rules

Department of Justice says government can’t restrict funding based on religious status #Catholic The U.S. Department of Justice this week said that the government’s practice of restricting federal funding from religious activities is “presumptively unconstitutional,” paving the way for greater public funding of religious groups.Such restrictions on federal funding are made “without any compelling government interest,” the Justice Department said in an Aug. 25 memorandum opinion issued to the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services. In its 2004 decision Locke v. Davey, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public authorities are free to withhold funding from programs and activities that are explicitly religious in nature. In its memorandum, however, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said restricting federal funding based on either the religious status of an organization or the use of funds for religious purposes is “not required” under the U.S. Constitution. Such restrictions “discriminate based on anticipated religious use without any compelling governmental interest,” the memorandum said, and as a result they “violate the Free Exercise Clause.” “Use-based religious restrictions on generally available federal funding programs are presumptively unconstitutional,” the document said.The memorandum specifically addressed programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which controls billions of dollars in federal funding. It was not immediately clear if the directive applied to other federal departments. A spokesman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The religious freedom legal group First Liberty, meanwhile, hailed the memorandum as “a major victory for religious liberty.” Faith-based organizations and schools “can now apply for and utilize federal grants without scrubbing the religious aspects of their programs,” the group said. First Liberty argued that opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel “serve as binding legal guidance for the executive branch,” meaning the memo “effectively instructs all federal agencies to rewrite their grant-making rules to align with this new standard.”The group noted that one of its network attorneys is Joshua Davey, part of the namesake of the 2004 Supreme Court case that established the precedent of restricting federal funds for religious activities and groups. That decision “has never been formally overturned,” First Liberty said, but “that could change in the very near future.”
Read More

Department of Justice says government can’t restrict funding based on religious status #Catholic The U.S. Department of Justice this week said that the government’s practice of restricting federal funding from religious activities is “presumptively unconstitutional,” paving the way for greater public funding of religious groups.Such restrictions on federal funding are made “without any compelling government interest,” the Justice Department said in an Aug. 25 memorandum opinion issued to the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services. In its 2004 decision Locke v. Davey, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public authorities are free to withhold funding from programs and activities that are explicitly religious in nature. In its memorandum, however, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said restricting federal funding based on either the religious status of an organization or the use of funds for religious purposes is “not required” under the U.S. Constitution. Such restrictions “discriminate based on anticipated religious use without any compelling governmental interest,” the memorandum said, and as a result they “violate the Free Exercise Clause.” “Use-based religious restrictions on generally available federal funding programs are presumptively unconstitutional,” the document said.The memorandum specifically addressed programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which controls billions of dollars in federal funding. It was not immediately clear if the directive applied to other federal departments. A spokesman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The religious freedom legal group First Liberty, meanwhile, hailed the memorandum as “a major victory for religious liberty.” Faith-based organizations and schools “can now apply for and utilize federal grants without scrubbing the religious aspects of their programs,” the group said. First Liberty argued that opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel “serve as binding legal guidance for the executive branch,” meaning the memo “effectively instructs all federal agencies to rewrite their grant-making rules to align with this new standard.”The group noted that one of its network attorneys is Joshua Davey, part of the namesake of the 2004 Supreme Court case that established the precedent of restricting federal funds for religious activities and groups. That decision “has never been formally overturned,” First Liberty said, but “that could change in the very near future.”

unitedyam

Such restrictions on federal funding are made “without any compelling government interest,” the Justice Department said in a memorandum opinion.

Read More
U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to require 12-person juries for criminal cases #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases. The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license. Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules. Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term. In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.” The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.” The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases. That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.” They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Read More

U.S. bishops urge Supreme Court to require 12-person juries for criminal cases #Catholic The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require 12-person juries in criminal cases, with the bishops arguing against a Florida policy allowing smaller six-person juries in many cases. The case Kian v. Florida, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June, was brought after Florida chiropractor Hamed Kian was convicted of five felony counts for practicing without a license. Kian was found guilty by a six-person jury; the state of Florida only requires 12-person juries in capital cases. Several other states have similar rules. Kian sued the state arguing that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a 12-person jury. He lost his appeal at the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida and subsequently appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which will hold arguments in the case in its upcoming term. In their amicus filing, the U.S. bishops argued that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors; the bishops pointed to “Founding-era dictionaries” as well as “common-law history.” The bishops said they have a “strong interest” in the case, insofar as the Catholic Church over the centuries has played a “central role in shaping the legal culture from which the common-law jury emerged.”Among the historical examples of 12-person juries the bishops cited include the General Fundamentals of Plymouth, “the earliest codified legal system by English colonists in North America,” which guaranteed that “all trials” would be “tried by a jury of twelve good and lawful men.” The prelates disputed the Supreme Court’s 1970 ruling in the case Williams v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not require 12 jurors in court cases. That ruling in part “discard[ed] the robust common-law history of the jury right,” while the high court in that decision “set far too high a bar for historical relevance,” they said.The bishops further cited the biblical commandment to “love your neighbor justly.” They pointed to the Catholic catechism’s mandate for public authorities to “dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone.” They urged the Supreme Court to “return to its previously long-held understanding that the Constitution entitles criminal defendants to a jury of twelve of their peers.”Numerous advocacy groups have also filed amicus briefs advocating the 12-juror standard, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, several dozen current and former prosecutors, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

unitedyam

The bishops argue that the term “jury” in the U.S. has historically referenced a body of 12 jurors.

Read More
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.
Read More

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.

unitedyam

The development formalizes a policy of the Trump administration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has urged government action in this area.

Read More
7 things to know about St. Clare of Assisi, the patron saint of television #Catholic On Aug. 11, the Catholic Church celebrates St. Clare of Assisi, one of the most beloved saints of the Middle Ages. Best known as the founder of the Poor Clares and a close friend of St. Francis of Assisi, Clareʼs life was marked by radical trust in God, profound Eucharistic devotion, and remarkable courage.Here are seven things to know about the woman whose witness continues to inspire Catholics more than 800 years later:1. She came from a wealthy noble family — but left everything behind.Clare was born in Assisi, Italy, on July 16, 1194, into one of the cityʼs most prominent noble families. As a young woman, she enjoyed a privileged upbringing and was expected to marry into another wealthy household.Instead, after hearing Francis — who is now known as St. Francis of Assisi — preach about living the Gospel with radical simplicity, Clare felt called to dedicate her life entirely to Christ. At age 18, she secretly left her family home on Palm Sunday night in 1212 to begin a new life of poverty.Her family attempted to bring her home by force, but Clare firmly refused and cut off her hair as a sign that she belonged to God alone.2. She founded the Poor Clares.With Francis' guidance, Clare established a community of women at the Church of San Damiano outside Assisi that would become known as the Poor Clares. She eventually became abbess and led the monastery for more than 40 years.Despite their similarities, Franciscans and Poor Clares have distinctive differences.The Franciscans, founded by St. Francis of Assisi in 1209, include men who are called to live the Gospel through poverty, fraternity, and service, often ministering in parishes, schools, missions, and charitable works around the world. The Poor Clares, founded by St. Clare of Assisi in 1212 with the guidance of St. Francis, are a contemplative order of women who live a cloistered life centered on prayer, the Eucharist, and community life.While both embrace the Franciscan ideals of simplicity and poverty, the Franciscans are primarily active in apostolic ministry, whereas the Poor Clares dedicate their lives to supporting the Church through prayer and contemplation.3. She was the first woman to write a rule for a religious order that received papal approval.One of St. Clareʼs most significant contributions to the Church was authoring the Rule for the Poor Clares. While many womenʼs religious communities of the time followed rules adapted from existing monastic traditions, Clare aimed to preserve the distinctive charism she had embraced alongside St. Francis.For decades, Clare resisted pressure from Church authorities to modify her communityʼs way of life by accepting property or financial endowments. Instead, she carefully composed a rule that reflected the Franciscan ideal while providing practical guidance for the sisters' communal life, prayer, governance, and observance of enclosure.On Aug. 9, 1253, just two days before Clareʼs death, Pope Innocent IV formally approved her rule, making her the first woman in the history of the Church to write a rule for a religious order that received papal approval. The rule remains the foundation of Poor Clare communities throughout the world and stands as a lasting testament to Clareʼs spiritual leadership and unwavering commitment to the Franciscan vision.4. She had an extraordinary devotion to the Eucharist.Perhaps no aspect of Clareʼs spirituality stands out more than her love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. She spent countless hours in prayer before the Eucharist and encouraged her sisters to center their lives on Christʼs real presence.This Eucharistic devotion became especially evident during one of the most famous events of her life.One of the best-known stories about Clare occurred when invading Saracen mercenaries threatened the convent of San Damiano. Although seriously ill, Clare asked that the Blessed Sacrament be brought to her. Holding the monstrance before the attackers, she prayed for Godʼs protection, and the invaders fled.5. She is the patron saint of television.Near the end of Clare’s life, illness prevented her from attending Mass. According to tradition, she was miraculously able to see and hear the Christmas midnight Mass in 1252 being celebrated on the wall of her room in the convent. Because of this extraordinary supernatural event, Pope Pius XII declared her the patron saint of television in 1958.6. She and St. Francis shared one of the Churchʼs most remarkable friendships.The friendship between St. Clare and St. Francis of Assisi is one of the most enduring examples of holy companionship in Church history. Although Francis played a pivotal role in Clareʼs discernment and inspired her embrace of a life of poverty, their relationship was marked by mutual respect and a shared desire to follow Christ above all else. Francis entrusted Clare with establishing and leading the community at San Damiano, while Clare remained a steadfast guardian of the Franciscan charism, especially after Francis' death in 1226.Despite living separate vocations, the two maintained a deep spiritual bond rooted in prayer, humility, and service to the Gospel. More than eight centuries later, their example continues to inspire men and women to support one another in faithfully responding to Godʼs call.7. Her influence continues more than 800 years later.On Aug. 11, 1253, Clare died at the age of 59. She was canonized by Pope Alexander IV on Sept. 26, 1255.More than 800 years after she left her family home to follow Christ, St. Clareʼs witness continues to resonate with Catholics across the globe. Her unwavering trust in Godʼs providence, profound love for the Eucharist, and commitment to a life of simplicity remain as relevant today as they were in the 13th century.Through the monasteries of the Poor Clares, her spirit of contemplative prayer and poverty lives on, with thousands of religious sisters dedicating their lives to praying for the needs of the Church and the world.Today, there are approximately 20,000 Poor Clare nuns worldwide. They live in more than 500 monasteries in over 70 countries.
Read More

7 things to know about St. Clare of Assisi, the patron saint of television #Catholic On Aug. 11, the Catholic Church celebrates St. Clare of Assisi, one of the most beloved saints of the Middle Ages. Best known as the founder of the Poor Clares and a close friend of St. Francis of Assisi, Clareʼs life was marked by radical trust in God, profound Eucharistic devotion, and remarkable courage.Here are seven things to know about the woman whose witness continues to inspire Catholics more than 800 years later:1. She came from a wealthy noble family — but left everything behind.Clare was born in Assisi, Italy, on July 16, 1194, into one of the cityʼs most prominent noble families. As a young woman, she enjoyed a privileged upbringing and was expected to marry into another wealthy household.Instead, after hearing Francis — who is now known as St. Francis of Assisi — preach about living the Gospel with radical simplicity, Clare felt called to dedicate her life entirely to Christ. At age 18, she secretly left her family home on Palm Sunday night in 1212 to begin a new life of poverty.Her family attempted to bring her home by force, but Clare firmly refused and cut off her hair as a sign that she belonged to God alone.2. She founded the Poor Clares.With Francis' guidance, Clare established a community of women at the Church of San Damiano outside Assisi that would become known as the Poor Clares. She eventually became abbess and led the monastery for more than 40 years.Despite their similarities, Franciscans and Poor Clares have distinctive differences.The Franciscans, founded by St. Francis of Assisi in 1209, include men who are called to live the Gospel through poverty, fraternity, and service, often ministering in parishes, schools, missions, and charitable works around the world. The Poor Clares, founded by St. Clare of Assisi in 1212 with the guidance of St. Francis, are a contemplative order of women who live a cloistered life centered on prayer, the Eucharist, and community life.While both embrace the Franciscan ideals of simplicity and poverty, the Franciscans are primarily active in apostolic ministry, whereas the Poor Clares dedicate their lives to supporting the Church through prayer and contemplation.3. She was the first woman to write a rule for a religious order that received papal approval.One of St. Clareʼs most significant contributions to the Church was authoring the Rule for the Poor Clares. While many womenʼs religious communities of the time followed rules adapted from existing monastic traditions, Clare aimed to preserve the distinctive charism she had embraced alongside St. Francis.For decades, Clare resisted pressure from Church authorities to modify her communityʼs way of life by accepting property or financial endowments. Instead, she carefully composed a rule that reflected the Franciscan ideal while providing practical guidance for the sisters' communal life, prayer, governance, and observance of enclosure.On Aug. 9, 1253, just two days before Clareʼs death, Pope Innocent IV formally approved her rule, making her the first woman in the history of the Church to write a rule for a religious order that received papal approval. The rule remains the foundation of Poor Clare communities throughout the world and stands as a lasting testament to Clareʼs spiritual leadership and unwavering commitment to the Franciscan vision.4. She had an extraordinary devotion to the Eucharist.Perhaps no aspect of Clareʼs spirituality stands out more than her love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. She spent countless hours in prayer before the Eucharist and encouraged her sisters to center their lives on Christʼs real presence.This Eucharistic devotion became especially evident during one of the most famous events of her life.One of the best-known stories about Clare occurred when invading Saracen mercenaries threatened the convent of San Damiano. Although seriously ill, Clare asked that the Blessed Sacrament be brought to her. Holding the monstrance before the attackers, she prayed for Godʼs protection, and the invaders fled.5. She is the patron saint of television.Near the end of Clare’s life, illness prevented her from attending Mass. According to tradition, she was miraculously able to see and hear the Christmas midnight Mass in 1252 being celebrated on the wall of her room in the convent. Because of this extraordinary supernatural event, Pope Pius XII declared her the patron saint of television in 1958.6. She and St. Francis shared one of the Churchʼs most remarkable friendships.The friendship between St. Clare and St. Francis of Assisi is one of the most enduring examples of holy companionship in Church history. Although Francis played a pivotal role in Clareʼs discernment and inspired her embrace of a life of poverty, their relationship was marked by mutual respect and a shared desire to follow Christ above all else. Francis entrusted Clare with establishing and leading the community at San Damiano, while Clare remained a steadfast guardian of the Franciscan charism, especially after Francis' death in 1226.Despite living separate vocations, the two maintained a deep spiritual bond rooted in prayer, humility, and service to the Gospel. More than eight centuries later, their example continues to inspire men and women to support one another in faithfully responding to Godʼs call.7. Her influence continues more than 800 years later.On Aug. 11, 1253, Clare died at the age of 59. She was canonized by Pope Alexander IV on Sept. 26, 1255.More than 800 years after she left her family home to follow Christ, St. Clareʼs witness continues to resonate with Catholics across the globe. Her unwavering trust in Godʼs providence, profound love for the Eucharist, and commitment to a life of simplicity remain as relevant today as they were in the 13th century.Through the monasteries of the Poor Clares, her spirit of contemplative prayer and poverty lives on, with thousands of religious sisters dedicating their lives to praying for the needs of the Church and the world.Today, there are approximately 20,000 Poor Clare nuns worldwide. They live in more than 500 monasteries in over 70 countries.

unitedyam

The Catholic Church celebrates the feast of St. Clare of Assisi on Aug. 11.

Read More
Catholic legal group criticizes Trump’s birthright-citizenship order as bishops plan to monitor #Catholic A Catholic legal group criticized President Donald Trump’s executive orders to restrict birthright citizenship, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is reviewing and monitoring them.The executive orders issued Aug. 6 direct the government to stop allowing foreign visitors to enter the United States on short‑term visas for the purpose of giving birth and impose a narrower limit on birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a broader attempt to end citizenship for children born to people in the country temporarily or unlawfully.One executive order would end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are not U.S. citizens and engage in a commercial transaction or fraudulent activity to ensure the mother is inside U.S. territory to give birth. It also would end birthright citizenship for a child born of a parent considered an “alien enemy,” including members of terrorist organizations.A second executive order titled “Ending Birth Tourism” authorizes federal departments to implement rules that prevent the entry of pregnant foreign women seeking to give birth in the United States and allow removal if they enter the country. The order refers to noncitizens entering the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth on American soil and efforts from a foreign national to coordinate such entries.Under existing State Department guidance, consular officers can deny a B‑1/B‑2 visitor visa if they believe the applicant’s primary purpose is to give birth in the U.S. to obtain citizenship for the child.Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), criticized the birthright citizenship executive order in a statement to EWTN News.“The Supreme Court has already spoken: birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution,” Gallagher said.“This latest attempt by the Trump administration to circumvent settled law only creates needless fear and uncertainty for immigrant families,” she added. “Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and welcome the stranger — not seek new ways to exclude them.”The USCCB has not taken a clear position on the executive orders yet, but it is monitoring how they are enforced and potential judicial proceedings.“The USCCB supports the application of constitutional principles and the rule of law in a manner consistent with the God-given dignity of every human person,” USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi told EWTN News.“We’re reviewing the executive orders and will continue to monitor for administrative actions taken and possible judicial proceedings concerning their implementation,” she said.In June, the Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment of the Constitution protects automatic birthright citizenship with few exceptions. The protection extends to children who are born to people who are in the country unlawfully.Although the majority opinion did not directly address “birth tourism,” it did clearly say birthright citizenship applies to the children of parents who are “unlawfully or temporarily present” in the country.The “birth tourism” concern appeared in the dissents authored by both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas.Alito, in his dissent, wrote that he believed the majority’s opinion protects birthright citizenship to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’” though saying he does not not agree with the ruling.Thomas wrote in his dissent that people have taken advantage of birthright citizenship through “birth tourism” and said there are companies that “collect large fees from wealthy foreigners to facilitate their trips to give birth in the United States.”However, in the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that words like “temporary” and “lawful” do not appear in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment: “For a simple reason: they did not matter.”Ashley Feasley, a legal expert for the Immigration Law and Policy Initiative at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News she believes the executive orders are “an attempt to undermine” the Supreme Court.“Although they will almost certainly face legal challenge, in the interim they will place a profound burden on some of the most vulnerable migrants, pregnant women, and on the officers who work diligently to defend our borders,” she said.“Requiring Department of Homeland Security officials to interrogate women, many of whom have legal visas, about their pregnancies, even turning them away from ports of entry without clearly defined criteria for doing so, risks harming both woman and unborn child and diverts DHS officers' attention from the vital missions of border security and trade facilitation,” Feasley said. Legal challenges have not yet been filed.
Read More

Catholic legal group criticizes Trump’s birthright-citizenship order as bishops plan to monitor #Catholic A Catholic legal group criticized President Donald Trump’s executive orders to restrict birthright citizenship, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is reviewing and monitoring them.The executive orders issued Aug. 6 direct the government to stop allowing foreign visitors to enter the United States on short‑term visas for the purpose of giving birth and impose a narrower limit on birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a broader attempt to end citizenship for children born to people in the country temporarily or unlawfully.One executive order would end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are not U.S. citizens and engage in a commercial transaction or fraudulent activity to ensure the mother is inside U.S. territory to give birth. It also would end birthright citizenship for a child born of a parent considered an “alien enemy,” including members of terrorist organizations.A second executive order titled “Ending Birth Tourism” authorizes federal departments to implement rules that prevent the entry of pregnant foreign women seeking to give birth in the United States and allow removal if they enter the country. The order refers to noncitizens entering the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth on American soil and efforts from a foreign national to coordinate such entries.Under existing State Department guidance, consular officers can deny a B‑1/B‑2 visitor visa if they believe the applicant’s primary purpose is to give birth in the U.S. to obtain citizenship for the child.Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), criticized the birthright citizenship executive order in a statement to EWTN News.“The Supreme Court has already spoken: birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution,” Gallagher said.“This latest attempt by the Trump administration to circumvent settled law only creates needless fear and uncertainty for immigrant families,” she added. “Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and welcome the stranger — not seek new ways to exclude them.”The USCCB has not taken a clear position on the executive orders yet, but it is monitoring how they are enforced and potential judicial proceedings.“The USCCB supports the application of constitutional principles and the rule of law in a manner consistent with the God-given dignity of every human person,” USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi told EWTN News.“We’re reviewing the executive orders and will continue to monitor for administrative actions taken and possible judicial proceedings concerning their implementation,” she said.In June, the Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment of the Constitution protects automatic birthright citizenship with few exceptions. The protection extends to children who are born to people who are in the country unlawfully.Although the majority opinion did not directly address “birth tourism,” it did clearly say birthright citizenship applies to the children of parents who are “unlawfully or temporarily present” in the country.The “birth tourism” concern appeared in the dissents authored by both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas.Alito, in his dissent, wrote that he believed the majority’s opinion protects birthright citizenship to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’” though saying he does not not agree with the ruling.Thomas wrote in his dissent that people have taken advantage of birthright citizenship through “birth tourism” and said there are companies that “collect large fees from wealthy foreigners to facilitate their trips to give birth in the United States.”However, in the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that words like “temporary” and “lawful” do not appear in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment: “For a simple reason: they did not matter.”Ashley Feasley, a legal expert for the Immigration Law and Policy Initiative at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News she believes the executive orders are “an attempt to undermine” the Supreme Court.“Although they will almost certainly face legal challenge, in the interim they will place a profound burden on some of the most vulnerable migrants, pregnant women, and on the officers who work diligently to defend our borders,” she said.“Requiring Department of Homeland Security officials to interrogate women, many of whom have legal visas, about their pregnancies, even turning them away from ports of entry without clearly defined criteria for doing so, risks harming both woman and unborn child and diverts DHS officers' attention from the vital missions of border security and trade facilitation,” Feasley said. Legal challenges have not yet been filed.

unitedyam

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) criticized an executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The U.S. Catholic bishops are reviewing and monitoring the order.

Read More