liberty

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.
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.

unitedyam

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
Virginia bishops condemn proposed abortion amendment: ‘We will fight’ #Catholic Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Bishop Barry Knestout of Richmond. | Credit: Katie Yoder/EWTN News; photo courtesy of the Archdiocese of Washington Jan 18, 2026 / 08:00 am (CNA). The Virginia Catholic bishops on Friday spoke out against an abortion amendment that would remove state protections for unborn children, calling the measure “extreme.”The Virginia General Assembly passed a proposed amendment that would add a fundamental right to abortion to Virginia’s constitution, if voters approve it this November.The proposed abortion amendment would establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”Bishops Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Barry Knestout of Richmond called the move “shocking to the conscience,” noting that lawmakers quickly moved the proposed amendment through both chambers in the early days of its 60-day session.“The extreme abortion amendment, which will proceed to a referendum for voters to decide later this year, would go far beyond even what Roe v. Wade previously allowed,” the bishops said in the Jan. 16 statement. “It would enshrine virtually unlimited abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no age restriction.”The bishops cautioned that the amendment would “severely jeopardize Virginia’s parental consent law, health and safety standards for women, conscience protections for health care providers, and restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.”“Most tragically of all, the extreme abortion amendment provides no protections whatsoever for preborn children,” the bishops continued.“Most importantly, human life is sacred,” the bishops said. “The lives of vulnerable mothers and their preborn children must always be welcomed, cared for, and protected.”“Parental rights and the health and well-being of minors must be defended,” the bishops said. “So too must religious liberty. No one should ever be forced to pay for or participate in an abortion. Health and safety should be enhanced, not diminished.”In addition, the bishops urged Virginia voters to oppose a measure that would repeal a 2006 provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The bishops also expressed support for a measure that would restore voting rights to those who have completed prison sentences.“We will be deeply engaged in the work of helping to educate voters on these proposed amendments and will fight the extreme abortion amendment with maximum determination,” the bishops concluded.The joint statement followed a statement by Burbidge, who on Jan. 15 urged Catholics to “to pray, fast, and advocate for the cause of life” amid the “looming threat” of the abortion amendment.“Prayer opens our hearts to God’s wisdom and strengthens us to act with courage and charity,” Burbidge wrote. “Fasting makes reparation for sin and reminds us that true freedom is found not in self-indulgence but in self-gift. Advocacy allows us to bring our convictions into the public square with respect, clarity, and perseverance.”“Our response as Catholics — and as citizens committed to justice — must be rooted in faith, truth, and love,” he continued.Burbidge also reminded Catholics of the mercy of the Church. “It is essential to reaffirm a truth that lies at the very center of the Church’s pro-life mission: The Church is a loving mother,” Burbidge continued. “To any man or woman who carries the pain, regret, or sorrow of participation in abortion, know this clearly — you are not alone, and God awaits you with love and mercy. The Church desires to walk with you on a journey of healing and hope.”“May we together pray fervently, act courageously, and serve generously,” Burbidge said. “May our witness help build a culture in Virginia — and beyond — that recognizes every human life as sacred, every person as beloved, and every moment as an opportunity to choose life.”
Read More

Virginia bishops condemn proposed abortion amendment: ‘We will fight’ #Catholic Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Bishop Barry Knestout of Richmond. | Credit: Katie Yoder/EWTN News; photo courtesy of the Archdiocese of Washington Jan 18, 2026 / 08:00 am (CNA). The Virginia Catholic bishops on Friday spoke out against an abortion amendment that would remove state protections for unborn children, calling the measure “extreme.”The Virginia General Assembly passed a proposed amendment that would add a fundamental right to abortion to Virginia’s constitution, if voters approve it this November.The proposed abortion amendment would establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”Bishops Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Barry Knestout of Richmond called the move “shocking to the conscience,” noting that lawmakers quickly moved the proposed amendment through both chambers in the early days of its 60-day session.“The extreme abortion amendment, which will proceed to a referendum for voters to decide later this year, would go far beyond even what Roe v. Wade previously allowed,” the bishops said in the Jan. 16 statement. “It would enshrine virtually unlimited abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no age restriction.”The bishops cautioned that the amendment would “severely jeopardize Virginia’s parental consent law, health and safety standards for women, conscience protections for health care providers, and restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.”“Most tragically of all, the extreme abortion amendment provides no protections whatsoever for preborn children,” the bishops continued.“Most importantly, human life is sacred,” the bishops said. “The lives of vulnerable mothers and their preborn children must always be welcomed, cared for, and protected.”“Parental rights and the health and well-being of minors must be defended,” the bishops said. “So too must religious liberty. No one should ever be forced to pay for or participate in an abortion. Health and safety should be enhanced, not diminished.”In addition, the bishops urged Virginia voters to oppose a measure that would repeal a 2006 provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The bishops also expressed support for a measure that would restore voting rights to those who have completed prison sentences.“We will be deeply engaged in the work of helping to educate voters on these proposed amendments and will fight the extreme abortion amendment with maximum determination,” the bishops concluded.The joint statement followed a statement by Burbidge, who on Jan. 15 urged Catholics to “to pray, fast, and advocate for the cause of life” amid the “looming threat” of the abortion amendment.“Prayer opens our hearts to God’s wisdom and strengthens us to act with courage and charity,” Burbidge wrote. “Fasting makes reparation for sin and reminds us that true freedom is found not in self-indulgence but in self-gift. Advocacy allows us to bring our convictions into the public square with respect, clarity, and perseverance.”“Our response as Catholics — and as citizens committed to justice — must be rooted in faith, truth, and love,” he continued.Burbidge also reminded Catholics of the mercy of the Church. “It is essential to reaffirm a truth that lies at the very center of the Church’s pro-life mission: The Church is a loving mother,” Burbidge continued. “To any man or woman who carries the pain, regret, or sorrow of participation in abortion, know this clearly — you are not alone, and God awaits you with love and mercy. The Church desires to walk with you on a journey of healing and hope.”“May we together pray fervently, act courageously, and serve generously,” Burbidge said. “May our witness help build a culture in Virginia — and beyond — that recognizes every human life as sacred, every person as beloved, and every moment as an opportunity to choose life.”

unitedyam

Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Bishop Barry Knestout of Richmond. | Credit: Katie Yoder/EWTN News; photo courtesy of the Archdiocese of Washington

Jan 18, 2026 / 08:00 am (CNA).

The Virginia Catholic bishops on Friday spoke out against an abortion amendment that would remove state protections for unborn children, calling the measure “extreme.”

The Virginia General Assembly passed a proposed amendment that would add a fundamental right to abortion to Virginia’s constitution, if voters approve it this November.

The proposed abortion amendment would establish a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”

Bishops Michael Burbidge of Arlington and Barry Knestout of Richmond called the move “shocking to the conscience,” noting that lawmakers quickly moved the proposed amendment through both chambers in the early days of its 60-day session.

“The extreme abortion amendment, which will proceed to a referendum for voters to decide later this year, would go far beyond even what Roe v. Wade previously allowed,” the bishops said in the Jan. 16 statement. “It would enshrine virtually unlimited abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no age restriction.”

The bishops cautioned that the amendment would “severely jeopardize Virginia’s parental consent law, health and safety standards for women, conscience protections for health care providers, and restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.”

“Most tragically of all, the extreme abortion amendment provides no protections whatsoever for preborn children,” the bishops continued.

“Most importantly, human life is sacred,” the bishops said. “The lives of vulnerable mothers and their preborn children must always be welcomed, cared for, and protected.”

“Parental rights and the health and well-being of minors must be defended,” the bishops said. “So too must religious liberty. No one should ever be forced to pay for or participate in an abortion. Health and safety should be enhanced, not diminished.”

In addition, the bishops urged Virginia voters to oppose a measure that would repeal a 2006 provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The bishops also expressed support for a measure that would restore voting rights to those who have completed prison sentences.

“We will be deeply engaged in the work of helping to educate voters on these proposed amendments and will fight the extreme abortion amendment with maximum determination,” the bishops concluded.

The joint statement followed a statement by Burbidge, who on Jan. 15 urged Catholics to “to pray, fast, and advocate for the cause of life” amid the “looming threat” of the abortion amendment.

“Prayer opens our hearts to God’s wisdom and strengthens us to act with courage and charity,” Burbidge wrote. “Fasting makes reparation for sin and reminds us that true freedom is found not in self-indulgence but in self-gift. Advocacy allows us to bring our convictions into the public square with respect, clarity, and perseverance.”

“Our response as Catholics — and as citizens committed to justice — must be rooted in faith, truth, and love,” he continued.

Burbidge also reminded Catholics of the mercy of the Church. 

“It is essential to reaffirm a truth that lies at the very center of the Church’s pro-life mission: The Church is a loving mother,” Burbidge continued. “To any man or woman who carries the pain, regret, or sorrow of participation in abortion, know this clearly — you are not alone, and God awaits you with love and mercy. The Church desires to walk with you on a journey of healing and hope.”

“May we together pray fervently, act courageously, and serve generously,” Burbidge said. “May our witness help build a culture in Virginia — and beyond — that recognizes every human life as sacred, every person as beloved, and every moment as an opportunity to choose life.”

Read More
In interview with Bishop Barron, Justice Barrett opens up about her faith  #Catholic 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 goodDespite 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. WadeBarrett 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.”DiscernmentAt 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

In interview with Bishop Barron, Justice Barrett opens up about her faith  #Catholic 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 goodDespite 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. WadeBarrett 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.”DiscernmentAt 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.

unitedyam

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
Vice President Vance presents a Christian vision of politics #Catholic U.S. Vice President JD Vance. / Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 14:27 pm (CNA). U.S. Vice President JD Vance, America’s second Catholic vice president, laid out a distinctly Christian vision for American politics in a speech this week, declaring that “the only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and, by the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”Speaking to more than 30,000 young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2025 some three months after the death of its founder Charlie Kirk, Vance called for a politics rooted in a Christian faith that honors the family, protects the weak, and rejects what he described as a decades-long “war” on Christianity in public life.The Christian faith has provided a “shared moral language” since the nation’s founding, the Yale-trained lawyer argued, which led to “our understanding of natural law and rights, our sense of duty to one’s neighbor, the conviction that the strong must protect the weak, and the belief in individual conscience.”“Christianity is America’s creed,” the vice president said to loud cheers, while acknowledging that not everyone needs to be a Christian and “we must respect each individual’s pathway” to God. Even so, he said, “even our famously American idea of religious liberty is a Christian concept.” Vance described how, over the past several decades, “freedom of religion transformed into freedom from religion” as a result of the cultural assault on Christian faith from those on “the left” who have “labored to push Christianity out of national life. They’ve kicked it out of the schools, out of the workplace, out of the fundamental parts of the public square.”He continued: “And in a public square devoid of God, we got a vacuum. And the ideas that filled that void preyed on the very worst of human nature rather than uplifting it.”Vance said cultural voices opposed to Christian faith “told us not that we were children of God, but children of this or that identity group. They replaced God’s beautiful design for the family that men and women could rely on … with the idea that men could turn into women so long as they bought the right bunch of pills from Big Pharma.” The former U.S. senator and Catholic convert credited President Donald Trump for ending the cultural “war that has been waged on Christians and Christianity in the United States of America,” touting the administration’s policy priorities as the fruit of Christian motivation.“We help older Americans in retirement, including by ending taxes on Social Security, because we believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all of their money off to Ukraine,” he said. “We believe in taking care of the poor, which is why we have Medicaid, so that the least among us can afford their prescriptions or to take their kids to see a doctor.”Speaking of the despair he felt after the assassination of his friend Kirk, he said: “What saved me was realizing that the story of the Christian faith … is one of immense loss followed by even bigger victory. It’s a story of very dark nights followed by very bright dawns. What saved me was remembering the inherent goodness of God and that his grace overflows when we least expect it.”Of masculinity, Vance said: “The fruits of true Christianity are good husbands, patient fathers, builders of great things, and slayers of dragons. And yes, men who are willing to die for a principle if that’s what God asked them to do.”He described how he saw the fruits of Christian men living out their faith during a recent visit to a men’s ministry that aids those who struggle with addiction and homelessness: “They feed them. They clothe them. They give them shelter and financial advice. They live out the very best part of Christ’s commission.”After eating lunch with some of the men who were “all back on their feet” after receiving help, Vance said he saw that the answer to “What saved them?” was not “racial commonality or grievance … a DEI prep course” or “a welfare check.”“It was the fact that a carpenter died 2,000 years ago and changed the world in the process.” “A true Christian politics,” he said, “cannot just be about the protection of the unborn or the promotion of the family. As important as those things absolutely are, it must be at the heart of our full understanding of government.” On immigration policy, Vance has challenged U.S. bishops, popesThe vice president has publicly disagreed with the U.S. bishops on their reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, as well as with Pope Leo XIV and the late Pope Francis, who seemed to criticize Vance in a letter the pontiff penned to the U.S. bishops last winter. In defense of the administration’s approach to immigration, Vance had in a late January interview invoked an “old school … Christian concept” he later identified as the “ordo amoris,” or “rightly ordered love.” He said that according to the concept, one’s “compassion belongs first” to one’s family and fellow citizens, “and then after that” to the rest of the world.After Pope Leo on Nov. 18 asked Americans to listen to U.S. bishops’ message opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and urging the humane treatment of migrants, Vance countered: “Border security is not just good for American citizens. It is the humanitarian thing to do for the entire world.”Vance continued: “Open borders” do not promote “[human] dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves,” citing drug and sex trafficking.“When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world,” Vance said.In this week’s AmFest speech, he touted the administration’s successes regarding immigration: “December marks seven months straight of zero releases at the southern border. More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States. The first time in over 50 years that we have had negative net migration.”At the end of the speech, Vance told the thousands of young people that while “only God can promise you salvation in heaven” if they have faith in God, “I promise you closed borders and safe communities. I promise you good jobs and a dignified life … together, we can fulfill the promise of the greatest nation in the history of the earth.”
Read More

Vice President Vance presents a Christian vision of politics #Catholic U.S. Vice President JD Vance. / Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 14:27 pm (CNA). U.S. Vice President JD Vance, America’s second Catholic vice president, laid out a distinctly Christian vision for American politics in a speech this week, declaring that “the only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and, by the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”Speaking to more than 30,000 young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2025 some three months after the death of its founder Charlie Kirk, Vance called for a politics rooted in a Christian faith that honors the family, protects the weak, and rejects what he described as a decades-long “war” on Christianity in public life.The Christian faith has provided a “shared moral language” since the nation’s founding, the Yale-trained lawyer argued, which led to “our understanding of natural law and rights, our sense of duty to one’s neighbor, the conviction that the strong must protect the weak, and the belief in individual conscience.”“Christianity is America’s creed,” the vice president said to loud cheers, while acknowledging that not everyone needs to be a Christian and “we must respect each individual’s pathway” to God. Even so, he said, “even our famously American idea of religious liberty is a Christian concept.” Vance described how, over the past several decades, “freedom of religion transformed into freedom from religion” as a result of the cultural assault on Christian faith from those on “the left” who have “labored to push Christianity out of national life. They’ve kicked it out of the schools, out of the workplace, out of the fundamental parts of the public square.”He continued: “And in a public square devoid of God, we got a vacuum. And the ideas that filled that void preyed on the very worst of human nature rather than uplifting it.”Vance said cultural voices opposed to Christian faith “told us not that we were children of God, but children of this or that identity group. They replaced God’s beautiful design for the family that men and women could rely on … with the idea that men could turn into women so long as they bought the right bunch of pills from Big Pharma.” The former U.S. senator and Catholic convert credited President Donald Trump for ending the cultural “war that has been waged on Christians and Christianity in the United States of America,” touting the administration’s policy priorities as the fruit of Christian motivation.“We help older Americans in retirement, including by ending taxes on Social Security, because we believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all of their money off to Ukraine,” he said. “We believe in taking care of the poor, which is why we have Medicaid, so that the least among us can afford their prescriptions or to take their kids to see a doctor.”Speaking of the despair he felt after the assassination of his friend Kirk, he said: “What saved me was realizing that the story of the Christian faith … is one of immense loss followed by even bigger victory. It’s a story of very dark nights followed by very bright dawns. What saved me was remembering the inherent goodness of God and that his grace overflows when we least expect it.”Of masculinity, Vance said: “The fruits of true Christianity are good husbands, patient fathers, builders of great things, and slayers of dragons. And yes, men who are willing to die for a principle if that’s what God asked them to do.”He described how he saw the fruits of Christian men living out their faith during a recent visit to a men’s ministry that aids those who struggle with addiction and homelessness: “They feed them. They clothe them. They give them shelter and financial advice. They live out the very best part of Christ’s commission.”After eating lunch with some of the men who were “all back on their feet” after receiving help, Vance said he saw that the answer to “What saved them?” was not “racial commonality or grievance … a DEI prep course” or “a welfare check.”“It was the fact that a carpenter died 2,000 years ago and changed the world in the process.” “A true Christian politics,” he said, “cannot just be about the protection of the unborn or the promotion of the family. As important as those things absolutely are, it must be at the heart of our full understanding of government.” On immigration policy, Vance has challenged U.S. bishops, popesThe vice president has publicly disagreed with the U.S. bishops on their reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, as well as with Pope Leo XIV and the late Pope Francis, who seemed to criticize Vance in a letter the pontiff penned to the U.S. bishops last winter. In defense of the administration’s approach to immigration, Vance had in a late January interview invoked an “old school … Christian concept” he later identified as the “ordo amoris,” or “rightly ordered love.” He said that according to the concept, one’s “compassion belongs first” to one’s family and fellow citizens, “and then after that” to the rest of the world.After Pope Leo on Nov. 18 asked Americans to listen to U.S. bishops’ message opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and urging the humane treatment of migrants, Vance countered: “Border security is not just good for American citizens. It is the humanitarian thing to do for the entire world.”Vance continued: “Open borders” do not promote “[human] dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves,” citing drug and sex trafficking.“When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world,” Vance said.In this week’s AmFest speech, he touted the administration’s successes regarding immigration: “December marks seven months straight of zero releases at the southern border. More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States. The first time in over 50 years that we have had negative net migration.”At the end of the speech, Vance told the thousands of young people that while “only God can promise you salvation in heaven” if they have faith in God, “I promise you closed borders and safe communities. I promise you good jobs and a dignified life … together, we can fulfill the promise of the greatest nation in the history of the earth.”

unitedyam

U.S. Vice President JD Vance. / Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 14:27 pm (CNA).

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, America’s second Catholic vice president, laid out a distinctly Christian vision for American politics in a speech this week, declaring that “the only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and, by the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”

Speaking to more than 30,000 young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2025 some three months after the death of its founder Charlie Kirk, Vance called for a politics rooted in a Christian faith that honors the family, protects the weak, and rejects what he described as a decades-long “war” on Christianity in public life.

The Christian faith has provided a “shared moral language” since the nation’s founding, the Yale-trained lawyer argued, which led to “our understanding of natural law and rights, our sense of duty to one’s neighbor, the conviction that the strong must protect the weak, and the belief in individual conscience.”

“Christianity is America’s creed,” the vice president said to loud cheers, while acknowledging that not everyone needs to be a Christian and “we must respect each individual’s pathway” to God. Even so, he said, “even our famously American idea of religious liberty is a Christian concept.” 

Vance described how, over the past several decades, “freedom of religion transformed into freedom from religion” as a result of the cultural assault on Christian faith from those on “the left” who have “labored to push Christianity out of national life. They’ve kicked it out of the schools, out of the workplace, out of the fundamental parts of the public square.”

He continued: “And in a public square devoid of God, we got a vacuum. And the ideas that filled that void preyed on the very worst of human nature rather than uplifting it.”

Vance said cultural voices opposed to Christian faith “told us not that we were children of God, but children of this or that identity group. They replaced God’s beautiful design for the family that men and women could rely on … with the idea that men could turn into women so long as they bought the right bunch of pills from Big Pharma.” 

The former U.S. senator and Catholic convert credited President Donald Trump for ending the cultural “war that has been waged on Christians and Christianity in the United States of America,” touting the administration’s policy priorities as the fruit of Christian motivation.

“We help older Americans in retirement, including by ending taxes on Social Security, because we believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all of their money off to Ukraine,” he said. “We believe in taking care of the poor, which is why we have Medicaid, so that the least among us can afford their prescriptions or to take their kids to see a doctor.”

Speaking of the despair he felt after the assassination of his friend Kirk, he said: “What saved me was realizing that the story of the Christian faith … is one of immense loss followed by even bigger victory. It’s a story of very dark nights followed by very bright dawns. What saved me was remembering the inherent goodness of God and that his grace overflows when we least expect it.”

Of masculinity, Vance said: “The fruits of true Christianity are good husbands, patient fathers, builders of great things, and slayers of dragons. And yes, men who are willing to die for a principle if that’s what God asked them to do.”

He described how he saw the fruits of Christian men living out their faith during a recent visit to a men’s ministry that aids those who struggle with addiction and homelessness: “They feed them. They clothe them. They give them shelter and financial advice. They live out the very best part of Christ’s commission.”

After eating lunch with some of the men who were “all back on their feet” after receiving help, Vance said he saw that the answer to “What saved them?” was not “racial commonality or grievance … a DEI prep course” or “a welfare check.”

“It was the fact that a carpenter died 2,000 years ago and changed the world in the process.” 

“A true Christian politics,” he said, “cannot just be about the protection of the unborn or the promotion of the family. As important as those things absolutely are, it must be at the heart of our full understanding of government.” 

On immigration policy, Vance has challenged U.S. bishops, popes

The vice president has publicly disagreed with the U.S. bishops on their reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, as well as with Pope Leo XIV and the late Pope Francis, who seemed to criticize Vance in a letter the pontiff penned to the U.S. bishops last winter. 

In defense of the administration’s approach to immigration, Vance had in a late January interview invoked an “old school … Christian concept” he later identified as the “ordo amoris,” or “rightly ordered love.” 

He said that according to the concept, one’s “compassion belongs first” to one’s family and fellow citizens, “and then after that” to the rest of the world.

After Pope Leo on Nov. 18 asked Americans to listen to U.S. bishops’ message opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and urging the humane treatment of migrants, Vance countered: “Border security is not just good for American citizens. It is the humanitarian thing to do for the entire world.”

Vance continued: “Open borders” do not promote “[human] dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves,” citing drug and sex trafficking.

“When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world,” Vance said.

In this week’s AmFest speech, he touted the administration’s successes regarding immigration: “December marks seven months straight of zero releases at the southern border. More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States. The first time in over 50 years that we have had negative net migration.”

At the end of the speech, Vance told the thousands of young people that while “only God can promise you salvation in heaven” if they have faith in God, “I promise you closed borders and safe communities. I promise you good jobs and a dignified life … together, we can fulfill the promise of the greatest nation in the history of the earth.”

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.
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.

unitedyam

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.”
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.”

unitedyam

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
Catholic bishops, families ask Supreme Court to rule for Catholic schools in Colorado suit #Catholic Colorado state capitol in Denver. / Credit: Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 11:52 am (CNA). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a coalition of Catholic families, and numerous other advocates are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of Catholic schools seeking to be included in Colorado’s universal preschool funding program. The religious liberty law group Becket said in a Dec. 18 release that the Catholic schools’ advocates — including numerous religious groups, legal organizations, and public policy groups — are urging the high court to rule against Colorado’s “discriminatory exclusion” of the faith-based schools. The Archdiocese of Denver and a group of Catholic preschools asked the Supreme Court in November to allow them to access the Colorado program after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that the state may continue to exclude the preschools from the education fund. The state has barred those schools from the funding pool because they require teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity.In an amicus filing this week, the U.S. bishops said the Colorado rule “denies Catholic preschools access to a state-run tuition assistance program solely because those schools adhere to Catholic doctrine about human sexuality.”Allowing the rule to stand will offer a “roadmap” for other governments to violate the First Amendment rights of religious Americans around the country, the bishops argued. Permitting the schools’ exclusion “will impair the ability of Catholic organizations and other faith-based service providers to partner with state and local governments to serve the public,” the prelates said, arguing that the “resulting harm to the nation’s social support infrastructure would be immense.”In another filing, a coalition of Catholic families said it regards Catholic schools as “essential partners” in their mission to impart the Catholic faith to their children. The Colorado rule, however, would force the Catholic schools to operate in a manner “inconsistent with their religious beliefs and mission.” Multiple families in the filing — all of whom have four or more children — testified to the formative role that Catholic preschools have played for them. The families said they “want their children to embrace the Catholic Church’s teachings on the nature of the human person” and that the state rule impedes their ability to do so through Catholic schools. Numerous other amicus filers include the Thomas More Society, the Center for American Liberty, and Concerned Women for America as well as religious groups representing Lutherans, Evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims.Archdiocese of Denver School Superintendent Scott Elmer said via Becket that the archdiocese is “humbled” by the showing of support. “Our preschools aren’t asking for special treatment, just equal treatment,” he said, expressing hope that the Supreme Court “takes this case and upholds the promise of universal preschool for every family in Colorado.” The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear the case. Becket said the high court will likely decide whether or not to hear it “in early 2026.”
Read More

Catholic bishops, families ask Supreme Court to rule for Catholic schools in Colorado suit #Catholic Colorado state capitol in Denver. / Credit: Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 11:52 am (CNA). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a coalition of Catholic families, and numerous other advocates are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of Catholic schools seeking to be included in Colorado’s universal preschool funding program. The religious liberty law group Becket said in a Dec. 18 release that the Catholic schools’ advocates — including numerous religious groups, legal organizations, and public policy groups — are urging the high court to rule against Colorado’s “discriminatory exclusion” of the faith-based schools. The Archdiocese of Denver and a group of Catholic preschools asked the Supreme Court in November to allow them to access the Colorado program after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that the state may continue to exclude the preschools from the education fund. The state has barred those schools from the funding pool because they require teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity.In an amicus filing this week, the U.S. bishops said the Colorado rule “denies Catholic preschools access to a state-run tuition assistance program solely because those schools adhere to Catholic doctrine about human sexuality.”Allowing the rule to stand will offer a “roadmap” for other governments to violate the First Amendment rights of religious Americans around the country, the bishops argued. Permitting the schools’ exclusion “will impair the ability of Catholic organizations and other faith-based service providers to partner with state and local governments to serve the public,” the prelates said, arguing that the “resulting harm to the nation’s social support infrastructure would be immense.”In another filing, a coalition of Catholic families said it regards Catholic schools as “essential partners” in their mission to impart the Catholic faith to their children. The Colorado rule, however, would force the Catholic schools to operate in a manner “inconsistent with their religious beliefs and mission.” Multiple families in the filing — all of whom have four or more children — testified to the formative role that Catholic preschools have played for them. The families said they “want their children to embrace the Catholic Church’s teachings on the nature of the human person” and that the state rule impedes their ability to do so through Catholic schools. Numerous other amicus filers include the Thomas More Society, the Center for American Liberty, and Concerned Women for America as well as religious groups representing Lutherans, Evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims.Archdiocese of Denver School Superintendent Scott Elmer said via Becket that the archdiocese is “humbled” by the showing of support. “Our preschools aren’t asking for special treatment, just equal treatment,” he said, expressing hope that the Supreme Court “takes this case and upholds the promise of universal preschool for every family in Colorado.” The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear the case. Becket said the high court will likely decide whether or not to hear it “in early 2026.”

unitedyam

Colorado state capitol in Denver. / Credit: Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 11:52 am (CNA).

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a coalition of Catholic families, and numerous other advocates are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of Catholic schools seeking to be included in Colorado’s universal preschool funding program. 

The religious liberty law group Becket said in a Dec. 18 release that the Catholic schools’ advocates — including numerous religious groups, legal organizations, and public policy groups — are urging the high court to rule against Colorado’s “discriminatory exclusion” of the faith-based schools. 

The Archdiocese of Denver and a group of Catholic preschools asked the Supreme Court in November to allow them to access the Colorado program after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that the state may continue to exclude the preschools from the education fund. 

The state has barred those schools from the funding pool because they require teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity.

In an amicus filing this week, the U.S. bishops said the Colorado rule “denies Catholic preschools access to a state-run tuition assistance program solely because those schools adhere to Catholic doctrine about human sexuality.”

Allowing the rule to stand will offer a “roadmap” for other governments to violate the First Amendment rights of religious Americans around the country, the bishops argued. 

Permitting the schools’ exclusion “will impair the ability of Catholic organizations and other faith-based service providers to partner with state and local governments to serve the public,” the prelates said, arguing that the “resulting harm to the nation’s social support infrastructure would be immense.”

In another filing, a coalition of Catholic families said it regards Catholic schools as “essential partners” in their mission to impart the Catholic faith to their children. The Colorado rule, however, would force the Catholic schools to operate in a manner “inconsistent with their religious beliefs and mission.” 

Multiple families in the filing — all of whom have four or more children — testified to the formative role that Catholic preschools have played for them. The families said they “want their children to embrace the Catholic Church’s teachings on the nature of the human person” and that the state rule impedes their ability to do so through Catholic schools. 

Numerous other amicus filers include the Thomas More Society, the Center for American Liberty, and Concerned Women for America as well as religious groups representing Lutherans, Evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims.

Archdiocese of Denver School Superintendent Scott Elmer said via Becket that the archdiocese is “humbled” by the showing of support. 

“Our preschools aren’t asking for special treatment, just equal treatment,” he said, expressing hope that the Supreme Court “takes this case and upholds the promise of universal preschool for every family in Colorado.” 

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear the case. Becket said the high court will likely decide whether or not to hear it “in early 2026.”

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.
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.

unitedyam

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
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.”
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.”

unitedyam

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
#AIPrompt – In the Style of Dadaism create an image of Statue of Liberty
Read More

#AIPrompt – In the Style of Dadaism create an image of Statue of Liberty

unitedyam

Surrounding the statue, the sky is an anarchy of color, splattered with erratic brushstrokes and collaged fragments of newsprint and text in various languages, symbolizing the global dialogue on freedom. Random objects—clocks, eyes, and mechanical gears—float in this surreal ether, embodying the Dadaist rejection of logic and embracing the absurd. The juxtaposition of these elements creates a visual dissonance, a reminder that liberty is not a static symbol but a dynamic, ever-evolving concept. This polychromatic portrayal captures the Statue of Liberty not just as a beacon of freedom, but as an icon within the unpredictable and vibrant theater of human experience.

Read More