Policy

Health spending bill would keep ban on tax-funded abortion #Catholic 
 
 An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA).
A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”

Health spending bill would keep ban on tax-funded abortion #Catholic An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA). A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”


An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA).

A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.

The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.

Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.

Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”

“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.

Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.

In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.

The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.

In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”

“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”

Read More
Catholics express mixed views on first year of Trump’s second term #Catholic 
 
 With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson by his side, President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. | Credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Jan 20, 2026 / 12:21 pm (CNA).
Catholics are offering mixed reactions to the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, which included domestic policy actions that align with U.S. bishops on gender-related issues, and also tensions over immigration, expansion of the death penalty, and reduced funding for organizations that provide food and basic support to people in need.Trump secured his electoral victory in 2024 with the help of Catholics, who supported him by a double-digit margin, according to exit polls. A Pew Research Center report found that nearly a quarter of Trump’s voters in 2024 were Catholic.Throughout his first year, Trump — who calls himself a nondenominational Christian — has invoked Christianity and created a White House Faith Office. He created a Religious Liberty Commission by executive order in May 2025 and became the first president to issue a proclamation honoring the Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception in December.Last year, the president also launched the “America Prays” initiative, which encouraged people to dedicate one hour of prayer for the United States and its people in preparation for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026.Immigration, poverty, and NGOsJohn White, professor of politics at The Catholic University of America, said the first year of Trump’s second term “challenged Catholics on many levels.”“The brutality of ICE has caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to issue an extraordinary statement at the prompting of Pope Leo XIV,” White said, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a special message in November opposing indiscriminate mass deportations, calling for humane treatment, urging meaningful reform, and affirming the compatibility of national security with human dignity.The Trump administration, with JD Vance, the second Catholic vice president in U.S. history, cut billions of dollars in funding to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which financially damaged several Catholic nonprofits that had received funding. Trump also signed into law historic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.“The cuts to NGO funding, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits, alongside the huge increases in health care costs, have hurt the poor and middle class at home and around the world,” he said. “Instead of being the good Samaritan, Trump has challenged our Catholic values and narrowed our vision of who we are and what we believe. JD Vance’s interpretation of ‘Ordo Amoris’ of a hierarchy to those whom we love rather than a universal love is a case in point and has been repudiated by Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV,” he said.The cuts aligned federal policy with the administration’s agenda, which included strict immigration enforcement, mass deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally, and less foreign aid support.Catholic Charities USA was previously receiving more than $100 million annually for migrant services, and the Trump administration cut off those funds. In response, the organization scaled back its services.Since Trump took office, the administration said it has deported more than 600,000 people.Karen Sullivan, director of advocacy for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), which provides legal services to migrants, said she is “very concerned about the way that immigration enforcement has been carried out,” adding her organization is “very concerned that human dignity of all persons [needs to] be respected.”Sullivan said the administration is “enabling their officers to use excessive force as they are taking people into custody” and “denying access to oversight at their detention centers.” She also expressed concern about the administration increasing fees for asylum applications and giving agents more leeway to conduct immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.She said the large number of deportations and the increase in expedited removals has “been a strain” on organizations that seek to provide legal help to migrants.CLINIC receives inquiries from people who are facing deportation and also those who fear they may be deported. She said: “The worry and the fear among those people [who may face deportation] makes them seek out assistance and advice even more often.”“The pace of the changes that have been happening in the past year have been very difficult to manage,” she said. “We are having to respond very quickly to changes."Executive actions on genderSusan Hanssen, a history professor at the University of Dallas (a Catholic institution), viewed the first year of Trump’s second term in mostly successful terms.“As Catholics we know that the law educates, and during Trump’s first year in office we witnessed an actual shift in public opinion on the LGBT/transgender ideology due to his asserting the scientific and natural common sense that there are only male and female,” Hanssen said.Trump took executive action to prohibit what he called the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children, such as hormone therapy and surgical transition. He signed a policy restricting participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He legally recognized only two genders, determined by biology: male and female.“His strong executive action on this essential point — domestically in making the executive branch remove its trans-affirming language, the executive department of education stop subverting parental rights over their children, and women’s rights in sports, and (importantly) putting an end to USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] pushing this gender agenda on the countries who need our economic assistance,” she said.“This has led to a genuine public shift, with fewer independent corporations choosing to enforce June as LGBT Pride month on their customer base, fewer DEI programs pushing the gender agenda on hiring, and a shift (especially among young men) towards disapproval of gender transitioning children and even towards disapproval of the legalization of so-called same sex ‘marriage,’” she added. “We will need to see how these executive branch victories will affect judicial and legislative action moving forward.”Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, had a similar view of some of the social changes.“The current administration has focused significant energy on the important task of ‘putting folks on notice,’ so it’s hard to deny, for example, that the misguided medico-pharmaceutical industry that has profited handsomely from exploiting vulnerable youth and other gender dysphoric individuals can no longer miss the loud indicators that these practices will not be able to continue unabated,” he said.Death penaltyTrump signaled a renewed and more aggressive federal capital-punishment policy in 2025, in opposition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office directing the Justice Department to actively pursue the federal death penalty for serious crimes. He also directed federal prosecutors to seek death sentences in Washington, D.C., homicide cases. His administration lifted a moratorium on executions, reversing a pause in federal executions and following President Joe Biden’s commutations of federal death sentences.Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, then-president of the USCCB, in a Jan. 22, 2025, statement called Trump’s support for expanding the federal death penalty “deeply troubling.” Newly elected USCCB president Archbishop Paul Coakley likewise called for the abolition of the death penalty.

Catholics express mixed views on first year of Trump’s second term #Catholic With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson by his side, President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. | Credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images Jan 20, 2026 / 12:21 pm (CNA). Catholics are offering mixed reactions to the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, which included domestic policy actions that align with U.S. bishops on gender-related issues, and also tensions over immigration, expansion of the death penalty, and reduced funding for organizations that provide food and basic support to people in need.Trump secured his electoral victory in 2024 with the help of Catholics, who supported him by a double-digit margin, according to exit polls. A Pew Research Center report found that nearly a quarter of Trump’s voters in 2024 were Catholic.Throughout his first year, Trump — who calls himself a nondenominational Christian — has invoked Christianity and created a White House Faith Office. He created a Religious Liberty Commission by executive order in May 2025 and became the first president to issue a proclamation honoring the Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception in December.Last year, the president also launched the “America Prays” initiative, which encouraged people to dedicate one hour of prayer for the United States and its people in preparation for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026.Immigration, poverty, and NGOsJohn White, professor of politics at The Catholic University of America, said the first year of Trump’s second term “challenged Catholics on many levels.”“The brutality of ICE has caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to issue an extraordinary statement at the prompting of Pope Leo XIV,” White said, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a special message in November opposing indiscriminate mass deportations, calling for humane treatment, urging meaningful reform, and affirming the compatibility of national security with human dignity.The Trump administration, with JD Vance, the second Catholic vice president in U.S. history, cut billions of dollars in funding to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which financially damaged several Catholic nonprofits that had received funding. Trump also signed into law historic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.“The cuts to NGO funding, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits, alongside the huge increases in health care costs, have hurt the poor and middle class at home and around the world,” he said. “Instead of being the good Samaritan, Trump has challenged our Catholic values and narrowed our vision of who we are and what we believe. JD Vance’s interpretation of ‘Ordo Amoris’ of a hierarchy to those whom we love rather than a universal love is a case in point and has been repudiated by Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV,” he said.The cuts aligned federal policy with the administration’s agenda, which included strict immigration enforcement, mass deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally, and less foreign aid support.Catholic Charities USA was previously receiving more than $100 million annually for migrant services, and the Trump administration cut off those funds. In response, the organization scaled back its services.Since Trump took office, the administration said it has deported more than 600,000 people.Karen Sullivan, director of advocacy for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), which provides legal services to migrants, said she is “very concerned about the way that immigration enforcement has been carried out,” adding her organization is “very concerned that human dignity of all persons [needs to] be respected.”Sullivan said the administration is “enabling their officers to use excessive force as they are taking people into custody” and “denying access to oversight at their detention centers.” She also expressed concern about the administration increasing fees for asylum applications and giving agents more leeway to conduct immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.She said the large number of deportations and the increase in expedited removals has “been a strain” on organizations that seek to provide legal help to migrants.CLINIC receives inquiries from people who are facing deportation and also those who fear they may be deported. She said: “The worry and the fear among those people [who may face deportation] makes them seek out assistance and advice even more often.”“The pace of the changes that have been happening in the past year have been very difficult to manage,” she said. “We are having to respond very quickly to changes."Executive actions on genderSusan Hanssen, a history professor at the University of Dallas (a Catholic institution), viewed the first year of Trump’s second term in mostly successful terms.“As Catholics we know that the law educates, and during Trump’s first year in office we witnessed an actual shift in public opinion on the LGBT/transgender ideology due to his asserting the scientific and natural common sense that there are only male and female,” Hanssen said.Trump took executive action to prohibit what he called the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children, such as hormone therapy and surgical transition. He signed a policy restricting participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He legally recognized only two genders, determined by biology: male and female.“His strong executive action on this essential point — domestically in making the executive branch remove its trans-affirming language, the executive department of education stop subverting parental rights over their children, and women’s rights in sports, and (importantly) putting an end to USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] pushing this gender agenda on the countries who need our economic assistance,” she said.“This has led to a genuine public shift, with fewer independent corporations choosing to enforce June as LGBT Pride month on their customer base, fewer DEI programs pushing the gender agenda on hiring, and a shift (especially among young men) towards disapproval of gender transitioning children and even towards disapproval of the legalization of so-called same sex ‘marriage,’” she added. “We will need to see how these executive branch victories will affect judicial and legislative action moving forward.”Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, had a similar view of some of the social changes.“The current administration has focused significant energy on the important task of ‘putting folks on notice,’ so it’s hard to deny, for example, that the misguided medico-pharmaceutical industry that has profited handsomely from exploiting vulnerable youth and other gender dysphoric individuals can no longer miss the loud indicators that these practices will not be able to continue unabated,” he said.Death penaltyTrump signaled a renewed and more aggressive federal capital-punishment policy in 2025, in opposition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office directing the Justice Department to actively pursue the federal death penalty for serious crimes. He also directed federal prosecutors to seek death sentences in Washington, D.C., homicide cases. His administration lifted a moratorium on executions, reversing a pause in federal executions and following President Joe Biden’s commutations of federal death sentences.Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, then-president of the USCCB, in a Jan. 22, 2025, statement called Trump’s support for expanding the federal death penalty “deeply troubling.” Newly elected USCCB president Archbishop Paul Coakley likewise called for the abolition of the death penalty.


With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson by his side, President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. | Credit: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Jan 20, 2026 / 12:21 pm (CNA).

Catholics are offering mixed reactions to the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, which included domestic policy actions that align with U.S. bishops on gender-related issues, and also tensions over immigration, expansion of the death penalty, and reduced funding for organizations that provide food and basic support to people in need.

Trump secured his electoral victory in 2024 with the help of Catholics, who supported him by a double-digit margin, according to exit polls. A Pew Research Center report found that nearly a quarter of Trump’s voters in 2024 were Catholic.

Throughout his first year, Trump — who calls himself a nondenominational Christian — has invoked Christianity and created a White House Faith Office. He created a Religious Liberty Commission by executive order in May 2025 and became the first president to issue a proclamation honoring the Catholic feast of the Immaculate Conception in December.

Last year, the president also launched the “America Prays” initiative, which encouraged people to dedicate one hour of prayer for the United States and its people in preparation for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026.

Immigration, poverty, and NGOs

John White, professor of politics at The Catholic University of America, said the first year of Trump’s second term “challenged Catholics on many levels.”

“The brutality of ICE has caused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to issue an extraordinary statement at the prompting of Pope Leo XIV,” White said, referring to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a special message in November opposing indiscriminate mass deportations, calling for humane treatment, urging meaningful reform, and affirming the compatibility of national security with human dignity.

The Trump administration, with JD Vance, the second Catholic vice president in U.S. history, cut billions of dollars in funding to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which financially damaged several Catholic nonprofits that had received funding. Trump also signed into law historic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“The cuts to NGO funding, SNAP, and Medicaid benefits, alongside the huge increases in health care costs, have hurt the poor and middle class at home and around the world,” he said. “Instead of being the good Samaritan, Trump has challenged our Catholic values and narrowed our vision of who we are and what we believe. JD Vance’s interpretation of ‘Ordo Amoris’ of a hierarchy to those whom we love rather than a universal love is a case in point and has been repudiated by Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV,” he said.

The cuts aligned federal policy with the administration’s agenda, which included strict immigration enforcement, mass deportations of immigrants who are in the country illegally, and less foreign aid support.

Catholic Charities USA was previously receiving more than $100 million annually for migrant services, and the Trump administration cut off those funds. In response, the organization scaled back its services.

Since Trump took office, the administration said it has deported more than 600,000 people.

Karen Sullivan, director of advocacy for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), which provides legal services to migrants, said she is “very concerned about the way that immigration enforcement has been carried out,” adding her organization is “very concerned that human dignity of all persons [needs to] be respected.”

Sullivan said the administration is “enabling their officers to use excessive force as they are taking people into custody” and “denying access to oversight at their detention centers.” She also expressed concern about the administration increasing fees for asylum applications and giving agents more leeway to conduct immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.

She said the large number of deportations and the increase in expedited removals has “been a strain” on organizations that seek to provide legal help to migrants.

CLINIC receives inquiries from people who are facing deportation and also those who fear they may be deported. She said: “The worry and the fear among those people [who may face deportation] makes them seek out assistance and advice even more often.”

“The pace of the changes that have been happening in the past year have been very difficult to manage,” she said. “We are having to respond very quickly to changes."

Executive actions on gender

Susan Hanssen, a history professor at the University of Dallas (a Catholic institution), viewed the first year of Trump’s second term in mostly successful terms.

“As Catholics we know that the law educates, and during Trump’s first year in office we witnessed an actual shift in public opinion on the LGBT/transgender ideology due to his asserting the scientific and natural common sense that there are only male and female,” Hanssen said.

Trump took executive action to prohibit what he called the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children, such as hormone therapy and surgical transition. He signed a policy restricting participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. He legally recognized only two genders, determined by biology: male and female.

“His strong executive action on this essential point — domestically in making the executive branch remove its trans-affirming language, the executive department of education stop subverting parental rights over their children, and women’s rights in sports, and (importantly) putting an end to USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] pushing this gender agenda on the countries who need our economic assistance,” she said.

“This has led to a genuine public shift, with fewer independent corporations choosing to enforce June as LGBT Pride month on their customer base, fewer DEI programs pushing the gender agenda on hiring, and a shift (especially among young men) towards disapproval of gender transitioning children and even towards disapproval of the legalization of so-called same sex ‘marriage,’” she added. “We will need to see how these executive branch victories will affect judicial and legislative action moving forward.”

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, had a similar view of some of the social changes.

“The current administration has focused significant energy on the important task of ‘putting folks on notice,’ so it’s hard to deny, for example, that the misguided medico-pharmaceutical industry that has profited handsomely from exploiting vulnerable youth and other gender dysphoric individuals can no longer miss the loud indicators that these practices will not be able to continue unabated,” he said.

Death penalty

Trump signaled a renewed and more aggressive federal capital-punishment policy in 2025, in opposition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible.”

Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office directing the Justice Department to actively pursue the federal death penalty for serious crimes. He also directed federal prosecutors to seek death sentences in Washington, D.C., homicide cases. His administration lifted a moratorium on executions, reversing a pause in federal executions and following President Joe Biden’s commutations of federal death sentences.

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, then-president of the USCCB, in a Jan. 22, 2025, statement called Trump’s support for expanding the federal death penalty “deeply troubling.” Newly elected USCCB president Archbishop Paul Coakley likewise called for the abolition of the death penalty.

Read More
Catholic women discuss beauty, difficulty, redemptive nature of Church’s teachings on sexuality #Catholic 
 
 Keynote speakers at “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman” conference, held Jan. 9-10, 2026, in Houston (left to right): Erika Bachiochi, Mary Eberstadt, Angela Franks, Pia de Solenni, and Leah Sargeant. | Credit: Photo courtesy of the University of St. Thomas

Jan 18, 2026 / 10:26 am (CNA).
This past week, nearly a quarter of U.S. states sued the federal government for defining biological sex as binary, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against legally allowing males to compete against females in sports, and a Vatican official called surrogacy a “new form of colonialism” that commodifies women and their children.These are just the latest legal and cultural effects of a “mass cultural confusion” surrounding the meaning and purpose of the human body, and particularly women’s bodies, according to Leah Jacobson, program coordinator of the Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.On Jan. 9–10, the program sponsored a symposium titled “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman,” which brought together a group of Catholic women who have used their gifts of intellect and faith to serve as what Jacobson calls an “antidote” to the “chaos and confusion” of the cultural moment.The speakers presented on a wide range of topics concerned with the beauty, truth, and necessity of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, while also acknowledging how difficult living according to those teachings can sometimes be.‘Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction’In one of the first talks, writer Mary Eberstadt argued that the question “Who am I?” became harder to answer due to the widespread use of the birth control pill, which has led to huge increases in abortion, divorce, fatherlessness, single parenthood, and childlessness. “Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction,” Eberstadt said. “I’m not trying to make a point about morality, but arithmetic.”“The number of people we can call our own” became smaller, she said. While she acknowledged that not everyone has been affected equally, “members of our species share a collective environment. Just as toxic waste affects everyone," she said, the reduction in the number of human connections “amounts to a massive disturbance to the human ecosystem,” leading to a crisis of human identity.This reduction in the number of people in an individual's life, she argued, resulted in widespread confusion over gender identity and the meaning and purpose of the body.Eberstadt also attributed the decline in religiosity to the smaller number of human connections modern people have.“The sexual revolution subtracted the number of role models,” she said. “Many children have no siblings, no cousins, no aunts or uncles, no father; yet that is how humans conduct social learning.”“Without children, adults are less likely to go to church,” she said. “Without birth, we lose knowledge of the transcendent. Without an earthly father, it is hard to grasp the paradigm of a heavenly father.”‘A love deficit’“Living without God is not liberating people,” she continued. “It’s tearing some individuals apart, making people miserable and lonely.”When the sexual revolution made sex "recreational and not procreative, what it produced above all is a love deficit,” Eberstadt said.At the same time, secularization produced “troubled, disconnected souls drifting through society without gravity, shattering the ability to answer ‘Who am I?’”“The Church is the answer to the love deficit because Church teachings about who we are and what we’re here for are true,” she said.She concluded with a final note on hope, saying “it is easy to feel embattled, but we must never lose sight of the faces of the sexual revolution’s victims,” she said, “who are sending up primal screams for a world more ordered than many of today’s people now know; more ordered to mercy, to community and redemption.”The Church’s teachings were ’truly beautiful’ but 'very, very hard to live'Erika Bachiochi, a legal scholar and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who has taught a class for the graduate program, shared her experience as a mother of seven who tried to live according to the Church’s “difficult” teachings.As her children began to arrive at “a breakneck pace” and each pregnancy was “a bit of a crucible,” Bachiochi said being a mother was “very hard” for her, partly due to wounds from her youth (among other troubles, her own mother had been married and divorced three times), and partly because of a lack of community. Echoing Eberstadt’s “arithmetic” problem, Bachiochi described having very few examples of Catholic family life and a very small support system.Bachiochi said she believes God heals us from our wounds through our “particular vocations,” however.Of motherhood, she said: “I think God really healed me through being faithful to teachings that I found quite hard, but truly beautiful. I was intellectually convinced by them and found them spiritually beautiful, but found them to be very, very hard to live.” “Motherhood has served to heal me profoundly," she said, encouraging young mothers to have faith that though it might be difficult now, there is an “amazing future” awaiting them. “It’s really an incredible gift that Church has given me … the gift of obedience,” she said. She also said by God’s grace, she was given an “excellent husband” and has found that “just as the Church promises, that leaning into motherhood, into the little things, the daily needs, the constant requests for my attention, has truly been a school of virtue.” The Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program is a new part of the Nesti Center for Faith and Culture at the University of St. Thomas, a recognized Catholic cultural center of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education.

Catholic women discuss beauty, difficulty, redemptive nature of Church’s teachings on sexuality #Catholic Keynote speakers at “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman” conference, held Jan. 9-10, 2026, in Houston (left to right): Erika Bachiochi, Mary Eberstadt, Angela Franks, Pia de Solenni, and Leah Sargeant. | Credit: Photo courtesy of the University of St. Thomas Jan 18, 2026 / 10:26 am (CNA). This past week, nearly a quarter of U.S. states sued the federal government for defining biological sex as binary, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against legally allowing males to compete against females in sports, and a Vatican official called surrogacy a “new form of colonialism” that commodifies women and their children.These are just the latest legal and cultural effects of a “mass cultural confusion” surrounding the meaning and purpose of the human body, and particularly women’s bodies, according to Leah Jacobson, program coordinator of the Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.On Jan. 9–10, the program sponsored a symposium titled “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman,” which brought together a group of Catholic women who have used their gifts of intellect and faith to serve as what Jacobson calls an “antidote” to the “chaos and confusion” of the cultural moment.The speakers presented on a wide range of topics concerned with the beauty, truth, and necessity of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, while also acknowledging how difficult living according to those teachings can sometimes be.‘Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction’In one of the first talks, writer Mary Eberstadt argued that the question “Who am I?” became harder to answer due to the widespread use of the birth control pill, which has led to huge increases in abortion, divorce, fatherlessness, single parenthood, and childlessness. “Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction,” Eberstadt said. “I’m not trying to make a point about morality, but arithmetic.”“The number of people we can call our own” became smaller, she said. While she acknowledged that not everyone has been affected equally, “members of our species share a collective environment. Just as toxic waste affects everyone," she said, the reduction in the number of human connections “amounts to a massive disturbance to the human ecosystem,” leading to a crisis of human identity.This reduction in the number of people in an individual's life, she argued, resulted in widespread confusion over gender identity and the meaning and purpose of the body.Eberstadt also attributed the decline in religiosity to the smaller number of human connections modern people have.“The sexual revolution subtracted the number of role models,” she said. “Many children have no siblings, no cousins, no aunts or uncles, no father; yet that is how humans conduct social learning.”“Without children, adults are less likely to go to church,” she said. “Without birth, we lose knowledge of the transcendent. Without an earthly father, it is hard to grasp the paradigm of a heavenly father.”‘A love deficit’“Living without God is not liberating people,” she continued. “It’s tearing some individuals apart, making people miserable and lonely.”When the sexual revolution made sex "recreational and not procreative, what it produced above all is a love deficit,” Eberstadt said.At the same time, secularization produced “troubled, disconnected souls drifting through society without gravity, shattering the ability to answer ‘Who am I?’”“The Church is the answer to the love deficit because Church teachings about who we are and what we’re here for are true,” she said.She concluded with a final note on hope, saying “it is easy to feel embattled, but we must never lose sight of the faces of the sexual revolution’s victims,” she said, “who are sending up primal screams for a world more ordered than many of today’s people now know; more ordered to mercy, to community and redemption.”The Church’s teachings were ’truly beautiful’ but 'very, very hard to live'Erika Bachiochi, a legal scholar and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who has taught a class for the graduate program, shared her experience as a mother of seven who tried to live according to the Church’s “difficult” teachings.As her children began to arrive at “a breakneck pace” and each pregnancy was “a bit of a crucible,” Bachiochi said being a mother was “very hard” for her, partly due to wounds from her youth (among other troubles, her own mother had been married and divorced three times), and partly because of a lack of community. Echoing Eberstadt’s “arithmetic” problem, Bachiochi described having very few examples of Catholic family life and a very small support system.Bachiochi said she believes God heals us from our wounds through our “particular vocations,” however.Of motherhood, she said: “I think God really healed me through being faithful to teachings that I found quite hard, but truly beautiful. I was intellectually convinced by them and found them spiritually beautiful, but found them to be very, very hard to live.” “Motherhood has served to heal me profoundly," she said, encouraging young mothers to have faith that though it might be difficult now, there is an “amazing future” awaiting them. “It’s really an incredible gift that Church has given me … the gift of obedience,” she said. She also said by God’s grace, she was given an “excellent husband” and has found that “just as the Church promises, that leaning into motherhood, into the little things, the daily needs, the constant requests for my attention, has truly been a school of virtue.” The Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program is a new part of the Nesti Center for Faith and Culture at the University of St. Thomas, a recognized Catholic cultural center of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education.


Keynote speakers at “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman” conference, held Jan. 9-10, 2026, in Houston (left to right): Erika Bachiochi, Mary Eberstadt, Angela Franks, Pia de Solenni, and Leah Sargeant. | Credit: Photo courtesy of the University of St. Thomas

Jan 18, 2026 / 10:26 am (CNA).

This past week, nearly a quarter of U.S. states sued the federal government for defining biological sex as binary, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against legally allowing males to compete against females in sports, and a Vatican official called surrogacy a “new form of colonialism” that commodifies women and their children.

These are just the latest legal and cultural effects of a “mass cultural confusion” surrounding the meaning and purpose of the human body, and particularly women’s bodies, according to Leah Jacobson, program coordinator of the Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program at the University of St. Thomas in Houston.

On Jan. 9–10, the program sponsored a symposium titled “The Beauty of Truth: Navigating Society Today as a Catholic Woman,” which brought together a group of Catholic women who have used their gifts of intellect and faith to serve as what Jacobson calls an “antidote” to the “chaos and confusion” of the cultural moment.

The speakers presented on a wide range of topics concerned with the beauty, truth, and necessity of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, while also acknowledging how difficult living according to those teachings can sometimes be.

‘Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction’

In one of the first talks, writer Mary Eberstadt argued that the question “Who am I?” became harder to answer due to the widespread use of the birth control pill, which has led to huge increases in abortion, divorce, fatherlessness, single parenthood, and childlessness.

“Each of these acts is an act of human subtraction,” Eberstadt said. “I’m not trying to make a point about morality, but arithmetic.”

“The number of people we can call our own” became smaller, she said.

While she acknowledged that not everyone has been affected equally, “members of our species share a collective environment. Just as toxic waste affects everyone," she said, the reduction in the number of human connections “amounts to a massive disturbance to the human ecosystem,” leading to a crisis of human identity.

This reduction in the number of people in an individual's life, she argued, resulted in widespread confusion over gender identity and the meaning and purpose of the body.

Eberstadt also attributed the decline in religiosity to the smaller number of human connections modern people have.

“The sexual revolution subtracted the number of role models,” she said. “Many children have no siblings, no cousins, no aunts or uncles, no father; yet that is how humans conduct social learning.”

“Without children, adults are less likely to go to church,” she said. “Without birth, we lose knowledge of the transcendent. Without an earthly father, it is hard to grasp the paradigm of a heavenly father.”

‘A love deficit’

“Living without God is not liberating people,” she continued. “It’s tearing some individuals apart, making people miserable and lonely.”

When the sexual revolution made sex "recreational and not procreative, what it produced above all is a love deficit,” Eberstadt said.

At the same time, secularization produced “troubled, disconnected souls drifting through society without gravity, shattering the ability to answer ‘Who am I?’”

“The Church is the answer to the love deficit because Church teachings about who we are and what we’re here for are true,” she said.

She concluded with a final note on hope, saying “it is easy to feel embattled, but we must never lose sight of the faces of the sexual revolution’s victims,” she said, “who are sending up primal screams for a world more ordered than many of today’s people now know; more ordered to mercy, to community and redemption.”

The Church’s teachings were ’truly beautiful’ but 'very, very hard to live'

Erika Bachiochi, a legal scholar and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who has taught a class for the graduate program, shared her experience as a mother of seven who tried to live according to the Church’s “difficult” teachings.

As her children began to arrive at “a breakneck pace” and each pregnancy was “a bit of a crucible,” Bachiochi said being a mother was “very hard” for her, partly due to wounds from her youth (among other troubles, her own mother had been married and divorced three times), and partly because of a lack of community.

Echoing Eberstadt’s “arithmetic” problem, Bachiochi described having very few examples of Catholic family life and a very small support system.

Bachiochi said she believes God heals us from our wounds through our “particular vocations,” however.

Of motherhood, she said: “I think God really healed me through being faithful to teachings that I found quite hard, but truly beautiful. I was intellectually convinced by them and found them spiritually beautiful, but found them to be very, very hard to live.”

“Motherhood has served to heal me profoundly," she said, encouraging young mothers to have faith that though it might be difficult now, there is an “amazing future” awaiting them.

“It’s really an incredible gift that Church has given me … the gift of obedience,” she said.

She also said by God’s grace, she was given an “excellent husband” and has found that “just as the Church promises, that leaning into motherhood, into the little things, the daily needs, the constant requests for my attention, has truly been a school of virtue.”

The Catholic Women’s and Gender Studies Program is a new part of the Nesti Center for Faith and Culture at the University of St. Thomas, a recognized Catholic cultural center of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education.

Read More
Catholic doctors and ethicists react to CDC’s revised childhood vaccine schedule #Catholic 
 
 Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena

Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”This will ‘sow more confusion’Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”

Catholic doctors and ethicists react to CDC’s revised childhood vaccine schedule #Catholic Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA). Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”This will ‘sow more confusion’Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”


Credit: CDC/Debora Cartagena

Jan 12, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Catholic medical professionals and ethicists had mixed reactions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) announcement last week that it has revised the recommended childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule.

In a press release on Jan. 5, the CDC announced a revised recommended childhood immunization schedule, which reduces the number of universally recommended vaccines from 18 to 11. It retains routine recommendations for all children against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).

Vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal disease, and RSV now shift to recommendations for high-risk groups or after “shared clinical decision-making” between providers and families.

According to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo, the CDC “applies shared clinical decision-making recommendations when evidence indicates that individuals may benefit from vaccination based on an analysis of the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences, the provider’s medical judgment, and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”

Insurance companies must continue to cover all vaccines.

The changes come after President Donald Trump directed the heads of the CDC and HHS in December 2025 to “review best practices from peer, developed nations regarding childhood vaccination recommendations and the scientific evidence underlying those practices” and to make changes accordingly.

After reviewing the vaccination practices of 20 peer nations, a scientific assessment found that “the U.S. is a global outlier among developed nations in both the number of diseases addressed in its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses but does not have higher vaccination rates than such countries.”

“Science demands continuous evaluation,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), said in the CDC press release. “This decision commits NIH, CDC, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gold standard science, greater transparency, and ongoing reassessment as new data emerge.”

Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the health care policy committee at the Catholic Medical Association (CMA), welcomed the changes, telling CNA that he thought the CDC approached the revisions “in a very logical way.”

“There has been a huge drop in trust surrounding vaccines since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Millea said. “The suggestions during COVID that the science was ‘settled’ rubbed a lot of us the wrong way.”

“The loudest critics of these new recommendations say this is ideology over science,” he said. “Science is a process, not an end. If we need more evidence, let’s get it,” he said, pointing out Bhattacharya’s call for “gold standard” science and “ongoing reassessment.”

Millea, a retired orthopedic surgeon, said he has confidence that Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, head of the FDA, are “not going to let ideology get ahead of science.”

The president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), John Di Camillo, told CNA in a statement regarding the updated immunization recommendations: “The people look to public health authorities precisely for this kind of guidance, which is responsive to continually evolving research, ongoing discussions among professionals in the medical field, and ethical principles that promote the common good, respect the dignity of the human person, and limit the interference of financial and ideological conflicts.”

‘Let those closest to the children make the decisions’

Millea acknowledged that critics of the CDC’s revised recommendations say comparing the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of much smaller, more homogeneous nations such as Denmark is like “comparing apples to oranges.”

However, he pointed out that the CDC’s revised schedule is simply a recommendation, and each of the 50 U.S. states is free to do what it deems best. “It’s like 50 laboratories. Let’s see what works the best.”

Invoking the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, Millea said “let those closest to the children who are getting the vaccinations make the decisions.”

“One of the positive aspects of the pandemic is that now we can take a step back and we’re questioning, not because something may be wrong, but maybe because it could be improved upon,” Millea said.

John F. Brehany, executive vice president and director of Institutional Relations at the NCBC, told CNA that “the new schedule appears to have been designed with good intent; that is, … to have gained public trust in the absence of mandates and to have contributed to population health outcomes that meet or exceed those of the U.S.”

“The new schedule does not take a ‘one size fits all’ approach but rather structures recommendations based on the nature of the diseases, vaccines in question, and characteristics of the children or patients who may receive them,” he continued. “This approach appears to be well-founded and to provide a sound foundation for respecting the dignity and rights of every unique human person.”

This will ‘sow more confusion’

Dr. Gwyneth Spaeder, a Catholic pediatrician in North Carolina, did not welcome the changes to the immunization schedule.

While she acknowledged that the damage to trust in institutions was substantial after the COVID-19 pandemic, she thinks the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine’s safety and efficacy “cannot be compared” with the decades of studies demonstrating the safety of common children’s immunizations.

“It is not the same moral calculus,” she said.

She does not believe revising the immunization schedule this way will restore trust in institutions, which she said might take “years or even generations” to rebuild.

This method will “sow more confusion,” Spaeder said. “Instead of trying to rebuild trust in transparent, evidence-based practices, we have created a situation where everyone is told different things … For this child, we think this schedule is the best, for that child, there’s a different one. That’s not how public health works.”

She also said that comparing the homogeneous, relatively tiny population of 6 million in Denmark to that of the diverse population of 340 million in the U.S. is “a false comparison.”

“Their children are at less risk from falling through the cracks and contracting these diseases we try to vaccinate against,” she said, noting the protective public health effects of Denmark’s universal health care and generous parental leave policies.

“The children who will be most harmed in the U.S. are the underserved,” Spaeder said. “That’s being lost in this conversation. We can have a lot of high-level political arguments, but I am most concerned about my patients from single-parent homes who attend day care from young ages, or who are born to mothers who don’t have adequate prenatal care.”

“They will lose out the most from not being protected from these diseases.”

Read More
Trump urges Republican ‘flexibility’ on taxpayer-funded abortions #Catholic 
 
 President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA).
President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.

Trump urges Republican ‘flexibility’ on taxpayer-funded abortions #Catholic President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA). President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.


President Donald Trump talks to Republicans about their stance on the Hyde Amendment on Jan. 6, 2026. | Credit: Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Jan 6, 2026 / 18:10 pm (CNA).

President Donald Trump is asking congressional Republicans to be more flexible on taxpayer funding for abortions as lawmakers continue to negotiate an extension to health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Some federal subsidies that lowered premiums for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act expired in December.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the average increase to premiums for people who lost the subsidies will be about 114%, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. The exact costs will be different, depending on specific plans.

Trump has encouraged his party to work on extending those subsidies and is asking them to be “flexible” on a provision that could affect tax-funded abortion. Democrats have proposed ending the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment, which bans direct federal funding for abortions in most cases.

“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said at the House Republican Conference retreat at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Jan. 6.

“Now you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” the president said. “You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something [out]. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you got to be flexible. You have to have flexibility.”

The Hyde Amendment began as a bipartisan provision in funding bills that prohibited the use of federal funds for more than 45 years. Lawmakers have reauthorized the prohibition every year since it was first introduced in 1976.

A study from the Charlotte Lozier Institute estimates that the Hyde Amendment has saved more than 2.6 million lives. According to a poll conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, nearly 6 in 10 Americans oppose tax funding for abortions.

However, in recent years, many Democratic politicians have tried to keep the rule out of spending bills. Former President Joe Biden abandoned the Hyde Amendment in budget proposals, but it was ultimately included in the final compromise versions that became law.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, criticized Trump for urging flexibility on the provision, calling its support “an unshakeable bedrock principle and a minimum standard in the Republican Party.”

Dannenfelser said Republicans “are sure to lose this November” if they abandon Hyde: “The voters sent a [Republican] trifecta to Washington and they expect it to govern like one.”

“Giving in to Democrat demands that our tax dollars are used to fund plans that cover abortion on demand until birth would be a massive betrayal,” she said.

Dannenfelser also noted that, before these comments, Trump has consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. The president issued an executive order in January on enforcing the Hyde Amendment that accused Biden’s administration of disregarding this “commonsense policy.”

“For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a long-standing consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice,” the executive order reads.

“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion,” it adds.

Read More
SEEK 2026: Bishop Olson of Fort Worth speaks about what he’s praying for, other issues #Catholic 
 
 Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, Texas, speaks to CNA during the SEEK 2026 conference on Jan. 2, 2026. | Credit: Amira Abuzeid/CNA

Jan 2, 2026 / 20:00 pm (CNA).
Bishop Michael Olson, whose diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, is hosting the SEEK 2026 conference, said he is praying for unity in Christ.Olson said he has observed that young people attending the conference have “a real openness to God’s call. They very much want to make a difference for Christ” with their lives.“There’s a sense of communion that the Church has that postmodern reality undercuts. Young people, however, want to be disciples of the Lord. They want to belong, but they want to belong in the way he calls them to belong.”Regarding what is moving him spiritually right now, he said in an interview that “the heart of my prayer is the prayer of Jesus: That all may be one, as he and the father are one.”He said he is praying that “we all find communion and unity in Christ, as his Church, which is his intention.”“With all differences that we’re tempted to be divided over, especially in the sacraments and the liturgy,” he said he prays to help foster a sense of communion among people within the Church.ImmigrationAbout immigration, a prominent issue in Texas, Olson said that along with the majority of the U.S. bishops, he affirms the rule of law and the integrity of borders, “because without that, there is no sense of peace; there’s chaos and lawlessness and the most vulnerable suffer.”He said we all have to stop “defining ourselves by partisan ideologies, which feels like the dominant ‘religion’ in the U.S., for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.”“We have a responsibility to lend comfort [to immigrants] and to provide security. As an international issue and as a nation, we must help other nations to ensure their borders,” he continued.“Some of the challenges for the leadership of other nations are gangs. The most vulnerable are paying the price, terrified by the tyranny of the gangs,” he said.“We have to look at ourselves and say, how have we promoted [those challenges] in areas of foreign policy? We’re reaping what we’ve sown,” Olson said.“What we faced before with abortion and the death penalty, we now face with immigration: The dignity of the human person must be focused on, as well as the primacy of family life as the basis of society,” he said.Parish and school securityAsked about how security at parishes and Catholic schools is handled in his diocese following recent violence at Catholic schools, he said for the past seven years, the diocese has employed the Guardian ministry, which involves fully vetted, trained, and armed parishioners in partnership with the police.Those in the ministry are “proactive in cultivating a spirit and practice of deescalation, in the spirit of discipleship with Christ, in order to protect the vulnerable and weak.”Olson said at the rest of the SEEK conference he plans to spend time with the young people, giving a talk to the seminarians on prayer and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

SEEK 2026: Bishop Olson of Fort Worth speaks about what he’s praying for, other issues #Catholic Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, Texas, speaks to CNA during the SEEK 2026 conference on Jan. 2, 2026. | Credit: Amira Abuzeid/CNA Jan 2, 2026 / 20:00 pm (CNA). Bishop Michael Olson, whose diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, is hosting the SEEK 2026 conference, said he is praying for unity in Christ.Olson said he has observed that young people attending the conference have “a real openness to God’s call. They very much want to make a difference for Christ” with their lives.“There’s a sense of communion that the Church has that postmodern reality undercuts. Young people, however, want to be disciples of the Lord. They want to belong, but they want to belong in the way he calls them to belong.”Regarding what is moving him spiritually right now, he said in an interview that “the heart of my prayer is the prayer of Jesus: That all may be one, as he and the father are one.”He said he is praying that “we all find communion and unity in Christ, as his Church, which is his intention.”“With all differences that we’re tempted to be divided over, especially in the sacraments and the liturgy,” he said he prays to help foster a sense of communion among people within the Church.ImmigrationAbout immigration, a prominent issue in Texas, Olson said that along with the majority of the U.S. bishops, he affirms the rule of law and the integrity of borders, “because without that, there is no sense of peace; there’s chaos and lawlessness and the most vulnerable suffer.”He said we all have to stop “defining ourselves by partisan ideologies, which feels like the dominant ‘religion’ in the U.S., for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.”“We have a responsibility to lend comfort [to immigrants] and to provide security. As an international issue and as a nation, we must help other nations to ensure their borders,” he continued.“Some of the challenges for the leadership of other nations are gangs. The most vulnerable are paying the price, terrified by the tyranny of the gangs,” he said.“We have to look at ourselves and say, how have we promoted [those challenges] in areas of foreign policy? We’re reaping what we’ve sown,” Olson said.“What we faced before with abortion and the death penalty, we now face with immigration: The dignity of the human person must be focused on, as well as the primacy of family life as the basis of society,” he said.Parish and school securityAsked about how security at parishes and Catholic schools is handled in his diocese following recent violence at Catholic schools, he said for the past seven years, the diocese has employed the Guardian ministry, which involves fully vetted, trained, and armed parishioners in partnership with the police.Those in the ministry are “proactive in cultivating a spirit and practice of deescalation, in the spirit of discipleship with Christ, in order to protect the vulnerable and weak.”Olson said at the rest of the SEEK conference he plans to spend time with the young people, giving a talk to the seminarians on prayer and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.


Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, Texas, speaks to CNA during the SEEK 2026 conference on Jan. 2, 2026. | Credit: Amira Abuzeid/CNA

Jan 2, 2026 / 20:00 pm (CNA).

Bishop Michael Olson, whose diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, is hosting the SEEK 2026 conference, said he is praying for unity in Christ.

Olson said he has observed that young people attending the conference have “a real openness to God’s call. They very much want to make a difference for Christ” with their lives.

“There’s a sense of communion that the Church has that postmodern reality undercuts. Young people, however, want to be disciples of the Lord. They want to belong, but they want to belong in the way he calls them to belong.”

Regarding what is moving him spiritually right now, he said in an interview that “the heart of my prayer is the prayer of Jesus: That all may be one, as he and the father are one.”

He said he is praying that “we all find communion and unity in Christ, as his Church, which is his intention.”

“With all differences that we’re tempted to be divided over, especially in the sacraments and the liturgy,” he said he prays to help foster a sense of communion among people within the Church.

Immigration

About immigration, a prominent issue in Texas, Olson said that along with the majority of the U.S. bishops, he affirms the rule of law and the integrity of borders, “because without that, there is no sense of peace; there’s chaos and lawlessness and the most vulnerable suffer.”

He said we all have to stop “defining ourselves by partisan ideologies, which feels like the dominant ‘religion’ in the U.S., for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.”

“We have a responsibility to lend comfort [to immigrants] and to provide security. As an international issue and as a nation, we must help other nations to ensure their borders,” he continued.

“Some of the challenges for the leadership of other nations are gangs. The most vulnerable are paying the price, terrified by the tyranny of the gangs,” he said.

“We have to look at ourselves and say, how have we promoted [those challenges] in areas of foreign policy? We’re reaping what we’ve sown,” Olson said.

“What we faced before with abortion and the death penalty, we now face with immigration: The dignity of the human person must be focused on, as well as the primacy of family life as the basis of society,” he said.

Parish and school security

Asked about how security at parishes and Catholic schools is handled in his diocese following recent violence at Catholic schools, he said for the past seven years, the diocese has employed the Guardian ministry, which involves fully vetted, trained, and armed parishioners in partnership with the police.

Those in the ministry are “proactive in cultivating a spirit and practice of deescalation, in the spirit of discipleship with Christ, in order to protect the vulnerable and weak.”

Olson said at the rest of the SEEK conference he plans to spend time with the young people, giving a talk to the seminarians on prayer and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

Read More
Food assistance, housing top Catholic Charities’ policy wish list in 2026 #Catholic 
 
 Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum. Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”2026 wish listLooking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.Tax credits and economic trendsSome changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.

Food assistance, housing top Catholic Charities’ policy wish list in 2026 #Catholic Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA). Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum. Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”2026 wish listLooking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.Tax credits and economic trendsSome changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.


Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.

The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.

Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.

Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.

Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.

Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.

It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.

Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”

Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum.

Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.

Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.

Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”

She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”

2026 wish list

Looking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.

President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.

In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.

Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.

“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.

Tax credits and economic trends

Some changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.

Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.

Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.

The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.

Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.

Read More
Food assistance, housing top Catholic Charities’ policy wish list in 2026 #Catholic 
 
 Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum. Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”2026 wish listLooking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.Tax credits and economic trendsSome changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.

Food assistance, housing top Catholic Charities’ policy wish list in 2026 #Catholic Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA). Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum. Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”2026 wish listLooking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.Tax credits and economic trendsSome changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.


Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock

Jan 2, 2026 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Many people who receive assistance through anti-poverty programs faced disruptions in 2025, and Catholic Charities’ wish list for 2026 includes government support for food assistance and housing.

The largest disruption came in October when food stamps received through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were delayed amid the government shutdown. Funding for rental and heating assistance were also disrupted.

Confusion about how to implement a memo in January from the Office of Management and Budget calling for a grant freeze also caused delays in funding related to health care, housing affordability, and food assistance.

Luz Tavarez, vice president of government relations at Catholic Charities USA, said “people get nervous and scared” amid disruptions.

Many Catholic Charities affiliates saw an influx in clients, especially during the shutdown, but Tavarez said there are “very poor people who rely on SNAP subsidies for their meals” and who “can’t get to a Catholic Charities [affiliate] or other food pantry for assistance” when it happens.

Long-term eligibility and funding changes to SNAP were also approved in the tax overhaul signed into law in July. Previous rules only included a work requirement up to age 54, but the law extended those requirements up to age 64. It added stricter and more frequent checks for verifying the work requirements.

It also shifted some funding responsibilities away from the federal government and to the states.

Tavarez expressed concern about some of the SNAP changes as well, saying the government should end “burdensome requirements for individuals and states.”

Under the new law, there are stricter rules for verifying a person’s immigration status for benefits. It also limited which noncitizens could receive SNAP benefits, which excluded some refugees and people granted asylum.

Tavarez expressed concern about such SNAP changes, encouraging the government to permit “humanitarian-based noncitizens” to receive those benefits.

Overall the 2025 tax law gave the biggest boost to the richest families while poorer families might get a little less help than before, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bill added a work requirement for Medicaid recipients, and this will not take effect until 2027. Under the previous law, there was no work requirement for this benefit. It also shifts some Medicaid funding requirements onto the states.

Tavarez said Catholic Charities has “concerns with how [work requirements are] implemented” moving forward but does not oppose the idea outright: “There’s dignity in work so the Church isn’t necessarily opposed to people working as long as there’s some opportunities for people to do other things and other issues are taken into consideration.”

She also expressed concerns about funding shifts: “We know that not every state views things like SNAP and Medicaid as a good thing. We don’t know how states are going to balance their budget and prioritize these programs.”

2026 wish list

Looking forward to 2026, Tavarez said Catholic Charities hopes the government will restore full funding to the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks and bulk food distribution programs and ensure that funding is protected for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made policy changes in November that would focus its homelessness funding on “transitional” housing instead of “permanent” housing. This move is facing legal challenges.

President Donald Trump’s administration initially sought to cut federal housing assistance and shift much of those costs to states, but this was ultimately not included in the final version of the 2025 tax law.

In December, Trump promised an “aggressive” housing reform plan that focuses on reducing costs. At this time, the specifics of that proposal have not been announced. The increased cost to buy a new home has outpaced the growth in wages for decades.

Tavarez said Catholic Charities is focused on housing affordability in 2026 and that the solution must be multifaceted. This includes “building and developing affordable housing,” “a tax credit for developers,” “more affordable housing units,” and subsidies and Section 8 vouchers for low-income Americans, she said.

“We recognize that there’s a real crisis — I think everybody does in a bipartisan way — but there needs to be a real bipartisan approach and it’s going to require money,” Tavarez said.

Tax credits and economic trends

Some changes to the tax code included in the 2025 tax law are geared toward helping low-income Americans.

Specifically, the law reduced taxes taken from tips and overtime work. It also increased the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and tied the credit to inflation, meaning that it will increase each year based on the rate of inflation.

Tavarez characterized the changes to the child tax credit as a “win” and hopes it can be expanded further.

The economy has been a mixed bag, with November unemployment numbers showing a 4.6% rate. In November of last year, it was slightly lower at 4.2%.

Inflation has gone down a little, with the annual rate being around 2.7%. In 2024, it was around 2.9%. The average wage for workers also outpaced inflation, with hourly wages increasing by 3.5%, which shows a modest inflation-adjusted increase of 0.8%.

Read More
How federal and state abortion policies shifted in 2025 #Catholic 
 
 Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock

Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).
Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.Federal: Trump administration shiftsAbortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing 0 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.

How federal and state abortion policies shifted in 2025 #Catholic Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA). Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.Federal: Trump administration shiftsAbortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing $140 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.


Fifty-one senators asked the FDA to rescind its approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone on Oct. 9, 2025. | Credit: Yta23/Shutterstock

Dec 30, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

Abortion policy at the federal and state levels has continued to shift in the United States three and a half years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans made strides to pull back funding for organizations that advocate for abortion access and to reinstate conscience protections. Yet the administration also approved a generic abortion pill and failed to further regulate chemical abortion drugs.

Some states adopted new restrictions on abortion, but others expanded policies to increase abortion access. In most states, changes to abortion policy were minimal, as many states already set their post-Dobbs abortion policies in the previous years.

Federal: Trump administration shifts

Abortion policy at the federal level shifted shortly after Trump took office, with the administration reinstating many policies from Trump’s first term that had been abandoned for four years under President Joe Biden’s administration.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy during his first week in office, which requires foreign organizations to certify they will not perform, promote, or actively advocate for abortion to receive U.S. government funding. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded Biden-era guidelines that had required emergency rooms to perform abortions when a pregnant woman had a life-threatening emergency (like severe bleeding, ectopic pregnancy, or risk of organ failure) to stabilize her condition — even in states where abortion is otherwise banned.

Other changes within federal departments and agencies included rescinding a Department of Defense policy that provided paid leave and travel expenses for abortion and a proposed rule change to end abortion at Veterans Affairs facilities.

The Department of Health and Human Services has also withheld Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. Trump also signed a government spending bill that withheld Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood. Federal tax money was not spent directly on abortion before those changes, but abortion providers did receive funds for other purposes.

Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics shut down in 2025 amid funding cuts.

Those closures came as the administration advanced changes affecting abortion medication. Although the administration announced it would review the abortion pill, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new generic version of the drug mifepristone. Bloomberg Law reported the review has been delayed, although officials deny it.

The state-level results in 2025 have also been mixed, with a few states adding pro-life laws and others expanding access to abortion.

In Texas, where nearly all abortions are illegal, lawmakers passed a bill that allows families to sue companies that manufacture or distribute chemical abortion pills. This comes as state laws related to chemical abortions often conflict, with states like New York enforcing “shield laws” that order courts to not cooperate with out-of-state lawsuits or criminal charges against abortionists within their states.

Lawmakers in Wyoming passed a law overriding a veto from the governor that requires women to receive an ultrasound before they can obtain an abortion. However, the law was blocked by a court and is not in effect.

There were two pro-life legal wins for states in 2025 as well.

In November, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s near-total abortion ban after it was temporarily blocked by a lower court. Under the law, unborn life is protected at every stage in pregnancy in most cases, but it remains legal in the first six weeks in cases of rape and incest and for the duration of pregnancy when the mother is at risk of death or serious physical harm.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a South Carolina policy to withhold Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood could stay in place. This ruling also opened the door for other states to adopt similar policies moving forward.

In at least 10 states, lawmakers enacted bills to provide more funding for pro-life pregnancy centers, which offer life-affirming alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.

Alternatively, a handful of states in 2025 expanded their shield laws, which prevent courts from complying with out-of-state criminal or civil cases against abortionists. This includes new laws in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. Several states expanded these laws by allowing pharmacies to provide chemical abortion pills without listing the name of the doctor who prescribed them to prevent out-of-state legal action.

About a dozen states expanded funding for abortion providers, such as California directing $140 million to Planned Parenthood to counteract federal defunding efforts. Maryland established a new program called the Public Health Abortion Grant Program, which offers abortion coverage through Affordable Care Act funds.

New laws in Colorado and Washington require emergency rooms to provide abortions when the procedure is deemed “necessary.” A law adopted in Illinois requires public college campuses to provide the abortion pill at their pharmacies.

Connecticut removed its parental notification policy regarding abortion, which means that minors are allowed to obtain abortions without the consent of their parents.

As of December, 13 states prohibit most abortions, four states ban abortions after six weeks’ gestation, two have bans after 12 weeks, and one has a ban after 18 weeks. The other 30 states and the District of Columbia permit abortion up to the 22nd week or later. Nine of those states allow elective abortion through nine months until the moment of birth.

Read More
CNA explains: How does ‘Mass dispensation’ work, and when is it used? #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: FotoDax/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 26, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).
Amid heavy immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, several bishops in the U.S. have recently issued broad dispensations to Catholics in their dioceses, allowing them to refrain from attending Mass on Sundays if they fear arrest or deportation from federal officials.Bishops in North Carolina, California, and elsewhere have issued such dispensations, stating that those with legitimate concerns of being detained by immigration agents are free from the usual Sunday obligation.The Church’s canon law dictates that Sunday is considered the “primordial holy day of obligation,” one on which all Catholics are “obliged to participate in the Mass.” Several other holy days of obligation exist throughout the liturgical year, though Sunday (or the Saturday evening prior) is always considered obligatory for Mass attendance.The numerous dispensations issued recently in dioceses around the country have underscored, however, that bishops have some discretion in allowing Catholics to stay home from Mass for legitimate reasons.Dispensation must be ‘just,’ ‘reasonable’David Long, an assistant professor in the school of canon law at The Catholic University of America as well as the director of the school’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, told CNA that bishops have the authority to dispense the faithful in their diocese with, as the Code of Canon Law puts it, a “just and reasonable cause.”“This generally applies when a holy day of obligation falls on a Saturday or Monday, during severe weather events (snowstorms, hurricanes, floods, etc.), when there is no reasonable access to Mass, or during public emergencies such as pandemics or plagues,” he said. Once such circumstances end, he noted, the dispensation itself would cease.By virtue of their office, diocesan administrators, vicars general, and episcopal vicars also have the power to issue dispensations, Long said.Priests, however, normally do not have that authority “unless expressly granted by a higher authority, such as their diocesan bishop,” he said.Canon law, he said, dictates that a dispensation can only be granted when a bishop “judges that it contributes to [the] spiritual good” of his flock, for a just cause, and “after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given.”The lay faithful themselves can determine, in some cases, when they can refrain from going to Mass, though Long stressed that such instances do not constitute “dispensation,” as the laity “does not have the power to dispense at any time” that authority being tied to “executive power in the Church” via ordination.Canon law dictates, however, that Catholics are not bound to attend Mass when “participation in the Eucharistic celebration becomes impossible.”Long said such scenarios include “when [the faithful] are sick, contagious, or housebound, when they are the primary caregiver for someone else and cannot arrange coverage for that person, when traveling to Mass is dangerous, when there is no realistic access to Mass, or for some other grave cause.”“This is not a dispensation,” he said, “but instead is a legal recognition of moral and physical impossibility at times.”The recent immigration-related controversy isn’t the only large-scale dispensation in recent memory. Virtually every Catholic in the world was dispensed from Mass in the earliest days of the COVID-19 crisis, when government authorities sharply limited public gatherings, including religious gatherings, all over the world.In 2024, on the other hand, the Vatican said that Catholics in the United States must still attend Mass on holy days of obligation even when they are transferred to Mondays or Saturdays, correcting a long-standing practice in the U.S. Church and ending a dispensation with which many Catholics were familiar.‘The most incredible privilege we could possibly imagine’Though the obligation to attend Mass is a major aspect of Church canon law, Father Daniel Brandenburg, LC, cautioned against interpreting it uncharitably.“This ‘obligation’ is sort of like the obligation of eating,” he said. “If you don’t eat, you’ll die. Similarly, the Church simply recognizes that if we don’t nourish our soul, it withers away and dies. The bare minimum to survive is Mass once a week on Sundays.”“Most people find the ‘obligation’ of eating to be quite pleasurable,” he continued, “and I think anyone with a modicum of spiritual awareness finds deep joy in attending Mass and receiving the Creator of the universe into their soul. At least I do.”Like Long, Brandenburg stressed that the lay faithful lack the authority to “dispense” themselves from Mass. Instead, they are directed to follow their consciences when determining if they are incapable of attending Mass, particularly by applying the principle of moral theology “ad impossibilia, nemo tenetur” “(no one is obliged to do what is impossible”).Being too sick, facing dangerous inclement weather, or lacking the ability to transport themselves are among the reasons the faithful might determine they are unable to attend Mass, he said.“Here, beware the lax conscience which gives easy excuses,” Brandenburg warned, “and remember that the saints became holy not through excuses, but through heroic love.”

CNA explains: How does ‘Mass dispensation’ work, and when is it used? #Catholic null / Credit: FotoDax/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 26, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Amid heavy immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, several bishops in the U.S. have recently issued broad dispensations to Catholics in their dioceses, allowing them to refrain from attending Mass on Sundays if they fear arrest or deportation from federal officials.Bishops in North Carolina, California, and elsewhere have issued such dispensations, stating that those with legitimate concerns of being detained by immigration agents are free from the usual Sunday obligation.The Church’s canon law dictates that Sunday is considered the “primordial holy day of obligation,” one on which all Catholics are “obliged to participate in the Mass.” Several other holy days of obligation exist throughout the liturgical year, though Sunday (or the Saturday evening prior) is always considered obligatory for Mass attendance.The numerous dispensations issued recently in dioceses around the country have underscored, however, that bishops have some discretion in allowing Catholics to stay home from Mass for legitimate reasons.Dispensation must be ‘just,’ ‘reasonable’David Long, an assistant professor in the school of canon law at The Catholic University of America as well as the director of the school’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, told CNA that bishops have the authority to dispense the faithful in their diocese with, as the Code of Canon Law puts it, a “just and reasonable cause.”“This generally applies when a holy day of obligation falls on a Saturday or Monday, during severe weather events (snowstorms, hurricanes, floods, etc.), when there is no reasonable access to Mass, or during public emergencies such as pandemics or plagues,” he said. Once such circumstances end, he noted, the dispensation itself would cease.By virtue of their office, diocesan administrators, vicars general, and episcopal vicars also have the power to issue dispensations, Long said.Priests, however, normally do not have that authority “unless expressly granted by a higher authority, such as their diocesan bishop,” he said.Canon law, he said, dictates that a dispensation can only be granted when a bishop “judges that it contributes to [the] spiritual good” of his flock, for a just cause, and “after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given.”The lay faithful themselves can determine, in some cases, when they can refrain from going to Mass, though Long stressed that such instances do not constitute “dispensation,” as the laity “does not have the power to dispense at any time” that authority being tied to “executive power in the Church” via ordination.Canon law dictates, however, that Catholics are not bound to attend Mass when “participation in the Eucharistic celebration becomes impossible.”Long said such scenarios include “when [the faithful] are sick, contagious, or housebound, when they are the primary caregiver for someone else and cannot arrange coverage for that person, when traveling to Mass is dangerous, when there is no realistic access to Mass, or for some other grave cause.”“This is not a dispensation,” he said, “but instead is a legal recognition of moral and physical impossibility at times.”The recent immigration-related controversy isn’t the only large-scale dispensation in recent memory. Virtually every Catholic in the world was dispensed from Mass in the earliest days of the COVID-19 crisis, when government authorities sharply limited public gatherings, including religious gatherings, all over the world.In 2024, on the other hand, the Vatican said that Catholics in the United States must still attend Mass on holy days of obligation even when they are transferred to Mondays or Saturdays, correcting a long-standing practice in the U.S. Church and ending a dispensation with which many Catholics were familiar.‘The most incredible privilege we could possibly imagine’Though the obligation to attend Mass is a major aspect of Church canon law, Father Daniel Brandenburg, LC, cautioned against interpreting it uncharitably.“This ‘obligation’ is sort of like the obligation of eating,” he said. “If you don’t eat, you’ll die. Similarly, the Church simply recognizes that if we don’t nourish our soul, it withers away and dies. The bare minimum to survive is Mass once a week on Sundays.”“Most people find the ‘obligation’ of eating to be quite pleasurable,” he continued, “and I think anyone with a modicum of spiritual awareness finds deep joy in attending Mass and receiving the Creator of the universe into their soul. At least I do.”Like Long, Brandenburg stressed that the lay faithful lack the authority to “dispense” themselves from Mass. Instead, they are directed to follow their consciences when determining if they are incapable of attending Mass, particularly by applying the principle of moral theology “ad impossibilia, nemo tenetur” “(no one is obliged to do what is impossible”).Being too sick, facing dangerous inclement weather, or lacking the ability to transport themselves are among the reasons the faithful might determine they are unable to attend Mass, he said.“Here, beware the lax conscience which gives easy excuses,” Brandenburg warned, “and remember that the saints became holy not through excuses, but through heroic love.”


null / Credit: FotoDax/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 26, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Amid heavy immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, several bishops in the U.S. have recently issued broad dispensations to Catholics in their dioceses, allowing them to refrain from attending Mass on Sundays if they fear arrest or deportation from federal officials.

Bishops in North Carolina, California, and elsewhere have issued such dispensations, stating that those with legitimate concerns of being detained by immigration agents are free from the usual Sunday obligation.

The Church’s canon law dictates that Sunday is considered the “primordial holy day of obligation,” one on which all Catholics are “obliged to participate in the Mass.” Several other holy days of obligation exist throughout the liturgical year, though Sunday (or the Saturday evening prior) is always considered obligatory for Mass attendance.

The numerous dispensations issued recently in dioceses around the country have underscored, however, that bishops have some discretion in allowing Catholics to stay home from Mass for legitimate reasons.

Dispensation must be ‘just,’ ‘reasonable’

David Long, an assistant professor in the school of canon law at The Catholic University of America as well as the director of the school’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, told CNA that bishops have the authority to dispense the faithful in their diocese with, as the Code of Canon Law puts it, a “just and reasonable cause.”

“This generally applies when a holy day of obligation falls on a Saturday or Monday, during severe weather events (snowstorms, hurricanes, floods, etc.), when there is no reasonable access to Mass, or during public emergencies such as pandemics or plagues,” he said. Once such circumstances end, he noted, the dispensation itself would cease.

By virtue of their office, diocesan administrators, vicars general, and episcopal vicars also have the power to issue dispensations, Long said.

Priests, however, normally do not have that authority “unless expressly granted by a higher authority, such as their diocesan bishop,” he said.

Canon law, he said, dictates that a dispensation can only be granted when a bishop “judges that it contributes to [the] spiritual good” of his flock, for a just cause, and “after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given.”

The lay faithful themselves can determine, in some cases, when they can refrain from going to Mass, though Long stressed that such instances do not constitute “dispensation,” as the laity “does not have the power to dispense at any time” that authority being tied to “executive power in the Church” via ordination.

Canon law dictates, however, that Catholics are not bound to attend Mass when “participation in the Eucharistic celebration becomes impossible.”

Long said such scenarios include “when [the faithful] are sick, contagious, or housebound, when they are the primary caregiver for someone else and cannot arrange coverage for that person, when traveling to Mass is dangerous, when there is no realistic access to Mass, or for some other grave cause.”

“This is not a dispensation,” he said, “but instead is a legal recognition of moral and physical impossibility at times.”

The recent immigration-related controversy isn’t the only large-scale dispensation in recent memory. Virtually every Catholic in the world was dispensed from Mass in the earliest days of the COVID-19 crisis, when government authorities sharply limited public gatherings, including religious gatherings, all over the world.

In 2024, on the other hand, the Vatican said that Catholics in the United States must still attend Mass on holy days of obligation even when they are transferred to Mondays or Saturdays, correcting a long-standing practice in the U.S. Church and ending a dispensation with which many Catholics were familiar.

‘The most incredible privilege we could possibly imagine’

Though the obligation to attend Mass is a major aspect of Church canon law, Father Daniel Brandenburg, LC, cautioned against interpreting it uncharitably.

“This ‘obligation’ is sort of like the obligation of eating,” he said. “If you don’t eat, you’ll die. Similarly, the Church simply recognizes that if we don’t nourish our soul, it withers away and dies. The bare minimum to survive is Mass once a week on Sundays.”

“Most people find the ‘obligation’ of eating to be quite pleasurable,” he continued, “and I think anyone with a modicum of spiritual awareness finds deep joy in attending Mass and receiving the Creator of the universe into their soul. At least I do.”

Like Long, Brandenburg stressed that the lay faithful lack the authority to “dispense” themselves from Mass. Instead, they are directed to follow their consciences when determining if they are incapable of attending Mass, particularly by applying the principle of moral theology “ad impossibilia, nemo tenetur” “(no one is obliged to do what is impossible”).

Being too sick, facing dangerous inclement weather, or lacking the ability to transport themselves are among the reasons the faithful might determine they are unable to attend Mass, he said.

“Here, beware the lax conscience which gives easy excuses,” Brandenburg warned, “and remember that the saints became holy not through excuses, but through heroic love.”

Read More
Vice President Vance presents a Christian vision of politics #Catholic 
 
 U.S. Vice President JD Vance. / Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 14:27 pm (CNA).
U.S. Vice President JD Vance, America’s second Catholic vice president, laid out a distinctly Christian vision for American politics in a speech this week, declaring that “the only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and, by the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”Speaking to more than 30,000 young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2025 some three months after the death of its founder Charlie Kirk, Vance called for a politics rooted in a Christian faith that honors the family, protects the weak, and rejects what he described as a decades-long “war” on Christianity in public life.The Christian faith has provided a “shared moral language” since the nation’s founding, the Yale-trained lawyer argued, which led to “our understanding of natural law and rights, our sense of duty to one’s neighbor, the conviction that the strong must protect the weak, and the belief in individual conscience.”“Christianity is America’s creed,” the vice president said to loud cheers, while acknowledging that not everyone needs to be a Christian and “we must respect each individual’s pathway” to God. Even so, he said, “even our famously American idea of religious liberty is a Christian concept.” Vance described how, over the past several decades, “freedom of religion transformed into freedom from religion” as a result of the cultural assault on Christian faith from those on “the left” who have “labored to push Christianity out of national life. They’ve kicked it out of the schools, out of the workplace, out of the fundamental parts of the public square.”He continued: “And in a public square devoid of God, we got a vacuum. And the ideas that filled that void preyed on the very worst of human nature rather than uplifting it.”Vance said cultural voices opposed to Christian faith “told us not that we were children of God, but children of this or that identity group. They replaced God’s beautiful design for the family that men and women could rely on … with the idea that men could turn into women so long as they bought the right bunch of pills from Big Pharma.” The former U.S. senator and Catholic convert credited President Donald Trump for ending the cultural “war that has been waged on Christians and Christianity in the United States of America,” touting the administration’s policy priorities as the fruit of Christian motivation.“We help older Americans in retirement, including by ending taxes on Social Security, because we believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all of their money off to Ukraine,” he said. “We believe in taking care of the poor, which is why we have Medicaid, so that the least among us can afford their prescriptions or to take their kids to see a doctor.”Speaking of the despair he felt after the assassination of his friend Kirk, he said: “What saved me was realizing that the story of the Christian faith … is one of immense loss followed by even bigger victory. It’s a story of very dark nights followed by very bright dawns. What saved me was remembering the inherent goodness of God and that his grace overflows when we least expect it.”Of masculinity, Vance said: “The fruits of true Christianity are good husbands, patient fathers, builders of great things, and slayers of dragons. And yes, men who are willing to die for a principle if that’s what God asked them to do.”He described how he saw the fruits of Christian men living out their faith during a recent visit to a men’s ministry that aids those who struggle with addiction and homelessness: “They feed them. They clothe them. They give them shelter and financial advice. They live out the very best part of Christ’s commission.”After eating lunch with some of the men who were “all back on their feet” after receiving help, Vance said he saw that the answer to “What saved them?” was not “racial commonality or grievance … a DEI prep course” or “a welfare check.”“It was the fact that a carpenter died 2,000 years ago and changed the world in the process.” “A true Christian politics,” he said, “cannot just be about the protection of the unborn or the promotion of the family. As important as those things absolutely are, it must be at the heart of our full understanding of government.” On immigration policy, Vance has challenged U.S. bishops, popesThe vice president has publicly disagreed with the U.S. bishops on their reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, as well as with Pope Leo XIV and the late Pope Francis, who seemed to criticize Vance in a letter the pontiff penned to the U.S. bishops last winter. In defense of the administration’s approach to immigration, Vance had in a late January interview invoked an “old school … Christian concept” he later identified as the “ordo amoris,” or “rightly ordered love.” He said that according to the concept, one’s “compassion belongs first” to one’s family and fellow citizens, “and then after that” to the rest of the world.After Pope Leo on Nov. 18 asked Americans to listen to U.S. bishops’ message opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and urging the humane treatment of migrants, Vance countered: “Border security is not just good for American citizens. It is the humanitarian thing to do for the entire world.”Vance continued: “Open borders” do not promote “[human] dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves,” citing drug and sex trafficking.“When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world,” Vance said.In this week’s AmFest speech, he touted the administration’s successes regarding immigration: “December marks seven months straight of zero releases at the southern border. More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States. The first time in over 50 years that we have had negative net migration.”At the end of the speech, Vance told the thousands of young people that while “only God can promise you salvation in heaven” if they have faith in God, “I promise you closed borders and safe communities. I promise you good jobs and a dignified life … together, we can fulfill the promise of the greatest nation in the history of the earth.”

Vice President Vance presents a Christian vision of politics #Catholic U.S. Vice President JD Vance. / Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 14:27 pm (CNA). U.S. Vice President JD Vance, America’s second Catholic vice president, laid out a distinctly Christian vision for American politics in a speech this week, declaring that “the only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and, by the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”Speaking to more than 30,000 young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2025 some three months after the death of its founder Charlie Kirk, Vance called for a politics rooted in a Christian faith that honors the family, protects the weak, and rejects what he described as a decades-long “war” on Christianity in public life.The Christian faith has provided a “shared moral language” since the nation’s founding, the Yale-trained lawyer argued, which led to “our understanding of natural law and rights, our sense of duty to one’s neighbor, the conviction that the strong must protect the weak, and the belief in individual conscience.”“Christianity is America’s creed,” the vice president said to loud cheers, while acknowledging that not everyone needs to be a Christian and “we must respect each individual’s pathway” to God. Even so, he said, “even our famously American idea of religious liberty is a Christian concept.” Vance described how, over the past several decades, “freedom of religion transformed into freedom from religion” as a result of the cultural assault on Christian faith from those on “the left” who have “labored to push Christianity out of national life. They’ve kicked it out of the schools, out of the workplace, out of the fundamental parts of the public square.”He continued: “And in a public square devoid of God, we got a vacuum. And the ideas that filled that void preyed on the very worst of human nature rather than uplifting it.”Vance said cultural voices opposed to Christian faith “told us not that we were children of God, but children of this or that identity group. They replaced God’s beautiful design for the family that men and women could rely on … with the idea that men could turn into women so long as they bought the right bunch of pills from Big Pharma.” The former U.S. senator and Catholic convert credited President Donald Trump for ending the cultural “war that has been waged on Christians and Christianity in the United States of America,” touting the administration’s policy priorities as the fruit of Christian motivation.“We help older Americans in retirement, including by ending taxes on Social Security, because we believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all of their money off to Ukraine,” he said. “We believe in taking care of the poor, which is why we have Medicaid, so that the least among us can afford their prescriptions or to take their kids to see a doctor.”Speaking of the despair he felt after the assassination of his friend Kirk, he said: “What saved me was realizing that the story of the Christian faith … is one of immense loss followed by even bigger victory. It’s a story of very dark nights followed by very bright dawns. What saved me was remembering the inherent goodness of God and that his grace overflows when we least expect it.”Of masculinity, Vance said: “The fruits of true Christianity are good husbands, patient fathers, builders of great things, and slayers of dragons. And yes, men who are willing to die for a principle if that’s what God asked them to do.”He described how he saw the fruits of Christian men living out their faith during a recent visit to a men’s ministry that aids those who struggle with addiction and homelessness: “They feed them. They clothe them. They give them shelter and financial advice. They live out the very best part of Christ’s commission.”After eating lunch with some of the men who were “all back on their feet” after receiving help, Vance said he saw that the answer to “What saved them?” was not “racial commonality or grievance … a DEI prep course” or “a welfare check.”“It was the fact that a carpenter died 2,000 years ago and changed the world in the process.” “A true Christian politics,” he said, “cannot just be about the protection of the unborn or the promotion of the family. As important as those things absolutely are, it must be at the heart of our full understanding of government.” On immigration policy, Vance has challenged U.S. bishops, popesThe vice president has publicly disagreed with the U.S. bishops on their reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, as well as with Pope Leo XIV and the late Pope Francis, who seemed to criticize Vance in a letter the pontiff penned to the U.S. bishops last winter. In defense of the administration’s approach to immigration, Vance had in a late January interview invoked an “old school … Christian concept” he later identified as the “ordo amoris,” or “rightly ordered love.” He said that according to the concept, one’s “compassion belongs first” to one’s family and fellow citizens, “and then after that” to the rest of the world.After Pope Leo on Nov. 18 asked Americans to listen to U.S. bishops’ message opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and urging the humane treatment of migrants, Vance countered: “Border security is not just good for American citizens. It is the humanitarian thing to do for the entire world.”Vance continued: “Open borders” do not promote “[human] dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves,” citing drug and sex trafficking.“When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world,” Vance said.In this week’s AmFest speech, he touted the administration’s successes regarding immigration: “December marks seven months straight of zero releases at the southern border. More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States. The first time in over 50 years that we have had negative net migration.”At the end of the speech, Vance told the thousands of young people that while “only God can promise you salvation in heaven” if they have faith in God, “I promise you closed borders and safe communities. I promise you good jobs and a dignified life … together, we can fulfill the promise of the greatest nation in the history of the earth.”


U.S. Vice President JD Vance. / Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 14:27 pm (CNA).

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, America’s second Catholic vice president, laid out a distinctly Christian vision for American politics in a speech this week, declaring that “the only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and, by the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”

Speaking to more than 30,000 young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2025 some three months after the death of its founder Charlie Kirk, Vance called for a politics rooted in a Christian faith that honors the family, protects the weak, and rejects what he described as a decades-long “war” on Christianity in public life.

The Christian faith has provided a “shared moral language” since the nation’s founding, the Yale-trained lawyer argued, which led to “our understanding of natural law and rights, our sense of duty to one’s neighbor, the conviction that the strong must protect the weak, and the belief in individual conscience.”

“Christianity is America’s creed,” the vice president said to loud cheers, while acknowledging that not everyone needs to be a Christian and “we must respect each individual’s pathway” to God. Even so, he said, “even our famously American idea of religious liberty is a Christian concept.” 

Vance described how, over the past several decades, “freedom of religion transformed into freedom from religion” as a result of the cultural assault on Christian faith from those on “the left” who have “labored to push Christianity out of national life. They’ve kicked it out of the schools, out of the workplace, out of the fundamental parts of the public square.”

He continued: “And in a public square devoid of God, we got a vacuum. And the ideas that filled that void preyed on the very worst of human nature rather than uplifting it.”

Vance said cultural voices opposed to Christian faith “told us not that we were children of God, but children of this or that identity group. They replaced God’s beautiful design for the family that men and women could rely on … with the idea that men could turn into women so long as they bought the right bunch of pills from Big Pharma.” 

The former U.S. senator and Catholic convert credited President Donald Trump for ending the cultural “war that has been waged on Christians and Christianity in the United States of America,” touting the administration’s policy priorities as the fruit of Christian motivation.

“We help older Americans in retirement, including by ending taxes on Social Security, because we believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all of their money off to Ukraine,” he said. “We believe in taking care of the poor, which is why we have Medicaid, so that the least among us can afford their prescriptions or to take their kids to see a doctor.”

Speaking of the despair he felt after the assassination of his friend Kirk, he said: “What saved me was realizing that the story of the Christian faith … is one of immense loss followed by even bigger victory. It’s a story of very dark nights followed by very bright dawns. What saved me was remembering the inherent goodness of God and that his grace overflows when we least expect it.”

Of masculinity, Vance said: “The fruits of true Christianity are good husbands, patient fathers, builders of great things, and slayers of dragons. And yes, men who are willing to die for a principle if that’s what God asked them to do.”

He described how he saw the fruits of Christian men living out their faith during a recent visit to a men’s ministry that aids those who struggle with addiction and homelessness: “They feed them. They clothe them. They give them shelter and financial advice. They live out the very best part of Christ’s commission.”

After eating lunch with some of the men who were “all back on their feet” after receiving help, Vance said he saw that the answer to “What saved them?” was not “racial commonality or grievance … a DEI prep course” or “a welfare check.”

“It was the fact that a carpenter died 2,000 years ago and changed the world in the process.” 

“A true Christian politics,” he said, “cannot just be about the protection of the unborn or the promotion of the family. As important as those things absolutely are, it must be at the heart of our full understanding of government.” 

On immigration policy, Vance has challenged U.S. bishops, popes

The vice president has publicly disagreed with the U.S. bishops on their reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, as well as with Pope Leo XIV and the late Pope Francis, who seemed to criticize Vance in a letter the pontiff penned to the U.S. bishops last winter. 

In defense of the administration’s approach to immigration, Vance had in a late January interview invoked an “old school … Christian concept” he later identified as the “ordo amoris,” or “rightly ordered love.” 

He said that according to the concept, one’s “compassion belongs first” to one’s family and fellow citizens, “and then after that” to the rest of the world.

After Pope Leo on Nov. 18 asked Americans to listen to U.S. bishops’ message opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and urging the humane treatment of migrants, Vance countered: “Border security is not just good for American citizens. It is the humanitarian thing to do for the entire world.”

Vance continued: “Open borders” do not promote “[human] dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves,” citing drug and sex trafficking.

“When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world,” Vance said.

In this week’s AmFest speech, he touted the administration’s successes regarding immigration: “December marks seven months straight of zero releases at the southern border. More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States. The first time in over 50 years that we have had negative net migration.”

At the end of the speech, Vance told the thousands of young people that while “only God can promise you salvation in heaven” if they have faith in God, “I promise you closed borders and safe communities. I promise you good jobs and a dignified life … together, we can fulfill the promise of the greatest nation in the history of the earth.”

Read More
Federal judge strikes down rules allowing schools to hide gender ‘transitions’ from parents #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: sergign/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 10:07 am (CNA).
A federal judge in California this week issued a permanent block against the state’s “gender secrecy policies” that have allowed schools to hide children’s so-called “gender transitions” from their parents.U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling in the class action lawsuit on Dec. 22, holding that parents “have a right” to the “gender information” of their children, while teachers themselves also possess the right to provide parents with that information. The order strikes down secretive policies in school districts across California that allowed schools to conceal when a child began identifying as the opposite sex or another LGBT-related identity. Benitez had allowed the legal dispute to proceed as a class action lawsuit in October. School districts in California “are ultimately state agents under state control,” the judge said at the time, and the issue of settling “statewide policy” meant the class action structure would be “superior to numerous individual actions by individual parents and teachers.” The case, Benitez said on Dec. 22, concerns “a parent’s rights to information … against a public school’s policy of secrecy when it comes to a student’s gender identification.” Parents, he said, have a right to such information on grounds of the 14th and First Amendments, he said, while teachers can assert similar First Amendment rights in sharing that information with parents. Teachers have historically informed parents of “physical injuries or questions about a student’s health and well-being,” the judge pointed out, yet lawmakers in California have enacted policies “prohibiting public school teachers from informing parents” when their child claims to have an LGBT identity. “Even if [the government] could demonstrate that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents’ constitutional rights,” Benitez wrote. The Thomas More Society, a religious liberty legal group, said in a press release that the decision “protects all California parents, students, and teachers” and “restores sanity and common sense.”School officials in California who work to conceal “gender identity” decisions from parents “should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences,” attorney Paul Jonna said in the release. Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, the Christian teachers who originally brought the suit, said they were “profoundly grateful” for the decision. “This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents,” they said. The Thomas More Society said on Dec. 22 that California officials had gone to “extreme lengths” to “evade responsibility” for their policies, up to and including claiming that the gender secrecy rules were no longer enforced even as they were allegedly continuing to require them. Gender- and LGBT-related school policies have come under fire over the past year from the White House. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in August directed U.S. states to remove gender ideology material from their curricula or else face the loss of federal funding. In February the Department of Education launched an investigation into several Virginia school districts to determine if they violated federal orders forbidding schools from supporting the so-called “transition” of children. In December, meanwhile, a Catholic school student in Virginia forced a school district to concede a lawsuit she brought alleging that her constitutional rights had been violated when the school subjected her to “extreme social pressure” to affirm transgender ideology.

Federal judge strikes down rules allowing schools to hide gender ‘transitions’ from parents #Catholic null / Credit: sergign/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 10:07 am (CNA). A federal judge in California this week issued a permanent block against the state’s “gender secrecy policies” that have allowed schools to hide children’s so-called “gender transitions” from their parents.U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling in the class action lawsuit on Dec. 22, holding that parents “have a right” to the “gender information” of their children, while teachers themselves also possess the right to provide parents with that information. The order strikes down secretive policies in school districts across California that allowed schools to conceal when a child began identifying as the opposite sex or another LGBT-related identity. Benitez had allowed the legal dispute to proceed as a class action lawsuit in October. School districts in California “are ultimately state agents under state control,” the judge said at the time, and the issue of settling “statewide policy” meant the class action structure would be “superior to numerous individual actions by individual parents and teachers.” The case, Benitez said on Dec. 22, concerns “a parent’s rights to information … against a public school’s policy of secrecy when it comes to a student’s gender identification.” Parents, he said, have a right to such information on grounds of the 14th and First Amendments, he said, while teachers can assert similar First Amendment rights in sharing that information with parents. Teachers have historically informed parents of “physical injuries or questions about a student’s health and well-being,” the judge pointed out, yet lawmakers in California have enacted policies “prohibiting public school teachers from informing parents” when their child claims to have an LGBT identity. “Even if [the government] could demonstrate that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents’ constitutional rights,” Benitez wrote. The Thomas More Society, a religious liberty legal group, said in a press release that the decision “protects all California parents, students, and teachers” and “restores sanity and common sense.”School officials in California who work to conceal “gender identity” decisions from parents “should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences,” attorney Paul Jonna said in the release. Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, the Christian teachers who originally brought the suit, said they were “profoundly grateful” for the decision. “This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents,” they said. The Thomas More Society said on Dec. 22 that California officials had gone to “extreme lengths” to “evade responsibility” for their policies, up to and including claiming that the gender secrecy rules were no longer enforced even as they were allegedly continuing to require them. Gender- and LGBT-related school policies have come under fire over the past year from the White House. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in August directed U.S. states to remove gender ideology material from their curricula or else face the loss of federal funding. In February the Department of Education launched an investigation into several Virginia school districts to determine if they violated federal orders forbidding schools from supporting the so-called “transition” of children. In December, meanwhile, a Catholic school student in Virginia forced a school district to concede a lawsuit she brought alleging that her constitutional rights had been violated when the school subjected her to “extreme social pressure” to affirm transgender ideology.


null / Credit: sergign/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 10:07 am (CNA).

A federal judge in California this week issued a permanent block against the state’s “gender secrecy policies” that have allowed schools to hide children’s so-called “gender transitions” from their parents.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling in the class action lawsuit on Dec. 22, holding that parents “have a right” to the “gender information” of their children, while teachers themselves also possess the right to provide parents with that information. 

The order strikes down secretive policies in school districts across California that allowed schools to conceal when a child began identifying as the opposite sex or another LGBT-related identity. 

Benitez had allowed the legal dispute to proceed as a class action lawsuit in October. School districts in California “are ultimately state agents under state control,” the judge said at the time, and the issue of settling “statewide policy” meant the class action structure would be “superior to numerous individual actions by individual parents and teachers.” 

The case, Benitez said on Dec. 22, concerns “a parent’s rights to information … against a public school’s policy of secrecy when it comes to a student’s gender identification.” 

Parents, he said, have a right to such information on grounds of the 14th and First Amendments, he said, while teachers can assert similar First Amendment rights in sharing that information with parents. 

Teachers have historically informed parents of “physical injuries or questions about a student’s health and well-being,” the judge pointed out, yet lawmakers in California have enacted policies “prohibiting public school teachers from informing parents” when their child claims to have an LGBT identity. 

“Even if [the government] could demonstrate that excluding parents was good policy on some level, such a policy cannot be implemented at the expense of parents’ constitutional rights,” Benitez wrote. 

The Thomas More Society, a religious liberty legal group, said in a press release that the decision “protects all California parents, students, and teachers” and “restores sanity and common sense.”

School officials in California who work to conceal “gender identity” decisions from parents “should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences,” attorney Paul Jonna said in the release. 

Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, the Christian teachers who originally brought the suit, said they were “profoundly grateful” for the decision. 

“This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents,” they said. 

The Thomas More Society said on Dec. 22 that California officials had gone to “extreme lengths” to “evade responsibility” for their policies, up to and including claiming that the gender secrecy rules were no longer enforced even as they were allegedly continuing to require them. 

Gender- and LGBT-related school policies have come under fire over the past year from the White House. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in August directed U.S. states to remove gender ideology material from their curricula or else face the loss of federal funding. 

In February the Department of Education launched an investigation into several Virginia school districts to determine if they violated federal orders forbidding schools from supporting the so-called “transition” of children. 

In December, meanwhile, a Catholic school student in Virginia forced a school district to concede a lawsuit she brought alleging that her constitutional rights had been violated when the school subjected her to “extreme social pressure” to affirm transgender ideology.

Read More
Massachusetts removes LGBT ideology requirements for foster care parents #Catholic 
 
 null / Credit: New Africa/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:54 pm (CNA).
Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious liberty group. Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Massachusetts removes LGBT ideology requirements for foster care parents #Catholic null / Credit: New Africa/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:54 pm (CNA). Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious liberty group. Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”


null / Credit: New Africa/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 12:54 pm (CNA).

Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious liberty group. 

Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”

The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. 

Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. 

Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.

The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. 

Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. 

With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. 

The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. 

Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.

The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”

Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.

In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.

In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.

In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. 

The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Read More
Catholic bishops, families ask Supreme Court to rule for Catholic schools in Colorado suit #Catholic 
 
 Colorado state capitol in Denver. / Credit: Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 11:52 am (CNA).
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a coalition of Catholic families, and numerous other advocates are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of Catholic schools seeking to be included in Colorado’s universal preschool funding program. The religious liberty law group Becket said in a Dec. 18 release that the Catholic schools’ advocates — including numerous religious groups, legal organizations, and public policy groups — are urging the high court to rule against Colorado’s “discriminatory exclusion” of the faith-based schools. The Archdiocese of Denver and a group of Catholic preschools asked the Supreme Court in November to allow them to access the Colorado program after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that the state may continue to exclude the preschools from the education fund. The state has barred those schools from the funding pool because they require teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity.In an amicus filing this week, the U.S. bishops said the Colorado rule “denies Catholic preschools access to a state-run tuition assistance program solely because those schools adhere to Catholic doctrine about human sexuality.”Allowing the rule to stand will offer a “roadmap” for other governments to violate the First Amendment rights of religious Americans around the country, the bishops argued. Permitting the schools’ exclusion “will impair the ability of Catholic organizations and other faith-based service providers to partner with state and local governments to serve the public,” the prelates said, arguing that the “resulting harm to the nation’s social support infrastructure would be immense.”In another filing, a coalition of Catholic families said it regards Catholic schools as “essential partners” in their mission to impart the Catholic faith to their children. The Colorado rule, however, would force the Catholic schools to operate in a manner “inconsistent with their religious beliefs and mission.” Multiple families in the filing — all of whom have four or more children — testified to the formative role that Catholic preschools have played for them. The families said they “want their children to embrace the Catholic Church’s teachings on the nature of the human person” and that the state rule impedes their ability to do so through Catholic schools. Numerous other amicus filers include the Thomas More Society, the Center for American Liberty, and Concerned Women for America as well as religious groups representing Lutherans, Evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims.Archdiocese of Denver School Superintendent Scott Elmer said via Becket that the archdiocese is “humbled” by the showing of support. “Our preschools aren’t asking for special treatment, just equal treatment,” he said, expressing hope that the Supreme Court “takes this case and upholds the promise of universal preschool for every family in Colorado.” The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear the case. Becket said the high court will likely decide whether or not to hear it “in early 2026.”

Catholic bishops, families ask Supreme Court to rule for Catholic schools in Colorado suit #Catholic Colorado state capitol in Denver. / Credit: Shutterstock CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 11:52 am (CNA). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a coalition of Catholic families, and numerous other advocates are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of Catholic schools seeking to be included in Colorado’s universal preschool funding program. The religious liberty law group Becket said in a Dec. 18 release that the Catholic schools’ advocates — including numerous religious groups, legal organizations, and public policy groups — are urging the high court to rule against Colorado’s “discriminatory exclusion” of the faith-based schools. The Archdiocese of Denver and a group of Catholic preschools asked the Supreme Court in November to allow them to access the Colorado program after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that the state may continue to exclude the preschools from the education fund. The state has barred those schools from the funding pool because they require teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity.In an amicus filing this week, the U.S. bishops said the Colorado rule “denies Catholic preschools access to a state-run tuition assistance program solely because those schools adhere to Catholic doctrine about human sexuality.”Allowing the rule to stand will offer a “roadmap” for other governments to violate the First Amendment rights of religious Americans around the country, the bishops argued. Permitting the schools’ exclusion “will impair the ability of Catholic organizations and other faith-based service providers to partner with state and local governments to serve the public,” the prelates said, arguing that the “resulting harm to the nation’s social support infrastructure would be immense.”In another filing, a coalition of Catholic families said it regards Catholic schools as “essential partners” in their mission to impart the Catholic faith to their children. The Colorado rule, however, would force the Catholic schools to operate in a manner “inconsistent with their religious beliefs and mission.” Multiple families in the filing — all of whom have four or more children — testified to the formative role that Catholic preschools have played for them. The families said they “want their children to embrace the Catholic Church’s teachings on the nature of the human person” and that the state rule impedes their ability to do so through Catholic schools. Numerous other amicus filers include the Thomas More Society, the Center for American Liberty, and Concerned Women for America as well as religious groups representing Lutherans, Evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims.Archdiocese of Denver School Superintendent Scott Elmer said via Becket that the archdiocese is “humbled” by the showing of support. “Our preschools aren’t asking for special treatment, just equal treatment,” he said, expressing hope that the Supreme Court “takes this case and upholds the promise of universal preschool for every family in Colorado.” The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear the case. Becket said the high court will likely decide whether or not to hear it “in early 2026.”


Colorado state capitol in Denver. / Credit: Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 19, 2025 / 11:52 am (CNA).

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a coalition of Catholic families, and numerous other advocates are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of Catholic schools seeking to be included in Colorado’s universal preschool funding program. 

The religious liberty law group Becket said in a Dec. 18 release that the Catholic schools’ advocates — including numerous religious groups, legal organizations, and public policy groups — are urging the high court to rule against Colorado’s “discriminatory exclusion” of the faith-based schools. 

The Archdiocese of Denver and a group of Catholic preschools asked the Supreme Court in November to allow them to access the Colorado program after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that the state may continue to exclude the preschools from the education fund. 

The state has barred those schools from the funding pool because they require teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity.

In an amicus filing this week, the U.S. bishops said the Colorado rule “denies Catholic preschools access to a state-run tuition assistance program solely because those schools adhere to Catholic doctrine about human sexuality.”

Allowing the rule to stand will offer a “roadmap” for other governments to violate the First Amendment rights of religious Americans around the country, the bishops argued. 

Permitting the schools’ exclusion “will impair the ability of Catholic organizations and other faith-based service providers to partner with state and local governments to serve the public,” the prelates said, arguing that the “resulting harm to the nation’s social support infrastructure would be immense.”

In another filing, a coalition of Catholic families said it regards Catholic schools as “essential partners” in their mission to impart the Catholic faith to their children. The Colorado rule, however, would force the Catholic schools to operate in a manner “inconsistent with their religious beliefs and mission.” 

Multiple families in the filing — all of whom have four or more children — testified to the formative role that Catholic preschools have played for them. The families said they “want their children to embrace the Catholic Church’s teachings on the nature of the human person” and that the state rule impedes their ability to do so through Catholic schools. 

Numerous other amicus filers include the Thomas More Society, the Center for American Liberty, and Concerned Women for America as well as religious groups representing Lutherans, Evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims.

Archdiocese of Denver School Superintendent Scott Elmer said via Becket that the archdiocese is “humbled” by the showing of support. 

“Our preschools aren’t asking for special treatment, just equal treatment,” he said, expressing hope that the Supreme Court “takes this case and upholds the promise of universal preschool for every family in Colorado.” 

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether it will hear the case. Becket said the high court will likely decide whether or not to hear it “in early 2026.”

Read More
HHS announces actions to restrict ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ on minors #Catholic 
 
 President Donald J. Trump watches as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, speaks after being sworn in on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations today that would seek to end “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone younger than 18 years old, which includes restrictions on hospitals and retailers.Under one proposal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would withhold all funding through Medicare and Medicaid to any hospital that offers surgeries or drugs to minors as a means to make them resemble the opposite sex. The proposed rules would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone under 18 and prohibit federal Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP) funding for the procedures on anyone under 19.This includes surgical operations, such as the removal of healthy genitals to replace them with artificial genitals that resemble the opposite sex and chest procedures that remove the healthy breasts on girls or implant prosthetic breasts on boys.It also includes hormone treatments that attempt to masculinize girls with testosterone and feminize boys with estrogen and puberty blockers, which delay a child’s natural developments during puberty.HHS also announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warning letters to 12 manufacturers and retailers that they accuse of illegally marketing “breast binders” to girls under the age of 18 as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Breast binders compress breasts as a means to flatten them under their clothing.The news release said breast binders are Class 1 medical devices meant to help recover from cancer-related mastectomies, and the warning letters will “formally notify the companies of their significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action.”Additionally, HHS is working to clarify the definition of a “disability” in civil rights regulations to exclude “gender dysphoria” that does not result from physical impairments. This ensures that discrimination laws are not interpreted in a way that would require “sex-rejecting procedures,” the statement said.HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference that “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors are “endangering the very lives that [doctors] are sworn to safeguard.”“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” he said. “This is not medicine — it is malpractice.” The proposals would conform HHS regulations to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order to prohibit the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. The order instructed HHS to propose regulations to prevent these procedures on minors.In a news release, HHS repeatedly referred to the medical interventions as “sex-rejecting procedures” and warned they “cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”HHS cited its own report from May, which found “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions” for treating a minor with gender dysphoria. The report found that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms,” which can include infertility, sexual dysfunction, underdeveloped bone mass, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, and adverse cognitive impacts, among other complications.Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group, said in a statement that the proposed regulation on hospitals is “another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology” and said he supports rules that ensure “American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors.”“Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed,” he said. “Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit.”Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), said she sees the proposed restriction on hospitals as “excellent.”“This proposed rule sends a powerful message to states and health care providers: It’s time to stop these unethical and dangerous procedures,” Hasson said. “Puberty is not a disease to be medicated away. All children have the right to grow and develop normally.”“Sex-rejecting procedures promise the impossible: that a child can escape the reality of being male or female,” she added. “In reality, these sex-rejecting procedures provide only the illusion of ‘changing sex’ by disabling healthy functions and altering the child’s healthy body through drugs and surgery that will cause lifelong harm.”In January, Bishop Robert Barron, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, welcomed Trump’s executive action on these procedures, warning that they are “based on a false understanding of human nature, attempt to change a child’s sex.”“So many young people who have been victims of this ideological crusade have profound regrets over its life-altering consequences, such as infertility and lifelong dependence on costly hormone therapies that have significant side effects,” Barron said. “It is unacceptable that our children are encouraged to undergo destructive medical interventions instead of receiving access to authentic and bodily-unitive care.”

HHS announces actions to restrict ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ on minors #Catholic President Donald J. Trump watches as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, speaks after being sworn in on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations today that would seek to end “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone younger than 18 years old, which includes restrictions on hospitals and retailers.Under one proposal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would withhold all funding through Medicare and Medicaid to any hospital that offers surgeries or drugs to minors as a means to make them resemble the opposite sex. The proposed rules would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone under 18 and prohibit federal Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP) funding for the procedures on anyone under 19.This includes surgical operations, such as the removal of healthy genitals to replace them with artificial genitals that resemble the opposite sex and chest procedures that remove the healthy breasts on girls or implant prosthetic breasts on boys.It also includes hormone treatments that attempt to masculinize girls with testosterone and feminize boys with estrogen and puberty blockers, which delay a child’s natural developments during puberty.HHS also announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warning letters to 12 manufacturers and retailers that they accuse of illegally marketing “breast binders” to girls under the age of 18 as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Breast binders compress breasts as a means to flatten them under their clothing.The news release said breast binders are Class 1 medical devices meant to help recover from cancer-related mastectomies, and the warning letters will “formally notify the companies of their significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action.”Additionally, HHS is working to clarify the definition of a “disability” in civil rights regulations to exclude “gender dysphoria” that does not result from physical impairments. This ensures that discrimination laws are not interpreted in a way that would require “sex-rejecting procedures,” the statement said.HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference that “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors are “endangering the very lives that [doctors] are sworn to safeguard.”“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” he said. “This is not medicine — it is malpractice.” The proposals would conform HHS regulations to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order to prohibit the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. The order instructed HHS to propose regulations to prevent these procedures on minors.In a news release, HHS repeatedly referred to the medical interventions as “sex-rejecting procedures” and warned they “cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”HHS cited its own report from May, which found “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions” for treating a minor with gender dysphoria. The report found that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms,” which can include infertility, sexual dysfunction, underdeveloped bone mass, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, and adverse cognitive impacts, among other complications.Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group, said in a statement that the proposed regulation on hospitals is “another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology” and said he supports rules that ensure “American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors.”“Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed,” he said. “Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit.”Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), said she sees the proposed restriction on hospitals as “excellent.”“This proposed rule sends a powerful message to states and health care providers: It’s time to stop these unethical and dangerous procedures,” Hasson said. “Puberty is not a disease to be medicated away. All children have the right to grow and develop normally.”“Sex-rejecting procedures promise the impossible: that a child can escape the reality of being male or female,” she added. “In reality, these sex-rejecting procedures provide only the illusion of ‘changing sex’ by disabling healthy functions and altering the child’s healthy body through drugs and surgery that will cause lifelong harm.”In January, Bishop Robert Barron, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, welcomed Trump’s executive action on these procedures, warning that they are “based on a false understanding of human nature, attempt to change a child’s sex.”“So many young people who have been victims of this ideological crusade have profound regrets over its life-altering consequences, such as infertility and lifelong dependence on costly hormone therapies that have significant side effects,” Barron said. “It is unacceptable that our children are encouraged to undergo destructive medical interventions instead of receiving access to authentic and bodily-unitive care.”


President Donald J. Trump watches as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, speaks after being sworn in on Thursday, Feb. 13, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 18, 2025 / 13:31 pm (CNA).

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed regulations today that would seek to end “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone younger than 18 years old, which includes restrictions on hospitals and retailers.

Under one proposal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would withhold all funding through Medicare and Medicaid to any hospital that offers surgeries or drugs to minors as a means to make them resemble the opposite sex. The proposed rules would prohibit federal Medicaid funding for “sex-rejecting procedures” on anyone under 18 and prohibit federal Children’s Health Insurance program (CHIP) funding for the procedures on anyone under 19.

This includes surgical operations, such as the removal of healthy genitals to replace them with artificial genitals that resemble the opposite sex and chest procedures that remove the healthy breasts on girls or implant prosthetic breasts on boys.

It also includes hormone treatments that attempt to masculinize girls with testosterone and feminize boys with estrogen and puberty blockers, which delay a child’s natural developments during puberty.

HHS also announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing warning letters to 12 manufacturers and retailers that they accuse of illegally marketing “breast binders” to girls under the age of 18 as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Breast binders compress breasts as a means to flatten them under their clothing.

The news release said breast binders are Class 1 medical devices meant to help recover from cancer-related mastectomies, and the warning letters will “formally notify the companies of their significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action.”

Additionally, HHS is working to clarify the definition of a “disability” in civil rights regulations to exclude “gender dysphoria” that does not result from physical impairments. This ensures that discrimination laws are not interpreted in a way that would require “sex-rejecting procedures,” the statement said.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a news conference that “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors are “endangering the very lives that [doctors] are sworn to safeguard.”

“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” he said. “This is not medicine — it is malpractice.” 

The proposals would conform HHS regulations to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order to prohibit the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children. The order instructed HHS to propose regulations to prevent these procedures on minors.

In a news release, HHS repeatedly referred to the medical interventions as “sex-rejecting procedures” and warned they “cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”

HHS cited its own report from May, which found “deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions” for treating a minor with gender dysphoria. The report found that “these interventions carry risk of significant harms,” which can include infertility, sexual dysfunction, underdeveloped bone mass, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, and adverse cognitive impacts, among other complications.

Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, a medical advocacy group, said in a statement that the proposed regulation on hospitals is “another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology” and said he supports rules that ensure “American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors.”

“Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed,” he said. “Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit.”

Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Person and Identity Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), said she sees the proposed restriction on hospitals as “excellent.”

“This proposed rule sends a powerful message to states and health care providers: It’s time to stop these unethical and dangerous procedures,” Hasson said. “Puberty is not a disease to be medicated away. All children have the right to grow and develop normally.”

“Sex-rejecting procedures promise the impossible: that a child can escape the reality of being male or female,” she added. “In reality, these sex-rejecting procedures provide only the illusion of ‘changing sex’ by disabling healthy functions and altering the child’s healthy body through drugs and surgery that will cause lifelong harm.”

In January, Bishop Robert Barron, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, welcomed Trump’s executive action on these procedures, warning that they are “based on a false understanding of human nature, attempt to change a child’s sex.”

“So many young people who have been victims of this ideological crusade have profound regrets over its life-altering consequences, such as infertility and lifelong dependence on costly hormone therapies that have significant side effects,” Barron said. “It is unacceptable that our children are encouraged to undergo destructive medical interventions instead of receiving access to authentic and bodily-unitive care.”

Read More