![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.
Religious nationalism, state control, terrorism, authoritarianism, and limits on women are among drivers of rising persecution globally, the International Christian Concern (ICC) report said.
A district court will weigh whether Cardinal Štěpán Trochta, imprisoned by the Nazis and later by the communists, was unlawfully interned in the 1950s.
![Nicaraguan dictatorship detains Bishop Abelardo Mata again #Catholic Nicaraguan police detained Bishop Emeritus Abelardo Mata again on June 30, just one day after his initial detention and subsequent release on June 29. The 80-year-old prelate is reportedly now under house arrest.Mata, bishop emeritus of Estelí, was arrested at a clinic where he had gone for a checkup for his pacemaker. This occurred the day after he celebrated a Mass in which he prayed for the persecuted Church in Nicaragua, an act that may have provoked the ire of the dictatorship of President Daniel Ortega and his wife and vice president, Rosario Murillo.Following the new detention, the bishop is reportedly under house arrest at his home in the town of Tisma, according to the Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa.In addition to the bishop, Father Francisco Morales, pastor of Calvary’s Cross Church in Estelí, where Mata celebrated Mass on June 28, and Deacon Wilfred Arauz Rodríguez were also detained. Both were released but remain subject to conditions.“Bishop Mata holds no administrative responsibilities within the Diocese of Estelí but continues to assist that diocese with its pastoral needs. He thus went to celebrate Mass last Sunday at the request of the parish priest. However, the Sandinista dictatorship has forbidden him from being in the department of Estelí,” Martha Patricia Molina explained on July 2 to ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. She is the author of the report “Nicaragua: A Persecuted Church,” which documents thousands of attacks by the dictatorship against Catholics since 2018.Molina further highlighted that “the Diocese of Estelí has always been a target of repression by the Sandinista dictatorship due to the hatred the dictatorial couple harbors toward Bishop Rolando José Álvarez, the apostolic administrator. Although Álvarez is not voicing opinions, the dictatorship views him as a constant focus of their attention.”Álvarez, apostolic administrator of Estelí since 2021, following Mata’s resignation, currently lives in Rome after being exiled in January 2024 while serving a 26-year prison sentence. The prelate was a consistent critic of the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship.Even though Álvarez is living in exile, Pope Francis confirmed him in his position as bishop of Matagalpa and apostolic administrator of Estelí.Molina also told ACI Prensa that the situation in Estelí “is being aggravated because Mata has been critical of the arbitrary actions committed by the Sandinista dictatorship. Currently, we only learn of 10% of the attacks committed against the Catholic Church because the rest go unreported due to the fear and caution priests and laypeople have about speaking out in the news media or on social media.”The researcher noted that the number of reports could reach “400 a day” if Catholics were able to speak freely in public.The ‘dire’ situation in EstelíMolina noted that the dictatorship is now persecuting the Church in a different way: “They had stopped abducting priests, but now they have gone back to it; furthermore, there are cases of priests having to report to police stations to give statements, and also there’s the constant monitoring and harassment of priests across the countryʼs various dioceses by the police.”The researcher pointed out that the Diocese of Estelí, “the one most persecuted by the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship after Matagalpa,” is currently forced to “operate without [its bishop] and with only 42% of its clergy. This makes pastoral work difficult and places a heavier workload on the active priests.”These priests must also take on “the duties of those who are in exile due to persecution, those who have passed away, or those who, for one reason or another, are not exercising their ministry in Nicaragua,” she pointed out.“The situation is worsening because the Sandinista dictatorship has banned diaconal and priestly ordinations in that diocese,” she emphasized. Ordinations are also forbidden in Matagalpa, Jinotega, and Siuna. None of the four dioceses has its bishop present, as they have all been exiled from Nicaragua.The need to be vigilant“We have to remain vigilant regarding Bishop Mata because his health is fragile and requires professional care. What worries me is that the last individuals who have been under surveillance by the dictatorship or the police have ended up in worse condition or even dead,” Arturo McFields, Nicaragua’s former ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), told ACI Prensa on July 2.A recent example of this situation is the case of Brooklyn Rivera, an Indigenous leader and political prisoner whom the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship held incommunicado for over 970 days. He passed away in late May at the age of 73, following several statements from the regime regarding his critical health condition.“If the dictatorship’s actions are not strongly denounced, the regime would not hesitate to bring about the death of Bishop Mata, as they harbor deep resentment toward this man of God because of his courage and clarity for many years,” McFields emphasized.An exiled Nicaraguan priest who prefers to remain anonymous to avoid reprisals told ACI Prensa that the situation involving Mata “is sad, but it can also be viewed as a sign of the fear the dictatorship has of an elderly bishop, an 80-year-old (with health issues) because his presence as a shepherd strengthens the lives of the faithful,” ensuring that “the faith remains alive.”The priest emphasized that he continues to prepare “our hearts for a future in which we can rebuild the Church in Nicaragua not only socially but also through faith because spiritual and pastoral reconstruction work must also be done.”Call for releaseFélix Maradiaga, president of the Freedom for Nicaragua Foundation, issued “an urgent call to the international community, human rights organizations, the world’s democracies, and all people of goodwill to remain vigilant, demand the immediate release of Bishop Juan Abelardo Mata and all arbitrarily detained members of the clergy, and firmly condemn this new escalation of repression.”“Nicaragua cannot normalize a dictatorship imprisoning priests, silencing pulpits, and persecuting the faith. The moral voice of the Church has historically stood with the Nicaraguan people during their most difficult times, and that is precisely why the regime seeks to intimidate it,” Maradiaga told ACI Prensa.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/nicaraguan-dictatorship-detains-bishop-abelardo-mata-again-catholic-nicaraguan-police-detained-bishop-emeritus-abelardo-mata-again-on-june-30-just-one-day-after-his-initial-detention-and-subsequent.webp "Nicaraguan dictatorship detains Bishop Abelardo Mata again #Catholic Nicaraguan police detained Bishop Emeritus Abelardo Mata again on June 30, just one day after his initial detention and subsequent release on June 29. The 80-year-old prelate is reportedly now under house arrest.Mata, bishop emeritus of Estelí, was arrested at a clinic where he had gone for a checkup for his pacemaker. This occurred the day after he celebrated a Mass in which he prayed for the persecuted Church in Nicaragua, an act that may have provoked the ire of the dictatorship of President Daniel Ortega and his wife and vice president, Rosario Murillo.Following the new detention, the bishop is reportedly under house arrest at his home in the town of Tisma, according to the Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa.In addition to the bishop, Father Francisco Morales, pastor of Calvary’s Cross Church in Estelí, where Mata celebrated Mass on June 28, and Deacon Wilfred Arauz Rodríguez were also detained. Both were released but remain subject to conditions.“Bishop Mata holds no administrative responsibilities within the Diocese of Estelí but continues to assist that diocese with its pastoral needs. He thus went to celebrate Mass last Sunday at the request of the parish priest. However, the Sandinista dictatorship has forbidden him from being in the department of Estelí,” Martha Patricia Molina explained on July 2 to ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. She is the author of the report “Nicaragua: A Persecuted Church,” which documents thousands of attacks by the dictatorship against Catholics since 2018.Molina further highlighted that “the Diocese of Estelí has always been a target of repression by the Sandinista dictatorship due to the hatred the dictatorial couple harbors toward Bishop Rolando José Álvarez, the apostolic administrator. Although Álvarez is not voicing opinions, the dictatorship views him as a constant focus of their attention.”Álvarez, apostolic administrator of Estelí since 2021, following Mata’s resignation, currently lives in Rome after being exiled in January 2024 while serving a 26-year prison sentence. The prelate was a consistent critic of the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship.Even though Álvarez is living in exile, Pope Francis confirmed him in his position as bishop of Matagalpa and apostolic administrator of Estelí.Molina also told ACI Prensa that the situation in Estelí “is being aggravated because Mata has been critical of the arbitrary actions committed by the Sandinista dictatorship. Currently, we only learn of 10% of the attacks committed against the Catholic Church because the rest go unreported due to the fear and caution priests and laypeople have about speaking out in the news media or on social media.”The researcher noted that the number of reports could reach “400 a day” if Catholics were able to speak freely in public.The ‘dire’ situation in EstelíMolina noted that the dictatorship is now persecuting the Church in a different way: “They had stopped abducting priests, but now they have gone back to it; furthermore, there are cases of priests having to report to police stations to give statements, and also there’s the constant monitoring and harassment of priests across the countryʼs various dioceses by the police.”The researcher pointed out that the Diocese of Estelí, “the one most persecuted by the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship after Matagalpa,” is currently forced to “operate without [its bishop] and with only 42% of its clergy. This makes pastoral work difficult and places a heavier workload on the active priests.”These priests must also take on “the duties of those who are in exile due to persecution, those who have passed away, or those who, for one reason or another, are not exercising their ministry in Nicaragua,” she pointed out.“The situation is worsening because the Sandinista dictatorship has banned diaconal and priestly ordinations in that diocese,” she emphasized. Ordinations are also forbidden in Matagalpa, Jinotega, and Siuna. None of the four dioceses has its bishop present, as they have all been exiled from Nicaragua.The need to be vigilant“We have to remain vigilant regarding Bishop Mata because his health is fragile and requires professional care. What worries me is that the last individuals who have been under surveillance by the dictatorship or the police have ended up in worse condition or even dead,” Arturo McFields, Nicaragua’s former ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), told ACI Prensa on July 2.A recent example of this situation is the case of Brooklyn Rivera, an Indigenous leader and political prisoner whom the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship held incommunicado for over 970 days. He passed away in late May at the age of 73, following several statements from the regime regarding his critical health condition.“If the dictatorship’s actions are not strongly denounced, the regime would not hesitate to bring about the death of Bishop Mata, as they harbor deep resentment toward this man of God because of his courage and clarity for many years,” McFields emphasized.An exiled Nicaraguan priest who prefers to remain anonymous to avoid reprisals told ACI Prensa that the situation involving Mata “is sad, but it can also be viewed as a sign of the fear the dictatorship has of an elderly bishop, an 80-year-old (with health issues) because his presence as a shepherd strengthens the lives of the faithful,” ensuring that “the faith remains alive.”The priest emphasized that he continues to prepare “our hearts for a future in which we can rebuild the Church in Nicaragua not only socially but also through faith because spiritual and pastoral reconstruction work must also be done.”Call for releaseFélix Maradiaga, president of the Freedom for Nicaragua Foundation, issued “an urgent call to the international community, human rights organizations, the world’s democracies, and all people of goodwill to remain vigilant, demand the immediate release of Bishop Juan Abelardo Mata and all arbitrarily detained members of the clergy, and firmly condemn this new escalation of repression.”“Nicaragua cannot normalize a dictatorship imprisoning priests, silencing pulpits, and persecuting the faith. The moral voice of the Church has historically stood with the Nicaraguan people during their most difficult times, and that is precisely why the regime seeks to intimidate it,” Maradiaga told ACI Prensa.This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.")
Mata was detained on June 29, released the same day, and as of June 30 reportedly is under house arrest. At a June 28 Mass he asked for prayers for the persecuted Church, triggering retaliation.
In an act of great devotion, the elderly cardinal reached the top with assistance, prayed the rosary and blessed those present with holy water.
“This is certainly deliberate,” Ukraine Freedom Project Founder Steven Moore said of the attack on the historic 11th-century Dormition Cathedral of Kyiv Pechersk Lavra.
More than six decades after Archbishop Josef Karel Matocha died under communist internment, a Czech court has formally recognized his imprisonment as unlawful.
