Opposition

CNA explains: Why does the Catholic Church prohibit ‘gay marriage’? #Catholic null / Credit: Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Slightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman. That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades. The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teachingJohn Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination. Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself. Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse. The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis. The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level. In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”
Read More

CNA explains: Why does the Catholic Church prohibit ‘gay marriage’? #Catholic null / Credit: Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Slightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman. That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades. The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teachingJohn Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination. Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself. Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse. The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis. The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level. In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”

unitedyam

null / Credit: Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Slightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.

A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman. 

That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades. 

The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”

Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”

Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teaching

John Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.

“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”

The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.

“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”

The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination. 

Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself. 

Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse. 

The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis. 

The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”

Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level. 

In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.

Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”

“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.

“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”

Read More
‘You Are Not Alone’ migrant accompaniment initiative announced by U.S. bishops #Catholic Bishop Mark Seitz, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ migration committee, speaks during a press conference on Nov. 11, 2025, at the USCCB’s fall plenary assembly in Baltimore. / Credit: Hakim Shammo/EWTN News Baltimore, Maryland, Nov 11, 2025 / 17:46 pm (CNA). The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is launching an initiative called “You Are Not Alone” to focus on providing accompaniment to migrants who are at risk of being deported.Bishop Mark Seitz, chair of the USCCB Committee on Migration, announced the nationwide initiative during the conference’s Fall Plenary Assembly in Baltimore on Nov. 11.The initiative, which was inspired by similar efforts in Catholic dioceses throughout the country, will focus on four key areas: emergency and family support, accompaniment and pastoral care, communication of Church teaching, and solidarity through prayer and public witness. Seitz said the Catholic Church has been “accompanying newcomers to this land since before our country’s founding.” He said — in addition to spiritual and corporal works of mercy — the Church “cannot abandon our long-standing advocacy for just and meaningful reform to our immigration system.”He said clergy will continue “proclaiming the God-given dignity of every person from the moment of conception through every stage of life until natural death,” which includes the dignity of those who migrated to the United States. The bishop said many dioceses have launched migrant accompaniment initiatives already.For example, the Diocese of San Diego launched its Faithful Accompaniment in Trust & Hope (FAITH) initiative on Aug. 4. The diocese works with interfaith partners to provide spiritual accompaniment to migrants during court proceedings and throughout the court process.Seitz reiterates opposition to ‘mass deportations’In his address to his fellow bishops, Seitz criticized President Donald Trump’s administration for carrying out its “campaign promise of mass deportations,” which he said is “intimidating and dehumanizing the immigrants in our midst regardless of how they came to be there.”He said the accompaniment initiative was launched because Trump’s immigration policy has created “a situation unlike anything we’ve seen previously.” He specifically referenced efforts to revoke Temporary Protected Status designations for migrants in several countries, including Venezuela and Nicaragua, and restrictions on certain visas.“Those who lack legal status are far from the only ones impacted by this approach,” Seitz said.He said most deportees “have no criminal convictions,” and the administration has pressured immigration enforcement “to increase the number of arrests.”“Our immigrant brothers and sisters … are living in a deep state of fear,” Seitz said. “Many are too afraid to work, send their children to school, or avail themselves to the sacraments.”Seitz, earlier in the day, noted that bishops are primarily pastors, and “because we’re pastors … we care about our people, and we care particularly for those who are most vulnerable and those who are most in need.”Pope Leo XIV has encouraged the American bishops to be vocal on the dignity of migrants. In October, the pontiff met with American bishops, including Seitz, and other supporters of migrants. According to one person present, Dylan Corbett, the founding executive director of Hope Border Institute, Leo told the group: “The Church cannot stay silent before injustice. You stand with me, and I stand with you.”
Read More

‘You Are Not Alone’ migrant accompaniment initiative announced by U.S. bishops #Catholic Bishop Mark Seitz, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ migration committee, speaks during a press conference on Nov. 11, 2025, at the USCCB’s fall plenary assembly in Baltimore. / Credit: Hakim Shammo/EWTN News Baltimore, Maryland, Nov 11, 2025 / 17:46 pm (CNA). The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is launching an initiative called “You Are Not Alone” to focus on providing accompaniment to migrants who are at risk of being deported.Bishop Mark Seitz, chair of the USCCB Committee on Migration, announced the nationwide initiative during the conference’s Fall Plenary Assembly in Baltimore on Nov. 11.The initiative, which was inspired by similar efforts in Catholic dioceses throughout the country, will focus on four key areas: emergency and family support, accompaniment and pastoral care, communication of Church teaching, and solidarity through prayer and public witness. Seitz said the Catholic Church has been “accompanying newcomers to this land since before our country’s founding.” He said — in addition to spiritual and corporal works of mercy — the Church “cannot abandon our long-standing advocacy for just and meaningful reform to our immigration system.”He said clergy will continue “proclaiming the God-given dignity of every person from the moment of conception through every stage of life until natural death,” which includes the dignity of those who migrated to the United States. The bishop said many dioceses have launched migrant accompaniment initiatives already.For example, the Diocese of San Diego launched its Faithful Accompaniment in Trust & Hope (FAITH) initiative on Aug. 4. The diocese works with interfaith partners to provide spiritual accompaniment to migrants during court proceedings and throughout the court process.Seitz reiterates opposition to ‘mass deportations’In his address to his fellow bishops, Seitz criticized President Donald Trump’s administration for carrying out its “campaign promise of mass deportations,” which he said is “intimidating and dehumanizing the immigrants in our midst regardless of how they came to be there.”He said the accompaniment initiative was launched because Trump’s immigration policy has created “a situation unlike anything we’ve seen previously.” He specifically referenced efforts to revoke Temporary Protected Status designations for migrants in several countries, including Venezuela and Nicaragua, and restrictions on certain visas.“Those who lack legal status are far from the only ones impacted by this approach,” Seitz said.He said most deportees “have no criminal convictions,” and the administration has pressured immigration enforcement “to increase the number of arrests.”“Our immigrant brothers and sisters … are living in a deep state of fear,” Seitz said. “Many are too afraid to work, send their children to school, or avail themselves to the sacraments.”Seitz, earlier in the day, noted that bishops are primarily pastors, and “because we’re pastors … we care about our people, and we care particularly for those who are most vulnerable and those who are most in need.”Pope Leo XIV has encouraged the American bishops to be vocal on the dignity of migrants. In October, the pontiff met with American bishops, including Seitz, and other supporters of migrants. According to one person present, Dylan Corbett, the founding executive director of Hope Border Institute, Leo told the group: “The Church cannot stay silent before injustice. You stand with me, and I stand with you.”

unitedyam

Bishop Mark Seitz, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ migration committee, speaks during a press conference on Nov. 11, 2025, at the USCCB’s fall plenary assembly in Baltimore. / Credit: Hakim Shammo/EWTN News

Baltimore, Maryland, Nov 11, 2025 / 17:46 pm (CNA).

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is launching an initiative called “You Are Not Alone” to focus on providing accompaniment to migrants who are at risk of being deported.

Bishop Mark Seitz, chair of the USCCB Committee on Migration, announced the nationwide initiative during the conference’s Fall Plenary Assembly in Baltimore on Nov. 11.

The initiative, which was inspired by similar efforts in Catholic dioceses throughout the country, will focus on four key areas: emergency and family support, accompaniment and pastoral care, communication of Church teaching, and solidarity through prayer and public witness. 

Seitz said the Catholic Church has been “accompanying newcomers to this land since before our country’s founding.” He said — in addition to spiritual and corporal works of mercy — the Church “cannot abandon our long-standing advocacy for just and meaningful reform to our immigration system.”

He said clergy will continue “proclaiming the God-given dignity of every person from the moment of conception through every stage of life until natural death,” which includes the dignity of those who migrated to the United States. 

The bishop said many dioceses have launched migrant accompaniment initiatives already.

For example, the Diocese of San Diego launched its Faithful Accompaniment in Trust & Hope (FAITH) initiative on Aug. 4. The diocese works with interfaith partners to provide spiritual accompaniment to migrants during court proceedings and throughout the court process.

Seitz reiterates opposition to ‘mass deportations’

In his address to his fellow bishops, Seitz criticized President Donald Trump’s administration for carrying out its “campaign promise of mass deportations,” which he said is “intimidating and dehumanizing the immigrants in our midst regardless of how they came to be there.”

He said the accompaniment initiative was launched because Trump’s immigration policy has created “a situation unlike anything we’ve seen previously.” He specifically referenced efforts to revoke Temporary Protected Status designations for migrants in several countries, including Venezuela and Nicaragua, and restrictions on certain visas.

“Those who lack legal status are far from the only ones impacted by this approach,” Seitz said.

He said most deportees “have no criminal convictions,” and the administration has pressured immigration enforcement “to increase the number of arrests.”

“Our immigrant brothers and sisters … are living in a deep state of fear,” Seitz said. “Many are too afraid to work, send their children to school, or avail themselves to the sacraments.”

Seitz, earlier in the day, noted that bishops are primarily pastors, and “because we’re pastors … we care about our people, and we care particularly for those who are most vulnerable and those who are most in need.”

Pope Leo XIV has encouraged the American bishops to be vocal on the dignity of migrants. In October, the pontiff met with American bishops, including Seitz, and other supporters of migrants. 

According to one person present, Dylan Corbett, the founding executive director of Hope Border Institute, Leo told the group: “The Church cannot stay silent before injustice. You stand with me, and I stand with you.”

Read More
Bishop Seitz endorses immigration bill to create legal protections  #Catholic Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, speaks with EWTN News on Oct. 9, 2025, at the Vatican. / Credit: EWTN News CNA Staff, Nov 11, 2025 / 11:10 am (CNA). Legislation that would provide protections for people lacking legal immigration status won endorsement from Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, who has served as chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration.The bill (HR 4393), which would not lay out a direct path to citizenship, would give people who lack legal status the chance to earn it through labor and financial penalties if they lack a criminal record. It would apply to people who entered the United States before 2021.The measure would authorize funding for border security and create centers for asylum seekers during consideration of their case. It would require asylum cases to be completed within 60 days.Rep. María Elvira Salazar, R-Florida, sponsored the measure, which she named the Dignity Act and first introduced in 2022. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, cosponsored the measure, along with 22 other members of Congress. No hearings or other legislative action has been scheduled.Seitz, who is expected to address fellow bishops Nov. 11 about immigration, said in a joint statement with Salazar in August that he is “deeply grateful to Congresswoman Salazar, Congresswoman Escobar, and their colleagues for this sustained commitment to working across the aisle.”Seitz said: “Pope Leo XIV has emphasized the responsibility of all political leaders to promote and protect the good of the community, the common good, particularly by defending the vulnerable and the marginalized. Under our current system, families across our nation are living in fear. Bipartisan proposals such as the Dignity Act are a step toward fulfilling the call made by our Holy Father to offer a better way forward — one that begins and ends with respect for the God-given dignity of every person.”The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, comprising over 42,000 affiliated churches, has endorsed the measure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Immigration Forum, Business Roundtable, and the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities also are backing the bill.The Federation for American Immigration Reform has voiced opposition to the measure, saying it would forgive illegal entry and allow authorities to waive offenses such as certain controlled substance crimes and prostitution.The group criticized the bill’s proposal to create the Dignity Program to provide a renewable seven-year grant of deferred action, saying it is likely that future legislation would attempt to provide a direct path to citizenship if “Dignity status” was granted.
Read More

Bishop Seitz endorses immigration bill to create legal protections  #Catholic Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, speaks with EWTN News on Oct. 9, 2025, at the Vatican. / Credit: EWTN News CNA Staff, Nov 11, 2025 / 11:10 am (CNA). Legislation that would provide protections for people lacking legal immigration status won endorsement from Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, who has served as chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration.The bill (HR 4393), which would not lay out a direct path to citizenship, would give people who lack legal status the chance to earn it through labor and financial penalties if they lack a criminal record. It would apply to people who entered the United States before 2021.The measure would authorize funding for border security and create centers for asylum seekers during consideration of their case. It would require asylum cases to be completed within 60 days.Rep. María Elvira Salazar, R-Florida, sponsored the measure, which she named the Dignity Act and first introduced in 2022. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, cosponsored the measure, along with 22 other members of Congress. No hearings or other legislative action has been scheduled.Seitz, who is expected to address fellow bishops Nov. 11 about immigration, said in a joint statement with Salazar in August that he is “deeply grateful to Congresswoman Salazar, Congresswoman Escobar, and their colleagues for this sustained commitment to working across the aisle.”Seitz said: “Pope Leo XIV has emphasized the responsibility of all political leaders to promote and protect the good of the community, the common good, particularly by defending the vulnerable and the marginalized. Under our current system, families across our nation are living in fear. Bipartisan proposals such as the Dignity Act are a step toward fulfilling the call made by our Holy Father to offer a better way forward — one that begins and ends with respect for the God-given dignity of every person.”The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, comprising over 42,000 affiliated churches, has endorsed the measure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Immigration Forum, Business Roundtable, and the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities also are backing the bill.The Federation for American Immigration Reform has voiced opposition to the measure, saying it would forgive illegal entry and allow authorities to waive offenses such as certain controlled substance crimes and prostitution.The group criticized the bill’s proposal to create the Dignity Program to provide a renewable seven-year grant of deferred action, saying it is likely that future legislation would attempt to provide a direct path to citizenship if “Dignity status” was granted.

unitedyam

Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, speaks with EWTN News on Oct. 9, 2025, at the Vatican. / Credit: EWTN News

CNA Staff, Nov 11, 2025 / 11:10 am (CNA).

Legislation that would provide protections for people lacking legal immigration status won endorsement from Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, who has served as chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration.

The bill (HR 4393), which would not lay out a direct path to citizenship, would give people who lack legal status the chance to earn it through labor and financial penalties if they lack a criminal record. It would apply to people who entered the United States before 2021.

The measure would authorize funding for border security and create centers for asylum seekers during consideration of their case. It would require asylum cases to be completed within 60 days.

Rep. María Elvira Salazar, R-Florida, sponsored the measure, which she named the Dignity Act and first introduced in 2022. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, cosponsored the measure, along with 22 other members of Congress. No hearings or other legislative action has been scheduled.

Seitz, who is expected to address fellow bishops Nov. 11 about immigration, said in a joint statement with Salazar in August that he is “deeply grateful to Congresswoman Salazar, Congresswoman Escobar, and their colleagues for this sustained commitment to working across the aisle.”

Seitz said: “Pope Leo XIV has emphasized the responsibility of all political leaders to promote and protect the good of the community, the common good, particularly by defending the vulnerable and the marginalized. Under our current system, families across our nation are living in fear. Bipartisan proposals such as the Dignity Act are a step toward fulfilling the call made by our Holy Father to offer a better way forward — one that begins and ends with respect for the God-given dignity of every person.”

The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, comprising over 42,000 affiliated churches, has endorsed the measure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Immigration Forum, Business Roundtable, and the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities also are backing the bill.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform has voiced opposition to the measure, saying it would forgive illegal entry and allow authorities to waive offenses such as certain controlled substance crimes and prostitution.

The group criticized the bill’s proposal to create the Dignity Program to provide a renewable seven-year grant of deferred action, saying it is likely that future legislation would attempt to provide a direct path to citizenship if “Dignity status” was granted.

Read More
St. Charles Borromeo: Patron saint of stomach ailments, dieting — and obesity? #Catholic The Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary dome fresco by Johann Michael Rottmayr in St. Charles’s Church, Austria. / Credit: godongphoto/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 4, 2025 / 04:00 am (CNA). St. Charles Borromeo, whose feast day the Catholic Church celebrates Nov. 4, was a cardinal and a prominent teacher of the Catholic faith. He generously donated much of his considerable wealth to charity and sacrificed his own health to help plague victims at a time when many other authorities fled.And, despite what you might have heard, he probably wasn’t obese.Why does that matter? Well, because Charles is popularly invoked as a patron saint of stomach ailments and also of obesity and dieting. These patronages — and whether or not he was himself obese — are not mentioned in hagiographies of St. Charles, so it’s unclear how this particular association began. Charles was known for helping the poor in times of famine and for practicing self-mortification, and he was certainly not known to indulge in food to excess.Whether or not his invocation by dieters is appropriate, what is clear is that St. Charles Borromeo had a massive influence on the Church.Charles was born in 1538 near Milan. He was born wealthy — in fact, he was part of the famously rich and influential Medici family — but sought to use his wealth to benefit the Church rather than himself.Owing in part to his well-connected family, Charles soon assumed staggering responsibilities, serving as a papal diplomat and supervisor of major religious orders.Charles was a central figure in the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which among other things served as the Church’s official answer to the Protestant Reformation. Its twofold mission was to clarify Catholic doctrine against Protestant objections and reform the Church internally against many long-standing problems. As a papal representative, Charles participated in the council’s conclusion in 1563, when he was only 25, and was ordained a priest during the council. He also played a leading role in assembling its comprehensive summary, the Catechism of the Council of Trent.Charles’ uncle, Pope Pius IV, appointed him archbishop of Milan in 1563, and soon after he became a cardinal. He found his diocese in a state of disintegration, after two generations of virtually no local administration or leadership. Charles got straight to work establishing schools, seminaries, and centers for religious life. He constantly directed the work of restoration of ecclesiastical discipline and the education of the young, even down to minute details. He tried as much as possible to live a simple life and give to the poor whenever possible, and he practiced self-mortification.The clergy during this time were in many cases lax and careless, living scandalous lives, such that the people had grown to be equally negligent and sinful. While bishop of Milan, St. Charles oversaw many dramatic and effective reforms of the clergy, the liturgy, and of religious education. He encountered much opposition to those reforms, so much so that a group of disgruntled monks attempted to kill him, but he was miraculously unharmed when an assassin fired a gun straight at him while kneeling in prayer at an altar.He was very active in preaching and ministry and was famous for bringing back many lapsed Catholics to the Church. As a result, today he is honored as the patron saint of catechists and catechumens, people who teach and learn the faith. In fact, he was the founder of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, which systematically instructed children in the faith — the forerunner of the modern “Sunday school.”In 1571, the region where Charles was working suffered a severe famine, during which he worked tirelessly to help the starving, supporting at his own expense as many as 3,000 people daily for three months. At the same time, Charles himself suffered various ailments, including a low fever.A few years later, a plague struck Milan. Charles was convinced that the plague was sent as a chastisement for sin and sought to give himself all the more to prayer and to service to his people. He paid personal visits to plague-stricken houses to comfort those suffering, and as a spiritual penance, he walked in procession, barefoot, with a rope around his neck and a relic in his hand.At the end of 1584 Charles suffered a skin infection in one of his legs but still continued to travel to take care of his diocese. He died young at the age of 46 on Nov. 3, 1584, and was canonized 26 years later, in 1610.This story was first published on Nov. 4, 2022, and has been updated.
Read More

St. Charles Borromeo: Patron saint of stomach ailments, dieting — and obesity? #Catholic The Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary dome fresco by Johann Michael Rottmayr in St. Charles’s Church, Austria. / Credit: godongphoto/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 4, 2025 / 04:00 am (CNA). St. Charles Borromeo, whose feast day the Catholic Church celebrates Nov. 4, was a cardinal and a prominent teacher of the Catholic faith. He generously donated much of his considerable wealth to charity and sacrificed his own health to help plague victims at a time when many other authorities fled.And, despite what you might have heard, he probably wasn’t obese.Why does that matter? Well, because Charles is popularly invoked as a patron saint of stomach ailments and also of obesity and dieting. These patronages — and whether or not he was himself obese — are not mentioned in hagiographies of St. Charles, so it’s unclear how this particular association began. Charles was known for helping the poor in times of famine and for practicing self-mortification, and he was certainly not known to indulge in food to excess.Whether or not his invocation by dieters is appropriate, what is clear is that St. Charles Borromeo had a massive influence on the Church.Charles was born in 1538 near Milan. He was born wealthy — in fact, he was part of the famously rich and influential Medici family — but sought to use his wealth to benefit the Church rather than himself.Owing in part to his well-connected family, Charles soon assumed staggering responsibilities, serving as a papal diplomat and supervisor of major religious orders.Charles was a central figure in the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which among other things served as the Church’s official answer to the Protestant Reformation. Its twofold mission was to clarify Catholic doctrine against Protestant objections and reform the Church internally against many long-standing problems. As a papal representative, Charles participated in the council’s conclusion in 1563, when he was only 25, and was ordained a priest during the council. He also played a leading role in assembling its comprehensive summary, the Catechism of the Council of Trent.Charles’ uncle, Pope Pius IV, appointed him archbishop of Milan in 1563, and soon after he became a cardinal. He found his diocese in a state of disintegration, after two generations of virtually no local administration or leadership. Charles got straight to work establishing schools, seminaries, and centers for religious life. He constantly directed the work of restoration of ecclesiastical discipline and the education of the young, even down to minute details. He tried as much as possible to live a simple life and give to the poor whenever possible, and he practiced self-mortification.The clergy during this time were in many cases lax and careless, living scandalous lives, such that the people had grown to be equally negligent and sinful. While bishop of Milan, St. Charles oversaw many dramatic and effective reforms of the clergy, the liturgy, and of religious education. He encountered much opposition to those reforms, so much so that a group of disgruntled monks attempted to kill him, but he was miraculously unharmed when an assassin fired a gun straight at him while kneeling in prayer at an altar.He was very active in preaching and ministry and was famous for bringing back many lapsed Catholics to the Church. As a result, today he is honored as the patron saint of catechists and catechumens, people who teach and learn the faith. In fact, he was the founder of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, which systematically instructed children in the faith — the forerunner of the modern “Sunday school.”In 1571, the region where Charles was working suffered a severe famine, during which he worked tirelessly to help the starving, supporting at his own expense as many as 3,000 people daily for three months. At the same time, Charles himself suffered various ailments, including a low fever.A few years later, a plague struck Milan. Charles was convinced that the plague was sent as a chastisement for sin and sought to give himself all the more to prayer and to service to his people. He paid personal visits to plague-stricken houses to comfort those suffering, and as a spiritual penance, he walked in procession, barefoot, with a rope around his neck and a relic in his hand.At the end of 1584 Charles suffered a skin infection in one of his legs but still continued to travel to take care of his diocese. He died young at the age of 46 on Nov. 3, 1584, and was canonized 26 years later, in 1610.This story was first published on Nov. 4, 2022, and has been updated.

unitedyam

The Intercession of Charles Borromeo supported by the Virgin Mary dome fresco by Johann Michael Rottmayr in St. Charles’s Church, Austria. / Credit: godongphoto/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 4, 2025 / 04:00 am (CNA).

St. Charles Borromeo, whose feast day the Catholic Church celebrates Nov. 4, was a cardinal and a prominent teacher of the Catholic faith. He generously donated much of his considerable wealth to charity and sacrificed his own health to help plague victims at a time when many other authorities fled.

And, despite what you might have heard, he probably wasn’t obese.

Why does that matter? Well, because Charles is popularly invoked as a patron saint of stomach ailments and also of obesity and dieting. These patronages — and whether or not he was himself obese — are not mentioned in hagiographies of St. Charles, so it’s unclear how this particular association began. Charles was known for helping the poor in times of famine and for practicing self-mortification, and he was certainly not known to indulge in food to excess.

Whether or not his invocation by dieters is appropriate, what is clear is that St. Charles Borromeo had a massive influence on the Church.

Charles was born in 1538 near Milan. He was born wealthy — in fact, he was part of the famously rich and influential Medici family — but sought to use his wealth to benefit the Church rather than himself.

Owing in part to his well-connected family, Charles soon assumed staggering responsibilities, serving as a papal diplomat and supervisor of major religious orders.

Charles was a central figure in the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which among other things served as the Church’s official answer to the Protestant Reformation. Its twofold mission was to clarify Catholic doctrine against Protestant objections and reform the Church internally against many long-standing problems. As a papal representative, Charles participated in the council’s conclusion in 1563, when he was only 25, and was ordained a priest during the council. He also played a leading role in assembling its comprehensive summary, the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Charles’ uncle, Pope Pius IV, appointed him archbishop of Milan in 1563, and soon after he became a cardinal. He found his diocese in a state of disintegration, after two generations of virtually no local administration or leadership. Charles got straight to work establishing schools, seminaries, and centers for religious life. He constantly directed the work of restoration of ecclesiastical discipline and the education of the young, even down to minute details. He tried as much as possible to live a simple life and give to the poor whenever possible, and he practiced self-mortification.

The clergy during this time were in many cases lax and careless, living scandalous lives, such that the people had grown to be equally negligent and sinful. While bishop of Milan, St. Charles oversaw many dramatic and effective reforms of the clergy, the liturgy, and of religious education. He encountered much opposition to those reforms, so much so that a group of disgruntled monks attempted to kill him, but he was miraculously unharmed when an assassin fired a gun straight at him while kneeling in prayer at an altar.

He was very active in preaching and ministry and was famous for bringing back many lapsed Catholics to the Church. As a result, today he is honored as the patron saint of catechists and catechumens, people who teach and learn the faith. In fact, he was the founder of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, which systematically instructed children in the faith — the forerunner of the modern “Sunday school.”

In 1571, the region where Charles was working suffered a severe famine, during which he worked tirelessly to help the starving, supporting at his own expense as many as 3,000 people daily for three months. At the same time, Charles himself suffered various ailments, including a low fever.

A few years later, a plague struck Milan. Charles was convinced that the plague was sent as a chastisement for sin and sought to give himself all the more to prayer and to service to his people. He paid personal visits to plague-stricken houses to comfort those suffering, and as a spiritual penance, he walked in procession, barefoot, with a rope around his neck and a relic in his hand.

At the end of 1584 Charles suffered a skin infection in one of his legs but still continued to travel to take care of his diocese. He died young at the age of 46 on Nov. 3, 1584, and was canonized 26 years later, in 1610.

This story was first published on Nov. 4, 2022, and has been updated.

Read More
Texas voters to decide on parental rights amendment in November #Catholic Texas state capitol. / Credit: Inspired By Maps/Shutterstock Houston, Texas, Oct 29, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA). Texas voters will head to the polls next week to consider Proposition 15, the Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining parents’ rights in the state constitution.The measure, if approved, would add language to the Texas Constitution affirming that parents have the right “to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” and the responsibility “to nurture and protect the parent’s child.” Texas already ranks among 26 states with a Parents’ Bill of Rights enshrined in state law. That existing statute grants parents a right to “full information” concerning their child at school as well as access to their child’s student records, copies of state assessments, and teaching materials, among other provisions.The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops told CNA it supports the “proposed amendment to recognize the natural right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.”Other supporters include the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, Family Freedom Project, Texans for Vaccine Choice, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Right to Life PAC.Marcella Burke, a Houston attorney, told CNA that “it’s good to live in a state where an amendment like this is on the table. Parents matter, their kids matter, and families should be protected against government interference. That’s exactly what this amendment seeks to do: keep governments from interfering with beneficial family growth and child development.”“While these rights to nurture and protect children are currently safeguarded thanks to existing Supreme Court case law, there is no federal constitutional amendment protecting these rights,” Burke continued.Opposition to the proposition has come from both Democratic as well as conservative advocacy groups.According to the True Texas Project, a conservative group of former Tea Party supporters, the language of the amendment is too vague. In addition, the group argues that “Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the state constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect.”The group says that including the proposed language in the state constitution “equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.”Burke said, however, that “an amendment like this will make governments think twice and carefully consider any actions affecting child-rearing. Keep in mind that no rights are absolute, so in this context, parents don’t have the right to abuse their kids — and that’s the sort of exception the amendment reads in.”Katy Faust, founder of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, told CNA parental rights are the “flipside of genuine child rights.”
Read More

Texas voters to decide on parental rights amendment in November #Catholic Texas state capitol. / Credit: Inspired By Maps/Shutterstock Houston, Texas, Oct 29, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA). Texas voters will head to the polls next week to consider Proposition 15, the Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining parents’ rights in the state constitution.The measure, if approved, would add language to the Texas Constitution affirming that parents have the right “to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” and the responsibility “to nurture and protect the parent’s child.” Texas already ranks among 26 states with a Parents’ Bill of Rights enshrined in state law. That existing statute grants parents a right to “full information” concerning their child at school as well as access to their child’s student records, copies of state assessments, and teaching materials, among other provisions.The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops told CNA it supports the “proposed amendment to recognize the natural right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.”Other supporters include the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, Family Freedom Project, Texans for Vaccine Choice, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Right to Life PAC.Marcella Burke, a Houston attorney, told CNA that “it’s good to live in a state where an amendment like this is on the table. Parents matter, their kids matter, and families should be protected against government interference. That’s exactly what this amendment seeks to do: keep governments from interfering with beneficial family growth and child development.”“While these rights to nurture and protect children are currently safeguarded thanks to existing Supreme Court case law, there is no federal constitutional amendment protecting these rights,” Burke continued.Opposition to the proposition has come from both Democratic as well as conservative advocacy groups.According to the True Texas Project, a conservative group of former Tea Party supporters, the language of the amendment is too vague. In addition, the group argues that “Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the state constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect.”The group says that including the proposed language in the state constitution “equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.”Burke said, however, that “an amendment like this will make governments think twice and carefully consider any actions affecting child-rearing. Keep in mind that no rights are absolute, so in this context, parents don’t have the right to abuse their kids — and that’s the sort of exception the amendment reads in.”Katy Faust, founder of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, told CNA parental rights are the “flipside of genuine child rights.”

unitedyam

Texas state capitol. / Credit: Inspired By Maps/Shutterstock

Houston, Texas, Oct 29, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Texas voters will head to the polls next week to consider Proposition 15, the Parental Rights Amendment, a constitutional amendment aimed at enshrining parents’ rights in the state constitution.

The measure, if approved, would add language to the Texas Constitution affirming that parents have the right “to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing” and the responsibility “to nurture and protect the parent’s child.” 

Texas already ranks among 26 states with a Parents’ Bill of Rights enshrined in state law. That existing statute grants parents a right to “full information” concerning their child at school as well as access to their child’s student records, copies of state assessments, and teaching materials, among other provisions.

The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops told CNA it supports the “proposed amendment to recognize the natural right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.”

Other supporters include the Baptist General Convention of Texas Christian Life Commission, Family Freedom Project, Texans for Vaccine Choice, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School Coalition, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Texas Right to Life PAC.

Marcella Burke, a Houston attorney, told CNA that “it’s good to live in a state where an amendment like this is on the table. Parents matter, their kids matter, and families should be protected against government interference. That’s exactly what this amendment seeks to do: keep governments from interfering with beneficial family growth and child development.”

“While these rights to nurture and protect children are currently safeguarded thanks to existing Supreme Court case law, there is no federal constitutional amendment protecting these rights,” Burke continued.

Opposition to the proposition has come from both Democratic as well as conservative advocacy groups.

According to the True Texas Project, a conservative group of former Tea Party supporters, the language of the amendment is too vague. In addition, the group argues that “Prop 15 would simply declare that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their children. We should not have to put this into the state constitution! God has already ordained that parents are to be responsible for their children, and government has no place in family decisions, except in the case of child abuse and neglect.”

The group says that including the proposed language in the state constitution “equates to acknowledgement that the state has conferred this right. And we know that what the state can give, the state can take away.”

Burke said, however, that “an amendment like this will make governments think twice and carefully consider any actions affecting child-rearing. Keep in mind that no rights are absolute, so in this context, parents don’t have the right to abuse their kids — and that’s the sort of exception the amendment reads in.”

Katy Faust, founder of children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, told CNA parental rights are the “flipside of genuine child rights.”

Read More
‘Every execution should be stopped’: How U.S. bishops work to save prisoners on death row #Catholic null / Credit: txking/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Bishops in multiple U.S. states are leading efforts to spare the lives of condemned prisoners facing execution — urging clemency in line with the Catholic Church’s relatively recent but unambiguous declaration that the death penalty is not permissible and should be abolished. Executions in the United States have been increasingly less common for years. Following the death penalty’s re-legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, executions peaked in the country around the turn of the century before beginning a gradual decline.Still, more than 1,600 prisoners have been executed since the late 1970s. The largest number of those executions has been carried out in Texas, which has killed 596 prisoners over that time period.As with other states, the Catholic bishops of Texas regularly petition the state government to issue clemency to prisoners facing death. Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, told CNA that the state’s bishops regularly urge officials to commute death penalty sentences to life in prison. “We refer to it as the Mercy Project,” she said. Though popular perception holds that the governor of a state is the ultimate arbiter of a condemned prisoner’s fate, Allmon said in Texas that’s not the case. “The state Board of Pardons and Paroles has the ultimate authority,” she said. “The governor is only allowed to issue a 30-day stay on an execution one time. He doesn’t actually have the power to grant a permanent clemency.” “We don’t encourage phone calls to the governor because it’s not going to be a meaningful order,” she pointed out. “The board has a lot more authority.”Allmon said the bishops advocate on behalf of every condemned prisoner in the state. “We send a letter to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and copy the governor for every single execution during the time period when the board is reviewing clemency applications,” she said. “Typically they hold reviews about 21 days before the execution. We time our letters to arrive shortly before that.” “We research every single case,” she said. “We speak to the defendant’s legal counsel for additional information. We personalize each letter to urge prayer for the victims and their families, we mention them by name, and we share any mitigating circumstances or reason in particular that the execution is unjust, while always acknowledging that every execution should be stopped.”Some offenders, Allmon said, want to be executed. “We do a letter anyway. We think it’s important that on principle we speak out for every execution.”In Missouri, meanwhile, the state’s Catholic bishops similarly advocate for every prisoner facing execution by the government. Missouri has been among the most prolific executors of condemned prisoners since 1976. More than half of the 102 people executed there over the last 50 years have been under Democratic governors; then-Gov. Mel Carnahan oversaw 38 state executions from 1993 to 2000 alone. Jamie Morris, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told CNA that the state bishops “send a clemency request for every prisoner set to be executed, either through a letter from the Missouri Catholic Conference or through a joint letter of the bishops.”“We also highlight every upcoming execution through our MCC publications and encourage our network to contact the governor to ask for clemency,” he said. Individual dioceses, meanwhile, carry out education and outreach to inform the faithful of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. What does the Church actually teach?The Vatican in 2018 revised its teaching on the death penalty, holding that though capital punishment was “long considered an appropriate response” to some crimes, evolving standards and more effective methods of imprisonment and detention mean the death penalty is now “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”The Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the revision of which was approved by Pope Francis. The Church’s revision came after years of increasing opposition to the death penalty by popes in the modern era. Then-Pope John Paul II in 1997 revised the catechism to reflect what he acknowledged was a “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.”The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Morris told CNA that bills to abolish the death penalty are filed “every year” in Missouri, though he said those measures have “not been heard in a legislative committee” during his time at the Catholic conference. Bishops have thus focused their legislative efforts on advocating against a provision in the Missouri code that allows a judge to sentence an individual to death when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty. Brett Farley, who heads the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, said the state’s bishops have been active in opposing capital punishment there after a six-year moratorium on the death penalty lapsed in 2021 and executions resumed. Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla “have been very outspoken both in calling for clemency of death row inmates and, generally, calling for an end to the death penalty,” Farley said. The prelates have called for abolition via Catholic publications and in op-eds, he said.The state’s bishops through the Tulsa Diocese and Oklahoma City Archdiocese have also instituted programs in which clergy and laity both minister to the condemned and their families, Farley said. The state Catholic conference, meanwhile, has led the effort to pass a proposed legislative ban on the death penalty. That measure has moved out of committee in both chambers of the state Legislature, Farley said. “We have also commissioned recent polls that show overwhelming support for moratorium among Oklahoma voters, which demonstrate as many as 78% agreeing that ‘a pause’ on executions is appropriate to ensure we do not execute innocent people,” he said. Catholics across the United States have regularly led efforts to abolish the death penalty. The Washington, D.C.-based group Catholic Mobilizing Network, for instance, arose out of the U.S. bishops’ 2005 Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty. The group urges activists to take part in anti-death penalty campaigns in numerous states, including petitioning the federal government to end the death penalty, using a “three-tiered approach of education, advocacy, and prayer.”Catholics have also worked to end the death penalty at the federal level. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since 1976. Executions in the states have increased over the last few years, though they have not come near the highs of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allmon said Texas is seeing “fewer executions in general” relative to earlier years. The number of executions was very high under Gov. Rick Perry, she said; the Republican governor ultimately witnessed the carrying out of 279 death sentences over his 15 years as governor. Since 2015, current Gov. Greg Abbott has presided over a comparatively smaller 78 executions. “It still shouldn’t happen,” she said, “but it’s a huge reduction.”
Read More

‘Every execution should be stopped’: How U.S. bishops work to save prisoners on death row #Catholic null / Credit: txking/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Bishops in multiple U.S. states are leading efforts to spare the lives of condemned prisoners facing execution — urging clemency in line with the Catholic Church’s relatively recent but unambiguous declaration that the death penalty is not permissible and should be abolished. Executions in the United States have been increasingly less common for years. Following the death penalty’s re-legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, executions peaked in the country around the turn of the century before beginning a gradual decline.Still, more than 1,600 prisoners have been executed since the late 1970s. The largest number of those executions has been carried out in Texas, which has killed 596 prisoners over that time period.As with other states, the Catholic bishops of Texas regularly petition the state government to issue clemency to prisoners facing death. Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, told CNA that the state’s bishops regularly urge officials to commute death penalty sentences to life in prison. “We refer to it as the Mercy Project,” she said. Though popular perception holds that the governor of a state is the ultimate arbiter of a condemned prisoner’s fate, Allmon said in Texas that’s not the case. “The state Board of Pardons and Paroles has the ultimate authority,” she said. “The governor is only allowed to issue a 30-day stay on an execution one time. He doesn’t actually have the power to grant a permanent clemency.” “We don’t encourage phone calls to the governor because it’s not going to be a meaningful order,” she pointed out. “The board has a lot more authority.”Allmon said the bishops advocate on behalf of every condemned prisoner in the state. “We send a letter to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and copy the governor for every single execution during the time period when the board is reviewing clemency applications,” she said. “Typically they hold reviews about 21 days before the execution. We time our letters to arrive shortly before that.” “We research every single case,” she said. “We speak to the defendant’s legal counsel for additional information. We personalize each letter to urge prayer for the victims and their families, we mention them by name, and we share any mitigating circumstances or reason in particular that the execution is unjust, while always acknowledging that every execution should be stopped.”Some offenders, Allmon said, want to be executed. “We do a letter anyway. We think it’s important that on principle we speak out for every execution.”In Missouri, meanwhile, the state’s Catholic bishops similarly advocate for every prisoner facing execution by the government. Missouri has been among the most prolific executors of condemned prisoners since 1976. More than half of the 102 people executed there over the last 50 years have been under Democratic governors; then-Gov. Mel Carnahan oversaw 38 state executions from 1993 to 2000 alone. Jamie Morris, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told CNA that the state bishops “send a clemency request for every prisoner set to be executed, either through a letter from the Missouri Catholic Conference or through a joint letter of the bishops.”“We also highlight every upcoming execution through our MCC publications and encourage our network to contact the governor to ask for clemency,” he said. Individual dioceses, meanwhile, carry out education and outreach to inform the faithful of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. What does the Church actually teach?The Vatican in 2018 revised its teaching on the death penalty, holding that though capital punishment was “long considered an appropriate response” to some crimes, evolving standards and more effective methods of imprisonment and detention mean the death penalty is now “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”The Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the revision of which was approved by Pope Francis. The Church’s revision came after years of increasing opposition to the death penalty by popes in the modern era. Then-Pope John Paul II in 1997 revised the catechism to reflect what he acknowledged was a “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.”The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Morris told CNA that bills to abolish the death penalty are filed “every year” in Missouri, though he said those measures have “not been heard in a legislative committee” during his time at the Catholic conference. Bishops have thus focused their legislative efforts on advocating against a provision in the Missouri code that allows a judge to sentence an individual to death when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty. Brett Farley, who heads the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, said the state’s bishops have been active in opposing capital punishment there after a six-year moratorium on the death penalty lapsed in 2021 and executions resumed. Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla “have been very outspoken both in calling for clemency of death row inmates and, generally, calling for an end to the death penalty,” Farley said. The prelates have called for abolition via Catholic publications and in op-eds, he said.The state’s bishops through the Tulsa Diocese and Oklahoma City Archdiocese have also instituted programs in which clergy and laity both minister to the condemned and their families, Farley said. The state Catholic conference, meanwhile, has led the effort to pass a proposed legislative ban on the death penalty. That measure has moved out of committee in both chambers of the state Legislature, Farley said. “We have also commissioned recent polls that show overwhelming support for moratorium among Oklahoma voters, which demonstrate as many as 78% agreeing that ‘a pause’ on executions is appropriate to ensure we do not execute innocent people,” he said. Catholics across the United States have regularly led efforts to abolish the death penalty. The Washington, D.C.-based group Catholic Mobilizing Network, for instance, arose out of the U.S. bishops’ 2005 Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty. The group urges activists to take part in anti-death penalty campaigns in numerous states, including petitioning the federal government to end the death penalty, using a “three-tiered approach of education, advocacy, and prayer.”Catholics have also worked to end the death penalty at the federal level. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since 1976. Executions in the states have increased over the last few years, though they have not come near the highs of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allmon said Texas is seeing “fewer executions in general” relative to earlier years. The number of executions was very high under Gov. Rick Perry, she said; the Republican governor ultimately witnessed the carrying out of 279 death sentences over his 15 years as governor. Since 2015, current Gov. Greg Abbott has presided over a comparatively smaller 78 executions. “It still shouldn’t happen,” she said, “but it’s a huge reduction.”

unitedyam

null / Credit: txking/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 25, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Bishops in multiple U.S. states are leading efforts to spare the lives of condemned prisoners facing execution — urging clemency in line with the Catholic Church’s relatively recent but unambiguous declaration that the death penalty is not permissible and should be abolished. 

Executions in the United States have been increasingly less common for years. Following the death penalty’s re-legalization by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976, executions peaked in the country around the turn of the century before beginning a gradual decline.

Still, more than 1,600 prisoners have been executed since the late 1970s. The largest number of those executions has been carried out in Texas, which has killed 596 prisoners over that time period.

As with other states, the Catholic bishops of Texas regularly petition the state government to issue clemency to prisoners facing death. Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, told CNA that the state’s bishops regularly urge officials to commute death penalty sentences to life in prison. 

“We refer to it as the Mercy Project,” she said. 

Though popular perception holds that the governor of a state is the ultimate arbiter of a condemned prisoner’s fate, Allmon said in Texas that’s not the case. 

“The state Board of Pardons and Paroles has the ultimate authority,” she said. “The governor is only allowed to issue a 30-day stay on an execution one time. He doesn’t actually have the power to grant a permanent clemency.” 

“We don’t encourage phone calls to the governor because it’s not going to be a meaningful order,” she pointed out. “The board has a lot more authority.”

Allmon said the bishops advocate on behalf of every condemned prisoner in the state. 

“We send a letter to the Board of Pardons and Paroles and copy the governor for every single execution during the time period when the board is reviewing clemency applications,” she said. “Typically they hold reviews about 21 days before the execution. We time our letters to arrive shortly before that.” 

“We research every single case,” she said. “We speak to the defendant’s legal counsel for additional information. We personalize each letter to urge prayer for the victims and their families, we mention them by name, and we share any mitigating circumstances or reason in particular that the execution is unjust, while always acknowledging that every execution should be stopped.”

Some offenders, Allmon said, want to be executed. “We do a letter anyway. We think it’s important that on principle we speak out for every execution.”

In Missouri, meanwhile, the state’s Catholic bishops similarly advocate for every prisoner facing execution by the government. 

Missouri has been among the most prolific executors of condemned prisoners since 1976. More than half of the 102 people executed there over the last 50 years have been under Democratic governors; then-Gov. Mel Carnahan oversaw 38 state executions from 1993 to 2000 alone. 

Jamie Morris, the executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, told CNA that the state bishops “send a clemency request for every prisoner set to be executed, either through a letter from the Missouri Catholic Conference or through a joint letter of the bishops.”

“We also highlight every upcoming execution through our MCC publications and encourage our network to contact the governor to ask for clemency,” he said. Individual dioceses, meanwhile, carry out education and outreach to inform the faithful of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. 

What does the Church actually teach?

The Vatican in 2018 revised its teaching on the death penalty, holding that though capital punishment was “long considered an appropriate response” to some crimes, evolving standards and more effective methods of imprisonment and detention mean the death penalty is now “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

The Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the revision of which was approved by Pope Francis. 

The Church’s revision came after years of increasing opposition to the death penalty by popes in the modern era. Then-Pope John Paul II in 1997 revised the catechism to reflect what he acknowledged was a “growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that [the death penalty] be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely.”

The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Morris told CNA that bills to abolish the death penalty are filed “every year” in Missouri, though he said those measures have “not been heard in a legislative committee” during his time at the Catholic conference. 

Bishops have thus focused their legislative efforts on advocating against a provision in the Missouri code that allows a judge to sentence an individual to death when a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the death penalty. 

Brett Farley, who heads the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, said the state’s bishops have been active in opposing capital punishment there after a six-year moratorium on the death penalty lapsed in 2021 and executions resumed. 

Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley and Tulsa Bishop David Konderla “have been very outspoken both in calling for clemency of death row inmates and, generally, calling for an end to the death penalty,” Farley said. The prelates have called for abolition via Catholic publications and in op-eds, he said.

The state’s bishops through the Tulsa Diocese and Oklahoma City Archdiocese have also instituted programs in which clergy and laity both minister to the condemned and their families, Farley said. 

The state Catholic conference, meanwhile, has led the effort to pass a proposed legislative ban on the death penalty. That measure has moved out of committee in both chambers of the state Legislature, Farley said. 

“We have also commissioned recent polls that show overwhelming support for moratorium among Oklahoma voters, which demonstrate as many as 78% agreeing that ‘a pause’ on executions is appropriate to ensure we do not execute innocent people,” he said. 

Catholics across the United States have regularly led efforts to abolish the death penalty. The Washington, D.C.-based group Catholic Mobilizing Network, for instance, arose out of the U.S. bishops’ 2005 Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty. 

The group urges activists to take part in anti-death penalty campaigns in numerous states, including petitioning the federal government to end the death penalty, using a “three-tiered approach of education, advocacy, and prayer.”

Catholics have also worked to end the death penalty at the federal level. Sixteen people have been executed by the federal government since 1976. 

Executions in the states have increased over the last few years, though they have not come near the highs of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allmon said Texas is seeing “fewer executions in general” relative to earlier years. 

The number of executions was very high under Gov. Rick Perry, she said; the Republican governor ultimately witnessed the carrying out of 279 death sentences over his 15 years as governor. Since 2015, current Gov. Greg Abbott has presided over a comparatively smaller 78 executions. 

“It still shouldn’t happen,” she said, “but it’s a huge reduction.”

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

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

unitedyam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More