Iowa – United Yam

A beloved Iowa priest and immigrant advocate dies at 39 #Catholic Father Guillermo Treviño Jr.’s national profile stemmed from his immigrant rights work with Escucha Mi Voz Iowa (“Hear My Voice Iowa”), a group aiding Latino workers, including immigrants. He is shown here during a meeting earlier this year with U.S. Sen.Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. / Credit: Photo courtesy of Escucha Mi Voz Iowa CNA Staff, Nov 5, 2025 / 17:33 pm (CNA). Father Guillermo Treviño Jr., a 39-year-old priest who advocated for the rights of immigrants in the Diocese of Davenport, Iowa, passed away suddenly on Oct. 31, just hours after returning from a trip to the Vatican. His death from sepsis after a fatal stomach perforation was a complication of undiagnosed diabetes, according to his sister, Mariela Treviño-Luna, who had traveled with him to Italy.Due to a shortage of priests in Iowa, Treviño served as a pastor of St. Joseph Church in Columbus Junction as well as St. Joseph Church in West Liberty, southeast of Iowa City.Treviño’s national profile stemmed from his immigrant rights work as a founder, board president, and chaplain of Escucha Mi Voz Iowa, a group aiding Latino workers, including immigrants. Treviño had just returned from Rome, where he represented the group at Pope Leo XIV’s World Meeting of Popular Movements.He fought deportations, notably for his godson, 18-year-old Pascual Pedro, a West Liberty High School soccer star U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported this summer despite his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. In a statement issued on the day of his death by the Diocese of Davenport, Bishop Dennis Walsh said: “Father Guillermo’s heart was consistently with those in need. Throughout the current migrant crises, he showed great compassion for the many migrants who find themselves on edge due to aggressive immigration enforcement action.” As pastor of both St. Joseph churches, Treviño nurtured the meatpacking and farming communities there with “remarkable authenticity,” Walsh said. “His voice was becoming a beacon of hope and advocacy on this vital issue, gaining national prominence,” Walsh continued in the statement. “He was recently invited to be part of a panel discussion at Georgetown University and had the distinct honor of traveling to the Vatican as part of the World Gathering of Popular Movements. His leadership and commitment to justice will be deeply missed by the Church and the wider community he so faithfully served.” Archbishop Thomas Zinkula of Dubuque recalled Treviño’s “playful and serious sides,” telling the Des Moines Register this week that “Father Guillermo loved movies, Star Wars, and professional wrestling. But he also was passionate about serving and advocating for immigrants. I was inspired by his total commitment to seeking justice and mercy for people on that particular margin of society.”Born on March 7, 1986, in San Antonio, Texas, to Maria Luna and Guillermo Treviño Sr., Treviño and his family moved to Moline, Illinois, when he was 3. He earned an associate’s degree from Black Hawk College before entering seminary at Conception Seminary College and Mundelein Seminary. Despite an initial rejection, he said at the time that his faith — rekindled after his father’s early death — drove him forward. Ordained on June 6, 2015, he quickly became a force in rural Hispanic parishes.According to the diocese’s statement, Treviño “received the National 2022 Cardinal Bernardin New Leadership Award. The award recognizes a ‘young faith-filled Catholic who has demonstrated leadership against poverty and injustice in the United States,’ according to the USCCB [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops].”“It recognizes the leadership, energy, and diverse skills that young people bring to the anti-poverty work of low-income projects and Catholic parishes. It highlights the gifts of young leaders and their Gospel commitment to the poor,” the statement said.Treviño’s funeral Mass is set for Nov. 7 at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport and will be livestreamed on YouTube. He is survived by his mother, sisters, and extended family.

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).
Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

unitedyam October 21, 2025

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.

As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom.

The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court.

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.

“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.

However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”

In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants.

“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.