Opposition

Head of U.S. bishops joins call for Notre Dame to drop appointment of pro-abortion professor #Catholic U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops President Archbishop Paul Coakley is urging the University of Notre Dame to drop the leadership appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion professor, joining nearly a dozen bishops in calling on the historic Catholic university to back away from the controversial decision. The controversy at Notre Dame exploded this week after Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the school's appointment of Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.Ostermann has in the past spoken out strongly in favor of abortion and sharply criticized the pro-life movement, at times suggesting that its roots are in "white supremacy" and misogyny. Rhoades said Ostermann's beliefs, coupled with her leadership promotion at the Catholic school, were “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Multiple U.S. bishops from around the country backed Rhoades's call throughout the week, with Coakley himself speaking out about the controversy on Feb. 13. "I fully support Bishop Kevin Rhoades in his challenge to Notre Dame to rectify its poor judgement in hiring a professor who openly stands against Catholic teaching when it comes to the sanctity of life, in this case protection of the unborn," Coakley said in a statement on X. TweetThe statement was shared hundreds of times on X, including by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the bishop emeritus of Hong Kong. Though criticism against Notre Dame's decision has come from top Catholic leadership in the U.S. throughout the week, the school has indicated that it will be standing by its plan to have Ostermann lead the institute. Notre Dame told EWTN News on Feb. 13 that Ostermann is "a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar" who is "well prepared" to serve in the role. At the same time the university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.” Ostermann herself has told media that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage." She has described herself as "fully committed to maintaining an environment of academic freedom where a plurality of voices can flourish."
Read More

Head of U.S. bishops joins call for Notre Dame to drop appointment of pro-abortion professor #Catholic U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops President Archbishop Paul Coakley is urging the University of Notre Dame to drop the leadership appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion professor, joining nearly a dozen bishops in calling on the historic Catholic university to back away from the controversial decision. The controversy at Notre Dame exploded this week after Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the school's appointment of Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.Ostermann has in the past spoken out strongly in favor of abortion and sharply criticized the pro-life movement, at times suggesting that its roots are in "white supremacy" and misogyny. Rhoades said Ostermann's beliefs, coupled with her leadership promotion at the Catholic school, were “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Multiple U.S. bishops from around the country backed Rhoades's call throughout the week, with Coakley himself speaking out about the controversy on Feb. 13. "I fully support Bishop Kevin Rhoades in his challenge to Notre Dame to rectify its poor judgement in hiring a professor who openly stands against Catholic teaching when it comes to the sanctity of life, in this case protection of the unborn," Coakley said in a statement on X. TweetThe statement was shared hundreds of times on X, including by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the bishop emeritus of Hong Kong. Though criticism against Notre Dame's decision has come from top Catholic leadership in the U.S. throughout the week, the school has indicated that it will be standing by its plan to have Ostermann lead the institute. Notre Dame told EWTN News on Feb. 13 that Ostermann is "a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar" who is "well prepared" to serve in the role. At the same time the university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.” Ostermann herself has told media that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage." She has described herself as "fully committed to maintaining an environment of academic freedom where a plurality of voices can flourish."

unitedyam

The school has indicated it will stick by its decision for Professor Susan Ostermann to lead a university institute.

Read More
Amid criticism by bishops, Notre Dame says pro-abortion professor ‘well prepared’ to lead institute #Catholic The University of Notre Dame is signaling that it will stick by its appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion advocate to lead a university institute even after bishops from around the U.S. have criticized the decision and urged the school to change course.Multiple bishops have lamented the school’s decision to appoint global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. The school announced the appointment in January.On Feb. 11 Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, whose diocesan territory includes the university, expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the appointment and called on the school to rescind the assignment, citing Ostermann’s public support for abortion.Several of Rhoades’ brother bishops followed suit, commending Rhoades for his statement and similarly calling on the university to reverse course on Ostermann’s appointment.Yet in a Feb. 13 statement to EWTN News, the school indicated that it would not pull Ostermann’s nomination to the leadership post.Ostermann “is a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar whose insightful research on regulatory compliance … demonstrates the rigorous, interdisciplinary expertise required to lead the Liu Institute,” the school said.Calling Ostermann a “deeply committed educator,” the school said she is “well prepared to expand the institute’s global partnerships and create impactful research opportunities that advance our dedication to serving as the preeminent global Catholic research institution.”The university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.”“Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the university’s Catholic mission,” the school said.The school did not immediately respond when asked for direct confirmation that it was continuing with Ostermann’s appointment to lead the Liu Institute.But its statement suggested the school is not backing down from the controversial decision, one that has brought withering criticism from both U.S. bishops and pro-life advocates and has seen the departure of at least two academics from the storied Catholic institution.Robert Gimello, a research professor emeritus of theology who is an expert on Buddhism, told the National Catholic Register that his “continued formal association with a unit of the university led by such a person is, for me, simply unconscionable.”Diane Desierto, a professor of law and of global affairs, also told the Register that she had cut ties with the institute over the appointment.Ostermann’s outspoken abortion advocacy has included instances where she has linked the pro-life movement to white supremacy and misogyny.The professor told the National Catholic Register in January that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage” and described herself as “inspired by the university’s focus on integral human development, which calls us to promote the dignity and flourishing of every person.”She told the Register that her role at the school “is to support the diverse research of our scholars and students, not to advance a personal political agenda.”Ostermann had no further comment beyond her earlier statement, according to a university spokesperson.
Read More

Amid criticism by bishops, Notre Dame says pro-abortion professor ‘well prepared’ to lead institute #Catholic The University of Notre Dame is signaling that it will stick by its appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion advocate to lead a university institute even after bishops from around the U.S. have criticized the decision and urged the school to change course.Multiple bishops have lamented the school’s decision to appoint global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. The school announced the appointment in January.On Feb. 11 Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, whose diocesan territory includes the university, expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the appointment and called on the school to rescind the assignment, citing Ostermann’s public support for abortion.Several of Rhoades’ brother bishops followed suit, commending Rhoades for his statement and similarly calling on the university to reverse course on Ostermann’s appointment.Yet in a Feb. 13 statement to EWTN News, the school indicated that it would not pull Ostermann’s nomination to the leadership post.Ostermann “is a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar whose insightful research on regulatory compliance … demonstrates the rigorous, interdisciplinary expertise required to lead the Liu Institute,” the school said.Calling Ostermann a “deeply committed educator,” the school said she is “well prepared to expand the institute’s global partnerships and create impactful research opportunities that advance our dedication to serving as the preeminent global Catholic research institution.”The university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.”“Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the university’s Catholic mission,” the school said.The school did not immediately respond when asked for direct confirmation that it was continuing with Ostermann’s appointment to lead the Liu Institute.But its statement suggested the school is not backing down from the controversial decision, one that has brought withering criticism from both U.S. bishops and pro-life advocates and has seen the departure of at least two academics from the storied Catholic institution.Robert Gimello, a research professor emeritus of theology who is an expert on Buddhism, told the National Catholic Register that his “continued formal association with a unit of the university led by such a person is, for me, simply unconscionable.”Diane Desierto, a professor of law and of global affairs, also told the Register that she had cut ties with the institute over the appointment.Ostermann’s outspoken abortion advocacy has included instances where she has linked the pro-life movement to white supremacy and misogyny.The professor told the National Catholic Register in January that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage” and described herself as “inspired by the university’s focus on integral human development, which calls us to promote the dignity and flourishing of every person.”She told the Register that her role at the school “is to support the diverse research of our scholars and students, not to advance a personal political agenda.”Ostermann had no further comment beyond her earlier statement, according to a university spokesperson.

unitedyam

Multiple U.S. bishops have criticized the school’s decision and urged it to rescind the appointment.

Read More
Archbishop Coakley mourns execution of Oklahoma murderer, urges prayers for end to death penalty #Catholic Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley this week lamented the state’s execution of convicted murderer Kendrick Simpson, urging prayers for an end to what he called the “inhumane” punishment of the death penalty. Oklahoma executed Simpson on Feb. 12 for the 2006 murders of 20-year-old Glen Palmer and 19-year-old Anthony Jones. Simpson was convicted of killing the two in a shooting outside of an Oklahoma City nightclub.Simpson’s execution came after the state’s Pardon and Parole Board voted against his clemency petition. The U.S. Supreme Court similarly rejected his appeal. He was pronounced dead at 10:19 a.m. on Feb. 12. Coakley in a statement on X said the execution — coming shortly after the state’s March for Life — “brought into stark reality just how much work remains” for pro-life advocates in the state. Tweet“Heinous crimes should not go unpunished and our compassion and support for the victims and their loved ones is necessary,” the archbishop said, urging the faithful to “pray for those left behind [who are] often dealing with incomprehensible grief.”Yet “the intentional killing of the perpetrator cannot heal those terrible wounds,” Coakley said, arguing that the “pain and loss of one death cannot be extinguished by another violent death.”“The death penalty is inhumane and a poor method of punishment, standing in opposition to our duty to respect and value all human life and cherish God’s plan for humankind, which includes merciful justice and the opportunity for the redemption of the soul,” he said. Coakley has long been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, having regularly called for its abolition while arguing that it “only contributes to the continued coarsening of society and to the spiral of violence.”Oklahoma, meanwhile, has for years been among the most execution-heavy states in the country; it is first among states in executions per capita and seconded only by Texas in total numbers of executions.Coakley himself is among the numerous U.S. prelates who regularly advocate against capital punishment in their respective states. The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment.The archbishop on Feb. 12 urged the faithful to join him in “praying for an end to the death penalty in our state and nationwide.” He also urged prayers “for the victims, Glen Palmer and Anthony Jones, and their families, as well as Kendrick Simpson and his family.”Simpson himself had openly confessed to the murders ahead of his execution as part of his clemency plea before the state board.At the hearing he also addressed the families of his victims, telling them directly: “I apologize for murdering your sons.”“I don’t make any excuses, I don’t blame others, and they didn’t deserve what happened to them,” he said.
Read More

Archbishop Coakley mourns execution of Oklahoma murderer, urges prayers for end to death penalty #Catholic Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley this week lamented the state’s execution of convicted murderer Kendrick Simpson, urging prayers for an end to what he called the “inhumane” punishment of the death penalty. Oklahoma executed Simpson on Feb. 12 for the 2006 murders of 20-year-old Glen Palmer and 19-year-old Anthony Jones. Simpson was convicted of killing the two in a shooting outside of an Oklahoma City nightclub.Simpson’s execution came after the state’s Pardon and Parole Board voted against his clemency petition. The U.S. Supreme Court similarly rejected his appeal. He was pronounced dead at 10:19 a.m. on Feb. 12. Coakley in a statement on X said the execution — coming shortly after the state’s March for Life — “brought into stark reality just how much work remains” for pro-life advocates in the state. Tweet“Heinous crimes should not go unpunished and our compassion and support for the victims and their loved ones is necessary,” the archbishop said, urging the faithful to “pray for those left behind [who are] often dealing with incomprehensible grief.”Yet “the intentional killing of the perpetrator cannot heal those terrible wounds,” Coakley said, arguing that the “pain and loss of one death cannot be extinguished by another violent death.”“The death penalty is inhumane and a poor method of punishment, standing in opposition to our duty to respect and value all human life and cherish God’s plan for humankind, which includes merciful justice and the opportunity for the redemption of the soul,” he said. Coakley has long been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, having regularly called for its abolition while arguing that it “only contributes to the continued coarsening of society and to the spiral of violence.”Oklahoma, meanwhile, has for years been among the most execution-heavy states in the country; it is first among states in executions per capita and seconded only by Texas in total numbers of executions.Coakley himself is among the numerous U.S. prelates who regularly advocate against capital punishment in their respective states. The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment.The archbishop on Feb. 12 urged the faithful to join him in “praying for an end to the death penalty in our state and nationwide.” He also urged prayers “for the victims, Glen Palmer and Anthony Jones, and their families, as well as Kendrick Simpson and his family.”Simpson himself had openly confessed to the murders ahead of his execution as part of his clemency plea before the state board.At the hearing he also addressed the families of his victims, telling them directly: “I apologize for murdering your sons.”“I don’t make any excuses, I don’t blame others, and they didn’t deserve what happened to them,” he said.

unitedyam

The archbishop called for prayers for both the family of the killer’s victims and the killer himself.

Read More
BREAKING: Bishop Rhoades expresses ‘strong opposition’ to professor’s appointment at Notre Dame #Catholic Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the University of Notre Dame’s appointment of a pro-abortion professor to a leadership position at the school, with the bishop urging the university to “make things right” and rescind the appointment. Notre Dame has been at the center of controversy since early January when it named global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. Ostermann is an outspoken pro-abortion advocate who has regularly criticized the pro-life movement, up to and including linking it to white supremacy and misogyny. The university has come under fire for the appointment, including from Catholic advocates and pro-life students at Notre Dame. Bishop urges school to retract appointmentIn his Feb. 11 statement, Rhoades — whose diocesan territory includes the university — said that since the controversy began he has read many of Ostermann’s pro-abortion op-eds and was moved to “express my dismay and my strong opposition to this appointment,” which he said is “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Ostermann’s public support of abortion and her “disparaging and inflammatory” criticism of the pro-life movement “go against a core principle of justice that is central to Notre Dame’s Catholic identity and mission,” the prelate said. The professor’s pro-abortion advocacy and her remarks about pro-life advocates “should disqualify her from an administrative and leadership role at a Catholic university,” Rhoades said.While expressing hope that Ostermann would “explicitly retract” her pro-abortion advocacy and change her mind on abortion, the bishop said that the appointment “understandably creates confusion” regarding Notre Dame’s Catholic mission and identity.Leadership appointments “have [a] profound impact on the integrity of Notre Dame’s public witness as a Catholic university,” Rhoades said.The bishop in issuing the letter cited the apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which directs in part that bishops “have a particular responsibility to promote Catholic universities, and especially to promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic identity.”“I call upon the leadership of Notre Dame to rectify this situation,” Rhoades said. Noting that Ostermann’s appointment is not scheduled to go into effect until July 1, the prelate wrote: “There is still time to make things right.”The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment from EWTN News. Yet the school has defended Ostermann’s appointment since the controversy erupted, telling media that she is “a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar” who is qualified to lead the Liu Institute. “Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the university’s Catholic mission,” the school said. Among criticism from both within and without the school, at least two scholars have resigned their position at the Asian studies institute in response to the appointment. Robert Gimello, a research professor emeritus of theology who is an expert on Buddhism, told the National Catholic Register that his “continued formal association with a unit of the university led by such a person is, for me, simply unconscionable.”Diane Desierto, a professor of law and of global affairs, also told the Register that she had cut ties with the institute over the appointment.
Read More

BREAKING: Bishop Rhoades expresses ‘strong opposition’ to professor’s appointment at Notre Dame #Catholic Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the University of Notre Dame’s appointment of a pro-abortion professor to a leadership position at the school, with the bishop urging the university to “make things right” and rescind the appointment. Notre Dame has been at the center of controversy since early January when it named global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. Ostermann is an outspoken pro-abortion advocate who has regularly criticized the pro-life movement, up to and including linking it to white supremacy and misogyny. The university has come under fire for the appointment, including from Catholic advocates and pro-life students at Notre Dame. Bishop urges school to retract appointmentIn his Feb. 11 statement, Rhoades — whose diocesan territory includes the university — said that since the controversy began he has read many of Ostermann’s pro-abortion op-eds and was moved to “express my dismay and my strong opposition to this appointment,” which he said is “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Ostermann’s public support of abortion and her “disparaging and inflammatory” criticism of the pro-life movement “go against a core principle of justice that is central to Notre Dame’s Catholic identity and mission,” the prelate said. The professor’s pro-abortion advocacy and her remarks about pro-life advocates “should disqualify her from an administrative and leadership role at a Catholic university,” Rhoades said.While expressing hope that Ostermann would “explicitly retract” her pro-abortion advocacy and change her mind on abortion, the bishop said that the appointment “understandably creates confusion” regarding Notre Dame’s Catholic mission and identity.Leadership appointments “have [a] profound impact on the integrity of Notre Dame’s public witness as a Catholic university,” Rhoades said.The bishop in issuing the letter cited the apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which directs in part that bishops “have a particular responsibility to promote Catholic universities, and especially to promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic identity.”“I call upon the leadership of Notre Dame to rectify this situation,” Rhoades said. Noting that Ostermann’s appointment is not scheduled to go into effect until July 1, the prelate wrote: “There is still time to make things right.”The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment from EWTN News. Yet the school has defended Ostermann’s appointment since the controversy erupted, telling media that she is “a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar” who is qualified to lead the Liu Institute. “Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the university’s Catholic mission,” the school said. Among criticism from both within and without the school, at least two scholars have resigned their position at the Asian studies institute in response to the appointment. Robert Gimello, a research professor emeritus of theology who is an expert on Buddhism, told the National Catholic Register that his “continued formal association with a unit of the university led by such a person is, for me, simply unconscionable.”Diane Desierto, a professor of law and of global affairs, also told the Register that she had cut ties with the institute over the appointment.

unitedyam

Notre Dame has been at the center of controversy since early January when it named global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.

Read More
Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.
Read More

Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.

unitedyam

Top U.S. immigration officials defended their policies during a contentious hearing as lawmakers continue to negotiate potential ICE funding and reforms.

Read More
Patient advocate on passage of New York assisted suicide bill: ‘Reexamine your consciences’ #Catholic In spite of opposition from Catholic bishops and patient advocate groups, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Feb. 6 signed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the Empire State.Assisted suicide is already legal in California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C.Hochul, a Catholic, had already announced she would sign the bill once “guardrails” were added — specifically, laws to allow faith-based hospice providers to opt out of offering assisted suicide.The Catholic bishops had urged Hochul not to pass the bill, saying that it undermined her own work on anti-suicide programs.“How can any society have credibility to tell young people or people with depression that suicide is never the answer, while at the same time telling elderly and sick people that it is a compassionate choice to be celebrated?” the bishops said in a recent statement.The Catholic Church is outspokenly opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Church condemns assisted suicide and euthanasia, instead encouraging palliative care, which means supporting patients with pain management and care as the end of their lives approaches. Additionally, the Church advocates for a “special respect” for anyone with a disability or serious health condition (CCC, 2276).Any action or lack of action that intentionally “causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator” (CCC, 2277).“We call on Catholics and all New Yorkers to reject physician-assisted suicide for themselves, their loved ones, and those in their care,” the bishops continued. “And we pray that our state turn away from its promotion of a culture of death and invest instead in life-affirming, compassionate hospice and palliative care, which is seriously underutilized.”“While physician-assisted suicide will soon be legal here in New York, we must clearly reiterate that it is in direct conflict with Catholic teaching on the sacredness and dignity of all human life from conception until natural death and is a grave moral evil on par with other direct attacks on human life,” the New York bishops said.Hochul said the law, which goes into effect 180 days after its signing, gives New Yorkers “the choice to endure less suffering.”“Our state will always stand firm in safeguarding New Yorkers’ freedoms and right to bodily autonomy, which includes the right for the terminally ill to peacefully and comfortably end their lives with dignity and compassion,” Hochul said in the Feb. 6 statement.“I firmly believe we made the right decision,” she concluded.A national disability rights group, the Patients’ Rights Action Fund, along with the New York Alliance Against Assisted Suicide, advocated against the law.Jessica Rodgers, a spokeswoman for the Patients Rights Action Fund, urged those behind the new law “to reexamine your consciences.”“New York’s assisted suicide law will turn some doctors and pharmacists into executioners,” Rodgers said in a statement shared with EWTN News. “It will turn coroners into liars by requiring them to provide false information about the cause of death for each person who chooses assisted suicide.”Rodgers noted that the bill “will do nothing to address New York’s low rates of hospice care use.”“Instead of doing the difficult work of making hospice care more accessible and helping to ease the pain of terminal illnesses, the governor has chosen to enact a law that will, likely, result in some New Yorkers’ premature deaths,” she said.“It will stigmatize and endanger the terminally ill, whose lives are deemed of so little worth by our governor that other New Yorkers will now be allowed to help them expedite their own deaths,” Rodgers continued.“It will encourage vulnerable people to view suicide as a legitimate response to suffering of all kinds; it could even raise the overall suicide rate,” she said. “It opens the door to future expansions of doctor-assisted death, like those we have seen in Canada in recent years.”“Finally, it willfully ignores the fact that physicians’ estimates of their patients’ life expectancies can be mistaken, and that such mistakes could lead people to choose assisted suicide when they could otherwise have gone on living for years,” Rodgers concluded.
Read More

Patient advocate on passage of New York assisted suicide bill: ‘Reexamine your consciences’ #Catholic In spite of opposition from Catholic bishops and patient advocate groups, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Feb. 6 signed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the Empire State.Assisted suicide is already legal in California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C.Hochul, a Catholic, had already announced she would sign the bill once “guardrails” were added — specifically, laws to allow faith-based hospice providers to opt out of offering assisted suicide.The Catholic bishops had urged Hochul not to pass the bill, saying that it undermined her own work on anti-suicide programs.“How can any society have credibility to tell young people or people with depression that suicide is never the answer, while at the same time telling elderly and sick people that it is a compassionate choice to be celebrated?” the bishops said in a recent statement.The Catholic Church is outspokenly opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Church condemns assisted suicide and euthanasia, instead encouraging palliative care, which means supporting patients with pain management and care as the end of their lives approaches. Additionally, the Church advocates for a “special respect” for anyone with a disability or serious health condition (CCC, 2276).Any action or lack of action that intentionally “causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator” (CCC, 2277).“We call on Catholics and all New Yorkers to reject physician-assisted suicide for themselves, their loved ones, and those in their care,” the bishops continued. “And we pray that our state turn away from its promotion of a culture of death and invest instead in life-affirming, compassionate hospice and palliative care, which is seriously underutilized.”“While physician-assisted suicide will soon be legal here in New York, we must clearly reiterate that it is in direct conflict with Catholic teaching on the sacredness and dignity of all human life from conception until natural death and is a grave moral evil on par with other direct attacks on human life,” the New York bishops said.Hochul said the law, which goes into effect 180 days after its signing, gives New Yorkers “the choice to endure less suffering.”“Our state will always stand firm in safeguarding New Yorkers’ freedoms and right to bodily autonomy, which includes the right for the terminally ill to peacefully and comfortably end their lives with dignity and compassion,” Hochul said in the Feb. 6 statement.“I firmly believe we made the right decision,” she concluded.A national disability rights group, the Patients’ Rights Action Fund, along with the New York Alliance Against Assisted Suicide, advocated against the law.Jessica Rodgers, a spokeswoman for the Patients Rights Action Fund, urged those behind the new law “to reexamine your consciences.”“New York’s assisted suicide law will turn some doctors and pharmacists into executioners,” Rodgers said in a statement shared with EWTN News. “It will turn coroners into liars by requiring them to provide false information about the cause of death for each person who chooses assisted suicide.”Rodgers noted that the bill “will do nothing to address New York’s low rates of hospice care use.”“Instead of doing the difficult work of making hospice care more accessible and helping to ease the pain of terminal illnesses, the governor has chosen to enact a law that will, likely, result in some New Yorkers’ premature deaths,” she said.“It will stigmatize and endanger the terminally ill, whose lives are deemed of so little worth by our governor that other New Yorkers will now be allowed to help them expedite their own deaths,” Rodgers continued.“It will encourage vulnerable people to view suicide as a legitimate response to suffering of all kinds; it could even raise the overall suicide rate,” she said. “It opens the door to future expansions of doctor-assisted death, like those we have seen in Canada in recent years.”“Finally, it willfully ignores the fact that physicians’ estimates of their patients’ life expectancies can be mistaken, and that such mistakes could lead people to choose assisted suicide when they could otherwise have gone on living for years,” Rodgers concluded.

unitedyam

In spite of opposition from Catholic bishops and patient advocate groups, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law physician-assisted suicide in New York.

Read More
‘The antidote to abortion is love,’ Cardinal O’Malley says ahead of March for Life #Catholic Cardinal Seán O’Malley, archbishop emeritus of Boston, offers the homily at the closing Mass for the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23, 2026. | Credit: EWTN Jan 23, 2026 / 10:34 am (CNA). Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley said life is a “precious gift from a loving God” ahead of the 2026 annual March for Life.O’Malley, archbishop emeritus of Boston, celebrated Mass on Jan. 23 before the March for Life, concluding the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.“I know that many of you are tired and have made many sacrifices to be here,” O’Malley said. “I assure you, you could not be doing anything more important than being here today. And your presence is not by accident. The Lord in his providence has brought all of us here today.”The Mass featured prayers for the pro-life movement and provided a moment to strengthen commitment to defending human life ahead of the march.“Abortion is the greatest moral crisis faced by our country and by our world. It’s a matter of life and death in a very grand scale," O’Malley said. “It’s been a joy and a privilege for me to be at every March for Life here in Washington for the past 53 years.”“It’s such a joy to be with you here today in this March for Life. This is a pilgrimage for life, and it begins with prayer, here in Mary’s shrine. I thank God for all of you,” he said.‘Life Is a gift’O’Malley spoke about the 2026 March for Life theme: “Life Is a Gift.”“What a powerful theme,” O’Malley said. “Sadly, life is not always seen as a gift. For some, it seems a burden or a curse.”The cardinal detailed a recent poll that found “for the very first time in the history of our nation, the majority of Americans say they do not want to have children.” O’Malley called it “an alarming statistic.”“Life is a gift, a gift given by a loving God,” he said. “Life is beautiful, especially when it is received with gratitude and love.”We must “love as God loves,” O’Malley said. “We must love first, forgive first, give first. That’s why we’re here in this Mass for life.”“We’re here because life is a gift. God has given us this precious gift. We must be grateful and express our gratitude by proclaiming the gospel of life,” he said.Future of the pro-life movementO’Malley, who has been active in the pro-life movement for decades, said the opposition once believed the pro-life advocates would “die off,” but “we’re still here, proclaiming the gospel of life.”“Our mission is not a political crusade. It’s a response to God’s command to love and to care for each other. And God bless us, the crowd is getting younger and younger. You are beautiful,” he said.To end abortion, “our task is not to judge others but to bring healing,” O’Malley said. We must be “gentle” like Jesus was with “the Samaritan woman, the poor, the tax collector, the adulterous woman, the good thief,” he said.“Our task is to build a society that takes care of everybody, where every person counts, where every life is important. Political polarization, racism, economic injustice will only continue to fuel abortion in a post-Roe v. Wade world,” O’Malley said.“Our world is wracked by divisions and violence. Pope Leo is inviting us to be messengers of unity and of peace. But we do not want to get in the way of the message,” O’Malley said.“Together, we can protect and nurture that gift of life. We must look for opportunities to be apostles of life, building a civilization of love and ethic of care,” he said.“The antidote to abortion is love. Love manifests in community, compassion, and solidarity. Life is a gift. Every person is a gift. Every person counts. All are important. Our mission is to work so that no child be left behind. Every baby will be welcomed, loved, cared for, nurtured, and protected,” he said.“Thank God for the gift of life. Thank God for love. Thank God for you,” O’Malley concluded.EWTN News’ coverage of the 2026 March for Life can be found here.If you’re attending the March for Life, don’t forget to use #ewtnprolife on all your posts across X, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook!Want to relive interviews and special moments from the march? Visit ewtnnews.com/watch and subscribe to youtube.com/@EWTNNews for full coverage.
Read More

‘The antidote to abortion is love,’ Cardinal O’Malley says ahead of March for Life #Catholic Cardinal Seán O’Malley, archbishop emeritus of Boston, offers the homily at the closing Mass for the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23, 2026. | Credit: EWTN Jan 23, 2026 / 10:34 am (CNA). Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley said life is a “precious gift from a loving God” ahead of the 2026 annual March for Life.O’Malley, archbishop emeritus of Boston, celebrated Mass on Jan. 23 before the March for Life, concluding the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.“I know that many of you are tired and have made many sacrifices to be here,” O’Malley said. “I assure you, you could not be doing anything more important than being here today. And your presence is not by accident. The Lord in his providence has brought all of us here today.”The Mass featured prayers for the pro-life movement and provided a moment to strengthen commitment to defending human life ahead of the march.“Abortion is the greatest moral crisis faced by our country and by our world. It’s a matter of life and death in a very grand scale," O’Malley said. “It’s been a joy and a privilege for me to be at every March for Life here in Washington for the past 53 years.”“It’s such a joy to be with you here today in this March for Life. This is a pilgrimage for life, and it begins with prayer, here in Mary’s shrine. I thank God for all of you,” he said.‘Life Is a gift’O’Malley spoke about the 2026 March for Life theme: “Life Is a Gift.”“What a powerful theme,” O’Malley said. “Sadly, life is not always seen as a gift. For some, it seems a burden or a curse.”The cardinal detailed a recent poll that found “for the very first time in the history of our nation, the majority of Americans say they do not want to have children.” O’Malley called it “an alarming statistic.”“Life is a gift, a gift given by a loving God,” he said. “Life is beautiful, especially when it is received with gratitude and love.”We must “love as God loves,” O’Malley said. “We must love first, forgive first, give first. That’s why we’re here in this Mass for life.”“We’re here because life is a gift. God has given us this precious gift. We must be grateful and express our gratitude by proclaiming the gospel of life,” he said.Future of the pro-life movementO’Malley, who has been active in the pro-life movement for decades, said the opposition once believed the pro-life advocates would “die off,” but “we’re still here, proclaiming the gospel of life.”“Our mission is not a political crusade. It’s a response to God’s command to love and to care for each other. And God bless us, the crowd is getting younger and younger. You are beautiful,” he said.To end abortion, “our task is not to judge others but to bring healing,” O’Malley said. We must be “gentle” like Jesus was with “the Samaritan woman, the poor, the tax collector, the adulterous woman, the good thief,” he said.“Our task is to build a society that takes care of everybody, where every person counts, where every life is important. Political polarization, racism, economic injustice will only continue to fuel abortion in a post-Roe v. Wade world,” O’Malley said.“Our world is wracked by divisions and violence. Pope Leo is inviting us to be messengers of unity and of peace. But we do not want to get in the way of the message,” O’Malley said.“Together, we can protect and nurture that gift of life. We must look for opportunities to be apostles of life, building a civilization of love and ethic of care,” he said.“The antidote to abortion is love. Love manifests in community, compassion, and solidarity. Life is a gift. Every person is a gift. Every person counts. All are important. Our mission is to work so that no child be left behind. Every baby will be welcomed, loved, cared for, nurtured, and protected,” he said.“Thank God for the gift of life. Thank God for love. Thank God for you,” O’Malley concluded.EWTN News’ coverage of the 2026 March for Life can be found here.If you’re attending the March for Life, don’t forget to use #ewtnprolife on all your posts across X, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook!Want to relive interviews and special moments from the march? Visit ewtnnews.com/watch and subscribe to youtube.com/@EWTNNews for full coverage.

unitedyam

Cardinal Seán O’Malley, archbishop emeritus of Boston, offers the homily at the closing Mass for the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23, 2026. | Credit: EWTN

Jan 23, 2026 / 10:34 am (CNA).

Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley said life is a “precious gift from a loving God” ahead of the 2026 annual March for Life.

O’Malley, archbishop emeritus of Boston, celebrated Mass on Jan. 23 before the March for Life, concluding the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

“I know that many of you are tired and have made many sacrifices to be here,” O’Malley said. “I assure you, you could not be doing anything more important than being here today. And your presence is not by accident. The Lord in his providence has brought all of us here today.”

The Mass featured prayers for the pro-life movement and provided a moment to strengthen commitment to defending human life ahead of the march.

“Abortion is the greatest moral crisis faced by our country and by our world. It’s a matter of life and death in a very grand scale," O’Malley said. “It’s been a joy and a privilege for me to be at every March for Life here in Washington for the past 53 years.”

“It’s such a joy to be with you here today in this March for Life. This is a pilgrimage for life, and it begins with prayer, here in Mary’s shrine. I thank God for all of you,” he said.

‘Life Is a gift’

O’Malley spoke about the 2026 March for Life theme: “Life Is a Gift.”

“What a powerful theme,” O’Malley said. “Sadly, life is not always seen as a gift. For some, it seems a burden or a curse.”

The cardinal detailed a recent poll that found “for the very first time in the history of our nation, the majority of Americans say they do not want to have children.” O’Malley called it “an alarming statistic.”

“Life is a gift, a gift given by a loving God,” he said. “Life is beautiful, especially when it is received with gratitude and love.”

We must “love as God loves,” O’Malley said. “We must love first, forgive first, give first. That’s why we’re here in this Mass for life.”

“We’re here because life is a gift. God has given us this precious gift. We must be grateful and express our gratitude by proclaiming the gospel of life,” he said.

Future of the pro-life movement

O’Malley, who has been active in the pro-life movement for decades, said the opposition once believed the pro-life advocates would “die off,” but “we’re still here, proclaiming the gospel of life.”

“Our mission is not a political crusade. It’s a response to God’s command to love and to care for each other. And God bless us, the crowd is getting younger and younger. You are beautiful,” he said.

To end abortion, “our task is not to judge others but to bring healing,” O’Malley said. We must be “gentle” like Jesus was with “the Samaritan woman, the poor, the tax collector, the adulterous woman, the good thief,” he said.

“Our task is to build a society that takes care of everybody, where every person counts, where every life is important. Political polarization, racism, economic injustice will only continue to fuel abortion in a post-Roe v. Wade world,” O’Malley said.

“Our world is wracked by divisions and violence. Pope Leo is inviting us to be messengers of unity and of peace. But we do not want to get in the way of the message,” O’Malley said.

“Together, we can protect and nurture that gift of life. We must look for opportunities to be apostles of life, building a civilization of love and ethic of care,” he said.

“The antidote to abortion is love. Love manifests in community, compassion, and solidarity. Life is a gift. Every person is a gift. Every person counts. All are important. Our mission is to work so that no child be left behind. Every baby will be welcomed, loved, cared for, nurtured, and protected,” he said.

“Thank God for the gift of life. Thank God for love. Thank God for you,” O’Malley concluded.

EWTN News’ coverage of the 2026 March for Life can be found here.

If you’re attending the March for Life, don’t forget to use #ewtnprolife on all your posts across X, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook!

Want to relive interviews and special moments from the march? Visit ewtnnews.com/watch and subscribe to youtube.com/@EWTNNews for full coverage.

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.
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