The pope delivered livestreamed remarks, praising the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A Wyoming Catholic College student wins a White House civics competition, Benedictine College shows off its new library, and more in this week’s roundup of Catholic education news in the U.S.
More than six decades after Archbishop Josef Karel Matocha died under communist internment, a Czech court has formally recognized his imprisonment as unlawful.
![Supreme Court declines to intervene in federal lawsuit over Peter’s Pence papal collection #Catholic The U.S. bishops will continue to face a lawsuit over millions of dollars in contested papal donations after the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26 refused to weigh in on the case. The decision represents a blow for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on religious liberty grounds. The high court did not explain its reason for rejecting the petition from the U.S. bishops, issuing the decision as part of a larger order list.Rhode Island resident David OʼConnell filed the class action suit against the bishops in January 2020, alleging that the prelates had misled Catholics about the nature of the annual Peterʼs Pence papal collection.OʼConnell claimed he had been led to believe that the offering — which dates back centuries and which is used to help fund the popeʼs charitable initiatives — was strictly for emergency assistance to victims of war and poverty; OʼConnell said he subsequently found out it was used in part to “defray Vatican administrative expenses.”The U.S. bishops argued in court that the suit should be dismissed on the grounds of the “church autonomy doctrine,” a long-standing principle in U.S. case law that bars the government from exercising control over internal church decisions. Both a federal district court and an appeals court ruled against the bishops. The Supreme Courtʼs refusal to consider the case means it will continue to work its way through the lower courts. In a statement on May 26, Daniel Blomberg — a senior attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the bishops — said the decision was “disappointing.” But he said the USCCB is “evaluating all of its options moving forward” and “remains committed to protecting the Church from unconstitutional government entanglement.” Multiple religious advocates have come out in favor of the bishops in the dispute. A coalition of organizations including the Thomas More Society, the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, and several other groups filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in January arguing that their respective religious beliefs involve “matters of internal governance that must be protected from government entwinement.”In their petition to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, the bishops alleged that OʼConnell was "leveraging civil power for religious ends," claiming the plaintiff was “essentially seek[ing] the structural reform of a religious institution."Such disputes “are beyond the ken of civil courts,” the bishops argued, claiming that the suit includes “demands for lists of papal donors, accounting for the pope’s use of Peter’s Pence, and disclosure of the bishops’ internal communications with the Holy See about Peter’s Pence.”The suit threatens to “thrust civil courts into church pulpits and pews … pit millions of parishioners against their Church, and second-guess the meaning of an offering given to the head of a foreign religious sovereign for over 1,000 years,” the bishops said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/supreme-court-declines-to-intervene-in-federal-lawsuit-over-peters-pence-papal-collection-catholic-the-u-s-bishops-will-continue-to-face-a-lawsuit-over-millions-of-dollars-in-contested-papa.png "Supreme Court declines to intervene in federal lawsuit over Peter’s Pence papal collection #Catholic The U.S. bishops will continue to face a lawsuit over millions of dollars in contested papal donations after the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26 refused to weigh in on the case. The decision represents a blow for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on religious liberty grounds. The high court did not explain its reason for rejecting the petition from the U.S. bishops, issuing the decision as part of a larger order list.Rhode Island resident David OʼConnell filed the class action suit against the bishops in January 2020, alleging that the prelates had misled Catholics about the nature of the annual Peterʼs Pence papal collection.OʼConnell claimed he had been led to believe that the offering — which dates back centuries and which is used to help fund the popeʼs charitable initiatives — was strictly for emergency assistance to victims of war and poverty; OʼConnell said he subsequently found out it was used in part to “defray Vatican administrative expenses.”The U.S. bishops argued in court that the suit should be dismissed on the grounds of the “church autonomy doctrine,” a long-standing principle in U.S. case law that bars the government from exercising control over internal church decisions. Both a federal district court and an appeals court ruled against the bishops. The Supreme Courtʼs refusal to consider the case means it will continue to work its way through the lower courts. In a statement on May 26, Daniel Blomberg — a senior attorney at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the bishops — said the decision was “disappointing.” But he said the USCCB is “evaluating all of its options moving forward” and “remains committed to protecting the Church from unconstitutional government entanglement.” Multiple religious advocates have come out in favor of the bishops in the dispute. A coalition of organizations including the Thomas More Society, the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, and several other groups filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in January arguing that their respective religious beliefs involve “matters of internal governance that must be protected from government entwinement.”In their petition to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, the bishops alleged that OʼConnell was \"leveraging civil power for religious ends,\" claiming the plaintiff was “essentially seek[ing] the structural reform of a religious institution.\"Such disputes “are beyond the ken of civil courts,” the bishops argued, claiming that the suit includes “demands for lists of papal donors, accounting for the pope’s use of Peter’s Pence, and disclosure of the bishops’ internal communications with the Holy See about Peter’s Pence.”The suit threatens to “thrust civil courts into church pulpits and pews … pit millions of parishioners against their Church, and second-guess the meaning of an offering given to the head of a foreign religious sovereign for over 1,000 years,” the bishops said.")
The lawsuit will continue in the federal courts after the Supreme Court refused to consider a religious liberty objection by the U.S. bishops.
![Bishop Barron speaks on U.S. religious roots ahead of nation’s 250th anniversary #Catholic While there has been a tendency in the United Sates "to hyper-stress separation of church and state," Bishop Robert Barron said "the roots of our country are deeply religious" and "the basic principles of the country are inescapably religious.” On May 17, thousands gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., for the White House event celebrating “one nation under God” and "the connection between religion and our American democracy,” Barron said.In an interview with EWTN News’ Colm Flynn ahead of the event, Barron discussed the “hugely important” phrase "one nation under God.”“In the written versions of the Gettysburg Address that [Abraham Lincoln] prepared before giving it, the phrase ‘under God’ is not there,” Barron explained.“But then when he was delivering it he added ... ‘under God,’“ Barron said. ”I think it represented a deep intuition that Lincoln had that you canʼt really understand our democracy without it.” The phrase “under God” is “meant to hold off tyranny,” he said. It is clear that “all kings and all rulers are under God, meaning under the judgment and authority of God. Our founders understood that.”“And that little phrase is meant to hold off that tendency to deify any political establishment, political party, political ruler. Weʼre a nation, yes indeed, but weʼre under God. Our laws are determined by God,” he said.“I love the First Amendment to our Constitution, which in its opening lines expresses very eloquently … the right balance,“ he said. ”Namely, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.’”“But then thereʼs a second part, the second clause of that: ‘Congress shall make no law limiting the free exercise of religion,’” he said.“Thatʼs an eloquent balance. So thereʼs no officially state-sanctioned religion, but that does not mean that religion has no role in public life. On the contrary, because there should be no law restricting the free exercise of religion,” Barron said. Catholics’ role in public life and public officeCatholics in public office should bring “moral sensibility into their public decisions,” Barron said.“Weʼre not here to impose Catholicism on anybody,” he said. “But I think to bring a moral and spiritual sensibility into the decisions that you make at these high levels is altogether valid.”As a member of the White House Religious Liberty Commission, Barron said he met “lots of Catholics in the present administration” and told them to “bring Thomas Aquinas into your public life.”“By which I mean bring these great moral and spiritual principles that indeed undergird our democracy, but make them a lively presence in the work that you do,” he said.Barron further spoke about his time on the White House commission, where he received both criticism and praise.When asked to be a commissioner, “my first reaction was very positive,” Barron said. “I thought … ‘Theyʼre inviting a Catholic bishop to be a voice around the table in the formulation of this policy. Why would I say no?’”To say no would be “taking a Catholic voice away from that process,” he said.“I’m not implementing the policy. Iʼm making suggestions regarding the formulation of policy,” Barron explained. “The president could take or leave what we say … So Iʼm not implementing the presidentʼs policies. Iʼm helping to shape public policy.”“The commission was great. I spoke my mind in every setting. No one censored me,” said Barron, who was present at a White House Holy Week event when Pentecostal pastor Paula Cain White compared the president’s suffering to Jesus Christ’s.Barron said he was able to address issues within the administration, specifically about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “detainees in Chicago having access to sacraments and pastoral care.”The bishop took the matter to Homeland Security and “no one questioned” him. It was “a religious liberty issue,” because “people have a right to their sacraments and pastoral care,” he said.Barron also spoke out in regard to the president’s “critical remarks about the pope.”“I said in an X post that I have deep admiration for the president in regard to religion. Heʼs done wonderful things. But I said I think that was a disrespectful way to talk to the pope,” Barron said.“In regards to prudential judgment,” a president can “disagree with the pope,” Barron said. “But the pope is not ... just an ordinary hack politician that you can sort of talk in that flippant way to.”
Bishop Robert Barron speaks with EWTN News’ Colm Flynn ahead of the May 17, 2026, White House event on “one nation under God” in Washington, D.C. | Credit: EWTN News
“Heʼs the vicar of Christ, successor of Peter. Heʼs our Holy Father. And I just felt that was disrespectful, and I thought it was not a constructive contribution to the conversation,” he said.“Heʼs the Holy Father, so we have a filial relationship to him. Heʼs a father, weʼre like children … we have a family relationship to the pope. So itʼs different than just our relationship to a political leader.”“At the level of principle and the moral values that ought to be informing our life … we abide by what the pope is saying, but I think there can be disagreement at the prudential level,” Barron said.Dividing issues in the nation todayAmid numerous wars right now, Barron said “we should study” the just war tradition.It offers “very useful criteria, and I think the Churchʼs job is to bring these to consciousness and urge political leaders to apply them,” he said.“The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that when it comes to the evaluation and application of the criteria, that belongs to the civil authorities. And I think thereʼs great wisdom there too.”Barron also spoke to the ongoing matters with U.S. immigration enforcement.“A completely open border invites a lot of moral chaos, and a lot of catastrophe happens because of an open border. So the Church recognizes the legitimacy of that,” Barron said. “At the same time, the Church wants us to welcome the stranger and to be open to those who are in great need and those who are seeking refuge.”ICE “is a very legitimate expression of the governmentʼs authority, but … I think ICE is way too blunt a tool to use to solve the general issue of people in the country illegally,” Barron said.“I think a political solution has to be found. I donʼt think ICE is the right instrument to do that,” he said. “Iʼd invite people who are intimately involved in these things to have a good, morally informed conversation about it and come to good prudential judgments.”“Iʼm not an expert in immigration policy, and Iʼm not an expert in the economics that are prevailing on the ground in various situations,” he said. “I think we have to inform all those who are making those decisions, make sure they have a keen moral sensibility, [and] know what the principles are.”“But I think people of goodwill can, and obviously do, disagree about how they are applied … concretely,” he said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/bishop-barron-speaks-on-u-s-religious-roots-ahead-of-nations-250th-anniversary-catholic-while-there-has-been-a-tendency-in-the-united-sates-to-hyper-stress-separation-of-church-and-st.jpg)
“There’s no officially state-sanctioned religion, but that does not mean that religion has no role in public life,” Bishop Robert Barron said.
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