The program has been a fixture of the Church calendar since 2000, when it was launched by St. John Paul II.
Vietnamese youth drawn to the TLM, Holy Land priests highlight plight of Christian community, Philippine dioceses call for end of mining agreement, and more in this week’s world news roundup.
After reviewing a joint investigation, Cardinal Blase Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, has approved Father Michael Pfleger to return to ministry “effective immediately.”
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.
Several homes were looted and vandalized in a mainly Catholic village after the body of a Muslim man was found nearby, and 19 Indigenous villagers were arrested.
![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.
![Study shows society’s religious norms can affect children’s anxiety #Catholic Religious faith in society may do more than provide spiritual comfort and moral guidance; it could also help protect against anxiety disorders, according to a recent study published in Developmental Science.The research published in March explored if there were links between what societies value — such as independence and community — and anxiety disorder rates among children and adolescents over three decades.The study by Leonard Konstantin Kulisch, Ana Lorena Domínguez Rojas, Silvia Schneider, and Babett Voigt analyzed preexisting records and data during the years 1989 to 2022 from the World Value Survey, Global Burden of Disease study, Human Development Report, and Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study.The research found an emphasis on independence was linked to higher anxiety rates in “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) nations, while a greater emphasis on religious faith and interdependence correlated with less anxiety disorders globally.It also found that the importance of religious faith in socialization, and its link to interdependence, was associated with fewer anxiety disorders across 70 of the countries examined.The study did not compare religious versus nonreligious people or compare specific countries. While the effect sizes were small, it did find that “in countries where emphasis on religious faith in childrearing declined, youth anxiety rose,” Brandon Vaidyanathan, professor of sociology at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News.Country-based disparitiesIn WEIRD nations, the societies that have norms that are oriented toward independence were associated with more anxiety disorders, but the analyses found no significant association among the non-WEIRD countries.In “developing societies [a] shift toward independence accompanies gains in growth and quality of life that may offset its psychological costs, but in already developed societies, it may only intensify competition and achievement-pressure,” Vaidyanathan explained.“The difference between WEIRD and non-WEIRD societies on the independence finding is quite interesting, and the authors suggest that it is stage-dependent,” Vaidyanathan said.“But religion is universal in providing goods that do not depend on development stage” including “belonging, order, meaning, purpose, routine.”Family versus society predictorsThe study reports that religious socialization may serve as “a protective factor” against anxiety issues in children and adolescents, which “is at the communal level much more than the individual level,” Vaidyanathan said. So much so that the U.S. data suggested the societyʼs religious norms predicted childrenʼs anxiety better than the motherʼs own beliefs.“The religiosity of the surrounding social environment was a stronger predictor of childrenʼs anxiety level than the familyʼs own faith, suggesting the protection comes from the society more than family,” Vaidyanathan said. The global protective factor was not communal values in general but religious faith specifically, which Vaidyanathan called “textbook sociology” of religion.“Since Durkheim, sociologists have shown that integration into [a] shared moral community buffers individuals from anomie” or “normlessness,” he said.“Where the community has clear norms, attachments, obligations, limits … the individual doesnʼt have to shoulder the burden of ordering life themselves —which is where anxiety comes in.”“Thatʼs why the protection is at the group level more than individual or family level, and that is what gets eroded in a secularized society,” he said.Vaidyanathan also pointed to Peter Berger, a sociologist and Protestant theologian who coined the term “plausibility structures,” which are the social, cultural, and institutional environments that make certain values or religious beliefs seem believable and normal to a group of people.Bergerʼs “famous concept of ‘plausibility structures’ helps us understand that a religious framework reduces anxiety, only while the surrounding society keeps it plausible — when the surrounding community keeps talking and living as if it were true.”“When that fails, religion becomes one option among many and even a devout householdʼs commitment to their faith is not enough to shield a child in that society. So this is why community norms [or] religiosity matters much more than family belief,” Vaidyanathan said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/study-shows-societys-religious-norms-can-affect-childrens-anxiety-catholic-religious-faith-in-society-may-do-more-than-provide-spiritual-comfort-and-moral-guidance-it-could-also-he.jpg "Study shows society’s religious norms can affect children’s anxiety #Catholic Religious faith in society may do more than provide spiritual comfort and moral guidance; it could also help protect against anxiety disorders, according to a recent study published in Developmental Science.The research published in March explored if there were links between what societies value — such as independence and community — and anxiety disorder rates among children and adolescents over three decades.The study by Leonard Konstantin Kulisch, Ana Lorena Domínguez Rojas, Silvia Schneider, and Babett Voigt analyzed preexisting records and data during the years 1989 to 2022 from the World Value Survey, Global Burden of Disease study, Human Development Report, and Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study.The research found an emphasis on independence was linked to higher anxiety rates in “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) nations, while a greater emphasis on religious faith and interdependence correlated with less anxiety disorders globally.It also found that the importance of religious faith in socialization, and its link to interdependence, was associated with fewer anxiety disorders across 70 of the countries examined.The study did not compare religious versus nonreligious people or compare specific countries. While the effect sizes were small, it did find that “in countries where emphasis on religious faith in childrearing declined, youth anxiety rose,” Brandon Vaidyanathan, professor of sociology at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News.Country-based disparitiesIn WEIRD nations, the societies that have norms that are oriented toward independence were associated with more anxiety disorders, but the analyses found no significant association among the non-WEIRD countries.In “developing societies [a] shift toward independence accompanies gains in growth and quality of life that may offset its psychological costs, but in already developed societies, it may only intensify competition and achievement-pressure,” Vaidyanathan explained.“The difference between WEIRD and non-WEIRD societies on the independence finding is quite interesting, and the authors suggest that it is stage-dependent,” Vaidyanathan said.“But religion is universal in providing goods that do not depend on development stage” including “belonging, order, meaning, purpose, routine.”Family versus society predictorsThe study reports that religious socialization may serve as “a protective factor” against anxiety issues in children and adolescents, which “is at the communal level much more than the individual level,” Vaidyanathan said. So much so that the U.S. data suggested the societyʼs religious norms predicted childrenʼs anxiety better than the motherʼs own beliefs.“The religiosity of the surrounding social environment was a stronger predictor of childrenʼs anxiety level than the familyʼs own faith, suggesting the protection comes from the society more than family,” Vaidyanathan said. The global protective factor was not communal values in general but religious faith specifically, which Vaidyanathan called “textbook sociology” of religion.“Since Durkheim, sociologists have shown that integration into [a] shared moral community buffers individuals from anomie” or “normlessness,” he said.“Where the community has clear norms, attachments, obligations, limits … the individual doesnʼt have to shoulder the burden of ordering life themselves —which is where anxiety comes in.”“Thatʼs why the protection is at the group level more than individual or family level, and that is what gets eroded in a secularized society,” he said.Vaidyanathan also pointed to Peter Berger, a sociologist and Protestant theologian who coined the term “plausibility structures,” which are the social, cultural, and institutional environments that make certain values or religious beliefs seem believable and normal to a group of people.Bergerʼs “famous concept of ‘plausibility structures’ helps us understand that a religious framework reduces anxiety, only while the surrounding society keeps it plausible — when the surrounding community keeps talking and living as if it were true.”“When that fails, religion becomes one option among many and even a devout householdʼs commitment to their faith is not enough to shield a child in that society. So this is why community norms [or] religiosity matters much more than family belief,” Vaidyanathan said.")
The study, which looked at data over three decades, reports that a country’s religious values may serve as “a protective factor” against anxiety issues in children and adolescents.
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) criticized an executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The U.S. Catholic bishops are reviewing and monitoring the order.
![Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools #Catholic A federal court heard oral arguments on Aug. 5 about whether an Oklahoma law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.Oklahoma established a charter school system in 1999, which provides public funds for privately run K–12 schools to which parents can send their children instead of a public school operated by a school district. The law only allows “nonsectarian” applicants, which prevents any participation from schools that have a religious identity.In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved an application from a proposed Catholic charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — which led to a legal challenge from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who opposed religious charter schools.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided against the school, finding that charter schools are public schools and that public schools must be secular. St. Isidore appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that resulted in a 4-4 deadlock with no majority opinion because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a conflict of interest and recused herself.Amid no clear guidance from the federal courts, a Jewish organization — National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation — filed an application to set up a charter school, which was denied. The group, represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund, filed a new lawsuit and asked a federal district court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants.“Oklahoma makes room in its charter program for schools of all shapes and sizes, from those focused on science and fine arts to language immersion and classical education,” Daniel Chen, a Becket attorney representing the Jewish foundation, said in a statement.“The one it refuses to make room for is a faith-based school,” Chen added. “That is religious discrimination, plain and simple, and the state deserves a failing grade for it.”Chen told EWTN News that Becket is asking the federal court to immediately allow National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to set up a charter school, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that requires government programs to allow religious institutions the same access as secular institutions.“They’re private actors,” he said. “And because they’re private actors, they cannot be excluded from participating in a public benefits program.”Chen said the federal district court is not bound by the precedent of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because that is a state court, so it could rule in favor of the school. He also said if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, he hopes Barrett can weigh in to break the 4-4 deadlock.“We’re hoping that [for] our case, there wouldn’t have to be any recusals,” he said.School board’s hands are tiedAlthough the charter school board denied the application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, one of its lawyers at First Liberty Institute explained to EWTN News that its hands are tied by the statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.“They’re following that order,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty and the lawyer representing SCSB. “But [they] would be happy if the federal court didn’t [require the school board] to engage in that kind of discrimination.”Sasser said the SCSB does not want to exclude an applicant “simply because it’s religious” and would rather evaluate applicants “just based on the merits.” But he said the order “makes them exclude religious schools just because they’re religious.”“They want to maximize all of the various choices and opportunities for parents,” he added.Sasser said he hopes the question goes to the U.S. Supreme Court again so “we’ll get an answer — a real answer.” He said it would provide more clarity for the school board, which “needs an answer.”John Meiser, director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at the University of Notre Dame and the lawyer who represented St. Isidore at the Supreme Court, told EWTN News that the question ultimately comes down to whether charter schools are private or public institutions.In Oklahoma, he said charter schools “are called public schools” and that label “introduces a confusion that I don’t think would be present if they chose any other word.”He said Supreme Court precedent is clear that religious institutions must have equal access to government programs available to private institutions, but if a charter school is a “government school,” that “doesn’t apply” because the government “doesn’t and can’t run religious schools.”In spite of the label, Meiser said charter schools in Oklahoma are “formed and designed and run by private groups” and people who work there “are private employees.” He said the structure “looks just like a government contract” and funding from the government “doesn’t turn all those private contractors into the government itself.”“The dispute is really just about, ‘Well is a charter school in some way different?’” he said.Although Meiser said he is not aware of any ongoing Catholic efforts to recreate a charter school, he said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s constitutional arguments for equal access “would presumably apply to all religious operators of schools, and so it would open the door to a Catholic charter school or other religiously based charter school.”Attorney general stands firmDrummond, who remains Oklahoma’s attorney general, is standing firm in opposing the creation of religious charter schools and is fighting against National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s efforts."This matter was resolved when the state Supreme Courtʼs ruling to prevent taxpayer funded religious charter schools was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year,” Leslie Berger, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, told EWTN News.Drummond has also criticized the charter school board in public statements surrounding this legal battle in March, accusing the SCSB of “playing politics with the taxpayers' money” and alleged it “manipulated the record [about why National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s application was rejected] to make that lawsuit easier to lose — not win.”"A state agency that deliberately hobbles its own legal position is not doing its job — it is betraying Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said. “I will not allow that.”Drummond has garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for opposing the creation of religious charter schools.Attorneys for FFRF are representing seven Oklahomans who oppose their tax money being used to support religious charter schools.“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”It’s unclear when the federal court will issue its ruling, but National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the state so it can begin operating a school while the litigation plays out.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/federal-court-hears-arguments-on-oklahomas-ban-for-religious-charter-schools-catholic-a-federal-court-heard-oral-arguments-on-aug-5-about-whether-an-oklahoma-law-banning-religious-charter-s.jpg "Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools #Catholic A federal court heard oral arguments on Aug. 5 about whether an Oklahoma law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.Oklahoma established a charter school system in 1999, which provides public funds for privately run K–12 schools to which parents can send their children instead of a public school operated by a school district. The law only allows “nonsectarian” applicants, which prevents any participation from schools that have a religious identity.In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved an application from a proposed Catholic charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — which led to a legal challenge from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who opposed religious charter schools.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided against the school, finding that charter schools are public schools and that public schools must be secular. St. Isidore appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that resulted in a 4-4 deadlock with no majority opinion because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a conflict of interest and recused herself.Amid no clear guidance from the federal courts, a Jewish organization — National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation — filed an application to set up a charter school, which was denied. The group, represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund, filed a new lawsuit and asked a federal district court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants.“Oklahoma makes room in its charter program for schools of all shapes and sizes, from those focused on science and fine arts to language immersion and classical education,” Daniel Chen, a Becket attorney representing the Jewish foundation, said in a statement.“The one it refuses to make room for is a faith-based school,” Chen added. “That is religious discrimination, plain and simple, and the state deserves a failing grade for it.”Chen told EWTN News that Becket is asking the federal court to immediately allow National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to set up a charter school, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that requires government programs to allow religious institutions the same access as secular institutions.“They’re private actors,” he said. “And because they’re private actors, they cannot be excluded from participating in a public benefits program.”Chen said the federal district court is not bound by the precedent of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because that is a state court, so it could rule in favor of the school. He also said if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, he hopes Barrett can weigh in to break the 4-4 deadlock.“We’re hoping that [for] our case, there wouldn’t have to be any recusals,” he said.School board’s hands are tiedAlthough the charter school board denied the application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, one of its lawyers at First Liberty Institute explained to EWTN News that its hands are tied by the statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.“They’re following that order,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty and the lawyer representing SCSB. “But [they] would be happy if the federal court didn’t [require the school board] to engage in that kind of discrimination.”Sasser said the SCSB does not want to exclude an applicant “simply because it’s religious” and would rather evaluate applicants “just based on the merits.” But he said the order “makes them exclude religious schools just because they’re religious.”“They want to maximize all of the various choices and opportunities for parents,” he added.Sasser said he hopes the question goes to the U.S. Supreme Court again so “we’ll get an answer — a real answer.” He said it would provide more clarity for the school board, which “needs an answer.”John Meiser, director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at the University of Notre Dame and the lawyer who represented St. Isidore at the Supreme Court, told EWTN News that the question ultimately comes down to whether charter schools are private or public institutions.In Oklahoma, he said charter schools “are called public schools” and that label “introduces a confusion that I don’t think would be present if they chose any other word.”He said Supreme Court precedent is clear that religious institutions must have equal access to government programs available to private institutions, but if a charter school is a “government school,” that “doesn’t apply” because the government “doesn’t and can’t run religious schools.”In spite of the label, Meiser said charter schools in Oklahoma are “formed and designed and run by private groups” and people who work there “are private employees.” He said the structure “looks just like a government contract” and funding from the government “doesn’t turn all those private contractors into the government itself.”“The dispute is really just about, ‘Well is a charter school in some way different?’” he said.Although Meiser said he is not aware of any ongoing Catholic efforts to recreate a charter school, he said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s constitutional arguments for equal access “would presumably apply to all religious operators of schools, and so it would open the door to a Catholic charter school or other religiously based charter school.”Attorney general stands firmDrummond, who remains Oklahoma’s attorney general, is standing firm in opposing the creation of religious charter schools and is fighting against National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s efforts.\"This matter was resolved when the state Supreme Courtʼs ruling to prevent taxpayer funded religious charter schools was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year,” Leslie Berger, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, told EWTN News.Drummond has also criticized the charter school board in public statements surrounding this legal battle in March, accusing the SCSB of “playing politics with the taxpayers' money” and alleged it “manipulated the record [about why National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s application was rejected] to make that lawsuit easier to lose — not win.”\"A state agency that deliberately hobbles its own legal position is not doing its job — it is betraying Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said. “I will not allow that.”Drummond has garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for opposing the creation of religious charter schools.Attorneys for FFRF are representing seven Oklahomans who oppose their tax money being used to support religious charter schools.“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”It’s unclear when the federal court will issue its ruling, but National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the state so it can begin operating a school while the litigation plays out.")
Oklahoma’s Statewide Charter School Board wants to approve religious charter schools, but a ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court and efforts by the state attorney general prevent it from doing so.
Bishop Daniel E. Garcia said the Voting Rights Act was born from the sacrifice of those who fought to secure equal access to the ballot, especially for communities of color long denied that right.
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.”
![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.
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