![Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News "we refer you to our published releases" and "we have nothing further to add."In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.” Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News "we refer you to our published releases" and "we have nothing further to add."In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/catholic-moral-theologians-concerned-by-claims-u-s-iran-struck-civilian-infrastructure-catholic-iran-and-the-united-states-have-faced-accusations-of-strikes-on-civilian-infrastructure-and-have-expl.jpg)
A battle over the Strait of Hormuz rekindled the war in the Middle East after a ceasefire ended. Intent to harm civilians, including attacks on civilian infrastructure, is immoral, theologians said.

![Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News "we refer you to our published releases" and "we have nothing further to add."In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.” Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News "we refer you to our published releases" and "we have nothing further to add."In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/catholic-moral-theologians-concerned-by-claims-u-s-iran-struck-civilian-infrastructure-catholic-iran-and-the-united-states-have-faced-accusations-of-strikes-on-civilian-infrastructure-and-have-expl.jpg)
A battle over the Strait of Hormuz rekindled the war in the Middle East after a ceasefire ended. Intent to harm civilians, including attacks on civilian infrastructure, is immoral, theologians said.

![Cardinal O’Malley at Catholic-Orthodox conference: ‘Come together and pray for unity’ #Catholic WASHINGTON — Cardinal Seán Patrick OʼMalley, retired archbishop of Boston, encouraged Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians to pray together for reunification at a joint conference focused on healing the nearly 1,000-year schism between the churches.“Come together and pray for unity,” O’Malley said at the conference, hosted by the Orientale Lumen Foundation at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine on July 13–15.Speakers included Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox bishops, and a few dozen laity and clergy focused on ecumenism attended. Along with O’Malley, speakers included Archbishop Flavio Pace — secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity — and Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard, primate of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).O’Malley encouraged concrete steps to integrate Catholic and Orthodox communities, one of the most important of which was “praying together.” Just prior to his speech, the Catholic and Orthodox clergy — including O’Malley, Pace, and Mollard — prayed daily vespers together in the form used in Eastern churches.The cardinal, speaking to those gathered, said unity will ultimately be achieved as a gift to the faithful granted by Christ and will come about “how he wills [it].” He said he considers joint prayer to be crucial because it is the Holy Spirit who will “illuminate the way” toward East-West communion.‘Work for unity’In his address, O’Malley discussed his concern with the disunity of Christianity, which he said “weakens our ability [as Christians] to proclaim the Gospel with coherence and authority.”He recalled his early work in the 1970s with the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. The order was deeply involved in missionary work in Papua New Guinea. Although O’Malley himself was not a missionary there, he spoke about conversations with colleagues who were working with people accepting Christianity in large numbers.O’Malley noted that when new converts had learned about the various Christian denominations, many felt “sad and embarrassed.” Although many Christians view the disunity as “normative,” he said, the people of Papua New Guinea correctly recognized it as “scandalous.”“All disciples of Jesus Christ must feel an impulse to work for unity among Christians,” O’Malley said.O’Malley said Catholics should see Orthodoxy as the “greatest possibility of success in this task in fulfilling Christ’s wish so that we all become one so the world may believe.” He noted that the two share “so many saints and devotions” and are more similar to Catholics in theology than any other Christian community.He expressed joy that many Orthodox churches send representatives to meetings held by the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and that the Catholic Church also sent representatives to the Orthodox Council of Crete in 2016. Yet, he encouraged a stronger bond.O’Malley urged the bodies to “consider the possibility of joint pastoral letters or statements” on issues of mutual agreement like world hunger, euthanasia, and abortion. He said they should establish committees together to organize joint prayer, study sessions, and works of mercy.His idea of unity, he explained, would be “communion without absorption” and said there is a difference between “unity and uniformity.” He said people should look to the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model, saying “they are bridges for reconciliation and laboratories for synodal communion.”Although Rome’s relationship with the Eastern Catholics was not always perfect (O’Malley noted historical attempts at forced Latinization), the cardinal said there is an opportunity to work more closely with Eastern Catholics as part of ecumenical efforts, focused on “greater respect for their uniqueness.”Mollard, speaking from the Orthodox position, echoed O’Malley’s desire for unity and the feeling of pain over continued separation.“It affects the faithful in the parishes and how they live their lives,” the metropolitan said. “And perhaps encourage[s] us all to not just reach out and educate but really inspire in people that faith in Christ and love for the Church can drive … [the path toward] unity.”O’Malley told EWTN News that ecumenism requires “different groups that would be Catholic and Orthodox, working together,” and Church leaders should be “letting people know the progress that has been made in the dialogue.”He said Eastern Orthodox Christians “have the sacraments,” they have apostolic succession, and “the differences are not great.” Although theological disputes remain a division between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, he said he believes the causes of the schism were more political and cultural.“Most Catholics and Orthodox in the pews are not focused on those fine points of theology,” O’Malley said.Ongoing Vatican ecumenical workMany theological disputes, however, are being hashed out at the highest levels of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Some of the biggest include questions of papal supremacy, primacy, and jurisdiction as well as the language of the Nicene Creed and subsequently certain details about the Holy Trinity.Pace, who flew in from Rome, discussed some of the history and recent progress on ecumenism related to these subjects during his speech, noting that the end goal is “full unity” between the East and the West.
Archbishop Flavio Pace, secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, speaks at the Orientale Lumen Foundation conference at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C., on July 15, 2026. | Credit: Tyler Arnold/EWTN News
The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, formed in 1980, created two subcommittees in 2024. One focuses on infallibility, which is the current priority. The other is about the dispute about the Nicene Creed."We have to prepare a very good draft,” Pace told EWTN News.He said once the subcommittee completes its draft on infallibility, the body will consider a call for a full meeting for approval. He said the subcommittee must “arrive to a good document that the [full committee] can discuss and approve.”The First Vatican Council teaches that the pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals when defining matters of doctrine and invoking his papal authority, binding the declaration on the entire Church.Bishop Anthony Vrame, a Greek Orthodox bishop and director of Holy Cross Orthodox Press, said in a panel discussion that Orthodoxy recognizes the indefectibility of councils: “When the Church gathers together in council, … no error is possible.” Yet, papal infallibility is different, as it is “designated to one person.”Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, offered a prerecorded video message for the conference, stating that he hopes the eventual documents will be received by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches.Koch emphasized the importance of clergy informing the laity when there are developments, so the progress is “not to be remained known only by experts.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/cardinal-omalley-at-catholic-orthodox-conference-come-together-and-pray-for-unity-catholic-washington-cardinal-sean-patrick-ocabcmalley-retired-archbishop-of-scaled.jpg)
Cardinal Seán O’Malley discussed ways in which Catholics and Orthodox Christians can build closer bonds. Archbishop Flavio Pace discussed ongoing Vatican efforts to help bring about unity.


Graham, 71, died on July 11, and pro-life groups pledged to continue legislative efforts he supported.

![Various U.S. bishops ‘invite home’ SSPX attendees after excommunications of leadership #Catholic A growing number of Catholic bishops are instructing the faithful to avoid illicit sacraments celebrated by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) after the traditionalist group’s bishops incurred the penalty of excommunication last week.The Vatican declared July 2 that six prelates involved in the SSPX’s unauthorized July 1 episcopal consecrations incurred automatic excommunication. Despite repeated warnings, SSPX bishops consecrated four new bishops without a pontifical mandate — an act of open disobedience to the authority of the pope that carries automatic excommunication for the six bishops involved.The SSPX is a fraternity of priests known for its celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass and opposition to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.Various Catholic bishops with SSPX locations in their areas are explicitly forbidding Catholics from attending SSPX services while also urging frequent attendees or SSPX priests to seek spiritual guidance and return to the Catholic Church.Invited ‘home’Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul and Minneapolis urged SSPX families in his community to stay with the Catholic Church.“In the 10 years that I have led this local Church, I have met many sincere people who worship regularly or occasionally at the chapels of the SSPX within the territory of our archdiocese,” Hebda said. “I have been impressed by the strength of their families and their commitment to traditional Catholic values.”“It is my hope they will not follow the above-mentioned bishops in separating themselves from the successor of Peter, Pope Leo XIV, and from the Church that he humbly leads,” Hebda continued. “Throughout the centuries, our Catholic Church has consistently echoed the teaching of St. Ambrose: Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia (Where there is Peter, there is the Church).”“At this difficult moment, we are blessed that the same traditional Eucharistic liturgy beloved by those who have worshipped with the SSPX in the past continues to be celebrated in six locations throughout the archdiocese,” Hebda said. “I am confident that those who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass could find a home here."Bishop Terry LaValley of Ogdensburg, New York, noted that in light of the “formal schism,” the disobedience “gravely harms the unity of the Church for which Christ so fervently prayed the night before he died.”LaValley said in a statement that Catholics are “forbidden” to participate in SSPX sacraments, the only exception being “when there is danger of death.” He noted that the schism “is not simply about the celebration of the Mass.”“The SSPX repudiates and denounces the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, in particular, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality of the bishops with the pope, and the Church’s understanding of and relationship with Judaism,” LaValley noted.LaValley instructed the faithful to avoid participation with SSPX and invited SSPX priests to remain with the Church.In a similar vein, Bishop Frank Caggiano of Bridgeport, Connecticut, invited anyone who previously worshipped with SSPX to come “home.”“The Holy See has made clear that the clergy of the society are now to be regarded as schismatic,” Caggiano said in a statement. “This means that, from this day forward, the sacraments they celebrate are illicit and, most significantly for the faithful, the confessions they hear and the marriages at which they preside are considered invalid by the Church.”“I know these words are difficult to hear, especially for those among us who have worshipped, whether regularly or on occasion, at liturgies celebrated by priests of the society,” Caggiano said. “Over the years I have come to know some of these families. I have been moved by their love for the beauty of the sacred liturgy, their devotion to our Catholic tradition, and the seriousness with which they seek to raise their children in the faith.”“My heart goes out to them at this painful moment, and I want them to know that they remain very much a part of our diocesan family,” Caggiano said.“I also wish to offer a word of reassurance. This excommunication does not fall upon those who have simply attended these liturgies out of a sincere desire to worship and who have never intended to reject the authority of the Holy Father or the teaching of the Church,” Caggiano said. “What the Church now asks is straightforward: Knowing the situation as it now stands, the faithful of the Catholic Church can no longer take part in the liturgies of the society, for to do so knowingly would be to share in a separation from the successor of Peter.”Caggiano noted that the “vetus ordo,” also known as the Traditional Latin Mass, is still celebrated in his diocese at several parishes throughout the diocese.He emphasized that the diocese also welcomes any SSPX priest who wants to return to full communion “with open arms and great tenderness.”Bishop James Johnston of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri, said he will “be preparing guidance to assist our clergy, lay faithful, and especially any of the lay faithful who have worshipped locally with the SSPX at St. Vincent de Paul Kansas City.”“While it is imperative to not abandon future efforts toward full communion and to fervently pray for such, those who wish to maintain communion with the Catholic Church, including valid reception of the sacraments of matrimony and penance (confession), will no longer find that possible within the SSPX,” Johnston said in the statement.“In this moment, I wish to reassure the members of the SSPX within this diocese of my pastoral concern as a shepherd with a desire to assist you in this time of crisis,” Johnston said.Schism ‘wounds’ the body of ChristBishop Douglas Lucia of Syracuse, New York, emphasized that the announcement “forbids Roman Catholics of good standing to participate in and to receive the sacraments from bishops and priests associated with the Society of St. Pius X.”“[F]ormal adherence to schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Churchʼs law,” Lucia wrote July 2.“I grieve over the wound that has been inflicted on Christʼs body, the Church, and its effect on the spiritual good of the faithful,” Lucia said. “Although todayʼs action relates to a specific event, I would caution that such wounds occur in the Church, when peopleʼs pain and concerns are ignored and the universal call to holiness is subjugated to personal agenda.”“I regret that the communion and trust that has been built in my seven years as bishop here in Syracuse is now so imperiled, but there cannot be accord when discord has been sown,” Lucia said.Bishop Donald Hying of Madison, Wisconsin, instructed Catholics “to refrain from attending Mass at any SSPX chapels.”“The Catholic faithful should attend Mass at a Catholic church with a Catholic priest where they can receive licit and valid sacraments,” Hying said.
Bishop Donald Hying instructed Catholics “to refrain from attending Mass at any SSPX chapels.” | Credit: “EWTN News Nightly”/Screenshot
“For many years, the Church has been in dialogue with the leadership of SSPX in the hope that the group would return to full communion with the Catholic Church,” Hying said. “Their continued rejection of papal authority and decision to undertake blatantly schismatic acts have harmed these discussions and wounded the path to unity.”Archbishop Shawn McKnight of Kansas City, Kansas, called the bishopʼs consecrations "a source of profound sorrow for the whole Church because it wounds the visible unity that Christ desires for his body.” He noted that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI took several steps toward communion and acceptance of the society.“Fidelity to sacred tradition is never opposed to fidelity to the successor of Peter,” McKnight said in his letter. “Rather, both are gifts entrusted by Christ to his Church and serve together to safeguard the deposit of faith and promote the salvation of souls.”“The Church’s living tradition is preserved by remaining close to the successor of Peter, by adhering to the apostolic faith handed down through the centuries and safeguarded within the communion of the Church,” McKnight said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/various-u-s-bishops-invite-home-sspx-attendees-after-excommunications-of-leadership-catholic-a-growing-number-of-catholic-bishops-are-instructing-the-faithful-to-avoid-illicit-sacr-scaled.jpg)
Catholic bishops with Society of St. Pius X locations in their areas are forbidding Catholics from attending SSPX services and urging attendees and SSPX priests to return to the Catholic Church.

![Argentinians join in prayer for earthquake-shattered Venezuelans #Catholic With thousands dead, injured, and missing in the wake of last week’s devastating earthquakes in Venezuela, Argentinians gathered in prayer for the Venezuelan people on June 28 at the basilica and national shrine of Our Lady of Luján. There, the archbishop of Mercedes-Luján, Jorge Eduardo Scheinig, offered Mass for the Venezuelan people.“Let us think of those who have died and their families,” Scheinig said in his homily. “In a single minute, so many people were left with nothing, absolutely nothing,” he noted.“Let us pray for the rescue workers and for all those who are working [on the ground]. Let us stand in solidarity with them through prayer,” said Scheinig, who proceeded to lead a moment of silence to pray to God and the Virgin for the people of Venezuela.The archbishop dedicated the rest of his homily to examining priorities, those things that “carry more weight than others” and “have the power to bring order to our lives.”“If you have the right priorities, you are at peace. But if you choose your priorities poorly, it causes confusion and anguish for you; it doesn’t help you live well. So, from time to time, we need to have the courage to reexamine our priorities,” he noted.In this regard, he said that “Jesus helps us order our priorities,” and elaborated: “What is Jesus’ priority? God. What comes first for Jesus? God. And what does he advise us? Put God first, and you won’t regret it,” he explained.He therefore urged people to ask themselves: “What place does God hold? What place does Mass hold?” he continued. “If you put God’s love first, if you love God in your life — that love is so good, so pure, and so radiant that it brings order to your entire life and helps you understand your whole life. Because God takes nothing away from you; he fills your life with love,” he pointed out. “Putting God first means taking a stand, taking a risk, and filling your heart with love; that helps you love everyone and everything in a different way, to love better,” he emphasized.Referring to the situation in Venezuela, Scheinig reflected: “Just look at how strange the world is. Today, television shows harrowing scenes. I was watching the news and saw a little boy crying — he had been left all alone after the earthquake, and it breaks your heart. Yet, a short while later, we’re watching the Argentina [World Cup] match.”“And notice, too, that we see scenes of war, of migrants who have nothing and live in a small tent. That’s the world. It happens to us in a family as well: You might be celebrating the 15th birthday of one of your children and then a close relative dies or someone comes down with an illness. That’s life. Life is that strange mix of very beautiful things and deeply painful things,” he noted.“But when your heart has priorities, you don’t get confused. And so, yes, we can cheer for the national team, but my priority isn’t soccer; my priority is life, it’s what happens to other people. I don’t let the things of life desensitize me,” he cautioned.That is why, “if God is your priority, you are able to not get desensitized to pain. You have your life on track. You can watch the World Cup, but you realize that it isn’t the priority. Your life is in order. You know where you stand, what you want, and what you don’t want,” he continued.In that context, he added, the need arises to stand with Venezuelans in prayer: “God, strengthen so many people whose lives changed in an instant.”“We also feel moved to show solidarity, to give money and goods, and to share what we have with those in need because your heart is rightly ordered; it is with God.”“Life presents us with complex, difficult moments in the world,” Scheinig acknowledged, while expressing the hope that “God holds first place on our list of priorities, so that we may remain good people.”This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English. Argentinians join in prayer for earthquake-shattered Venezuelans #Catholic With thousands dead, injured, and missing in the wake of last week’s devastating earthquakes in Venezuela, Argentinians gathered in prayer for the Venezuelan people on June 28 at the basilica and national shrine of Our Lady of Luján. There, the archbishop of Mercedes-Luján, Jorge Eduardo Scheinig, offered Mass for the Venezuelan people.“Let us think of those who have died and their families,” Scheinig said in his homily. “In a single minute, so many people were left with nothing, absolutely nothing,” he noted.“Let us pray for the rescue workers and for all those who are working [on the ground]. Let us stand in solidarity with them through prayer,” said Scheinig, who proceeded to lead a moment of silence to pray to God and the Virgin for the people of Venezuela.The archbishop dedicated the rest of his homily to examining priorities, those things that “carry more weight than others” and “have the power to bring order to our lives.”“If you have the right priorities, you are at peace. But if you choose your priorities poorly, it causes confusion and anguish for you; it doesn’t help you live well. So, from time to time, we need to have the courage to reexamine our priorities,” he noted.In this regard, he said that “Jesus helps us order our priorities,” and elaborated: “What is Jesus’ priority? God. What comes first for Jesus? God. And what does he advise us? Put God first, and you won’t regret it,” he explained.He therefore urged people to ask themselves: “What place does God hold? What place does Mass hold?” he continued. “If you put God’s love first, if you love God in your life — that love is so good, so pure, and so radiant that it brings order to your entire life and helps you understand your whole life. Because God takes nothing away from you; he fills your life with love,” he pointed out. “Putting God first means taking a stand, taking a risk, and filling your heart with love; that helps you love everyone and everything in a different way, to love better,” he emphasized.Referring to the situation in Venezuela, Scheinig reflected: “Just look at how strange the world is. Today, television shows harrowing scenes. I was watching the news and saw a little boy crying — he had been left all alone after the earthquake, and it breaks your heart. Yet, a short while later, we’re watching the Argentina [World Cup] match.”“And notice, too, that we see scenes of war, of migrants who have nothing and live in a small tent. That’s the world. It happens to us in a family as well: You might be celebrating the 15th birthday of one of your children and then a close relative dies or someone comes down with an illness. That’s life. Life is that strange mix of very beautiful things and deeply painful things,” he noted.“But when your heart has priorities, you don’t get confused. And so, yes, we can cheer for the national team, but my priority isn’t soccer; my priority is life, it’s what happens to other people. I don’t let the things of life desensitize me,” he cautioned.That is why, “if God is your priority, you are able to not get desensitized to pain. You have your life on track. You can watch the World Cup, but you realize that it isn’t the priority. Your life is in order. You know where you stand, what you want, and what you don’t want,” he continued.In that context, he added, the need arises to stand with Venezuelans in prayer: “God, strengthen so many people whose lives changed in an instant.”“We also feel moved to show solidarity, to give money and goods, and to share what we have with those in need because your heart is rightly ordered; it is with God.”“Life presents us with complex, difficult moments in the world,” Scheinig acknowledged, while expressing the hope that “God holds first place on our list of priorities, so that we may remain good people.”This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/argentinians-join-in-prayer-for-earthquake-shattered-venezuelans-catholic-with-thousands-dead-injured-and-missing-in-the-wake-of-last-weeks-devastating-earthquakes-in-venezuela-argentinia-scaled.jpg)
In his homily during a Mass offered for the earthquake’s victims, Archbishop Jorge Scheinig urged the faithful to reexamine their priorities in life, realizing one can lose everything in an instant.


The MLB commissioner said in a letter that the Giants did not adequately inform the players that gay pride caps were optional, Hawley said.


God’s “divine love gives meaning to the life of every person and, far from ending with death, invites us to a new fullness in eternity,” the pope said.

![Church bells in Mexico to toll for peace and in memory of victims of violence #Catholic Catholic church bells in Mexico will be rung on June 20 “as a call to build peace” and in memory of victims of violence in the country, marking the fourth anniversary of the murders of Jesuit priests Javier Campos Morales and Joaquín César Mora Salazar.In a statement released on June 14, the National Dialogue for Peace called for placing a “white ribbon or small flag” on the doors of homes, schools, and workplaces on June 20 to make “visible the commitment to peace, dialogue, reconciliation, or hope.”The group also called for “ringing church bells on June 20 at 3 p.m. as a call to all sectors of society to build peace and to renew our commitment to forming the community that Mexico needs today.”Campos Morales and Mora Salazar were killed on June 20, 2022, inside their parish church in the town of Cerocahui in the Mexican state of Chihuahua while attempting to protect a man who was being pursued by a criminal. The organization also asked Mexicans to “place photographs of missing persons at church altars during the celebrations on Sunday, June 21,” as well as to “offer a special prayer for families searching [for their loved ones] and invite adolescents and young people to present the offerings as a sign of a Church that recognizes their place and accompanies them in building hope.”The National Dialogue for Peace was started following the murder of the Jesuits as an initiative of the Catholic Church in Mexico formed by the Mexican Bishops’ Conference, the Bishops’ Commission for the Laity, the Conference of Major Religious Superiors of Mexico, and the Society of Jesus in Mexico.In its statement, the National Dialogue for Peace stated that on June 20, “we remember the murdered religious leaders, the thousands of missing persons, the families living amid violence, the merchants suffering extortion, and the forests illegally logged.”“It’s a day to remember the suffering that we are standing against throughout Mexico and to call upon all sectors of society to redouble their efforts to sow peace. Amid the pain this country is experiencing, Jesus continues to call us to build peace,” the statement explained.Reflecting on the efforts made since 2022, the organization noted that “over these four years, we have learned that the great challenge is to build a responsible and participatory community capable of deciding its own destiny.”While “violence isolates people and stifles social participation, paving the way for the imposition of criminal projects and ideas,” the National Dialogue for Peace said, noting that “the process of building peace entails reaching out to others to heal, participate, and form one’s own judgment.”“Building peace today entails healing the wound caused by the forced disappearance of loved ones, having concern for abandoned youth, and envisioning the institutional framework Mexico needs. That wound is healed through truth, political will, and reparation for the harm done,” the National Dialogue for Peace stated.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English. Church bells in Mexico to toll for peace and in memory of victims of violence #Catholic Catholic church bells in Mexico will be rung on June 20 “as a call to build peace” and in memory of victims of violence in the country, marking the fourth anniversary of the murders of Jesuit priests Javier Campos Morales and Joaquín César Mora Salazar.In a statement released on June 14, the National Dialogue for Peace called for placing a “white ribbon or small flag” on the doors of homes, schools, and workplaces on June 20 to make “visible the commitment to peace, dialogue, reconciliation, or hope.”The group also called for “ringing church bells on June 20 at 3 p.m. as a call to all sectors of society to build peace and to renew our commitment to forming the community that Mexico needs today.”Campos Morales and Mora Salazar were killed on June 20, 2022, inside their parish church in the town of Cerocahui in the Mexican state of Chihuahua while attempting to protect a man who was being pursued by a criminal. The organization also asked Mexicans to “place photographs of missing persons at church altars during the celebrations on Sunday, June 21,” as well as to “offer a special prayer for families searching [for their loved ones] and invite adolescents and young people to present the offerings as a sign of a Church that recognizes their place and accompanies them in building hope.”The National Dialogue for Peace was started following the murder of the Jesuits as an initiative of the Catholic Church in Mexico formed by the Mexican Bishops’ Conference, the Bishops’ Commission for the Laity, the Conference of Major Religious Superiors of Mexico, and the Society of Jesus in Mexico.In its statement, the National Dialogue for Peace stated that on June 20, “we remember the murdered religious leaders, the thousands of missing persons, the families living amid violence, the merchants suffering extortion, and the forests illegally logged.”“It’s a day to remember the suffering that we are standing against throughout Mexico and to call upon all sectors of society to redouble their efforts to sow peace. Amid the pain this country is experiencing, Jesus continues to call us to build peace,” the statement explained.Reflecting on the efforts made since 2022, the organization noted that “over these four years, we have learned that the great challenge is to build a responsible and participatory community capable of deciding its own destiny.”While “violence isolates people and stifles social participation, paving the way for the imposition of criminal projects and ideas,” the National Dialogue for Peace said, noting that “the process of building peace entails reaching out to others to heal, participate, and form one’s own judgment.”“Building peace today entails healing the wound caused by the forced disappearance of loved ones, having concern for abandoned youth, and envisioning the institutional framework Mexico needs. That wound is healed through truth, political will, and reparation for the harm done,” the National Dialogue for Peace stated.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/church-bells-in-mexico-to-toll-for-peace-and-in-memory-of-victims-of-violence-catholic-catholic-church-bells-in-mexico-will-be-rung-on-june-20-as-a-call-to-build-peace-and-in-memory.webp)
The National Dialogue for Peace, a Church-led organization in Mexico, is calling a day of remembrance for the victims of violence.

![Michigan diocese celebrates new priests after ordinations moved out of cathedral #Catholic ANN ARBOR, Michigan — Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing, Michigan, ordained four men to the priesthood on June 6 at St. Thomas Aquinas Parish in East Lansing after the crowd was too big for St. Mary’s Cathedral, the mother church of the diocese. In the packed church, Boyea told the ordinands: “You have been spending years being with Jesus. He’s calling you as he called those 12 so many centuries ago. Today, as you are consecrated by the Church for a sacred ministry, consecrate yourselves to drink the cup which the Lord gives and take in the word which the Spirit is providing. Though weak vessels that we are, we will not let that prevent us from following the calling we have received.”Now 75 and due to retire from his duties in Lansing, Boyea has ordained 45 priests during his 18 years of leadership of the diocese in Michigan’s capital. The diocese, one of seven Latin-rite dioceses in Michigan, is currently sponsoring 29 seminarians, and last year’s ordination class was the largest in nearly 50 years.Fathers Joshua Bauer, Jacob Derry, Ryan Ferrigan, and Peter Randolph, ordained by Boyea, all attended Sacred Heart Major Seminary of the Detroit Archdiocese.
Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing, Michigan, washes the feet of one of the four men he ordained to the priesthood on June 6, 2026, at St. Thomas Aquinas Parish in East Lansing, Michigan. | Credit: Valerie Hendrickson
Before their ordination, the men were interviewed on video, displaying the chalices they will use as priests.Ferrigan, 28, said his antique sacred vessel had been left behind at the now-shuttered St. Michael Parish church in Flint, Michigan, established more than 170 years ago. Inscribed on its base are the words of an anonymous donor: “In reparation from a friend of the Sacred Heart.”“You know, it’s a paradox because this chalice has a long history, and I don’t know who the priests are who used it in the past,” he said. “They offered the Holy Sacrifice using this vessel for over 100 years, and I get to continue faithfully offering the Mass and praying for the salvation of the world every day.”In his thanksgiving address to the congregation, Ferrigan said of his priesthood: “It’s all about the glory of God and the salvation of souls!”In an interview with EWTN News, the new priest said: “In being ordained, the palpable joy they could see in me was there because in ordination, I am seeing the purpose for which God created me coming to fruition. I have become what the Lord created me to be.”“The day of my ordination was the best day of my life. Lots of friends and family were there to support me. The Lord has blessed me and is very good to me. I’m still adjusting and realizing that I’m really a priest now and have the privilege of offering the Mass every day. This is my commission and what the Lord wants me to do for his praise and the salvation of the world. It is still sinking in,” he told EWTN News.
From left to right: Fathers Peter Randolph, Ryan Ferrigan, Jacob Derry, and Joshua Bauer at their ordaination on June 6, 2026, in East Lansing, Michigan. | Credit: Valerie Hendrickson
Ferrigan celebrated his first solo Mass that same day at St. Martha Parish in Okemos, near Lansing. He was able to distribute the Eucharist for the first time in both instances to his mother. He will serve at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish in Ann Arbor, which is close to the University of Michigan campus and known for its music and solemn liturgies.“I’m excited to be going there, and I expect to serve about three years at St. Thomas,” he said, adding: “I’m excited about learning to be a parish priest and diving into ministry. This is how the Lord wants me to feed his sheep.”Randolph, 27, reflected in the video about his journey to the altar, which has included profound loss. “The emphasis of this chalice upon the humanity of Christ and about receiving the chalice, and then living it out to the fullest extent, both in pain and suffering, and full self-abandonment and full self-emptying and glory, means a lot to me, because my [18-year-old] brother Xavier died less than a year ago. And the Lord has really promised me that he’s going to meet me in the place of my pain,” he said, adding: “He’s not going to leave me alone. But it’s going to come in my very broken humanity. In my humanity that is now broken in a particular way in grief.”
Peter Randolph prepares for his ordination to the priesthood on June 6, 2026, in East Lansing, Michigan. | Credit: Valerie Hendrickson
Randolph’s father and grandfather serve as deacons in the Lansing Diocese. At the July 2025 funeral for Xavier, hundreds of friends and parishioners of the close-knit Christ the King Parish in Ann Arbor were on hand to support the Randolph family with the same solidarity shown at Randolph’s ordination. He has been assigned to St. Patrick Parish in Brighton, Michigan, which is known for its healing services and charismatic liturgies.As Boyea consecrated Randolph, the newly ordained young man openly sobbed in the presence of his many friends and family members. “I want every day of my priesthood and every time that I offer Mass in this chalice, to be able to say, like, ‘Accipiam calicem,’ right, I accept the chalice,” Randolph vowed. Paraphrasing Matthew 26:42, Randolph said: “Father, I accept this chalice, and I will drink it to the dregs with your Son.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/michigan-diocese-celebrates-new-priests-after-ordinations-moved-out-of-cathedral-catholic-ann-arbor-michigan-bishop-earl-boyea-of-lansing-michigan-ordained-four-men-to-the-priesthood-on-scaled.jpg)
Bishop Earl Boyea ordained four new priests at a local Lansing parish, urging them to “drink the cup which the Lord gives” as they begin their ministry.



At Las Raíces reception center in Spain’s Canary Islands, the pope heard testimonies from migrants who risked their lives crossing the Atlantic and urged a more humane response rooted in dignity.
