Judge Amy Coney Barrett. – Rachel Malehorn/wikimedia CC BY SA 3.0
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her Catholic faith “grounds her” and gives her “perspective.”
During an interview with Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Barrett tackled a number of topics including free speech, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and her law career. The U.S. Supreme Court justice also opened up about her Catholic faith, including how she prays and her relationship with the saints.
A ‘love for the saints’
When asked which spiritual figures have influenced her, Barrett shared about her relationships with the saints, specifically her love for St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.
“My favorite was Thérèse of Lisieux. We have a daughter named Thérèse,” Barrett said. “I was captivated when I was young by how young she was when she just completely gave her life over to the Lord.”
“Her Little Way is so accessible to so many,” she said. “I minored in French and I studied in France. It was actually Lisieux, where I was … that’s where I decided to go that summer. So I spent a lot of time in the gardens of the Martin home. I think those examples of faith were important to me.”
“One thing that we’ve tried to do with our children is really cultivate in them a love for the saints, because I do think they are great examples that can inspire our love of the faith.”
Barrett said she has “prayed in different ways at different phases” of her life. As a law professor, she often prayed a “ lectio divina.” Now as a judge, she said she tends “to do more reading reflections” and will “read the daily ‘ Magnificat.’”
A “personal struggle in these last couple of years has been an ability to quiet my mind so that I can pray in a very deep and focused way,” she said. Listening to reflections “helps me, if my mind is wandering, to be able to focus on reading something and the task at hand.”
The Constitution and the common good
Despite her faith, Barrett also discussed how it is not what can influence her decisions as a judge. “The Constitution distributes authority in a particular way,” she said. “The authority that I have is circumscribed.”
“I believe in natural law, and I certainly believe in the common good,” Barrett said. “I think legislators have the duty to pursue the common good within the confines of the Constitution and respect for religious freedom.”
“You have to imagine, ‘What if I didn’t like the composition of the court I was in front of, the court that was making these decisions, and they view the common good quite differently than I do?’ That’s the reason why we have a document like the Constitution, because it’s a point of consensus and common ground.”
“And if we start veering away from that and reading into it our own individual ideas of the common good, it’s going to go nowhere good fast.”
Roe v. Wade
Barrett said both people who agreed with the Dobbs decision and those who did not “may well assume” she cast her vote based on her “faith” and “personal views about abortion.”
“But especially given the framework with which I view the Constitution, there are plenty of people who support abortion rights but who recognize that Roe was ill-reasoned and inconsistent with the Constitution itself,” she said.
Barrett further discussed “the trouble with Roe.”
“There’s nothing in the Constitution … that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” she said. “The best defense of Roe, the commonly thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ and the due process clause, that we protect life, liberty, and property and it can’t be taken away without due process of law.”
The “word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise, we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” Barrett said.
The problem with Roe “is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution.”
The reason why it’s difficult to amend the Constitution is because “it reflects a super-majority consensus,” she said. “The rights that are protected in the Constitution, as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution, are not of my making. They are ones that Americans have agreed to.”
“Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution.”
Free speech and freedom of religion
“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” Barrett said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas … we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”
“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”
If the United States were to have “an established religion, then it would be very difficult to simultaneously guarantee freedom of religion because there would be one voice with which the government was speaking,” Barrett explained.
An established religion would “sacrifice the religious liberty,” she said. “But by the same token, the religious liberty, it would become self-defeating if the logical end to it was to force everyone to see things your way.”
Discernment
At the end of the conversation, Barron asked Barrett what advice she would give young Catholics who want to be involved in public life, law, or the government.
“Discern first,” Barrett said. Ask: “What are you called to do?”
“If you do feel like this is a vocation and something you’re called to do, I think it can never be the most important thing,” Barrett said. “I think being grounded in your faith and who you are and being right in the Lord, so that you’re not tossed like a ship everywhere because there are enormous pressures.”
Faith “grounds me as a person,” Barrett said. “Not because my faith informs the substance of the decisions that I make, it emphatically does not, but I think it grounds me as a person. It’s who I am as a person.”
“So it’s what enables me to keep my job in public life in perspective and remain the person who I am and continue to try to be the person I hope to be despite the pressures of public life,” she said.
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.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/cna-explains-how-does-mass-dispensation-work-and-when-is-it-used-catholic-null-credit-fotodax-shutterstockcna-staff-dec-26-2025-0600-am-cna-amid-heavy-immigratio.webp)
![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.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/top-2025-religious-freedom-developments-included-mix-of-persecution-protection-catholic-null-credit-joe-belanger-shutterstockwashington-d-c-newsroom-dec-19-2025-0600-am-cna-h.webp)
