A student challenges a 2004 Supreme Court decision, the Diocese of Scranton reopens its seminary, and Benedictine College names a speaker for its library dedication in this week’s education roundup.
With Archbishop Paul Gallagher’s visit to Moscow this week, the Vatican continues to try to be a facilitator in bringing about a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war.
Ecuadoran lawyer Pablo Proaño’s remarks followed the death due to a pregnancy complication of Stefano, the son of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa and his wife, Lavinia Valbonesi.
Aid to the Church in Need has launched a petition that urges international leaders to take action to end religious persecution.
Commissioner appointee Heidi Overton has criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s chemical abortion policies in the past. She is now poised to be in a position to change them.
![U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to require 12-person juries for criminal cases #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases. The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license. Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules. Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term. In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.” The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.” The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases. That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.” They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/u-s-bishops-urge-supreme-court-to-require-12-person-juries-for-criminal-cases-catholic-the-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-is-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-require-12-person-juries-in-crimina-scaled.jpg "U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to require 12-person juries for criminal cases #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases. The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license. Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules. Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term. In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.” The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.” The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases. That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.” They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.")
The bishops argue that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors.
![Medicaid formally ends funds for ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ for minors with final rule #Catholic The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it has implemented a final rule that formally bans using funds for “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors, which are drugs and surgeries used to facilitate “gender transitions.”According to a CMS news release, this includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations. It states these medical procedures cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other physiological effects.The move formalizes a policy of President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent minors from accessing these drugs and surgeries. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that instructed agencies to adopt rules to “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”The final rule includes a tapering-off period of up to six months for children who are receiving cross-sex hormones, which allows them to be gradually weaned off the medicine. It does not affect mental health services.“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement.“By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish,” he said.Rachel N. Morrison, director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Administrative State Accountability Project, told EWTN News that government funding should never support “harmful, sterilizing, and often irreversible sex-rejecting procedures.”“I am grateful to CMS and the Trump administration for their efforts to combat gender ideology, protect children from the harms [of] sex-rejecting procedures, and advance policies that reflect a true understanding of the nature of the human person,” she said.The Church’s positionThe U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) referred EWTN News to a Feb. 17 letter to CMS, which said the proposed ban on federal funding “aligns with Catholic teaching on the nature of the human person” and “reflects true distinctions between the sexes.” “Rejection of our God-given bodies, such as by modifying them to appear as the opposite sex, is a grave matter, and when done with full knowledge and complete consent, is a grave sin,” the letter states.In November 2025, the USCCB published a new edition of its ”Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” guidelines, which prohibit Catholic institutions from providing treatments that “aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function” such as “interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics…).”Joseph Meaney, past president and senior ethicist for the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), told EWTN News CMS “should be applauded for putting an end to federal taxpayer funding of transgender procedures on children.”“There is substantial agreement between U.S. government policy and Catholic teaching in this area of healthcare policy,” he said.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, an NCBC senior ethicist, told EWTN News that the implementation of the rule “is very sensible and long overdue.”“Countless youth have already been railroaded along this path, placing themselves at great risk and damaging their bodies as they struggle with this confusion,” Pacholczyk said. “Once a young person steps onto that train, they often become ‘regular business customers,’ with a lifelong dependence on the continued prescribing of hormones and additional cycles of expensive surgeries.”He said tax money should not pay for “a hysterectomy on a girl who wants to live as a boy, nor to provide breast implants into a boy who thinks he is a girl.” He said children “deserve far better from the world of medicine and psychiatry.”“They are entitled to solid psychotherapy as a means of assisting them to reintegrate their subjective gender identity with their objective lifelong biology so they can recognize and embrace the beautiful gift of the biological sex they have been endowed with from the beginning,” Pacholczyk said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/medicaid-formally-ends-funds-for-sex-rejecting-procedures-for-minors-with-final-rule-catholic-the-centers-for-medicare-medicaid-services-cms-announced-it-has-implemented-a-f.jpg "Medicaid formally ends funds for ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ for minors with final rule #Catholic The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it has implemented a final rule that formally bans using funds for “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors, which are drugs and surgeries used to facilitate “gender transitions.”According to a CMS news release, this includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations. It states these medical procedures cause irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other physiological effects.The move formalizes a policy of President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent minors from accessing these drugs and surgeries. In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that instructed agencies to adopt rules to “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”The final rule includes a tapering-off period of up to six months for children who are receiving cross-sex hormones, which allows them to be gradually weaned off the medicine. It does not affect mental health services.“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement.“By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish,” he said.Rachel N. Morrison, director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Administrative State Accountability Project, told EWTN News that government funding should never support “harmful, sterilizing, and often irreversible sex-rejecting procedures.”“I am grateful to CMS and the Trump administration for their efforts to combat gender ideology, protect children from the harms [of] sex-rejecting procedures, and advance policies that reflect a true understanding of the nature of the human person,” she said.The Church’s positionThe U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) referred EWTN News to a Feb. 17 letter to CMS, which said the proposed ban on federal funding “aligns with Catholic teaching on the nature of the human person” and “reflects true distinctions between the sexes.” “Rejection of our God-given bodies, such as by modifying them to appear as the opposite sex, is a grave matter, and when done with full knowledge and complete consent, is a grave sin,” the letter states.In November 2025, the USCCB published a new edition of its ”Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” guidelines, which prohibit Catholic institutions from providing treatments that “aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function” such as “interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics…).”Joseph Meaney, past president and senior ethicist for the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), told EWTN News CMS “should be applauded for putting an end to federal taxpayer funding of transgender procedures on children.”“There is substantial agreement between U.S. government policy and Catholic teaching in this area of healthcare policy,” he said.Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, an NCBC senior ethicist, told EWTN News that the implementation of the rule “is very sensible and long overdue.”“Countless youth have already been railroaded along this path, placing themselves at great risk and damaging their bodies as they struggle with this confusion,” Pacholczyk said. “Once a young person steps onto that train, they often become ‘regular business customers,’ with a lifelong dependence on the continued prescribing of hormones and additional cycles of expensive surgeries.”He said tax money should not pay for “a hysterectomy on a girl who wants to live as a boy, nor to provide breast implants into a boy who thinks he is a girl.” He said children “deserve far better from the world of medicine and psychiatry.”“They are entitled to solid psychotherapy as a means of assisting them to reintegrate their subjective gender identity with their objective lifelong biology so they can recognize and embrace the beautiful gift of the biological sex they have been endowed with from the beginning,” Pacholczyk said.")
The development formalizes a policy of the Trump administration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has urged government action in this area.
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) criticized an executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The U.S. Catholic bishops are reviewing and monitoring the order.
“I write to comfort the afflicted, to ignite the comfortable, and to confront injustice with the full conviction of the Gospel,” San Antonio Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller wrote.
![March for Life president steps down to become ‘full-time mom’ #Catholic March for Life president steps down to focus on familyJennie Bradley Lichter, the president of the March for Life, is stepping down to devote more time to her family as a “full-time mom,” the leader said this week.“I have been humbled and inspired by the stories — so many stories, everywhere I go — of how the March for Life has changed people’s minds and hearts, how for so many Marchers it has sparked a lifetime of action and advocacy on behalf of the unborn, and in some cases, how it has changed the entire trajectory of their lives,” Bradley Lichter wrote in a farewell statement.She and her husband “are raising two tweens and a rising kindergartner, and it has become very clear that my family needs more of my time and my active presence than I’m able to give while leading the March for Life,” she said in the statement “My most important titles of all are not ‘President’ — but ‘wife’ and ‘Mom,’” she said.Bradley Lichter said that her role has been “the highlight of my professional life.”The resignation is effective July 31. The March for Life Board is actively searching for a new president.The annual demonstration draws tens of thousands to the nation’s capital yearly to advocate for the rights of unborn babies.Abortion drug present in municipal water, study findsA study published on July 20 in the Journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine highlighted the need for “significant additional investigation into the levels of various hormones and [endocrine-disrupting chemicals], including mifepristone, in water sources,” with researchers finding high levels of the abortion drug in municipal water supplies.Mifepristone is used in chemical abortions, as well as in treatment for miscarriages, and works by blocking progesterone, a hormone necessary for pregnancy. The investigation found “significant levels of mifepristone (up to 0.041 μgram/l) in the water of all but one of the nine sampling classes,” the study read. Water samples “were collected from sites upstream and downstream of water treatment facilities, and from municipal tap water,” from multiple American cities.“Because of the plethora of effects of progesterone, this contaminant could affect the physiology of aquatic animals; and human health, including fertility, pregnancy and fetal development,” the researchers said. Justice Department settles with pro-life father after FBI raidThe U.S. Department of Justice reached a seven-figure settlement with pro-life father Paul Vaughn after his home was raided by the FBI in connection with his pro-life work.The settlement affirmed that under the Biden administration, the government’s actions “were an abuse of government power,” according to a July 28 press release by the Thomas More Society, the legal nonprofit that defended Vaughn.Vaughn, a Catholic father of 11, was arrested at gunpoint after the FBI raided his house in connection with his protest at an abortion clinic. He is one of several pro-life advocates prosecuted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act during the Biden administration.“My family has been through a traumatic ordeal that never should have happened. But today brings an end to this portion of the story,” Vaughn said in a statement.“This chapter is finally closed, and our family looks forward with gratitude and hope, as we continue to serve God, advocating for the most vulnerable among us without fear.”Catholic bishops of Massachusetts speak out against late-term abortion billThe Catholic bishops of Massachusetts spoke out this week against a bill that will legalize late-term abortion in the state.“As Catholic bishops we have a moral responsibility to present and uphold Catholic teaching and the sacred God-given dignity of every human life from conception to the natural death,” the bishops said in July 29 statement signed by Bishop William Byrne of Springfield, Archbishop Richard Henning of Boston, Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, and Bishop Edgar da Cunha of Fall River.The state legislature passed the bill in July, with the Massachusetts Senate voting in favor of it on July 31. The measure, if signed into law, will remove the stateʼs 24-week limit on abortion.“The proposed elimination of any legal restraint on late-term abortion is, in our judgement, a radical measure which is gravely immoral,” the bishops’ statement read. The advocacy group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is also strongly opposing the bill; the group’s president Marjorie Dannenfelser called for nationwide protections for unborn children.“If Gov. [Maura] Healey signs this bill into law, Massachusetts will join 10 states and Washington, D.C. with an all-trimester abortion policy where babies are killed after the point they can survive outside of the womb,” Dannenfelser told EWTN News. “These extreme laws that only 10% of Americans support are enabled by the ‘states-only’ philosophy on abortion,” she said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/march-for-life-president-steps-down-to-become-full-time-mom-catholic-march-for-life-president-steps-down-to-focus-on-familyjennie-bradley-lichter-the-president-of-the-march-for-life-is-stepping.jpg "March for Life president steps down to become ‘full-time mom’ #Catholic March for Life president steps down to focus on familyJennie Bradley Lichter, the president of the March for Life, is stepping down to devote more time to her family as a “full-time mom,” the leader said this week.“I have been humbled and inspired by the stories — so many stories, everywhere I go — of how the March for Life has changed people’s minds and hearts, how for so many Marchers it has sparked a lifetime of action and advocacy on behalf of the unborn, and in some cases, how it has changed the entire trajectory of their lives,” Bradley Lichter wrote in a farewell statement.She and her husband “are raising two tweens and a rising kindergartner, and it has become very clear that my family needs more of my time and my active presence than I’m able to give while leading the March for Life,” she said in the statement “My most important titles of all are not ‘President’ — but ‘wife’ and ‘Mom,’” she said.Bradley Lichter said that her role has been “the highlight of my professional life.”The resignation is effective July 31. The March for Life Board is actively searching for a new president.The annual demonstration draws tens of thousands to the nation’s capital yearly to advocate for the rights of unborn babies.Abortion drug present in municipal water, study findsA study published on July 20 in the Journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine highlighted the need for “significant additional investigation into the levels of various hormones and [endocrine-disrupting chemicals], including mifepristone, in water sources,” with researchers finding high levels of the abortion drug in municipal water supplies.Mifepristone is used in chemical abortions, as well as in treatment for miscarriages, and works by blocking progesterone, a hormone necessary for pregnancy. The investigation found “significant levels of mifepristone (up to 0.041 μgram/l) in the water of all but one of the nine sampling classes,” the study read. Water samples “were collected from sites upstream and downstream of water treatment facilities, and from municipal tap water,” from multiple American cities.“Because of the plethora of effects of progesterone, this contaminant could affect the physiology of aquatic animals; and human health, including fertility, pregnancy and fetal development,” the researchers said. Justice Department settles with pro-life father after FBI raidThe U.S. Department of Justice reached a seven-figure settlement with pro-life father Paul Vaughn after his home was raided by the FBI in connection with his pro-life work.The settlement affirmed that under the Biden administration, the government’s actions “were an abuse of government power,” according to a July 28 press release by the Thomas More Society, the legal nonprofit that defended Vaughn.Vaughn, a Catholic father of 11, was arrested at gunpoint after the FBI raided his house in connection with his protest at an abortion clinic. He is one of several pro-life advocates prosecuted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act during the Biden administration.“My family has been through a traumatic ordeal that never should have happened. But today brings an end to this portion of the story,” Vaughn said in a statement.“This chapter is finally closed, and our family looks forward with gratitude and hope, as we continue to serve God, advocating for the most vulnerable among us without fear.”Catholic bishops of Massachusetts speak out against late-term abortion billThe Catholic bishops of Massachusetts spoke out this week against a bill that will legalize late-term abortion in the state.“As Catholic bishops we have a moral responsibility to present and uphold Catholic teaching and the sacred God-given dignity of every human life from conception to the natural death,” the bishops said in July 29 statement signed by Bishop William Byrne of Springfield, Archbishop Richard Henning of Boston, Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, and Bishop Edgar da Cunha of Fall River.The state legislature passed the bill in July, with the Massachusetts Senate voting in favor of it on July 31. The measure, if signed into law, will remove the stateʼs 24-week limit on abortion.“The proposed elimination of any legal restraint on late-term abortion is, in our judgement, a radical measure which is gravely immoral,” the bishops’ statement read. The advocacy group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is also strongly opposing the bill; the group’s president Marjorie Dannenfelser called for nationwide protections for unborn children.“If Gov. [Maura] Healey signs this bill into law, Massachusetts will join 10 states and Washington, D.C. with an all-trimester abortion policy where babies are killed after the point they can survive outside of the womb,” Dannenfelser told EWTN News. “These extreme laws that only 10% of Americans support are enabled by the ‘states-only’ philosophy on abortion,” she said.")
The measure, if signed by Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, will remove the last few restrictions on abortion in the state and replace them with “the professional judgment of the physician.”
![Archbishop Wenski meets lawmakers to gain support for Haitian migrants amid deportation fears #Catholic Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski traveled to Washington, D.C., on July 28 to advocate on behalf of Haitian migrants who fear they will soon be targets of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.Wenski’s meetings with lawmakers came one day after the expiration of the automatic work‑permit extension under temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians. The Supreme Court ruled last month that the administration has the authority to terminate TPS, which ended their work authorization and could subject them to deportation orders. “Haiti is a house on fire,” Wenski told “EWTN News Nightly” Capitol Hill correspondent Erik Rosales before entering the office of Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia.The archbishop said TPS expiration and possible deportation of hundreds of thousands of Haitians is bad for the migrants — who would be sent back to an unstable country — and for the American communities in which the migrants live and work. About 353,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS status in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“To think that we can send 350,000 people back to Haiti without that having very bad consequences in Haiti — but also here because these people are working, they’re not on the dole, they’re working, and if they’re removed from their jobs, if they lose their work permits, that’s going to have a negative economic impact on the communities in which they live,” Wenski said.As Haitian TPS status ends, some lawmakers have introduced bills to compel the DHS to extend the status. In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation, H.R. 1689, that would extend TPS for Haitians for three more years. No legislative efforts have gained traction in the Senate.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated strongly on behalf of Haitian migrants, asking the Trump administration and lawmakers to extend TPS. About two-thirds of Haiti is Catholic.Chieko Noguchi, spokeswoman for the USCCB, told EWTN News that Bishop Brendan J. Cahill, USCCB Committee on Migration chair, “has encouraged his brother bishops across the country to engage with their elected officials” on Haitian TPS status and broader immigration reform efforts.“As pastors committed to upholding the common good, the bishops are actively engaging in this dialogue and continue to be grateful for the opportunity to do so, which they acknowledged in their special message last November,” she said.In November 2025, the USCCB adopted a message in a 216-5 vote that opposed the “indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and policies that revoke the legal status of migrants, such as the terminations of TPS for various groups of migrants.Kaine, an advocate for extending TPS, told EWTN News after meeting with Wenski that he was glad “to discuss the critical need for Congress to do what is right and protect TPS holders who have been in the U.S. legally for years” and looks forward to working with the USCCB to advocate for TPS holders.TPS holders “have made countless contributions in important sectors such as healthcare and construction, and developed deep roots in our communities through their U.S. citizen families and businesses,” he added. “Many TPS holders, such as those from Haiti, should not be forced to return to the extremely dangerous conditions that made them seek safety in the United States.”Status of Haitian migrantsOn July 27, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin reposted a DHS post on X, which said “temporary protected status is exactly that — TEMPORARY” and urged anyone whose TPS has expired to self-deport out of the U.S.“For those with terminated TPS: it’s closing time,” the post read. “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”When asked whether DHS intends to specifically target Haitians for deportation amid the TPS expiration, a spokesperson told EWTN News that the department “does not discuss ongoing or future operations” but is conducting law enforcement activities daily.“For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent,” the spokesperson said.Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, told EWTN News that TPS was initially approved for Haiti in 2010 after a devastating earthquake.Although Haiti continues to face serious safety and political stability concerns, he said the effects of the earthquake no longer impact the country. He noted that Haitians can apply for permanent status under other programs, such as if they are eligible for asylum, but that TPS is not a permanent resettlement program.Arthur said Haitians who are in the U.S. under temporary legal status “had the opportunity to work in the United States and make money” and learn skills, which they can take back “to Haiti and [it can] help them make Haiti a better country.”The former judge said he expects immigration enforcement toward Haitians to be part of “the larger enforcement efforts” rather than a targeted campaign against Haitians, with a priority toward people who have been convicted of crimes.“The response [now] is foreign aid on the part of the United States and aid from the Catholic Church toward making Haiti a better place,” Arthur said.TPS status for Syrian migrants also ended on July 27. El Salvador’s TPS designation is set to expire Sept. 9.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/archbishop-wenski-meets-lawmakers-to-gain-support-for-haitian-migrants-amid-deportation-fears-catholic-miami-archbishop-thomas-wenski-traveled-to-washington-d-c-on-july-28-to-advocate-on-behalf-of.png "Archbishop Wenski meets lawmakers to gain support for Haitian migrants amid deportation fears #Catholic Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski traveled to Washington, D.C., on July 28 to advocate on behalf of Haitian migrants who fear they will soon be targets of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.Wenski’s meetings with lawmakers came one day after the expiration of the automatic work‑permit extension under temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians. The Supreme Court ruled last month that the administration has the authority to terminate TPS, which ended their work authorization and could subject them to deportation orders. “Haiti is a house on fire,” Wenski told “EWTN News Nightly” Capitol Hill correspondent Erik Rosales before entering the office of Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia.The archbishop said TPS expiration and possible deportation of hundreds of thousands of Haitians is bad for the migrants — who would be sent back to an unstable country — and for the American communities in which the migrants live and work. About 353,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS status in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“To think that we can send 350,000 people back to Haiti without that having very bad consequences in Haiti — but also here because these people are working, they’re not on the dole, they’re working, and if they’re removed from their jobs, if they lose their work permits, that’s going to have a negative economic impact on the communities in which they live,” Wenski said.As Haitian TPS status ends, some lawmakers have introduced bills to compel the DHS to extend the status. In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation, H.R. 1689, that would extend TPS for Haitians for three more years. No legislative efforts have gained traction in the Senate.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated strongly on behalf of Haitian migrants, asking the Trump administration and lawmakers to extend TPS. About two-thirds of Haiti is Catholic.Chieko Noguchi, spokeswoman for the USCCB, told EWTN News that Bishop Brendan J. Cahill, USCCB Committee on Migration chair, “has encouraged his brother bishops across the country to engage with their elected officials” on Haitian TPS status and broader immigration reform efforts.“As pastors committed to upholding the common good, the bishops are actively engaging in this dialogue and continue to be grateful for the opportunity to do so, which they acknowledged in their special message last November,” she said.In November 2025, the USCCB adopted a message in a 216-5 vote that opposed the “indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and policies that revoke the legal status of migrants, such as the terminations of TPS for various groups of migrants.Kaine, an advocate for extending TPS, told EWTN News after meeting with Wenski that he was glad “to discuss the critical need for Congress to do what is right and protect TPS holders who have been in the U.S. legally for years” and looks forward to working with the USCCB to advocate for TPS holders.TPS holders “have made countless contributions in important sectors such as healthcare and construction, and developed deep roots in our communities through their U.S. citizen families and businesses,” he added. “Many TPS holders, such as those from Haiti, should not be forced to return to the extremely dangerous conditions that made them seek safety in the United States.”Status of Haitian migrantsOn July 27, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin reposted a DHS post on X, which said “temporary protected status is exactly that — TEMPORARY” and urged anyone whose TPS has expired to self-deport out of the U.S.“For those with terminated TPS: it’s closing time,” the post read. “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”When asked whether DHS intends to specifically target Haitians for deportation amid the TPS expiration, a spokesperson told EWTN News that the department “does not discuss ongoing or future operations” but is conducting law enforcement activities daily.“For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent,” the spokesperson said.Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, told EWTN News that TPS was initially approved for Haiti in 2010 after a devastating earthquake.Although Haiti continues to face serious safety and political stability concerns, he said the effects of the earthquake no longer impact the country. He noted that Haitians can apply for permanent status under other programs, such as if they are eligible for asylum, but that TPS is not a permanent resettlement program.Arthur said Haitians who are in the U.S. under temporary legal status “had the opportunity to work in the United States and make money” and learn skills, which they can take back “to Haiti and [it can] help them make Haiti a better country.”The former judge said he expects immigration enforcement toward Haitians to be part of “the larger enforcement efforts” rather than a targeted campaign against Haitians, with a priority toward people who have been convicted of crimes.“The response [now] is foreign aid on the part of the United States and aid from the Catholic Church toward making Haiti a better place,” Arthur said.TPS status for Syrian migrants also ended on July 27. El Salvador’s TPS designation is set to expire Sept. 9.")
The Department of Homeland Security defended its policy, saying temporary protected status was not meant to be permanent.
The White House has issued a string of statements acknowledging prominent Catholic feast days and observances.
Catholic Health Services, one of the Archdiocese of Miami’s largest ministries, faces losing an estimated 40 to 50 employees, Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski said.
![Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News "we refer you to our published releases" and "we have nothing further to add."In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/catholic-moral-theologians-concerned-by-claims-u-s-iran-struck-civilian-infrastructure-catholic-iran-and-the-united-states-have-faced-accusations-of-strikes-on-civilian-infrastructure-and-have-expl.jpg "Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure #Catholic Iran and the United States have faced accusations of strikes on civilian infrastructure and have explicitly threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure going forward, prompting concerns from Catholic moral theologians.“I have deep concerns that the war will widen and the greatest impact will be on the civilian populations of Middle East nations,” Joseph Capizzi, director of Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute for Church Life, told EWTN News.Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News that threats to civilian infrastructure are “absolutely not” consistent with moral conduct during war or Catholic just war doctrine.“The dignity of the human person — including a commitment to Christʼs command to love oneʼs enemies — must be paramount,” he said. “Not winning a war. Not gaining political advantage. … Catholics are not consequentialists.”A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began April 8 ended on July 8. Last week, Iranian state media alleged that the U.S. struck a water desalination plant in the Hormozgan Province that supplies water to 30 villages, impacting thousands of people. U.S. officials confirmed military strikes in the province but have not confirmed a strike on the plant.The U.S. has confirmed strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure. Pro-regime media in Iran in Iran reported commercial and fishing piers were among the targets, citing the Iranian Red Crescent Society. That report also alleged strikes on a wheat storage facility, roads, and bridges.U.S. Central Command denied strikes on the wheat facility but has not addressed every specific allegation. U.S. military officials have repeatedly said they only target Iran’s military capabilities.When reached for comment about the other specific allegations, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command told EWTN News \"we refer you to our published releases\" and \"we have nothing further to add.\"In response to these alleged attacks, Iran has repeatedly struck power plants and water facilities throughout Kuwait and Bahrain. Officials in Kuwait, which relies on water desalination plants for 90% of its drinking water, are urging people to conserve energy and water. Bahrain’s supply of drinking water is 100% reliant on water desalination plants.On July 22, Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, saying he would strike “one bridge or power plant” for every ship Iran strikes. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in response that Iran’s doctrine is “an eye for an eye” and “those who contribute” to aggression “will also be considered as legitimate targets.”When a reporter asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 23 whether he would rule out strikes on civilian infrastructure, he did not say. Rather, he pointed to Araghchi’s statement and said: “The president’s policy is a head for an eye — I mean, honestly, that’s what it’s going to be.”Just conduct in warThree Catholic moral theologians who provided comments to EWTN News — Capizzi; Camosy; and Taylor Patrick O’Neill, a theology professor at Thomas Aquinas College — all said it is not moral to intentionally target civilian populations in war.“The prohibition against targeting civilian infrastructure is absolute in moral and international law,” Capizzi said. “States are prohibited from targeting civilian infrastructure.”He urged caution about purported justifications for striking “dual use” infrastructure targets that may be used for both military and civilian purposes. He said “no party is allowed merely to claim targets are ‘dual use.’”“When there is doubt as to the dual or single use of a target, international [law] stipulates the presumption begins with single use, and therefore the target is inadmissible to be targeted, unless proven to the contrary,” Capizzi said.Camosy also said this is a moral absolute and there is no circumstance in which it is moral to target civilians. He said that “even in war, even when the stakes are highest,” Catholics do not adhere to the consequentialist moral philosophy of the ends justifying the means.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains a person can never engage in intrinsically evil acts — such as targeting innocent people for harm — regardless of the reason because “the end does not justify the means.” Acts also require “good intention,” so while “good intention” is not sufficient and does not justify evil acts, bad intention — such as intending to harm innocent people — always “makes an act evil,” it explains.Camosy said: “Protection against the targeting of civilians is an absolute value in war. Catholics are called to be prepared to lose a war rather than violate exceptionless moral norms or commit intrinsically evil acts in this area.”Sometimes an act, in war or elsewhere, can also have several effects. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the “Summa Theologica” that it can be proper to engage in an act that is morally neutral in and of itself but has both good and bad consequences, so long as only the good consequence is the one that is intended. This is the principle of “double effect.”The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that proportionality is required in war. The evil inflicted through war cannot be more severe than the evil one is aiming to defeat.“We need to ask if civilian harm is the intention and/or the mechanism of action in the military strike or [if] it is a merely foreseen side effect,” Camosy explained.“If the rationale for hitting the electric grid or desalination plant is that widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals, and more will generate political pressure on the Iranian regime, then the suffering of peaceful civilians becomes the causal pathway to the advantage sought,” he said. “This then becomes the object of the act itself and not a merely foreseen side effect.”Alternatively, Camosy added: “Attacking a generator dedicated to a command bunker, however, would likely not suffer the same kind of critique, however, even if one foresaw but did not intend that it would also have bad impacts on civilians.”Similarly, O’Neill said the moral analysis of striking a facility that results in civilian harm is about intention and proportionality. It is never moral to intend the suffering of innocents or target them.“You cannot intend or rely upon civilian death or fear to aid in your military effort,” O’Neill said. “In other words, the foreseen evil cannot itself be the means by which you attempt to achieve some good.”A specific bridge that is “dual use,” such as one used by civilians but also used “to transport tanks from factory to battlefield,” he said could possibly be justified under double effect. The moral analysis would have to consider intention and proportionality and “you must also try to minimize the negative.”“Will blowing up the bridge make civilian life uncomfortable or will it result in the loss of life, access to basic necessities, etc.? All of these things have to be taken into account just for double effect,” O’Neill said.“Under double effect, itʼs theoretically possible to strike a dual-use target,” he added. “But any strike on merely civilian infrastructure (or even [a target] with indirect ties to the war effort) would be intrinsically unjust.”“At that point, the attack would have more in common with an act of terrorism,” O’Neill said.‘Blessed are the peacemakers’St. Augustine, in a letter to the Roman general Boniface, emphasized that the intention of war must be to ultimately establish a just peace — not to simply to unleash destruction: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.”The fifth-century bishop and theologian cited the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”O’Neill explained that in the context of a just war, “the Christian always seeks war for the sake of peace and that of both his own people and the people of the enemy nation.”“To consider the civilians of an enemy nation as the enemy is already to lose the necessary distinction of combatant from innocent,” he said.Camosy noted that Trump, in his 2024 campaign, promised “to be deeply skeptical of war” and encouraged him to move back in that direction.“Trump himself was aggressively pursuing the Nobel Peace Prize on this basis,” he said. “It would be much better to go back to this way of thinking about war. Think about becoming a peacemaker again.”Trump told Axios on July 23 that he is “considering a massive attack, bigger than ever before” but did not say whether this includes the civilian infrastructure he has threatened. He said that Iranians want to negotiate, but “they havenʼt received enough pain yet.”")
A battle over the Strait of Hormuz rekindled the war in the Middle East after a ceasefire ended. Intent to harm civilians, including attacks on civilian infrastructure, is immoral, theologians said.
“France is leading the way in Europe by becoming the first country to establish a ‘digital age of majority,’” said the country’s minister delegate for digital sovereignty.
Moon rocks are seen during a March 24, 2026, event where NASA is outlining how the agency is executing the National Space Policy and accelerating preparations for America’s return to the surface of the Moon by 2028.
Read More