious liberty legal group, said in a press release that the decision “protects all California parents, students, and teachers” and “restores sanity and common sense.”School officials in California who work to conceal “gender identity” decisions from parents “should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences,” attorney Paul Jonna said in the release. Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, the Christian teachers who originally brought the suit, said they were “profoundly grateful” for the decision. “This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents,” they said. The Thomas More Society said on Dec. 22 that California officials had gone to “extreme lengths” to “evade responsibility” for their policies, up to and including claiming that the gender secrecy rules were no longer enforced even as they were allegedly continuing to require them. Gender- and LGBT-related school policies have come under fire over the past year from the White House. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in August directed U.S. states to remove gender ideology material from their curricula or else face the loss of federal funding. In February the Department of Education launched an investigation into several Virginia school districts to determine if they violated federal orders forbidding schools from supporting the so-called “transition” of children. In December, meanwhile, a Catholic school student in Virginia forced a school district to concede a lawsuit she brought alleging that her constitutional rights had been violated when the school subjected her to “extreme social pressure” to affirm transgender ideology.


null / Credit: sergign/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 10:07 am (CNA).

A federal judge in California this week issued a permanent block against the state’s “gender secrecy policies” that have allowed schools to hide children’s so-called “gender transitions” from their parents.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling in the class action lawsuit on Dec. 22, holding that parents “have a right” to the “gender information” of their children, while teachers themselves also possess the right to provide parents with that information. 

The order strikes down secretive policies in school districts across California that allowed schools to conceal when a child began identifying as the opposite sex or another LGBT-related identity. 

Benitez had allowed the legal dispute to proceed as a class action lawsuit in October. School districts in California “are ultimately state agents under state control,” the judge said at the time, and the issue of settling “statewide policy” meant the class action structure would be “superior to numerous individual actions by individual parents and teachers.” 

The case, Benitez said on Dec. 22, concerns “a parent’s rights to information … against a public school’s policy of secrecy when it comes to a student’s gender identification.” 

Parents, he said, have a right to such information on grounds of the 14th and First Amendments, he said, while teachers can assert similar First Amendment rights in sharing that information with parents. 

Teachers have historically informed parents of “physical injuries or questions about a student’s health and well-being,” the judge pointed out, yet lawmakers in California have enacted policies “prohibiting public school teachers from informing parents” when their child claims to have an LGBT identity. 

“Even if [the government] could demonstrate that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents’ constitutional rights,” Benitez wrote. 

The Thomas More Society, a religious liberty legal group, said in a press release that the decision “protects all California parents, students, and teachers” and “restores sanity and common sense.”

School officials in California who work to conceal “gender identity” decisions from parents “should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences,” attorney Paul Jonna said in the release. 

Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, the Christian teachers who originally brought the suit, said they were “profoundly grateful” for the decision. 

“This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents,” they said. 

The Thomas More Society said on Dec. 22 that California officials had gone to “extreme lengths” to “evade responsibility” for their policies, up to and including claiming that the gender secrecy rules were no longer enforced even as they were allegedly continuing to require them. 

Gender- and LGBT-related school policies have come under fire over the past year from the White House. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in August directed U.S. states to remove gender ideology material from their curricula or else face the loss of federal funding. 

In February the Department of Education launched an investigation into several Virginia school districts to determine if they violated federal orders forbidding schools from supporting the so-called “transition” of children. 

In December, meanwhile, a Catholic school student in Virginia forced a school district to concede a lawsuit she brought alleging that her constitutional rights had been violated when the school subjected her to “extreme social pressure” to affirm transgender ideology.

Read More
Massachusetts removes LGBT ideology requirements for foster care parents #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: New Africa/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:54 pm (CNA).
Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious liberty group. Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Massachusetts removes LGBT ideology requirements for foster care parents #Catholic null / Credit: New Africa/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:54 pm (CNA). Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious liberty group. Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”


null / Credit: New Africa/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:54 pm (CNA).

Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious liberty group. 

Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”

The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. 

Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. 

Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.

The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. 

Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. 

With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. 

The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. 

Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.

The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”

Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.

In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.

In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.

In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. 

The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Read More
Albany’s retired bishop files for personal bankruptcy #Catholic 
 
 Bishop Edward Scarfenberger. / Credit: Photo courtesy of the Diocese of Albany

National Catholic Register, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:24 pm (CNA).
A retired New York bishop has filed for personal bankruptcy protection in federal court after a state jury verdict found him, along with other officials, personally liable for the collapse of a Catholic hospital pension fund that left about 1,100 retirees without the lifetime monthly payments they were expecting.It’s not clear whether a Catholic bishop in the United States has ever previously filed for personal bankruptcy protection.Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, 77, who served as bishop of Albany from April 2014 until his retirement in October, is seeking protection from creditors for his assets valued at between $100,001 and $500,000, according to a filing Tuesday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York.The seven-page filing does not list the bishop’s assets but states that he has between 100 and 199 creditors and debts totaling between $1,000,001 and $10 million.Last week, a jury found Scharfenberger 10% liable in a $54.2 million judgment in a civil lawsuit over the failed pension plan once provided by St. Clare’s Hospital in Schenectady, a Catholic hospital that operated from 1949 until 2008, according to The Evangelist, the diocese’s newspaper.The verdict and judgment, issued Dec. 12, cover compensatory damages — the amount a court finds is owed to plaintiffs for harm they have suffered — but not punitive damages, which may be added in cases of recklessness, malice, or fraud. The bankruptcy filings by the bishop and another defendant in the state lawsuit over the pension plan failure forced a pause in a punitive damages hearing earlier this week, according to WNYT Channel 13 in Albany.The National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, was unable to reach Scharfenberger before the publication of this story. A lawyer representing the bishop acknowledged a request for comment Dec. 17 but did not immediately provide one.A rare personal bankruptcyIn recent decades, bankruptcies have occurred regularly in the Catholic Church in the United States. Between 2004 and November 2025, 39 of the country’s dioceses have filed for bankruptcy, almost all to protect assets from clergy sex-abuse lawsuits, as the Register reported last month. One of those is the Diocese of Albany, which filed for bankruptcy in March 2023. But those diocesan cases were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, which allows a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship to reorganize and continue operating while developing a court-approved plan to repay creditors.Scharfenberger filed under Chapter 13, which allows an individual with regular income who cannot pay debts to keep certain assets while working out a repayment plan. “The rules in Chapter 13 permit a debtor to keep property and confirm a plan with payments to creditors based on the debtor’s ‘disposable income,’” said Marie Reilly, a bankruptcy expert and law professor at Penn State Dickinson Law, in an email. “If the debtor commits his disposable income to paying creditors for the term of a three- to five-year plan, he gets a discharge (forgiveness) of the unpaid balance.”Reilly, who has researched several dozen diocesan bankruptcies for The Catholic Project, a lay initiative of The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., told the Register that the bankruptcy filing does not necessarily solve all of the bishop’s money problems.“There are exceptions — some debts don’t get discharged. Creditors can object to the plan if it does not meet the statutory requirements,” Reilly said. “And, it is possible that the pension fund creditor may move to dismiss the bishop’s Chapter 13 case as having been filed ‘in bad faith.’”$50 million shortfall St. Clare’s Hospital was originally run by the Franciscan Sisters of the Poor. The Diocese of Albany maintains that it never owned the hospital and that the bishop of Albany merely provided “canonical oversight” to make sure the hospital met “its mission to serve all in accord with Catholic moral standards,” according to an August 2025 statement from the diocese.Last week, the jury found that the Diocese of Albany has no liability for the pension failure, instead holding the hospital corporation and certain officers and board members accountable. In addition to Scharfenberger, the jury found two deceased employees of the diocese liable, according to The Evangelist: Former Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard (1938–2023), who led the diocese from 1977 to 2014, was found 20% liable; and Father David LeFort, a former vicar general of the diocese who died in August 2023, was found 5% liable. Also found liable were St. Clare’s Corporation (20%), St. Clare’s president Joseph Pofit (25%), and former St. Clare’s president Robert Perry (20%), according to The Evangelist.The judgments stem from a pension plan that operated for about 60 years. In 1959, the hospital began offering employees a defined-benefit plan that provided a lifetime monthly pension after retirement.Church plan exempt from ERISALike most plans operated by Catholic institutions, the pension plan had a religious exemption from the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (known as ERISA), which sets minimum funding requirements for most nonreligious pension plans and also enables the federal government to step in and make payments to retirees of failed plans, using a fund financed by covered pension plans.When the hospital closed in 2008, the officers of St. Clare’s “determined that the corporation would continue to exist for purposes of administering the pension plan,” according to a complaint filed in state court in Schenectady County by the New York attorney general’s office in May 2022. “They also chose to continue treating the pension plan as a ‘Church plan’ — which it could do only if the corporation’s former employees and pensioners were designated as employees of the Church. This was all in order to avoid the contribution and insurance requirements of ERISA, and the duties imposed by ERISA upon corporation directors and trustees as fiduciaries,” the complaint states.The bishop of Albany was automatically a member of the hospital’s board and served as its honorary chairman, and had authority to appoint most of the directors on the board, according to the state attorney general’s complaint.The attorney general’s office alleged that St. Clare’s Corporation failed to make contributions to the pension fund “for all but three years from 2001 to 2019” and concealed from retirees “the insolvency of the pension plan.”In 2018, the St. Clare’s board terminated the pension plan effective Feb. 1, 2019, because of an approximately $50 million shortfall. More than 1,100 employees lost retirement benefits, including about 650 who lost all pension payments and about 450 who received a lump-sum payment “equal to 70% of the value of their vested pension,” the complaint states. The retired employees include “nurses, lab technicians, social workers, EMTs, orderlies, housekeepers, and other essential workers” who worked at the hospital “between 10 and 50 years,” the complaint states.Testimony and reactionOn Dec. 9 during the civil trial, Scharfenberger testified that during his tenure no boards he sat on ever discussed the hospital’s pension plan, according to The Times-Union of Albany. In a written statement issued in August, when Scharfenberger still led the Diocese of Albany, the diocese said the bishop “has actively sought ways to help the pensioners” while denying that the diocese ever “exercised any control over St. Clare’s Hospital operations or its pension.” “He hosted a listening session with pensioners at Siena College to identify issues and consider ways to help those in need. He also reached out to the Mother Cabrini Foundation to try to secure funding for the pensioners, but that effort was unable to move forward once the pensioners filed the lawsuit,” the statement said. “The diocese is eager to see the case move forward and promptly resolved,” the August statement continued. “Our prayers continue for all who are struggling in any way, and as we stated previously, our offer to connect those in need with services that can help, stands. No one should walk alone.”His successor, Bishop Mark O’Connell, who was installed as bishop of Albany on Dec. 5, told reporters shortly before the verdict was announced last week: “I care deeply about their hurt [and] not having their pensions,” according to The Evangelist.During the Dec. 12 press conference, when a reporter asked O’Connell what the diocese would do if the jury found the diocese liable for the pension fund collapse, the bishop noted that the diocese is already in the midst of a bankruptcy process.“If we are liable, then we’ll do what we can to make amends, given that they are one creditor as a group among many people accusing the Diocese of Albany,” O’Connell said, according to WAMC Northeast Public Radio. “And that’s what bankruptcy process is. We obviously cannot pay a billion dollars. Right? So that’s what Chapter 11 is all about, to figure out what’s fair. And since you have a bankruptcy judge and mediators, it’s not up to us.”Later that day, the jury found the diocese not liable in the pension fund collapse lawsuit. The diocese issued a written statement, according to The Evangelist, that said: “As grateful as we are for the jury’s informed decision, we are still very much aware of the hurt felt by the St. Clare’s pensioners who cared for the sick and the poor throughout the long history of St. Clare’s Hospital. This does not mean that we will turn our backs to the pensioners, for as Bishop O’Connell has noted, they are a part of our flock; they are still in need of healing.”That same day, lead plaintiff Mary Hartshorne, who worked in the hospital’s radiology department for about 28 years, told WNYT Channel 13 in Albany that she and other hospital retirees were pleased with the jury’s verdict but did not feel they would be made whole.“We’ve been playing this game for seven and a half years, and I think my question I ask everybody is: How do you get that back? You don’t,” she said.This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

Albany’s retired bishop files for personal bankruptcy #Catholic Bishop Edward Scarfenberger. / Credit: Photo courtesy of the Diocese of Albany National Catholic Register, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:24 pm (CNA). A retired New York bishop has filed for personal bankruptcy protection in federal court after a state jury verdict found him, along with other officials, personally liable for the collapse of a Catholic hospital pension fund that left about 1,100 retirees without the lifetime monthly payments they were expecting.It’s not clear whether a Catholic bishop in the United States has ever previously filed for personal bankruptcy protection.Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, 77, who served as bishop of Albany from April 2014 until his retirement in October, is seeking protection from creditors for his assets valued at between $100,001 and $500,000, according to a filing Tuesday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York.The seven-page filing does not list the bishop’s assets but states that he has between 100 and 199 creditors and debts totaling between $1,000,001 and $10 million.Last week, a jury found Scharfenberger 10% liable in a $54.2 million judgment in a civil lawsuit over the failed pension plan once provided by St. Clare’s Hospital in Schenectady, a Catholic hospital that operated from 1949 until 2008, according to The Evangelist, the diocese’s newspaper.The verdict and judgment, issued Dec. 12, cover compensatory damages — the amount a court finds is owed to plaintiffs for harm they have suffered — but not punitive damages, which may be added in cases of recklessness, malice, or fraud. The bankruptcy filings by the bishop and another defendant in the state lawsuit over the pension plan failure forced a pause in a punitive damages hearing earlier this week, according to WNYT Channel 13 in Albany.The National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, was unable to reach Scharfenberger before the publication of this story. A lawyer representing the bishop acknowledged a request for comment Dec. 17 but did not immediately provide one.A rare personal bankruptcyIn recent decades, bankruptcies have occurred regularly in the Catholic Church in the United States. Between 2004 and November 2025, 39 of the country’s dioceses have filed for bankruptcy, almost all to protect assets from clergy sex-abuse lawsuits, as the Register reported last month. One of those is the Diocese of Albany, which filed for bankruptcy in March 2023. But those diocesan cases were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, which allows a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship to reorganize and continue operating while developing a court-approved plan to repay creditors.Scharfenberger filed under Chapter 13, which allows an individual with regular income who cannot pay debts to keep certain assets while working out a repayment plan. “The rules in Chapter 13 permit a debtor to keep property and confirm a plan with payments to creditors based on the debtor’s ‘disposable income,’” said Marie Reilly, a bankruptcy expert and law professor at Penn State Dickinson Law, in an email. “If the debtor commits his disposable income to paying creditors for the term of a three- to five-year plan, he gets a discharge (forgiveness) of the unpaid balance.”Reilly, who has researched several dozen diocesan bankruptcies for The Catholic Project, a lay initiative of The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., told the Register that the bankruptcy filing does not necessarily solve all of the bishop’s money problems.“There are exceptions — some debts don’t get discharged. Creditors can object to the plan if it does not meet the statutory requirements,” Reilly said. “And, it is possible that the pension fund creditor may move to dismiss the bishop’s Chapter 13 case as having been filed ‘in bad faith.’”$50 million shortfall St. Clare’s Hospital was originally run by the Franciscan Sisters of the Poor. The Diocese of Albany maintains that it never owned the hospital and that the bishop of Albany merely provided “canonical oversight” to make sure the hospital met “its mission to serve all in accord with Catholic moral standards,” according to an August 2025 statement from the diocese.Last week, the jury found that the Diocese of Albany has no liability for the pension failure, instead holding the hospital corporation and certain officers and board members accountable. In addition to Scharfenberger, the jury found two deceased employees of the diocese liable, according to The Evangelist: Former Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard (1938–2023), who led the diocese from 1977 to 2014, was found 20% liable; and Father David LeFort, a former vicar general of the diocese who died in August 2023, was found 5% liable. Also found liable were St. Clare’s Corporation (20%), St. Clare’s president Joseph Pofit (25%), and former St. Clare’s president Robert Perry (20%), according to The Evangelist.The judgments stem from a pension plan that operated for about 60 years. In 1959, the hospital began offering employees a defined-benefit plan that provided a lifetime monthly pension after retirement.Church plan exempt from ERISALike most plans operated by Catholic institutions, the pension plan had a religious exemption from the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (known as ERISA), which sets minimum funding requirements for most nonreligious pension plans and also enables the federal government to step in and make payments to retirees of failed plans, using a fund financed by covered pension plans.When the hospital closed in 2008, the officers of St. Clare’s “determined that the corporation would continue to exist for purposes of administering the pension plan,” according to a complaint filed in state court in Schenectady County by the New York attorney general’s office in May 2022. “They also chose to continue treating the pension plan as a ‘Church plan’ — which it could do only if the corporation’s former employees and pensioners were designated as employees of the Church. This was all in order to avoid the contribution and insurance requirements of ERISA, and the duties imposed by ERISA upon corporation directors and trustees as fiduciaries,” the complaint states.The bishop of Albany was automatically a member of the hospital’s board and served as its honorary chairman, and had authority to appoint most of the directors on the board, according to the state attorney general’s complaint.The attorney general’s office alleged that St. Clare’s Corporation failed to make contributions to the pension fund “for all but three years from 2001 to 2019” and concealed from retirees “the insolvency of the pension plan.”In 2018, the St. Clare’s board terminated the pension plan effective Feb. 1, 2019, because of an approximately $50 million shortfall. More than 1,100 employees lost retirement benefits, including about 650 who lost all pension payments and about 450 who received a lump-sum payment “equal to 70% of the value of their vested pension,” the complaint states. The retired employees include “nurses, lab technicians, social workers, EMTs, orderlies, housekeepers, and other essential workers” who worked at the hospital “between 10 and 50 years,” the complaint states.Testimony and reactionOn Dec. 9 during the civil trial, Scharfenberger testified that during his tenure no boards he sat on ever discussed the hospital’s pension plan, according to The Times-Union of Albany. In a written statement issued in August, when Scharfenberger still led the Diocese of Albany, the diocese said the bishop “has actively sought ways to help the pensioners” while denying that the diocese ever “exercised any control over St. Clare’s Hospital operations or its pension.” “He hosted a listening session with pensioners at Siena College to identify issues and consider ways to help those in need. He also reached out to the Mother Cabrini Foundation to try to secure funding for the pensioners, but that effort was unable to move forward once the pensioners filed the lawsuit,” the statement said. “The diocese is eager to see the case move forward and promptly resolved,” the August statement continued. “Our prayers continue for all who are struggling in any way, and as we stated previously, our offer to connect those in need with services that can help, stands. No one should walk alone.”His successor, Bishop Mark O’Connell, who was installed as bishop of Albany on Dec. 5, told reporters shortly before the verdict was announced last week: “I care deeply about their hurt [and] not having their pensions,” according to The Evangelist.During the Dec. 12 press conference, when a reporter asked O’Connell what the diocese would do if the jury found the diocese liable for the pension fund collapse, the bishop noted that the diocese is already in the midst of a bankruptcy process.“If we are liable, then we’ll do what we can to make amends, given that they are one creditor as a group among many people accusing the Diocese of Albany,” O’Connell said, according to WAMC Northeast Public Radio. “And that’s what bankruptcy process is. We obviously cannot pay a billion dollars. Right? So that’s what Chapter 11 is all about, to figure out what’s fair. And since you have a bankruptcy judge and mediators, it’s not up to us.”Later that day, the jury found the diocese not liable in the pension fund collapse lawsuit. The diocese issued a written statement, according to The Evangelist, that said: “As grateful as we are for the jury’s informed decision, we are still very much aware of the hurt felt by the St. Clare’s pensioners who cared for the sick and the poor throughout the long history of St. Clare’s Hospital. This does not mean that we will turn our backs to the pensioners, for as Bishop O’Connell has noted, they are a part of our flock; they are still in need of healing.”That same day, lead plaintiff Mary Hartshorne, who worked in the hospital’s radiology department for about 28 years, told WNYT Channel 13 in Albany that she and other hospital retirees were pleased with the jury’s verdict but did not feel they would be made whole.“We’ve been playing this game for seven and a half years, and I think my question I ask everybody is: How do you get that back? You don’t,” she said.This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.


Bishop Edward Scarfenberger. / Credit: Photo courtesy of the Diocese of Albany

National Catholic Register, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:24 pm (CNA).

A retired New York bishop has filed for personal bankruptcy protection in federal court after a state jury verdict found him, along with other officials, personally liable for the collapse of a Catholic hospital pension fund that left about 1,100 retirees without the lifetime monthly payments they were expecting.

It’s not clear whether a Catholic bishop in the United States has ever previously filed for personal bankruptcy protection.

Bishop Edward Scharfenberger, 77, who served as bishop of Albany from April 2014 until his retirement in October, is seeking protection from creditors for his assets valued at between $100,001 and $500,000, according to a filing Tuesday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York.

The seven-page filing does not list the bishop’s assets but states that he has between 100 and 199 creditors and debts totaling between $1,000,001 and $10 million.

Last week, a jury found Scharfenberger 10% liable in a $54.2 million judgment in a civil lawsuit over the failed pension plan once provided by St. Clare’s Hospital in Schenectady, a Catholic hospital that operated from 1949 until 2008, according to The Evangelist, the diocese’s newspaper.

The verdict and judgment, issued Dec. 12, cover compensatory damages — the amount a court finds is owed to plaintiffs for harm they have suffered — but not punitive damages, which may be added in cases of recklessness, malice, or fraud. The bankruptcy filings by the bishop and another defendant in the state lawsuit over the pension plan failure forced a pause in a punitive damages hearing earlier this week, according to WNYT Channel 13 in Albany.

The National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, was unable to reach Scharfenberger before the publication of this story. A lawyer representing the bishop acknowledged a request for comment Dec. 17 but did not immediately provide one.

A rare personal bankruptcy

In recent decades, bankruptcies have occurred regularly in the Catholic Church in the United States. Between 2004 and November 2025, 39 of the country’s dioceses have filed for bankruptcy, almost all to protect assets from clergy sex-abuse lawsuits, as the Register reported last month. One of those is the Diocese of Albany, which filed for bankruptcy in March 2023. 

But those diocesan cases were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, which allows a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship to reorganize and continue operating while developing a court-approved plan to repay creditors.

Scharfenberger filed under Chapter 13, which allows an individual with regular income who cannot pay debts to keep certain assets while working out a repayment plan. 

“The rules in Chapter 13 permit a debtor to keep property and confirm a plan with payments to creditors based on the debtor’s ‘disposable income,’” said Marie Reilly, a bankruptcy expert and law professor at Penn State Dickinson Law, in an email. “If the debtor commits his disposable income to paying creditors for the term of a three- to five-year plan, he gets a discharge (forgiveness) of the unpaid balance.”

Reilly, who has researched several dozen diocesan bankruptcies for The Catholic Project, a lay initiative of The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., told the Register that the bankruptcy filing does not necessarily solve all of the bishop’s money problems.

“There are exceptions — some debts don’t get discharged. Creditors can object to the plan if it does not meet the statutory requirements,” Reilly said. “And, it is possible that the pension fund creditor may move to dismiss the bishop’s Chapter 13 case as having been filed ‘in bad faith.’”

$50 million shortfall 

St. Clare’s Hospital was originally run by the Franciscan Sisters of the Poor. The Diocese of Albany maintains that it never owned the hospital and that the bishop of Albany merely provided “canonical oversight” to make sure the hospital met “its mission to serve all in accord with Catholic moral standards,” according to an August 2025 statement from the diocese.

Last week, the jury found that the Diocese of Albany has no liability for the pension failure, instead holding the hospital corporation and certain officers and board members accountable. 

In addition to Scharfenberger, the jury found two deceased employees of the diocese liable, according to The Evangelist: Former Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard (1938–2023), who led the diocese from 1977 to 2014, was found 20% liable; and Father David LeFort, a former vicar general of the diocese who died in August 2023, was found 5% liable. 

Also found liable were St. Clare’s Corporation (20%), St. Clare’s president Joseph Pofit (25%), and former St. Clare’s president Robert Perry (20%), according to The Evangelist.

The judgments stem from a pension plan that operated for about 60 years. 

In 1959, the hospital began offering employees a defined-benefit plan that provided a lifetime monthly pension after retirement.

Church plan exempt from ERISA

Like most plans operated by Catholic institutions, the pension plan had a religious exemption from the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (known as ERISA), which sets minimum funding requirements for most nonreligious pension plans and also enables the federal government to step in and make payments to retirees of failed plans, using a fund financed by covered pension plans.

When the hospital closed in 2008, the officers of St. Clare’s “determined that the corporation would continue to exist for purposes of administering the pension plan,” according to a complaint filed in state court in Schenectady County by the New York attorney general’s office in May 2022. 

“They also chose to continue treating the pension plan as a ‘Church plan’ — which it could do only if the corporation’s former employees and pensioners were designated as employees of the Church. This was all in order to avoid the contribution and insurance requirements of ERISA, and the duties imposed by ERISA upon corporation directors and trustees as fiduciaries,” the complaint states.

The bishop of Albany was automatically a member of the hospital’s board and served as its honorary chairman, and had authority to appoint most of the directors on the board, according to the state attorney general’s complaint.

The attorney general’s office alleged that St. Clare’s Corporation failed to make contributions to the pension fund “for all but three years from 2001 to 2019” and concealed from retirees “the insolvency of the pension plan.”

In 2018, the St. Clare’s board terminated the pension plan effective Feb. 1, 2019, because of an approximately $50 million shortfall. More than 1,100 employees lost retirement benefits, including about 650 who lost all pension payments and about 450 who received a lump-sum payment “equal to 70% of the value of their vested pension,” the complaint states. The retired employees include “nurses, lab technicians, social workers, EMTs, orderlies, housekeepers, and other essential workers” who worked at the hospital “between 10 and 50 years,” the complaint states.

Testimony and reaction

On Dec. 9 during the civil trial, Scharfenberger testified that during his tenure no boards he sat on ever discussed the hospital’s pension plan, according to The Times-Union of Albany. 

In a written statement issued in August, when Scharfenberger still led the Diocese of Albany, the diocese said the bishop “has actively sought ways to help the pensioners” while denying that the diocese ever “exercised any control over St. Clare’s Hospital operations or its pension.” 

“He hosted a listening session with pensioners at Siena College to identify issues and consider ways to help those in need. He also reached out to the Mother Cabrini Foundation to try to secure funding for the pensioners, but that effort was unable to move forward once the pensioners filed the lawsuit,” the statement said. 

“The diocese is eager to see the case move forward and promptly resolved,” the August statement continued. “Our prayers continue for all who are struggling in any way, and as we stated previously, our offer to connect those in need with services that can help, stands. No one should walk alone.”

His successor, Bishop Mark O’Connell, who was installed as bishop of Albany on Dec. 5, told reporters shortly before the verdict was announced last week: “I care deeply about their hurt [and] not having their pensions,” according to The Evangelist.

During the Dec. 12 press conference, when a reporter asked O’Connell what the diocese would do if the jury found the diocese liable for the pension fund collapse, the bishop noted that the diocese is already in the midst of a bankruptcy process.

“If we are liable, then we’ll do what we can to make amends, given that they are one creditor as a group among many people accusing the Diocese of Albany,” O’Connell said, according to WAMC Northeast Public Radio. “And that’s what bankruptcy process is. We obviously cannot pay a billion dollars. Right? So that’s what Chapter 11 is all about, to figure out what’s fair. And since you have a bankruptcy judge and mediators, it’s not up to us.”

Later that day, the jury found the diocese not liable in the pension fund collapse lawsuit. The diocese issued a written statement, according to The Evangelist, that said: “As grateful as we are for the jury’s informed decision, we are still very much aware of the hurt felt by the St. Clare’s pensioners who cared for the sick and the poor throughout the long history of St. Clare’s Hospital. This does not mean that we will turn our backs to the pensioners, for as Bishop O’Connell has noted, they are a part of our flock; they are still in need of healing.”

That same day, lead plaintiff Mary Hartshorne, who worked in the hospital’s radiology department for about 28 years, told WNYT Channel 13 in Albany that she and other hospital retirees were pleased with the jury’s verdict but did not feel they would be made whole.

“We’ve been playing this game for seven and a half years, and I think my question I ask everybody is: How do you get that back? You don’t,” she said.

This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

Read More
Top 2025 religious freedom developments included mix of persecution, protection #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: Joe Belanger/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 19, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Here is an overview of some of the religious freedom developments and news in the United States and abroad in 2025:White House started the Religious Liberty CommissionPresident Donald Trump established the White House Religious Liberty Commission in May to report on threats to religious freedom in the U.S. and seek to advance legal protections. The commission and advisory boards include members of various religions. Catholic members on the commission include Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Bishop Robert Barron. Catholic advisory board members include Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, and Father Thomas Ferguson.Lawmakers condemned persecution of Christians Rep. Riley Moore, R-West Virginia, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, introduced a joint resolution condemning the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries across the world.The measure called on the Trump administration to leverage trade, security negotiations, and other diplomatic tools to advocate for religious freedom. Court blocked law that would require priests to violate the seal of confessionWashington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a state law in May that would require priests to report child abuse to authorities even if they hear about it during the sacrament of confession. Catholic bishops brought a lawsuit against the measure. A federal judge blocked the controversial law.Trump announced federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schoolsPresident Donald Trump announced the U.S. Department of Education will issue federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schools during a Sept. 8 Religious Liberty Commission hearing. He said the guidelines will “protect the right to prayer in our public schools and [provide for] its total protection.”The president said he sought the guidelines after hearing about instances of public school students and staff being censored and facing disciplinary action for engaging in prayer, reading the Bible, and publicly expressing their faith.Report found most states fail to safeguard religious liberty About three-fourths of states scored less than 50% on Napa Legal Institute’s religious freedom index, which measures how well states safeguard religious liberty for faith-based organizations. The October report was part of Napa’s Faith & Freedom Index that showed Alabama scored the highest and Michigan scored the lowest.Lawmakers urged federal court to allow Ten Commandments displayFirst Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP filed an amicus brief in December on behalf of 46 United States lawmakers urging the federal court to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana; Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas; and Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, R-Texas, were among the lawmakers who supported the cause after federal judges blocked Texas and Louisiana laws requiring the display of the commandments.Supreme Court ruled on religious freedom cases The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school district over its refusal to allow families to opt their children out of reading LGBT-themed books. In a 6-3 decision on July 27 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court ruled the Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim parents “are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise.” In July, the Supreme Court ordered the New York Court of Appeals to revisit Diocese of Albany v. Harris, which challenged a 2017 New York state mandate requiring employers to cover abortions in health insurance plans.In October, a Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site in Arizona lost its appeal to the Supreme Court.Religious liberty abroad: Religious freedom diminished in AfghanistanThe U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said in a report that “religious freedom conditions in Afghanistan continue to decline dramatically under Taliban rule.”The USCIRF wrote in an Aug. 15 report examining the Taliban’s Law on the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice one year after its enactment: The morality law “impacts all Afghans” but “disproportionately affects religious minorities and women, eradicating their participation in public life and systematically eliminating their right to [freedom of religious belief].”Chinese government banned Catholic priests from evangelizing onlineIn September, the State Administration for Religious Affairs in China banned several forms of online evangelization for religious clergy of all religions, including Catholic priests.The Code of Conduct for Religious Clergy was made up of 18 articles including one that said faith leaders are banned from performing religious rituals through live broadcasts, short videos, or online meetings. U.S. commission said China should be designated as a country of particular concernThe USCIRF reported China tries to exert total control over religion and said the U.S. Department of State should redesignate China as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) regarding religious freedom.USCIRF said in September that China uses surveillance, fines, retribution against family members, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, and other forms of abuse to control the Catholic Church and other religious communities in the nation.In its annual report, USCIRF also recommended Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam be designated as CPCs.

Top 2025 religious freedom developments included mix of persecution, protection #Catholic null / Credit: Joe Belanger/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 19, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Here is an overview of some of the religious freedom developments and news in the United States and abroad in 2025:White House started the Religious Liberty CommissionPresident Donald Trump established the White House Religious Liberty Commission in May to report on threats to religious freedom in the U.S. and seek to advance legal protections. The commission and advisory boards include members of various religions. Catholic members on the commission include Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Bishop Robert Barron. Catholic advisory board members include Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, and Father Thomas Ferguson.Lawmakers condemned persecution of Christians Rep. Riley Moore, R-West Virginia, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, introduced a joint resolution condemning the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries across the world.The measure called on the Trump administration to leverage trade, security negotiations, and other diplomatic tools to advocate for religious freedom. Court blocked law that would require priests to violate the seal of confessionWashington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a state law in May that would require priests to report child abuse to authorities even if they hear about it during the sacrament of confession. Catholic bishops brought a lawsuit against the measure. A federal judge blocked the controversial law.Trump announced federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schoolsPresident Donald Trump announced the U.S. Department of Education will issue federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schools during a Sept. 8 Religious Liberty Commission hearing. He said the guidelines will “protect the right to prayer in our public schools and [provide for] its total protection.”The president said he sought the guidelines after hearing about instances of public school students and staff being censored and facing disciplinary action for engaging in prayer, reading the Bible, and publicly expressing their faith.Report found most states fail to safeguard religious liberty About three-fourths of states scored less than 50% on Napa Legal Institute’s religious freedom index, which measures how well states safeguard religious liberty for faith-based organizations. The October report was part of Napa’s Faith & Freedom Index that showed Alabama scored the highest and Michigan scored the lowest.Lawmakers urged federal court to allow Ten Commandments displayFirst Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP filed an amicus brief in December on behalf of 46 United States lawmakers urging the federal court to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana; Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas; and Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, R-Texas, were among the lawmakers who supported the cause after federal judges blocked Texas and Louisiana laws requiring the display of the commandments.Supreme Court ruled on religious freedom cases The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school district over its refusal to allow families to opt their children out of reading LGBT-themed books. In a 6-3 decision on July 27 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court ruled the Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim parents “are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise.” In July, the Supreme Court ordered the New York Court of Appeals to revisit Diocese of Albany v. Harris, which challenged a 2017 New York state mandate requiring employers to cover abortions in health insurance plans.In October, a Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site in Arizona lost its appeal to the Supreme Court.Religious liberty abroad: Religious freedom diminished in AfghanistanThe U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said in a report that “religious freedom conditions in Afghanistan continue to decline dramatically under Taliban rule.”The USCIRF wrote in an Aug. 15 report examining the Taliban’s Law on the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice one year after its enactment: The morality law “impacts all Afghans” but “disproportionately affects religious minorities and women, eradicating their participation in public life and systematically eliminating their right to [freedom of religious belief].”Chinese government banned Catholic priests from evangelizing onlineIn September, the State Administration for Religious Affairs in China banned several forms of online evangelization for religious clergy of all religions, including Catholic priests.The Code of Conduct for Religious Clergy was made up of 18 articles including one that said faith leaders are banned from performing religious rituals through live broadcasts, short videos, or online meetings. U.S. commission said China should be designated as a country of particular concernThe USCIRF reported China tries to exert total control over religion and said the U.S. Department of State should redesignate China as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) regarding religious freedom.USCIRF said in September that China uses surveillance, fines, retribution against family members, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, and other forms of abuse to control the Catholic Church and other religious communities in the nation.In its annual report, USCIRF also recommended Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam be designated as CPCs.


null / Credit: Joe Belanger/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 19, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Here is an overview of some of the religious freedom developments and news in the United States and abroad in 2025:

White House started the Religious Liberty Commission

President Donald Trump established the White House Religious Liberty Commission in May to report on threats to religious freedom in the U.S. and seek to advance legal protections. 

The commission and advisory boards include members of various religions. Catholic members on the commission include Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Bishop Robert Barron. Catholic advisory board members include Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, and Father Thomas Ferguson.

Lawmakers condemned persecution of Christians

Rep. Riley Moore, R-West Virginia, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, introduced a joint resolution condemning the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries across the world.

The measure called on the Trump administration to leverage trade, security negotiations, and other diplomatic tools to advocate for religious freedom. 

Court blocked law that would require priests to violate the seal of confession

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a state law in May that would require priests to report child abuse to authorities even if they hear about it during the sacrament of confession. Catholic bishops brought a lawsuit against the measure. A federal judge blocked the controversial law.

Trump announced federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schools

President Donald Trump announced the U.S. Department of Education will issue federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schools during a Sept. 8 Religious Liberty Commission hearing. He said the guidelines will “protect the right to prayer in our public schools and [provide for] its total protection.”

The president said he sought the guidelines after hearing about instances of public school students and staff being censored and facing disciplinary action for engaging in prayer, reading the Bible, and publicly expressing their faith.

Report found most states fail to safeguard religious liberty 

About three-fourths of states scored less than 50% on Napa Legal Institute’s religious freedom index, which measures how well states safeguard religious liberty for faith-based organizations. The October report was part of Napa’s Faith & Freedom Index that showed Alabama scored the highest and Michigan scored the lowest.

Lawmakers urged federal court to allow Ten Commandments display

First Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP filed an amicus brief in December on behalf of 46 United States lawmakers urging the federal court to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana; Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas; and Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, R-Texas, were among the lawmakers who supported the cause after federal judges blocked Texas and Louisiana laws requiring the display of the commandments.

Supreme Court ruled on religious freedom cases 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school district over its refusal to allow families to opt their children out of reading LGBT-themed books. 

In a 6-3 decision on July 27 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court ruled the Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim parents “are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise.” 

In July, the Supreme Court ordered the New York Court of Appeals to revisit Diocese of Albany v. Harris, which challenged a 2017 New York state mandate requiring employers to cover abortions in health insurance plans.

In October, a Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site in Arizona lost its appeal to the Supreme Court.

Religious liberty abroad: Religious freedom diminished in Afghanistan

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said in a report that “religious freedom conditions in Afghanistan continue to decline dramatically under Taliban rule.”

The USCIRF wrote in an Aug. 15 report examining the Taliban’s Law on the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice one year after its enactment: The morality law “impacts all Afghans” but “disproportionately affects religious minorities and women, eradicating their participation in public life and systematically eliminating their right to [freedom of religious belief].”

Chinese government banned Catholic priests from evangelizing online

In September, the State Administration for Religious Affairs in China banned several forms of online evangelization for religious clergy of all religions, including Catholic priests.

The Code of Conduct for Religious Clergy was made up of 18 articles including one that said faith leaders are banned from performing religious rituals through live broadcasts, short videos, or online meetings. 

U.S. commission said China should be designated as a country of particular concern

The USCIRF reported China tries to exert total control over religion and said the U.S. Department of State should redesignate China as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) regarding religious freedom.

USCIRF said in September that China uses surveillance, fines, retribution against family members, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, and other forms of abuse to control the Catholic Church and other religious communities in the nation.

In its annual report, USCIRF also recommended Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam be designated as CPCs.

Read More
Trump eases marijuana regulations amid industry backing, Catholic concerns #Catholic 
 
 President Donald Trump signed an executive order Dec. 18, 2025, that eases federal marijuana regulations amid support from the cannabis industry but opposition from some Catholic and conservative groups. / Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 17:18 pm (CNA).
President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to ease federal marijuana regulations amid support from the cannabis industry but opposition from some Catholic and conservative groups.Trump’s Dec. 18 executive order directs the attorney general to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug as quickly as federal law allows. This process began under President Joe Biden’s administration and is being continued under Trump.Schedule I, which includes marijuana, is reserved for drugs that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Schedule III is a lower classification, which is for drugs “with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” and less abuse potential than Schedule I.Rescheduling marijuana does not end a federal ban on both recreational and medical use, which would still be in place. However, it would reduce criminal penalties, open the door for medical research, and potentially be a step toward further deregulation and normalization.Right now, 40 states have medical marijuana programs and 24 legalize recreational use, in contrast to the federal law.In a news conference, Trump said rescheduling marijuana will help patients who seek the drug for medical use “live a far better life.” He said the executive order “in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug.”“Young Americans are especially at risk, so unless a drug is recommended by a doctor for medical reasons, just don’t do it,” the president said.“At the same time, the facts compel the federal government to recognize that marijuana can be legitimate in terms of medical applications when carefully administered,” he said. “In some cases, this may include the use as a substitute for addictive and potentially lethal opioid painkillers.”Kelsey Reinhardt, president and CEO of CatholicVote, criticized the decision. The group had launched a campaign to discourage the president from rescheduling the product. “Every argument pushed by the cannabis lobby has now been exposed as false by real-world data and medical science,” Reinhardt said in a statement.“We were told marijuana was safe, nonaddictive, and would reduce crime — none of that turned out to be true in my home state of Colorado or in other states that are now working to repeal,” she said. “Instead, we’re seeing higher addiction rates, emergency-room spikes, impaired driving, heart risks, mental-health damage, and lasting harm to young people,” Reinhardt said.Reinhardt called the executive order “disappointing” and said it “repeats the same reckless mistakes we made with Big Tobacco and puts ideology ahead of public health.” She said CatholicVote will work with federal agencies to “minimize the damage” and urged Congress to take action to reverse the executive order. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not directly mention marijuana but teaches “the use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” It calls drug use a “grave offense” with the exception of drugs used on “strictly therapeutic grounds,” such as medical treatment.In spite of concerns from some Catholics, some Catholic hospitals have done research into medical marijuana. Some of that research has looked into medical marijuana as potentially a less risky and less addictive alternative to opioids for pain management.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has not taken a position on the matter. Pope Francis said he opposed the partial legalization of so-called “soft drugs,” stating in 2014 that “the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs.” In June, Pope Leo XIV referred to drugs as “an invisible prison” and encouraged law enforcement to focus on drug traffickers instead of addicts. 

Trump eases marijuana regulations amid industry backing, Catholic concerns #Catholic President Donald Trump signed an executive order Dec. 18, 2025, that eases federal marijuana regulations amid support from the cannabis industry but opposition from some Catholic and conservative groups. / Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 17:18 pm (CNA). President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to ease federal marijuana regulations amid support from the cannabis industry but opposition from some Catholic and conservative groups.Trump’s Dec. 18 executive order directs the attorney general to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug as quickly as federal law allows. This process began under President Joe Biden’s administration and is being continued under Trump.Schedule I, which includes marijuana, is reserved for drugs that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Schedule III is a lower classification, which is for drugs “with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” and less abuse potential than Schedule I.Rescheduling marijuana does not end a federal ban on both recreational and medical use, which would still be in place. However, it would reduce criminal penalties, open the door for medical research, and potentially be a step toward further deregulation and normalization.Right now, 40 states have medical marijuana programs and 24 legalize recreational use, in contrast to the federal law.In a news conference, Trump said rescheduling marijuana will help patients who seek the drug for medical use “live a far better life.” He said the executive order “in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug.”“Young Americans are especially at risk, so unless a drug is recommended by a doctor for medical reasons, just don’t do it,” the president said.“At the same time, the facts compel the federal government to recognize that marijuana can be legitimate in terms of medical applications when carefully administered,” he said. “In some cases, this may include the use as a substitute for addictive and potentially lethal opioid painkillers.”Kelsey Reinhardt, president and CEO of CatholicVote, criticized the decision. The group had launched a campaign to discourage the president from rescheduling the product. “Every argument pushed by the cannabis lobby has now been exposed as false by real-world data and medical science,” Reinhardt said in a statement.“We were told marijuana was safe, nonaddictive, and would reduce crime — none of that turned out to be true in my home state of Colorado or in other states that are now working to repeal,” she said. “Instead, we’re seeing higher addiction rates, emergency-room spikes, impaired driving, heart risks, mental-health damage, and lasting harm to young people,” Reinhardt said.Reinhardt called the executive order “disappointing” and said it “repeats the same reckless mistakes we made with Big Tobacco and puts ideology ahead of public health.” She said CatholicVote will work with federal agencies to “minimize the damage” and urged Congress to take action to reverse the executive order. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not directly mention marijuana but teaches “the use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” It calls drug use a “grave offense” with the exception of drugs used on “strictly therapeutic grounds,” such as medical treatment.In spite of concerns from some Catholics, some Catholic hospitals have done research into medical marijuana. Some of that research has looked into medical marijuana as potentially a less risky and less addictive alternative to opioids for pain management.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has not taken a position on the matter. Pope Francis said he opposed the partial legalization of so-called “soft drugs,” stating in 2014 that “the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs.” In June, Pope Leo XIV referred to drugs as “an invisible prison” and encouraged law enforcement to focus on drug traffickers instead of addicts. 


President Donald Trump signed an executive order Dec. 18, 2025, that eases federal marijuana regulations amid support from the cannabis industry but opposition from some Catholic and conservative groups. / Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 17:18 pm (CNA).

President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to ease federal marijuana regulations amid support from the cannabis industry but opposition from some Catholic and conservative groups.

Trump’s Dec. 18 executive order directs the attorney general to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug as quickly as federal law allows. This process began under President Joe Biden’s administration and is being continued under Trump.

Schedule I, which includes marijuana, is reserved for drugs that have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Schedule III is a lower classification, which is for drugs “with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” and less abuse potential than Schedule I.

Rescheduling marijuana does not end a federal ban on both recreational and medical use, which would still be in place. However, it would reduce criminal penalties, open the door for medical research, and potentially be a step toward further deregulation and normalization.

Right now, 40 states have medical marijuana programs and 24 legalize recreational use, in contrast to the federal law.

In a news conference, Trump said rescheduling marijuana will help patients who seek the drug for medical use “live a far better life.” He said the executive order “in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug.”

“Young Americans are especially at risk, so unless a drug is recommended by a doctor for medical reasons, just don’t do it,” the president said.

“At the same time, the facts compel the federal government to recognize that marijuana can be legitimate in terms of medical applications when carefully administered,” he said. “In some cases, this may include the use as a substitute for addictive and potentially lethal opioid painkillers.”

Kelsey Reinhardt, president and CEO of CatholicVote, criticized the decision. The group had launched a campaign to discourage the president from rescheduling the product. 

“Every argument pushed by the cannabis lobby has now been exposed as false by real-world data and medical science,” Reinhardt said in a statement.

“We were told marijuana was safe, nonaddictive, and would reduce crime — none of that turned out to be true in my home state of Colorado or in other states that are now working to repeal,” she said. “Instead, we’re seeing higher addiction rates, emergency-room spikes, impaired driving, heart risks, mental-health damage, and lasting harm to young people,” Reinhardt said.

Reinhardt called the executive order “disappointing” and said it “repeats the same reckless mistakes we made with Big Tobacco and puts ideology ahead of public health.” She said CatholicVote will work with federal agencies to “minimize the damage” and urged Congress to take action to reverse the executive order. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not directly mention marijuana but teaches “the use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” It calls drug use a “grave offense” with the exception of drugs used on “strictly therapeutic grounds,” such as medical treatment.

In spite of concerns from some Catholics, some Catholic hospitals have done research into medical marijuana. Some of that research has looked into medical marijuana as potentially a less risky and less addictive alternative to opioids for pain management.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has not taken a position on the matter. Pope Francis said he opposed the partial legalization of so-called “soft drugs,” stating in 2014 that “the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs.” In June, Pope Leo XIV referred to drugs as “an invisible prison” and encouraged law enforcement to focus on drug traffickers instead of addicts. 

Read More
Advocates push EPA to include abortion drugs on list of drinking water contaminants #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: Carl DMaster/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 16:48 pm (CNA).
Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news:Advocates push for EPA to include chemicals from abortion drugs on list of drinking water contaminantsStudents for Life of America (SFLA) is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add the abortion drug mifepristone to a list of drinking water contaminants tracked by public utilities. “It’s a problem only the EPA can fully investigate,” SFLA reported.In two letters over the last several sessions of Congress, legislators have called on the EPA to find out the extent of the damage of abortion drug water pollution. Multiple pro-life and pro-family organizations joined together to ask the EPA to look into the chemicals.“The EPA has the regulatory authority and humane responsibility to determine the extent of abortion water pollution, caused by the reckless and negligent policies pushed by past administrations through the FDA [Food and Drug Administration],” said Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA.“Take the word ‘abortion’ out of it and ask, should chemically tainted blood and placenta tissue, along with human remains, be flushed by the tons into America’s waterways? And since the federal government set that up, shouldn’t we know what’s in our water?” she said.Ireland votes not to restore bill that would remove three-day waiting period for abortionsThe Dáil, the lower house and main chamber of the Irish Parliament, has voted against restoring an abortion bill that would have decriminalized abortion up until birth and removed the three-day waiting period for an abortion. The legislation previously passed the second stage in the Dáil, but Parliament members decided in a 73 to 71 vote to reject it.The legislation would have allowed abortion on request before “viability” and on grounds of a fatal fetal abnormality that would likely lead to the death of the baby before birth or within a year of birth. Missouri senator launches new pro-life initiativeU.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and his wife, Erin Hawley, announced they are launching a new effort to advocate for families and the unborn called the Love Life Initiative. The effort is intended to “remind Americans that life is sacred, life is good, and life is worth protecting.”The Love Life Initiative was “born out of the recognition that pro-life victories in the courtroom is not enough,” according to the initiative’s website. At the time of the Dobbs ruling, 49% of Americans identified as pro-choice and 46% as pro-life, Love Life reported. Today, 53% identify as pro-choice and only 39% identify as pro-life. The initiative plans to work to reverse this trend through “thoughtful, far-reaching advertising campaigns that promote the sanctity of life, advance referendums that protect life, and identify and defeat harmful proposals in statehouses across the nation.”

Advocates push EPA to include abortion drugs on list of drinking water contaminants #Catholic null / Credit: Carl DMaster/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 16:48 pm (CNA). Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news:Advocates push for EPA to include chemicals from abortion drugs on list of drinking water contaminantsStudents for Life of America (SFLA) is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add the abortion drug mifepristone to a list of drinking water contaminants tracked by public utilities. “It’s a problem only the EPA can fully investigate,” SFLA reported.In two letters over the last several sessions of Congress, legislators have called on the EPA to find out the extent of the damage of abortion drug water pollution. Multiple pro-life and pro-family organizations joined together to ask the EPA to look into the chemicals.“The EPA has the regulatory authority and humane responsibility to determine the extent of abortion water pollution, caused by the reckless and negligent policies pushed by past administrations through the FDA [Food and Drug Administration],” said Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA.“Take the word ‘abortion’ out of it and ask, should chemically tainted blood and placenta tissue, along with human remains, be flushed by the tons into America’s waterways? And since the federal government set that up, shouldn’t we know what’s in our water?” she said.Ireland votes not to restore bill that would remove three-day waiting period for abortionsThe Dáil, the lower house and main chamber of the Irish Parliament, has voted against restoring an abortion bill that would have decriminalized abortion up until birth and removed the three-day waiting period for an abortion. The legislation previously passed the second stage in the Dáil, but Parliament members decided in a 73 to 71 vote to reject it.The legislation would have allowed abortion on request before “viability” and on grounds of a fatal fetal abnormality that would likely lead to the death of the baby before birth or within a year of birth. Missouri senator launches new pro-life initiativeU.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and his wife, Erin Hawley, announced they are launching a new effort to advocate for families and the unborn called the Love Life Initiative. The effort is intended to “remind Americans that life is sacred, life is good, and life is worth protecting.”The Love Life Initiative was “born out of the recognition that pro-life victories in the courtroom is not enough,” according to the initiative’s website. At the time of the Dobbs ruling, 49% of Americans identified as pro-choice and 46% as pro-life, Love Life reported. Today, 53% identify as pro-choice and only 39% identify as pro-life. The initiative plans to work to reverse this trend through “thoughtful, far-reaching advertising campaigns that promote the sanctity of life, advance referendums that protect life, and identify and defeat harmful proposals in statehouses across the nation.”


null / Credit: Carl DMaster/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 16:48 pm (CNA).

Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news:

Advocates push for EPA to include chemicals from abortion drugs on list of drinking water contaminants

Students for Life of America (SFLA) is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add the abortion drug mifepristone to a list of drinking water contaminants tracked by public utilities. “It’s a problem only the EPA can fully investigate,” SFLA reported.

In two letters over the last several sessions of Congress, legislators have called on the EPA to find out the extent of the damage of abortion drug water pollution. Multiple pro-life and pro-family organizations joined together to ask the EPA to look into the chemicals.

“The EPA has the regulatory authority and humane responsibility to determine the extent of abortion water pollution, caused by the reckless and negligent policies pushed by past administrations through the FDA [Food and Drug Administration],” said Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA.

“Take the word ‘abortion’ out of it and ask, should chemically tainted blood and placenta tissue, along with human remains, be flushed by the tons into America’s waterways? And since the federal government set that up, shouldn’t we know what’s in our water?” she said.

Ireland votes not to restore bill that would remove three-day waiting period for abortions

The Dáil, the lower house and main chamber of the Irish Parliament, has voted against restoring an abortion bill that would have decriminalized abortion up until birth and removed the three-day waiting period for an abortion. The legislation previously passed the second stage in the Dáil, but Parliament members decided in a 73 to 71 vote to reject it.

The legislation would have allowed abortion on request before “viability” and on grounds of a fatal fetal abnormality that would likely lead to the death of the baby before birth or within a year of birth. 

Missouri senator launches new pro-life initiative

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and his wife, Erin Hawley, announced they are launching a new effort to advocate for families and the unborn called the Love Life Initiative. The effort is intended to “remind Americans that life is sacred, life is good, and life is worth protecting.”

The Love Life Initiative was “born out of the recognition that pro-life victories in the courtroom is not enough,” according to the initiative’s website. 

At the time of the Dobbs ruling, 49% of Americans identified as pro-choice and 46% as pro-life, Love Life reported. Today, 53% identify as pro-choice and only 39% identify as pro-life. The initiative plans to work to reverse this trend through “thoughtful, far-reaching advertising campaigns that promote the sanctity of life, advance referendums that protect life, and identify and defeat harmful proposals in statehouses across the nation.”

Read More
HHS announces actions to restrict ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ on minors #Catholic 
 
 President Donald J. Trump watches as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, speaks after being sworn in on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations today that would seek to end “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone younger than 18 years old, which includes restrictions on hospitals and retailers.Under one proposal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would withhold all funding through Medicare and Medicaid to any hospital that offers surgeries or drugs to minors as a means to make them resemble the opposite sex. The proposed rules would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone under 18 and prohibit federal Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP) funding for the procedures on anyone under 19.This includes surgical operations, such as the removal of healthy genitals to replace them with artificial genitals that resemble the opposite sex and chest procedures that remove the healthy breasts on girls or implant prosthetic breasts on boys.It also includes hormone treatments that attempt to masculinize girls with testosterone and feminize boys with estrogen and puberty blockers, which delay a child’s natural developments during puberty.HHS also announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warning letters to 12 manufacturers and retailers that they accuse of illegally marketing “breast binders” to girls under the age of 18 as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Breast binders compress breasts as a means to flatten them under their clothing.The news release said breast binders are Class 1 medical devices meant to help recover from cancer-related mastectomies, and the warning letters will “formally notify the companies of their significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action.”Additionally, HHS is working to clarify the definition of a “disability” in civil rights regulations to exclude “gender dysphoria” that does not result from physical impairments. This ensures that discrimination laws are not interpreted in a way that would require “sex-rejecting procedures,” the statement said.HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference that “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors are “endangering the very lives that [doctors] are sworn to safeguard.”“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” he said. “This is not medicine — it is malpractice.” The proposals would conform HHS regulations to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order to prohibit the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. The order instructed HHS to propose regulations to prevent these procedures on minors.In a news release, HHS repeatedly referred to the medical interventions as “sex-rejecting procedures” and warned they “cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”HHS cited its own report from May, which found “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions” for treating a minor with gender dysphoria. The report found that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms,” which can include infertility, sexual dysfunction, underdeveloped bone mass, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, and adverse cognitive impacts, among other complications.Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group, said in a statement that the proposed regulation on hospitals is “another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology” and said he supports rules that ensure “American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors.”“Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed,” he said. “Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit.”Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), said she sees the proposed restriction on hospitals as “excellent.”“This proposed rule sends a powerful message to states and health care providers: It’s time to stop these unethical and dangerous procedures,” Hasson said. “Puberty is not a disease to be medicated away. All children have the right to grow and develop normally.”“Sex-rejecting procedures promise the impossible: that a child can escape the reality of being male or female,” she added. “In reality, these sex-rejecting procedures provide only the illusion of ‘changing sex’ by disabling healthy functions and altering the child’s healthy body through drugs and surgery that will cause lifelong harm.”In January, Bishop Robert Barron, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, welcomed Trump’s executive action on these procedures, warning that they are “based on a false understanding of human nature, attempt to change a child’s sex.”“So many young people who have been victims of this ideological crusade have profound regrets over its life-altering consequences, such as infertility and lifelong dependence on costly hormone therapies that have significant side effects,” Barron said. “It is unacceptable that our children are encouraged to undergo destructive medical interventions instead of receiving access to authentic and bodily-unitive care.”

HHS announces actions to restrict ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ on minors #Catholic President Donald J. Trump watches as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, speaks after being sworn in on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations today that would seek to end “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone younger than 18 years old, which includes restrictions on hospitals and retailers.Under one proposal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would withhold all funding through Medicare and Medicaid to any hospital that offers surgeries or drugs to minors as a means to make them resemble the opposite sex. The proposed rules would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone under 18 and prohibit federal Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP) funding for the procedures on anyone under 19.This includes surgical operations, such as the removal of healthy genitals to replace them with artificial genitals that resemble the opposite sex and chest procedures that remove the healthy breasts on girls or implant prosthetic breasts on boys.It also includes hormone treatments that attempt to masculinize girls with testosterone and feminize boys with estrogen and puberty blockers, which delay a child’s natural developments during puberty.HHS also announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warning letters to 12 manufacturers and retailers that they accuse of illegally marketing “breast binders” to girls under the age of 18 as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Breast binders compress breasts as a means to flatten them under their clothing.The news release said breast binders are Class 1 medical devices meant to help recover from cancer-related mastectomies, and the warning letters will “formally notify the companies of their significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action.”Additionally, HHS is working to clarify the definition of a “disability” in civil rights regulations to exclude “gender dysphoria” that does not result from physical impairments. This ensures that discrimination laws are not interpreted in a way that would require “sex-rejecting procedures,” the statement said.HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference that “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors are “endangering the very lives that [doctors] are sworn to safeguard.”“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” he said. “This is not medicine — it is malpractice.” The proposals would conform HHS regulations to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order to prohibit the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. The order instructed HHS to propose regulations to prevent these procedures on minors.In a news release, HHS repeatedly referred to the medical interventions as “sex-rejecting procedures” and warned they “cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”HHS cited its own report from May, which found “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions” for treating a minor with gender dysphoria. The report found that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms,” which can include infertility, sexual dysfunction, underdeveloped bone mass, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, and adverse cognitive impacts, among other complications.Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group, said in a statement that the proposed regulation on hospitals is “another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology” and said he supports rules that ensure “American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors.”“Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed,” he said. “Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit.”Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), said she sees the proposed restriction on hospitals as “excellent.”“This proposed rule sends a powerful message to states and health care providers: It’s time to stop these unethical and dangerous procedures,” Hasson said. “Puberty is not a disease to be medicated away. All children have the right to grow and develop normally.”“Sex-rejecting procedures promise the impossible: that a child can escape the reality of being male or female,” she added. “In reality, these sex-rejecting procedures provide only the illusion of ‘changing sex’ by disabling healthy functions and altering the child’s healthy body through drugs and surgery that will cause lifelong harm.”In January, Bishop Robert Barron, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, welcomed Trump’s executive action on these procedures, warning that they are “based on a false understanding of human nature, attempt to change a child’s sex.”“So many young people who have been victims of this ideological crusade have profound regrets over its life-altering consequences, such as infertility and lifelong dependence on costly hormone therapies that have significant side effects,” Barron said. “It is unacceptable that our children are encouraged to undergo destructive medical interventions instead of receiving access to authentic and bodily-unitive care.”


President Donald J. Trump watches as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, speaks after being sworn in on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA).

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations today that would seek to end “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone younger than 18 years old, which includes restrictions on hospitals and retailers.

Under one proposal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would withhold all funding through Medicare and Medicaid to any hospital that offers surgeries or drugs to minors as a means to make them resemble the opposite sex. The proposed rules would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone under 18 and prohibit federal Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP) funding for the procedures on anyone under 19.

This includes surgical operations, such as the removal of healthy genitals to replace them with artificial genitals that resemble the opposite sex and chest procedures that remove the healthy breasts on girls or implant prosthetic breasts on boys.

It also includes hormone treatments that attempt to masculinize girls with testosterone and feminize boys with estrogen and puberty blockers, which delay a child’s natural developments during puberty.

HHS also announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warning letters to 12 manufacturers and retailers that they accuse of illegally marketing “breast binders” to girls under the age of 18 as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Breast binders compress breasts as a means to flatten them under their clothing.

The news release said breast binders are Class 1 medical devices meant to help recover from cancer-related mastectomies, and the warning letters will “formally notify the companies of their significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action.”

Additionally, HHS is working to clarify the definition of a “disability” in civil rights regulations to exclude “gender dysphoria” that does not result from physical impairments. This ensures that discrimination laws are not interpreted in a way that would require “sex-rejecting procedures,” the statement said.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference that “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors are “endangering the very lives that [doctors] are sworn to safeguard.”

“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” he said. “This is not medicine — it is malpractice.” 

The proposals would conform HHS regulations to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order to prohibit the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. The order instructed HHS to propose regulations to prevent these procedures on minors.

In a news release, HHS repeatedly referred to the medical interventions as “sex-rejecting procedures” and warned they “cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”

HHS cited its own report from May, which found “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions” for treating a minor with gender dysphoria. The report found that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms,” which can include infertility, sexual dysfunction, underdeveloped bone mass, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, and adverse cognitive impacts, among other complications.

Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group, said in a statement that the proposed regulation on hospitals is “another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology” and said he supports rules that ensure “American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors.”

“Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed,” he said. “Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit.”

Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), said she sees the proposed restriction on hospitals as “excellent.”

“This proposed rule sends a powerful message to states and health care providers: It’s time to stop these unethical and dangerous procedures,” Hasson said. “Puberty is not a disease to be medicated away. All children have the right to grow and develop normally.”

“Sex-rejecting procedures promise the impossible: that a child can escape the reality of being male or female,” she added. “In reality, these sex-rejecting procedures provide only the illusion of ‘changing sex’ by disabling healthy functions and altering the child’s healthy body through drugs and surgery that will cause lifelong harm.”

In January, Bishop Robert Barron, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, welcomed Trump’s executive action on these procedures, warning that they are “based on a false understanding of human nature, attempt to change a child’s sex.”

“So many young people who have been victims of this ideological crusade have profound regrets over its life-altering consequences, such as infertility and lifelong dependence on costly hormone therapies that have significant side effects,” Barron said. “It is unacceptable that our children are encouraged to undergo destructive medical interventions instead of receiving access to authentic and bodily-unitive care.”

Read More
Catholic leaders back pregnancy centers, doctors in federal suit over abortion referrals #Catholic 
 
 Illinois state capitol in Springfield. / Credit: Paul Brady Photography/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 12:34 pm (CNA).
Catholic leaders in Illinois are backing a coalition of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors suing the state government over a law that requires them to refer women to abortion providers even if they object to the procedure on religious grounds. The lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, challenges a 2016 Illinois rule that requires health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to nevertheless tout the “benefits” of the procedure and refer women to abortion clinics. In April the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois partly blocked the law, ruling that it violates freedom of speech in forcing providers to relay the alleged benefits of abortion. The court, however, held that the abortion referral requirement is legal. The case is currently at appeal from both sides in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Dec. 16, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Catholic Health Association joined several Orthodox advocates in an amicus brief urging the court to offer the “highest level of protection” to the religious speech of the pro-life plaintiffs. “Providing the highest level of First Amendment protection to religious institutions gives them the predictability they need to pursue their religious missions,” the filing said, arguing that forcing health care providers to refer abortions “could lead people to believe that such conduct is morally acceptable.”First Amendment jurisprudence, the filing argues, leaves “no doubt that the abortion-referral requirement burdens core religious speech without proper justification.”Chicago archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich said in a press statement that “every life deserves protection and care, no matter how fragile or dependent.” “The Church in Illinois is standing up for that eternal truth against Illinois’ effort to deny it,” the prelate said. Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki similarly argued that Catholics “must be free to live according to the 2,000-year-old teachings of our faith without government intrusion.” “Illinois’ mandate threatens that freedom by forcing Catholic ministries and health care professionals to promote a practice we believe is gravely wrong,” he said. “We pray the court will put a swift stop to it.”The amicus brief was filed by the religious liberty law group Becket. Lawyers for the pro-life plaintiffs have argued that the abortion referral requirement violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which was brought by the same organization at the head of the Illinois dispute. The Supreme Court held in that decision that a similar California rule appeared to violate the First Amendment by “requiring [pro-life providers] to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions.”

Catholic leaders back pregnancy centers, doctors in federal suit over abortion referrals #Catholic Illinois state capitol in Springfield. / Credit: Paul Brady Photography/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 12:34 pm (CNA). Catholic leaders in Illinois are backing a coalition of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors suing the state government over a law that requires them to refer women to abortion providers even if they object to the procedure on religious grounds. The lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, challenges a 2016 Illinois rule that requires health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to nevertheless tout the “benefits” of the procedure and refer women to abortion clinics. In April the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois partly blocked the law, ruling that it violates freedom of speech in forcing providers to relay the alleged benefits of abortion. The court, however, held that the abortion referral requirement is legal. The case is currently at appeal from both sides in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Dec. 16, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Catholic Health Association joined several Orthodox advocates in an amicus brief urging the court to offer the “highest level of protection” to the religious speech of the pro-life plaintiffs. “Providing the highest level of First Amendment protection to religious institutions gives them the predictability they need to pursue their religious missions,” the filing said, arguing that forcing health care providers to refer abortions “could lead people to believe that such conduct is morally acceptable.”First Amendment jurisprudence, the filing argues, leaves “no doubt that the abortion-referral requirement burdens core religious speech without proper justification.”Chicago archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich said in a press statement that “every life deserves protection and care, no matter how fragile or dependent.” “The Church in Illinois is standing up for that eternal truth against Illinois’ effort to deny it,” the prelate said. Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki similarly argued that Catholics “must be free to live according to the 2,000-year-old teachings of our faith without government intrusion.” “Illinois’ mandate threatens that freedom by forcing Catholic ministries and health care professionals to promote a practice we believe is gravely wrong,” he said. “We pray the court will put a swift stop to it.”The amicus brief was filed by the religious liberty law group Becket. Lawyers for the pro-life plaintiffs have argued that the abortion referral requirement violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which was brought by the same organization at the head of the Illinois dispute. The Supreme Court held in that decision that a similar California rule appeared to violate the First Amendment by “requiring [pro-life providers] to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions.”


Illinois state capitol in Springfield. / Credit: Paul Brady Photography/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 12:34 pm (CNA).

Catholic leaders in Illinois are backing a coalition of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors suing the state government over a law that requires them to refer women to abortion providers even if they object to the procedure on religious grounds. 

The lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, challenges a 2016 Illinois rule that requires health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to nevertheless tout the “benefits” of the procedure and refer women to abortion clinics. 

In April the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois partly blocked the law, ruling that it violates freedom of speech in forcing providers to relay the alleged benefits of abortion. The court, however, held that the abortion referral requirement is legal. 

The case is currently at appeal from both sides in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Dec. 16, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Catholic Health Association joined several Orthodox advocates in an amicus brief urging the court to offer the “highest level of protection” to the religious speech of the pro-life plaintiffs. 

“Providing the highest level of First Amendment protection to religious institutions gives them the predictability they need to pursue their religious missions,” the filing said, arguing that forcing health care providers to refer abortions “could lead people to believe that such conduct is morally acceptable.”

First Amendment jurisprudence, the filing argues, leaves “no doubt that the abortion-referral requirement burdens core religious speech without proper justification.”

Chicago archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich said in a press statement that “every life deserves protection and care, no matter how fragile or dependent.” 

“The Church in Illinois is standing up for that eternal truth against Illinois’ effort to deny it,” the prelate said. 

Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki similarly argued that Catholics “must be free to live according to the 2,000-year-old teachings of our faith without government intrusion.” 

“Illinois’ mandate threatens that freedom by forcing Catholic ministries and health care professionals to promote a practice we believe is gravely wrong,” he said. “We pray the court will put a swift stop to it.”

The amicus brief was filed by the religious liberty law group Becket. 

Lawyers for the pro-life plaintiffs have argued that the abortion referral requirement violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which was brought by the same organization at the head of the Illinois dispute. 

The Supreme Court held in that decision that a similar California rule appeared to violate the First Amendment by “requiring [pro-life providers] to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions.”

Read More
Picture of the day





Palácio do Planalto, seat of the Brazilian Federal Executive. In late September afternoon, the height of the dry season, the setting sun gives a special color to the monument. Today is Independence Day in Brazil.
 #ImageOfTheDay
Picture of the day
Palácio do Planalto, seat of the Brazilian Federal Executive. In late September afternoon, the height of the dry season, the setting sun gives a special color to the monument. Today is Independence Day in Brazil.
Read More