The pope has continued to advocate for peace-building and has warned against nuclear weapons and AI being integrated into the military.
![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.
![Abortion count rises as women turn to chemical abortions, per new data #Catholic The U.S. abortion count continues to rise even as travel abortions decrease, a recent study found.The Guttmacher Institute, a data group that openly supports abortion access, documented a decrease in people leaving their own state to get abortions in other states. Instead, abortion seekers turn toward mail-order abortions, which have seen a surge in recent years.The group tracks abortions monthly, following trends “in the post-Dobbs era” since 2023, according to Guttmacher data scientist and study lead Isaac Maddow-Zimet. The data indicated an overall increase in abortions from 2025 to 2026. “In the first three months of 2026, there were 296,130 abortions as compared to 292,590 in the first three months of 2025,” data scholar Michael New told EWTN News. “This is an increase of just over 1%.”New said this fact has gone underreported.“Most media outlets that are reporting on the Guttmacher data have not reported on this, but the number of abortions continues to rise,” said New, who is a senior associate scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute, a group that studies data relating to the pro-life cause.“These rising abortion numbers are an important reason why pro-lifers are frustrated with the Trump administration’s lack of action on telehealth abortions,” continued New, who also works as a professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America.The Trump administration has neglected to enforce various regulations — such as the Comstock Act or in-person prescription requirements — that could be groundbreaking for protecting unborn children from chemical abortions.From 2024 to 2025, travel abortions declined by nearly 8%. Scholars agree that mail-order abortion is the reason for the decline in abortion travel.“Currently, we are seeing a major shift in where and how people access abortion,” Maddow-Zimet said. “While travel remains a critical pathway to care, we have seen a decrease in people leaving their state of residence, likely due to both the growth of telehealth access and fewer options for in-person care in the South and Southeast.”New also cited chemical abortions as the draw away from travel abortions. “The main reason for this decline in out-of-state travel is because of the rising number of telehealth abortions,” New said. “The most recent data from the Society for Family Planning shows that approximately 27% of all abortions are done by telehealth.”In Florida, the study also found a near tripling of abortion travel by Floridians after the state passed a heartbeat law to protect unborn babies; at the same time, fewer people traveled to Florida to obtain abortions due to this law.“The national decline [in travel abortions] might have been even larger had Florida not started enforcing a Heartbeat Act in 2024,” New said. “Because of this strong pro-life law, far fewer women residing in southern states traveled to Florida for abortions.”Texas has also seen a decline in Texans traveling to get abortions. “This trend is seen at the state level,” New continued. “Between 2024 and 2025 the number of Texas women obtaining abortions in other states fell by 19%.”Mail-order abortion is pro-life priorityAdvocates for unborn children highlighted the importance of opposing chemical abortions and protecting unborn children across state lines. Abortion continues to rise with the increase in mail-order abortions.Kelsey Pritchard, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America spokeswoman, called for protections of unborn children across state lines.“We need a national minimum standard to ensure children across America have basic human rights and the chance at life, regardless of their zip code,” Pritchard told EWTN News.“Nine states and the District of Columbia still have no gestational limits whatsoever on abortion, allowing abortion up to the moment of birth, with late-term abortion centers purposely located within range of pro-life state borders,” Pritchard said. “This is barbaric and extreme, and it places the United States in the same category as communist countries like China and Vietnam on abortion.”“While stopping the ‘Wild West’ of unregulated abortion by mail is our immediate priority, both issues underscore the urgent need for national action to protect unborn children and their mothers,” Pritchard said. “Abortion travel is down overall, but mail-order abortions are surging and driving the national total up to an estimated 1.1 million abortions per year — more than the day Roe was reversed,” Pritchard said. “Every single month, approximately 15,000 babies in the womb die from mail-order abortion drugs in states with pro-life laws, while women and girls are poisoned and coerced by abusers who obtain these drugs online without so much as an ID check.”Kristi Hamrick, Students for Life spokeswoman, questioned the data, noting that there is no reporting requirement for abortion.“I find it extraordinary that the abortion industry reports so much data that is accepted as gospel, despite the fact that we canʼt verify it,” Hamrick said. “We have no national abortion reporting law, and while this data will be broadly reported, every point of data from pro-life sources is treated as suspect.”Guttmacher collects monthly data from brick-and-mortar facilities and telehealth providers, according to the study methodology.The nature of mail-order abortion pills makes it harder to accurately track the number of the abortions in the U.S. as the pills are highly unregulated and some companies operate outside of the U.S. healthcare system.“The landscape of abortion is shifting, from brick-and-mortar abortion vendor to online pill pushers, so less driving, if that is true, does not mean less abortion,” Hamrick said.For Students for Life, “fighting chemical abortion pills” is a priority.Through pregnancy help centers, maternity homes, and other programs, the pro-life movement continues to encourage women to choose life.“But what is happening in real time is that many are reaching out to women online and in their communities to encourage and support them in choosing life, while we also have to confront a new abortion cartel,” Hamrick said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/abortion-count-rises-as-women-turn-to-chemical-abortions-per-new-data-catholic-the-u-s-abortion-count-continues-to-rise-even-as-travel-abortions-decrease-a-recent-study-found-the-guttmacher-instit-scaled.jpg "Abortion count rises as women turn to chemical abortions, per new data #Catholic The U.S. abortion count continues to rise even as travel abortions decrease, a recent study found.The Guttmacher Institute, a data group that openly supports abortion access, documented a decrease in people leaving their own state to get abortions in other states. Instead, abortion seekers turn toward mail-order abortions, which have seen a surge in recent years.The group tracks abortions monthly, following trends “in the post-Dobbs era” since 2023, according to Guttmacher data scientist and study lead Isaac Maddow-Zimet. The data indicated an overall increase in abortions from 2025 to 2026. “In the first three months of 2026, there were 296,130 abortions as compared to 292,590 in the first three months of 2025,” data scholar Michael New told EWTN News. “This is an increase of just over 1%.”New said this fact has gone underreported.“Most media outlets that are reporting on the Guttmacher data have not reported on this, but the number of abortions continues to rise,” said New, who is a senior associate scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute, a group that studies data relating to the pro-life cause.“These rising abortion numbers are an important reason why pro-lifers are frustrated with the Trump administration’s lack of action on telehealth abortions,” continued New, who also works as a professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America.The Trump administration has neglected to enforce various regulations — such as the Comstock Act or in-person prescription requirements — that could be groundbreaking for protecting unborn children from chemical abortions.From 2024 to 2025, travel abortions declined by nearly 8%. Scholars agree that mail-order abortion is the reason for the decline in abortion travel.“Currently, we are seeing a major shift in where and how people access abortion,” Maddow-Zimet said. “While travel remains a critical pathway to care, we have seen a decrease in people leaving their state of residence, likely due to both the growth of telehealth access and fewer options for in-person care in the South and Southeast.”New also cited chemical abortions as the draw away from travel abortions. “The main reason for this decline in out-of-state travel is because of the rising number of telehealth abortions,” New said. “The most recent data from the Society for Family Planning shows that approximately 27% of all abortions are done by telehealth.”In Florida, the study also found a near tripling of abortion travel by Floridians after the state passed a heartbeat law to protect unborn babies; at the same time, fewer people traveled to Florida to obtain abortions due to this law.“The national decline [in travel abortions] might have been even larger had Florida not started enforcing a Heartbeat Act in 2024,” New said. “Because of this strong pro-life law, far fewer women residing in southern states traveled to Florida for abortions.”Texas has also seen a decline in Texans traveling to get abortions. “This trend is seen at the state level,” New continued. “Between 2024 and 2025 the number of Texas women obtaining abortions in other states fell by 19%.”Mail-order abortion is pro-life priorityAdvocates for unborn children highlighted the importance of opposing chemical abortions and protecting unborn children across state lines. Abortion continues to rise with the increase in mail-order abortions.Kelsey Pritchard, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America spokeswoman, called for protections of unborn children across state lines.“We need a national minimum standard to ensure children across America have basic human rights and the chance at life, regardless of their zip code,” Pritchard told EWTN News.“Nine states and the District of Columbia still have no gestational limits whatsoever on abortion, allowing abortion up to the moment of birth, with late-term abortion centers purposely located within range of pro-life state borders,” Pritchard said. “This is barbaric and extreme, and it places the United States in the same category as communist countries like China and Vietnam on abortion.”“While stopping the ‘Wild West’ of unregulated abortion by mail is our immediate priority, both issues underscore the urgent need for national action to protect unborn children and their mothers,” Pritchard said. “Abortion travel is down overall, but mail-order abortions are surging and driving the national total up to an estimated 1.1 million abortions per year — more than the day Roe was reversed,” Pritchard said. “Every single month, approximately 15,000 babies in the womb die from mail-order abortion drugs in states with pro-life laws, while women and girls are poisoned and coerced by abusers who obtain these drugs online without so much as an ID check.”Kristi Hamrick, Students for Life spokeswoman, questioned the data, noting that there is no reporting requirement for abortion.“I find it extraordinary that the abortion industry reports so much data that is accepted as gospel, despite the fact that we canʼt verify it,” Hamrick said. “We have no national abortion reporting law, and while this data will be broadly reported, every point of data from pro-life sources is treated as suspect.”Guttmacher collects monthly data from brick-and-mortar facilities and telehealth providers, according to the study methodology.The nature of mail-order abortion pills makes it harder to accurately track the number of the abortions in the U.S. as the pills are highly unregulated and some companies operate outside of the U.S. healthcare system.“The landscape of abortion is shifting, from brick-and-mortar abortion vendor to online pill pushers, so less driving, if that is true, does not mean less abortion,” Hamrick said.For Students for Life, “fighting chemical abortion pills” is a priority.Through pregnancy help centers, maternity homes, and other programs, the pro-life movement continues to encourage women to choose life.“But what is happening in real time is that many are reaching out to women online and in their communities to encourage and support them in choosing life, while we also have to confront a new abortion cartel,” Hamrick said.")
The abortion count is rising as women rely more on mail-order chemical abortions, according to the most recent data.
![Notre Dame awards religious liberty prize to Becket Fund for Supreme Court wins #Catholic Notre Dame Law School awarded its 2026 Prize for Religious Liberty to the Becket Fund — a nonprofit law firm that has secured 13 Supreme Court victories in the past 15 years defending the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections.“We’re deeply honored to be recognized with the religious liberty prize,” Becket President and CEO Mark Rienzi told EWTN News.“We’re honored to be able to be part of fighting to protect something that is very important for our country and the Church,” said Reinzi, who accepted the award at the July 8 conclusion of Notre Dame’s sixth annual Religious Liberty Summit in Chicago.Becket — established in 1994 to provide cost-free legal counsel to those whose religious liberties were violated — has an undefeated record at the Supreme Court.Its lawyers represented the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby against contraception mandates, defended the rights of Maryland parents to opt their children out of gender-related coursework that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and backed a Catholic foster care agency that only placed children with opposite-sex married couples.G. Marcus Cole, a dean and professor of law at Notre Dame, said during the award ceremony that when the university started giving out the award, “we always imagined that it would go to one person.”“But when we think about the Becket Fund, it is an entire team of lawyers, led by Mark Rienzi, who have made a difference in our world, who have made our lives better,” he said. “And for that reason, we thought it only appropriate to give the award to the Becket Fund as an entity."Ongoing fights for religious libertyThe most recent victory secured by Becket came in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which ensured parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, had a right to opt their children out of coursework that included material related to gender that conflicted with their religious faith.Rienzi told EWTN News that “parents don’t give up the right to [raise] their children when they drop their kids off at the schoolhouse gates.” He added: “Your children don’t belong to the state just because you use a public school.”Becket represented Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Muslim parents in the lawsuit. Rienzi said religious parents have a right to “operate equally as a full citizen and full member of the public” by utilizing the public school system while maintaining the right to instill religious values in their children.“[This was] the most important case in at least 50 or 100 years in establishing that principle,” he said.Becket also secured the 2020 victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal regulations that exempted the religious sisters from mandatory contraception coverage in insurance plans.The sisters, however, are back in court after the governments of Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged those exemptions on separate grounds than those on which the court previously ruled. This case is now in an appellate court, which heard oral arguments on July 7. Becket is representing them again and Rienzi is the lead attorney on the case.“It’s outrageous that governments keep volunteering for the beating they get when they keep [going after] the Little Sisters of the Poor,” Rienzi said.He said “the law is really, really clear” that Pennsylvania cannot remove their exemptions from the mandate.Becket is also representing a coalition of Catholic preschools in Colorado that is suing the state because they were excluded from a “universal” tuition program. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Notre Dame awarded Becket the prize less than one week after Americans celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which culminated in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which secured religious freedom.“God created everybody equal and equally free and gave them rights,” Rienzi said, adding that religious freedom is “essential to the declaration’s idea of who we are as a country and … [it] is crucial for maintaining it.”“It’s a shame that you still have to fight about it,” Rienzi said. “But on the other hand, it’s worth fighting for.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/notre-dame-awards-religious-liberty-prize-to-becket-fund-for-supreme-court-wins-catholic-notre-dame-law-school-awarded-its-2026-prize-for-religious-liberty-to-the-becket-fund-a-nonprofit-la.jpg "Notre Dame awards religious liberty prize to Becket Fund for Supreme Court wins #Catholic Notre Dame Law School awarded its 2026 Prize for Religious Liberty to the Becket Fund — a nonprofit law firm that has secured 13 Supreme Court victories in the past 15 years defending the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections.“We’re deeply honored to be recognized with the religious liberty prize,” Becket President and CEO Mark Rienzi told EWTN News.“We’re honored to be able to be part of fighting to protect something that is very important for our country and the Church,” said Reinzi, who accepted the award at the July 8 conclusion of Notre Dame’s sixth annual Religious Liberty Summit in Chicago.Becket — established in 1994 to provide cost-free legal counsel to those whose religious liberties were violated — has an undefeated record at the Supreme Court.Its lawyers represented the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby against contraception mandates, defended the rights of Maryland parents to opt their children out of gender-related coursework that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and backed a Catholic foster care agency that only placed children with opposite-sex married couples.G. Marcus Cole, a dean and professor of law at Notre Dame, said during the award ceremony that when the university started giving out the award, “we always imagined that it would go to one person.”“But when we think about the Becket Fund, it is an entire team of lawyers, led by Mark Rienzi, who have made a difference in our world, who have made our lives better,” he said. “And for that reason, we thought it only appropriate to give the award to the Becket Fund as an entity.\"Ongoing fights for religious libertyThe most recent victory secured by Becket came in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which ensured parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, had a right to opt their children out of coursework that included material related to gender that conflicted with their religious faith.Rienzi told EWTN News that “parents don’t give up the right to [raise] their children when they drop their kids off at the schoolhouse gates.” He added: “Your children don’t belong to the state just because you use a public school.”Becket represented Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Muslim parents in the lawsuit. Rienzi said religious parents have a right to “operate equally as a full citizen and full member of the public” by utilizing the public school system while maintaining the right to instill religious values in their children.“[This was] the most important case in at least 50 or 100 years in establishing that principle,” he said.Becket also secured the 2020 victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal regulations that exempted the religious sisters from mandatory contraception coverage in insurance plans.The sisters, however, are back in court after the governments of Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged those exemptions on separate grounds than those on which the court previously ruled. This case is now in an appellate court, which heard oral arguments on July 7. Becket is representing them again and Rienzi is the lead attorney on the case.“It’s outrageous that governments keep volunteering for the beating they get when they keep [going after] the Little Sisters of the Poor,” Rienzi said.He said “the law is really, really clear” that Pennsylvania cannot remove their exemptions from the mandate.Becket is also representing a coalition of Catholic preschools in Colorado that is suing the state because they were excluded from a “universal” tuition program. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Notre Dame awarded Becket the prize less than one week after Americans celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which culminated in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which secured religious freedom.“God created everybody equal and equally free and gave them rights,” Rienzi said, adding that religious freedom is “essential to the declaration’s idea of who we are as a country and … [it] is crucial for maintaining it.”“It’s a shame that you still have to fight about it,” Rienzi said. “But on the other hand, it’s worth fighting for.”")
Becket President Mark Rienzi said the group is “deeply honored” to be awarded the prize, saying religious liberty “is worth fighting for.”
A Wyoming Catholic College student wins a White House civics competition, Benedictine College shows off its new library, and more in this week’s roundup of Catholic education news in the U.S.
Author and professor calls on Catholics to revive American culture through faith and classical learning.
