Lent begins on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 18, beginning a season of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving in the Catholic Church.
Catholic U.S. House Democrats cited Church teaching in defense of the dignity of migrants as Trump administration officials defend immigration enforcement.
![Head of U.S. bishops joins call for Notre Dame to drop appointment of pro-abortion professor #Catholic U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops President Archbishop Paul Coakley is urging the University of Notre Dame to drop the leadership appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion professor, joining nearly a dozen bishops in calling on the historic Catholic university to back away from the controversial decision. The controversy at Notre Dame exploded this week after Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the school's appointment of Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.Ostermann has in the past spoken out strongly in favor of abortion and sharply criticized the pro-life movement, at times suggesting that its roots are in "white supremacy" and misogyny. Rhoades said Ostermann's beliefs, coupled with her leadership promotion at the Catholic school, were “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Multiple U.S. bishops from around the country backed Rhoades's call throughout the week, with Coakley himself speaking out about the controversy on Feb. 13. "I fully support Bishop Kevin Rhoades in his challenge to Notre Dame to rectify its poor judgement in hiring a professor who openly stands against Catholic teaching when it comes to the sanctity of life, in this case protection of the unborn," Coakley said in a statement on X. TweetThe statement was shared hundreds of times on X, including by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the bishop emeritus of Hong Kong. Though criticism against Notre Dame's decision has come from top Catholic leadership in the U.S. throughout the week, the school has indicated that it will be standing by its plan to have Ostermann lead the institute. Notre Dame told EWTN News on Feb. 13 that Ostermann is "a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar" who is "well prepared" to serve in the role. At the same time the university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.” Ostermann herself has told media that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage." She has described herself as "fully committed to maintaining an environment of academic freedom where a plurality of voices can flourish."](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/head-of-u-s-bishops-joins-call-for-notre-dame-to-drop-appointment-of-pro-abortion-professor-catholic-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-president-archbishop-paul-coakley-is-urging-the-university-of.jpg "Head of U.S. bishops joins call for Notre Dame to drop appointment of pro-abortion professor #Catholic U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops President Archbishop Paul Coakley is urging the University of Notre Dame to drop the leadership appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion professor, joining nearly a dozen bishops in calling on the historic Catholic university to back away from the controversial decision. The controversy at Notre Dame exploded this week after Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the school's appointment of Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.Ostermann has in the past spoken out strongly in favor of abortion and sharply criticized the pro-life movement, at times suggesting that its roots are in \"white supremacy\" and misogyny. Rhoades said Ostermann's beliefs, coupled with her leadership promotion at the Catholic school, were “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Multiple U.S. bishops from around the country backed Rhoades's call throughout the week, with Coakley himself speaking out about the controversy on Feb. 13. \"I fully support Bishop Kevin Rhoades in his challenge to Notre Dame to rectify its poor judgement in hiring a professor who openly stands against Catholic teaching when it comes to the sanctity of life, in this case protection of the unborn,\" Coakley said in a statement on X. TweetThe statement was shared hundreds of times on X, including by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the bishop emeritus of Hong Kong. Though criticism against Notre Dame's decision has come from top Catholic leadership in the U.S. throughout the week, the school has indicated that it will be standing by its plan to have Ostermann lead the institute. Notre Dame told EWTN News on Feb. 13 that Ostermann is \"a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar\" who is \"well prepared\" to serve in the role. At the same time the university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.” Ostermann herself has told media that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage.\" She has described herself as \"fully committed to maintaining an environment of academic freedom where a plurality of voices can flourish.\"")
The school has indicated it will stick by its decision for Professor Susan Ostermann to lead a university institute.
![Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/democratic-lawmaker-asks-ice-director-if-hes-going-to-hell-in-fiery-hearing-catholic-a-democratic-lawmaker-asked-u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice-acting-direc.jpg "Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.")
Top U.S. immigration officials defended their policies during a contentious hearing as lawmakers continue to negotiate potential ICE funding and reforms.
The Haitians “leaving South Florida and other places in the United States so abruptly would cause great economic damage to the United States,” Archbishop Thomas Wenski said.
The Varda Space Industries W-5 capsule returned to Earth in Koonibba in South Australia on Jan. 29, 2026, with the protection of a heat shield made of C-PICA, a cutting-edge material licensed from NASA and manufactured by Varda. The capsule’s successful return marks the first time a capsule protected entirely by Varda-made C-PICA has come back to Earth.
Read More
An unborn baby at 20 weeks. | Credit: Steve via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)
Jan 21, 2026 / 15:49 pm (CNA).
A federal health spending bill would impose a long-enforced ban on using taxpayer funds for elective abortion, known as the Hyde Amendment.
The U.S. House is set to consider the bill this week, which would fund the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. Lawmakers would need to pass spending bills in both chambers and send them to the White House by Jan. 30 or the government could face another partial shutdown.
Republican President Donald Trump had asked his party to be “flexible” in its approach to the provision in a separate funding bill. According to a Jan. 19 news release from the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill includes the provision “protecting the lives of unborn children” known as the Hyde Amendment.
The Hyde Amendment, which is not permanent law, was first included as a rider in federal spending bills in 1976. It was included consistently since then although some recent legislation and budget proposals have sometimes excluded it. The provision would ban federal funds for abortion except when the unborn child is conceived through rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.
Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the amendment is “a long-standing federal policy that’s been included for the last five decades and is popular with the American people.”
“Americans don’t want to pay for abortion on demand,” she said.
Many Democratic lawmakers have sought to eliminate the rider in recent years, saying it disproportionately limits abortion access for low-income women. Former President Joe Biden reversed his longtime support of the Hyde Amendment in the lead-up to the 2020 election and refused to include it in his spending proposals, saying: “If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.” But Republicans successfully negotiated the rider’s inclusion into spending bills.
In January 2025, Trump issued an executive order directing the government to enforce the Hyde Amendment. A year later, Trump urged Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” when lawmakers were negotiating the extension of health care subsidies related to the Affordable Care Act. A White House spokesperson also said the president would work with Congress to ensure the strongest possible pro-life protections.
The House eventually passed the extension without the Hyde Amendment after 17 Republicans joined Democrats to support the bill. The Senate has not yet advanced the measure, where the question of whether to include the Hyde Amendment has been a point of contention between Republicans and Democrats.
In mid-January, Trump announced a plan to change how health care subsidies are disbursed. There was no mention of the Hyde Amendment in the White House’s 827-word memo.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently lobbied for the inclusion of the Hyde Amendment in spending bills. On Jan. 14, the bishops sent a letter to Congress “to stress in the strongest possible terms that Hyde is essential for health care policy that protects human dignity.”
“Authentic health care and the protection of human life go hand in hand,” the letter said. “There can be no compromise on these two combined values.”
Read More
Pro-life advocates march through Washington, D.C., to protest abortion during the 2025 March for Life on Friday, Jan. 24, 2025. | Credit: Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/Middle East Images via AFP/Getty Images
Jan 21, 2026 / 06:00 am (CNA).
With tens of thousands of pro-life Americans gathering for the 53rd annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Jan. 23, EWTN will provide live coverage of the event.
The yearly national pro-life event marks the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, drawing together thousands to protest abortion and advocate for life. This year’s theme is “Life Is a Gift,” which the March for Life official website says emphasizes the “unshakeable conviction that life is very good and worthy of protection, no matter the circumstances.”
Thursday, Jan. 22: March for Life prayer vigil
5 p.m. ET: EWTN’s National March for Life coverage kicks off before the march with a night of prayer at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. The National Prayer Vigil for Life is held annually on the eve of the March for Life, bringing thousands of pilgrims across the nation together to pray for an end to abortion.
At 5 p.m. ET, EWTN will stream the opening Mass followed by the Holy Hour of the National Prayer Vigil for Life at 7 p.m. as pro-lifers pray and prepare for the upcoming march.
Friday, Jan. 23: March for Life
8 a.m. ET: The all-night prayer vigil will conclude with the closing Mass of the National Prayer Vigil for Life at the shrine, televised live by EWTN.
9:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET: EWTN will air coverage of the March for Life, featuring a keynote by Sarah Hurm, a single mom of four who went through a chemical abortion reversal to save the life of her child.
Other speakers include Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana; Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey; and March for Life President Jennie Bradley Lichter. The march will also feature pro-life entrepreneurs including Shawnte Mallory, founder of Labir Love And Care, and Debbie Biskey, CEO of Options for Her, as well as student activist Elizabeth Pillsbury Oliver, a convert to Catholicism who heads Georgetown University’s Right to Life group.
Rev. Irinej Dobrijevic, a Serbian Orthodox bishop of the Diocese of Eastern America, and Cissie Graham Lynch, spokesperson for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, will also speak at the event.
In addition, the Christian band Sanctus Real will perform at the rally and the Friends of Club 21 choir — a chorus of young adults with Down syndrome — will perform the national anthem.
4 p.m. ET: EWTN will broadcast the second annual Life Fest Mass, sponsored by the Sisters of Life and the Knights of Columbus as part of the Life Fest Rally. The Life Fest Rally begins the evening before the march with live music from Matt Maher and other Christian bands.
Saturday: Walk for Life West Coast
2:30 p.m. ET: The 21st annual Walk for Life West Coast will begin with a rally followed by the walk. EWTN will livestream coverage of the walk.
5 p.m. ET: EWTN will televise highlights from One Life (Una Vida), a one-day event centered on witnessing human dignity with a focus on the pro-life issues as well as other issues such as human trafficking and homelessness. The coverage will be hosted by Astrid Bennett and Patricia Sandoval, along with EWTN producers, during the march.
8 p.m. ET: EWTN will televise a pro-life Mass from Los Angeles, concluding the weekend’s pro-life coverage.
Read More
U.S. Vice President JD Vance. | Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Jan 16, 2026 / 16:40 pm (CNA).
Vice President JD Vance is scheduled to speak at the 2026 March for Life Rally in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23.
Vance, who is the nation’s second Catholic vice president, will join Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, among other speakers at the 53rd annual pro-life event, organizers said.
“Vice President Vance is grateful to the tens of thousands of Americans who travel to the National Mall each year to speak out in support of life and looks forward to joining them for the second consecutive year,” a spokesperson for the vice president told EWTN News.
Vance will be attending and speaking at the event for the second time as vice president. He spoke at the March for Life in 2025 where he delivered his first public remarks in the leadership position.
Addressing the crowd at the 2025 march, Vance said becoming a father helped to solidify his convictions that “an unborn life is worthy of protection.”
“You remind us that the March for Life is not a single event that takes place on a frigid January day,” he said to the crowd. “The March for Life is the work of the pro-life movement every day from this point forward,” he said.
“We will be back next year,” he said.
While President Donald Trump will not be attending the 2026 March for Life in person, he told EWTN News’ White House correspondent Owen Jensen on Jan. 16 he will address the crowd through a “beautiful” prerecorded message.
“And they’re going to play it,” he said. “And those are great people. I want to tell you they’re great people,” Trump said about attendees.
While the president will deliver the virtual message, the Trump administration is receiving backlash from pro-life activists following his claim that Republicans need to be “ flexible” with the Hyde Amendment and the reinstatement of funds to Planned Parenthood.
When asked about the Hyde Amendment, Trump said “you’re going to hear about it” in the message.
Vance is set to deliver his remarks at the pre-march rally at 11 a.m. on Jan. 23. The March for Life is scheduled to begin after the rally.
Read More