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
![‘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.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/every-execution-should-be-stopped-how-u-s-bishops-work-to-save-prisoners-on-death-row-catholic-null-credit-txking-shutterstockcna-staff-oct-25-2025-0600-am-cna-bi.webp)
![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.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/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.webp)
