![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.
The pope’s message was delivered by the apostolic nuncio in Rwanda during the opening ceremony of the first-ever SIGNIS World Congress to be held in Africa, taking place in Rwanda this week.
![Archbishop Wenski meets lawmakers to gain support for Haitian migrants amid deportation fears #Catholic Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski traveled to Washington, D.C., on July 28 to advocate on behalf of Haitian migrants who fear they will soon be targets of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.Wenski’s meetings with lawmakers came one day after the expiration of the automatic work‑permit extension under temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians. The Supreme Court ruled last month that the administration has the authority to terminate TPS, which ended their work authorization and could subject them to deportation orders. “Haiti is a house on fire,” Wenski told “EWTN News Nightly” Capitol Hill correspondent Erik Rosales before entering the office of Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia.The archbishop said TPS expiration and possible deportation of hundreds of thousands of Haitians is bad for the migrants — who would be sent back to an unstable country — and for the American communities in which the migrants live and work. About 353,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS status in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“To think that we can send 350,000 people back to Haiti without that having very bad consequences in Haiti — but also here because these people are working, they’re not on the dole, they’re working, and if they’re removed from their jobs, if they lose their work permits, that’s going to have a negative economic impact on the communities in which they live,” Wenski said.As Haitian TPS status ends, some lawmakers have introduced bills to compel the DHS to extend the status. In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation, H.R. 1689, that would extend TPS for Haitians for three more years. No legislative efforts have gained traction in the Senate.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated strongly on behalf of Haitian migrants, asking the Trump administration and lawmakers to extend TPS. About two-thirds of Haiti is Catholic.Chieko Noguchi, spokeswoman for the USCCB, told EWTN News that Bishop Brendan J. Cahill, USCCB Committee on Migration chair, “has encouraged his brother bishops across the country to engage with their elected officials” on Haitian TPS status and broader immigration reform efforts.“As pastors committed to upholding the common good, the bishops are actively engaging in this dialogue and continue to be grateful for the opportunity to do so, which they acknowledged in their special message last November,” she said.In November 2025, the USCCB adopted a message in a 216-5 vote that opposed the “indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and policies that revoke the legal status of migrants, such as the terminations of TPS for various groups of migrants.Kaine, an advocate for extending TPS, told EWTN News after meeting with Wenski that he was glad “to discuss the critical need for Congress to do what is right and protect TPS holders who have been in the U.S. legally for years” and looks forward to working with the USCCB to advocate for TPS holders.TPS holders “have made countless contributions in important sectors such as healthcare and construction, and developed deep roots in our communities through their U.S. citizen families and businesses,” he added. “Many TPS holders, such as those from Haiti, should not be forced to return to the extremely dangerous conditions that made them seek safety in the United States.”Status of Haitian migrantsOn July 27, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin reposted a DHS post on X, which said “temporary protected status is exactly that — TEMPORARY” and urged anyone whose TPS has expired to self-deport out of the U.S.“For those with terminated TPS: it’s closing time,” the post read. “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”When asked whether DHS intends to specifically target Haitians for deportation amid the TPS expiration, a spokesperson told EWTN News that the department “does not discuss ongoing or future operations” but is conducting law enforcement activities daily.“For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent,” the spokesperson said.Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, told EWTN News that TPS was initially approved for Haiti in 2010 after a devastating earthquake.Although Haiti continues to face serious safety and political stability concerns, he said the effects of the earthquake no longer impact the country. He noted that Haitians can apply for permanent status under other programs, such as if they are eligible for asylum, but that TPS is not a permanent resettlement program.Arthur said Haitians who are in the U.S. under temporary legal status “had the opportunity to work in the United States and make money” and learn skills, which they can take back “to Haiti and [it can] help them make Haiti a better country.”The former judge said he expects immigration enforcement toward Haitians to be part of “the larger enforcement efforts” rather than a targeted campaign against Haitians, with a priority toward people who have been convicted of crimes.“The response [now] is foreign aid on the part of the United States and aid from the Catholic Church toward making Haiti a better place,” Arthur said.TPS status for Syrian migrants also ended on July 27. El Salvador’s TPS designation is set to expire Sept. 9.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/archbishop-wenski-meets-lawmakers-to-gain-support-for-haitian-migrants-amid-deportation-fears-catholic-miami-archbishop-thomas-wenski-traveled-to-washington-d-c-on-july-28-to-advocate-on-behalf-of.png "Archbishop Wenski meets lawmakers to gain support for Haitian migrants amid deportation fears #Catholic Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski traveled to Washington, D.C., on July 28 to advocate on behalf of Haitian migrants who fear they will soon be targets of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.Wenski’s meetings with lawmakers came one day after the expiration of the automatic work‑permit extension under temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians. The Supreme Court ruled last month that the administration has the authority to terminate TPS, which ended their work authorization and could subject them to deportation orders. “Haiti is a house on fire,” Wenski told “EWTN News Nightly” Capitol Hill correspondent Erik Rosales before entering the office of Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia.The archbishop said TPS expiration and possible deportation of hundreds of thousands of Haitians is bad for the migrants — who would be sent back to an unstable country — and for the American communities in which the migrants live and work. About 353,000 Haitian nationals hold TPS status in the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“To think that we can send 350,000 people back to Haiti without that having very bad consequences in Haiti — but also here because these people are working, they’re not on the dole, they’re working, and if they’re removed from their jobs, if they lose their work permits, that’s going to have a negative economic impact on the communities in which they live,” Wenski said.As Haitian TPS status ends, some lawmakers have introduced bills to compel the DHS to extend the status. In April, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation, H.R. 1689, that would extend TPS for Haitians for three more years. No legislative efforts have gained traction in the Senate.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has advocated strongly on behalf of Haitian migrants, asking the Trump administration and lawmakers to extend TPS. About two-thirds of Haiti is Catholic.Chieko Noguchi, spokeswoman for the USCCB, told EWTN News that Bishop Brendan J. Cahill, USCCB Committee on Migration chair, “has encouraged his brother bishops across the country to engage with their elected officials” on Haitian TPS status and broader immigration reform efforts.“As pastors committed to upholding the common good, the bishops are actively engaging in this dialogue and continue to be grateful for the opportunity to do so, which they acknowledged in their special message last November,” she said.In November 2025, the USCCB adopted a message in a 216-5 vote that opposed the “indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and policies that revoke the legal status of migrants, such as the terminations of TPS for various groups of migrants.Kaine, an advocate for extending TPS, told EWTN News after meeting with Wenski that he was glad “to discuss the critical need for Congress to do what is right and protect TPS holders who have been in the U.S. legally for years” and looks forward to working with the USCCB to advocate for TPS holders.TPS holders “have made countless contributions in important sectors such as healthcare and construction, and developed deep roots in our communities through their U.S. citizen families and businesses,” he added. “Many TPS holders, such as those from Haiti, should not be forced to return to the extremely dangerous conditions that made them seek safety in the United States.”Status of Haitian migrantsOn July 27, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin reposted a DHS post on X, which said “temporary protected status is exactly that — TEMPORARY” and urged anyone whose TPS has expired to self-deport out of the U.S.“For those with terminated TPS: it’s closing time,” the post read. “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.”When asked whether DHS intends to specifically target Haitians for deportation amid the TPS expiration, a spokesperson told EWTN News that the department “does not discuss ongoing or future operations” but is conducting law enforcement activities daily.“For too long, TPS has been allowed to function as a de facto amnesty program despite Congress never intending it to be permanent,” the spokesperson said.Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a resident fellow in law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, told EWTN News that TPS was initially approved for Haiti in 2010 after a devastating earthquake.Although Haiti continues to face serious safety and political stability concerns, he said the effects of the earthquake no longer impact the country. He noted that Haitians can apply for permanent status under other programs, such as if they are eligible for asylum, but that TPS is not a permanent resettlement program.Arthur said Haitians who are in the U.S. under temporary legal status “had the opportunity to work in the United States and make money” and learn skills, which they can take back “to Haiti and [it can] help them make Haiti a better country.”The former judge said he expects immigration enforcement toward Haitians to be part of “the larger enforcement efforts” rather than a targeted campaign against Haitians, with a priority toward people who have been convicted of crimes.“The response [now] is foreign aid on the part of the United States and aid from the Catholic Church toward making Haiti a better place,” Arthur said.TPS status for Syrian migrants also ended on July 27. El Salvador’s TPS designation is set to expire Sept. 9.")
The Department of Homeland Security defended its policy, saying temporary protected status was not meant to be permanent.
![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.
![Catholic, Orthodox bishops join in dialogue and prayer at Washington, D.C., conference #Catholic Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops exchanged dialogue and joined together in prayer at an ecumenical conference in Washington, D.C., this week with a hope that one day the Eastern and Western churches will be reunited.The conference, held at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine on July 13–15, was organized by the Orientale Lumen Foundation. Jack Figel, an Eastern Catholic who founded the group, named it after St. John Paul II’s apostolic letter expressing hope for reunification.Speakers included the secretary for the Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, Archbishop Flavio Pace; the primate of the Orthodox Church in America, Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard; Cardinal Seán Patrick OʼMalley; Greek Orthodox Bishop Anthony Vrame; and Romanian Catholic Bishop John Michael Botean.“I grew up with — I lived with — the tension between East and West my whole life,” Figel told EWTN News.A reunification, Figel said, “all depends on the Holy Spirit.” He said: “It is going to be a miracle and it’s going to be on God’s time.”The conference included speeches by both Catholic and Orthodox bishops and joint panels. Prayer services were held in the Eastern form in which bishops from both traditions participated: a moleben to the Holy Spirit on Monday, daily vespers on Tuesday, and the Akathist to the Mother of God on Wednesday.Theological hurdlesRecent popes have had friendly relations with Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, and ongoing study by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is seeking to resolve theological disputes.In 2024, the commission set up two subcommittees to analyze two major points of contention: one for papal infallibility and the other for the Filioque.Papal infallibility refers to Vatican I’s teaching that the pope can infallibly define doctrines. The Filioque — Latin for “and the Son” — refers to the West adding the phrase in the Nicene Creed “the Holy Spirit … who proceeds from the Father ‘and the Son.’” Catholics argue this clarifies the Latin translation of the Creed, which was originally in Greek; but many Orthodox see it as changing the understanding of the Trinity.Vrame told EWTN News these theological issues continue to be a hurdle toward Catholic and Orthodox communion.The No. 1 issueSpeaking from the Orthodox perspective, he said papal infallibility and supremacy is the No. 1 issue. Although Orthodox acknowledge Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as “first among equals” among patriarchs, “our governance structure allows for each national Church to govern itself,” he said.Dialogue with Rome, Vrame said, must address questions of “how do we begin to understand any claims of universal jurisdiction of the papacy” and “how do we understand any form of papal infallibility.” He said the Catholic embrace of synodality could improve dialogue on this issue.He said a major question is what unity would look like and pointed toward Rome’s relationship with Eastern Catholics as a possible example, saying they are “in communion with Rome,” but “Rome allowed them to retain their distinctive rites and practices.” However, he noted historical complications with Rome’s past attempts to Latinize Eastern Catholics and a major question to settle is: “What would unity do?”Mollard also told EWTN News “the whole question of primacy and synodality” remains a major issue, along with “centuries of separation,” which he said “doesn’t help either.”Pace told EWTN News that the subcommittee addressing infallibility has to “prepare a very good draft” on the matter that the full committee made up of Catholic and Orthodox leaders “can discuss and approve.”Steps toward unityAs the hierarchy tries to work out millennium-old theological disputes, Mollard said another step is “trying to get from the theological [dialogue] to the implementation” of a stronger relationship but warned “everyone’s afraid to do anything.”“We do have to practice these things,” he said in his speech. “Let’s work together and see if we can find our unity in Christ … [and] work on the structures that could bring that about more formally.”“Prayer and humility are always good,” Mollard said.He told EWTN News that some steps could be jointly “caring for the poor” or “feeding the hungry,” which is “the most direct way that collaboration can take place” at this time. In his speech, O’Malley called for joint prayer and study sessions, joint pastoral letters and statements, and joint works of mercy.Figel suggested Catholic and Orthodox parishes should “pray once a month for unity for at least 10 or 15 minutes.”Ultimately, Vrame said full unity and communion would be expressed “in the Eucharist” if all issues are resolved.“We don’t share the Eucharist,” he said. “That would be the culminating moment.”Dialogue and the laityMany bishops said dialogue and bonds should take place among laity too, with Botean saying in his speech that ecumenism cannot just be “at the level of academics.”“Without the face-to-face stuff, … we’re going to get nowhere,” he said. “And if our competition is the internet, we have more driving us apart than together.”Botean warned against hostile and uncharitable exchanges, many of which occur on social media, saying: “When we become unloving because of our faith, we’re on the wrong track.”Lizbeth Moncada, a senior at Florida Atlantic University who attended the conference, told EWTN News that she has “a lot of friends who are Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox” but agreed that online dialogue can often be “polarizing.”She said exchanges online can be “very disheartening” and she has “wanted to stop engaging in these conversations” at times. Yet, she said discussions like what occurred at the conference are “encouraging.”Andrew Likoudis of the ecumenical Likoudis Legacy Foundation, told EWTN News: “I try not to even engage in online discourse because of how toxic it is.” Yet, he said “the discourse here is much healthier” and allows Catholics and Orthodox Christians to “cross theological boundaries and retain the integrity of our own traditions without compromise.”Vrame, commenting on dialogue, said “beating up on somebody else is not very Christian … no matter what you think of their position.” He said people can have “respectful disagreements … without having to beat up on somebody,” saying that’s “no way to show love for your neighbor.”He said it’s good that people are passionate about their faith but posed the question: “Are we passionate in a way that reflects Christ and Christianity?”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/catholic-orthodox-bishops-join-in-dialogue-and-prayer-at-washington-d-c-conference-catholic-catholic-and-eastern-orthodox-bishops-exchanged-dialogue-and-joined-together-in-prayer-at-an-ecumenical-scaled.jpg "Catholic, Orthodox bishops join in dialogue and prayer at Washington, D.C., conference #Catholic Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops exchanged dialogue and joined together in prayer at an ecumenical conference in Washington, D.C., this week with a hope that one day the Eastern and Western churches will be reunited.The conference, held at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine on July 13–15, was organized by the Orientale Lumen Foundation. Jack Figel, an Eastern Catholic who founded the group, named it after St. John Paul II’s apostolic letter expressing hope for reunification.Speakers included the secretary for the Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, Archbishop Flavio Pace; the primate of the Orthodox Church in America, Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard; Cardinal Seán Patrick OʼMalley; Greek Orthodox Bishop Anthony Vrame; and Romanian Catholic Bishop John Michael Botean.“I grew up with — I lived with — the tension between East and West my whole life,” Figel told EWTN News.A reunification, Figel said, “all depends on the Holy Spirit.” He said: “It is going to be a miracle and it’s going to be on God’s time.”The conference included speeches by both Catholic and Orthodox bishops and joint panels. Prayer services were held in the Eastern form in which bishops from both traditions participated: a moleben to the Holy Spirit on Monday, daily vespers on Tuesday, and the Akathist to the Mother of God on Wednesday.Theological hurdlesRecent popes have had friendly relations with Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, and ongoing study by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is seeking to resolve theological disputes.In 2024, the commission set up two subcommittees to analyze two major points of contention: one for papal infallibility and the other for the Filioque.Papal infallibility refers to Vatican I’s teaching that the pope can infallibly define doctrines. The Filioque — Latin for “and the Son” — refers to the West adding the phrase in the Nicene Creed “the Holy Spirit … who proceeds from the Father ‘and the Son.’” Catholics argue this clarifies the Latin translation of the Creed, which was originally in Greek; but many Orthodox see it as changing the understanding of the Trinity.Vrame told EWTN News these theological issues continue to be a hurdle toward Catholic and Orthodox communion.The No. 1 issueSpeaking from the Orthodox perspective, he said papal infallibility and supremacy is the No. 1 issue. Although Orthodox acknowledge Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as “first among equals” among patriarchs, “our governance structure allows for each national Church to govern itself,” he said.Dialogue with Rome, Vrame said, must address questions of “how do we begin to understand any claims of universal jurisdiction of the papacy” and “how do we understand any form of papal infallibility.” He said the Catholic embrace of synodality could improve dialogue on this issue.He said a major question is what unity would look like and pointed toward Rome’s relationship with Eastern Catholics as a possible example, saying they are “in communion with Rome,” but “Rome allowed them to retain their distinctive rites and practices.” However, he noted historical complications with Rome’s past attempts to Latinize Eastern Catholics and a major question to settle is: “What would unity do?”Mollard also told EWTN News “the whole question of primacy and synodality” remains a major issue, along with “centuries of separation,” which he said “doesn’t help either.”Pace told EWTN News that the subcommittee addressing infallibility has to “prepare a very good draft” on the matter that the full committee made up of Catholic and Orthodox leaders “can discuss and approve.”Steps toward unityAs the hierarchy tries to work out millennium-old theological disputes, Mollard said another step is “trying to get from the theological [dialogue] to the implementation” of a stronger relationship but warned “everyone’s afraid to do anything.”“We do have to practice these things,” he said in his speech. “Let’s work together and see if we can find our unity in Christ … [and] work on the structures that could bring that about more formally.”“Prayer and humility are always good,” Mollard said.He told EWTN News that some steps could be jointly “caring for the poor” or “feeding the hungry,” which is “the most direct way that collaboration can take place” at this time. In his speech, O’Malley called for joint prayer and study sessions, joint pastoral letters and statements, and joint works of mercy.Figel suggested Catholic and Orthodox parishes should “pray once a month for unity for at least 10 or 15 minutes.”Ultimately, Vrame said full unity and communion would be expressed “in the Eucharist” if all issues are resolved.“We don’t share the Eucharist,” he said. “That would be the culminating moment.”Dialogue and the laityMany bishops said dialogue and bonds should take place among laity too, with Botean saying in his speech that ecumenism cannot just be “at the level of academics.”“Without the face-to-face stuff, … we’re going to get nowhere,” he said. “And if our competition is the internet, we have more driving us apart than together.”Botean warned against hostile and uncharitable exchanges, many of which occur on social media, saying: “When we become unloving because of our faith, we’re on the wrong track.”Lizbeth Moncada, a senior at Florida Atlantic University who attended the conference, told EWTN News that she has “a lot of friends who are Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox” but agreed that online dialogue can often be “polarizing.”She said exchanges online can be “very disheartening” and she has “wanted to stop engaging in these conversations” at times. Yet, she said discussions like what occurred at the conference are “encouraging.”Andrew Likoudis of the ecumenical Likoudis Legacy Foundation, told EWTN News: “I try not to even engage in online discourse because of how toxic it is.” Yet, he said “the discourse here is much healthier” and allows Catholics and Orthodox Christians to “cross theological boundaries and retain the integrity of our own traditions without compromise.”Vrame, commenting on dialogue, said “beating up on somebody else is not very Christian … no matter what you think of their position.” He said people can have “respectful disagreements … without having to beat up on somebody,” saying that’s “no way to show love for your neighbor.”He said it’s good that people are passionate about their faith but posed the question: “Are we passionate in a way that reflects Christ and Christianity?”")
Catholic and Orthodox bishops discussed steps toward unity and the importance of cooperation and friendly dialogue.
![Cardinal O’Malley at Catholic-Orthodox conference: ‘Come together and pray for unity’ #Catholic WASHINGTON — Cardinal Seán Patrick OʼMalley, retired archbishop of Boston, encouraged Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians to pray together for reunification at a joint conference focused on healing the nearly 1,000-year schism between the churches.“Come together and pray for unity,” O’Malley said at the conference, hosted by the Orientale Lumen Foundation at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine on July 13–15.Speakers included Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox bishops, and a few dozen laity and clergy focused on ecumenism attended. Along with O’Malley, speakers included Archbishop Flavio Pace — secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity — and Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard, primate of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).O’Malley encouraged concrete steps to integrate Catholic and Orthodox communities, one of the most important of which was “praying together.” Just prior to his speech, the Catholic and Orthodox clergy — including O’Malley, Pace, and Mollard — prayed daily vespers together in the form used in Eastern churches.The cardinal, speaking to those gathered, said unity will ultimately be achieved as a gift to the faithful granted by Christ and will come about “how he wills [it].” He said he considers joint prayer to be crucial because it is the Holy Spirit who will “illuminate the way” toward East-West communion.‘Work for unity’In his address, O’Malley discussed his concern with the disunity of Christianity, which he said “weakens our ability [as Christians] to proclaim the Gospel with coherence and authority.”He recalled his early work in the 1970s with the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. The order was deeply involved in missionary work in Papua New Guinea. Although O’Malley himself was not a missionary there, he spoke about conversations with colleagues who were working with people accepting Christianity in large numbers.O’Malley noted that when new converts had learned about the various Christian denominations, many felt “sad and embarrassed.” Although many Christians view the disunity as “normative,” he said, the people of Papua New Guinea correctly recognized it as “scandalous.”“All disciples of Jesus Christ must feel an impulse to work for unity among Christians,” O’Malley said.O’Malley said Catholics should see Orthodoxy as the “greatest possibility of success in this task in fulfilling Christ’s wish so that we all become one so the world may believe.” He noted that the two share “so many saints and devotions” and are more similar to Catholics in theology than any other Christian community.He expressed joy that many Orthodox churches send representatives to meetings held by the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and that the Catholic Church also sent representatives to the Orthodox Council of Crete in 2016. Yet, he encouraged a stronger bond.O’Malley urged the bodies to “consider the possibility of joint pastoral letters or statements” on issues of mutual agreement like world hunger, euthanasia, and abortion. He said they should establish committees together to organize joint prayer, study sessions, and works of mercy.His idea of unity, he explained, would be “communion without absorption” and said there is a difference between “unity and uniformity.” He said people should look to the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model, saying “they are bridges for reconciliation and laboratories for synodal communion.”Although Rome’s relationship with the Eastern Catholics was not always perfect (O’Malley noted historical attempts at forced Latinization), the cardinal said there is an opportunity to work more closely with Eastern Catholics as part of ecumenical efforts, focused on “greater respect for their uniqueness.”Mollard, speaking from the Orthodox position, echoed O’Malley’s desire for unity and the feeling of pain over continued separation.“It affects the faithful in the parishes and how they live their lives,” the metropolitan said. “And perhaps encourage[s] us all to not just reach out and educate but really inspire in people that faith in Christ and love for the Church can drive … [the path toward] unity.”O’Malley told EWTN News that ecumenism requires “different groups that would be Catholic and Orthodox, working together,” and Church leaders should be “letting people know the progress that has been made in the dialogue.”He said Eastern Orthodox Christians “have the sacraments,” they have apostolic succession, and “the differences are not great.” Although theological disputes remain a division between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, he said he believes the causes of the schism were more political and cultural.“Most Catholics and Orthodox in the pews are not focused on those fine points of theology,” O’Malley said.Ongoing Vatican ecumenical workMany theological disputes, however, are being hashed out at the highest levels of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Some of the biggest include questions of papal supremacy, primacy, and jurisdiction as well as the language of the Nicene Creed and subsequently certain details about the Holy Trinity.Pace, who flew in from Rome, discussed some of the history and recent progress on ecumenism related to these subjects during his speech, noting that the end goal is “full unity” between the East and the West.
Archbishop Flavio Pace, secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, speaks at the Orientale Lumen Foundation conference at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C., on July 15, 2026. | Credit: Tyler Arnold/EWTN News
The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, formed in 1980, created two subcommittees in 2024. One focuses on infallibility, which is the current priority. The other is about the dispute about the Nicene Creed."We have to prepare a very good draft,” Pace told EWTN News.He said once the subcommittee completes its draft on infallibility, the body will consider a call for a full meeting for approval. He said the subcommittee must “arrive to a good document that the [full committee] can discuss and approve.”The First Vatican Council teaches that the pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals when defining matters of doctrine and invoking his papal authority, binding the declaration on the entire Church.Bishop Anthony Vrame, a Greek Orthodox bishop and director of Holy Cross Orthodox Press, said in a panel discussion that Orthodoxy recognizes the indefectibility of councils: “When the Church gathers together in council, … no error is possible.” Yet, papal infallibility is different, as it is “designated to one person.”Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, offered a prerecorded video message for the conference, stating that he hopes the eventual documents will be received by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches.Koch emphasized the importance of clergy informing the laity when there are developments, so the progress is “not to be remained known only by experts.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/cardinal-omalley-at-catholic-orthodox-conference-come-together-and-pray-for-unity-catholic-washington-cardinal-sean-patrick-ocabcmalley-retired-archbishop-of-scaled.jpg "Cardinal O’Malley at Catholic-Orthodox conference: ‘Come together and pray for unity’ #Catholic WASHINGTON — Cardinal Seán Patrick OʼMalley, retired archbishop of Boston, encouraged Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians to pray together for reunification at a joint conference focused on healing the nearly 1,000-year schism between the churches.“Come together and pray for unity,” O’Malley said at the conference, hosted by the Orientale Lumen Foundation at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine on July 13–15.Speakers included Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox bishops, and a few dozen laity and clergy focused on ecumenism attended. Along with O’Malley, speakers included Archbishop Flavio Pace — secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity — and Metropolitan Tikhon Mollard, primate of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).O’Malley encouraged concrete steps to integrate Catholic and Orthodox communities, one of the most important of which was “praying together.” Just prior to his speech, the Catholic and Orthodox clergy — including O’Malley, Pace, and Mollard — prayed daily vespers together in the form used in Eastern churches.The cardinal, speaking to those gathered, said unity will ultimately be achieved as a gift to the faithful granted by Christ and will come about “how he wills [it].” He said he considers joint prayer to be crucial because it is the Holy Spirit who will “illuminate the way” toward East-West communion.‘Work for unity’In his address, O’Malley discussed his concern with the disunity of Christianity, which he said “weakens our ability [as Christians] to proclaim the Gospel with coherence and authority.”He recalled his early work in the 1970s with the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. The order was deeply involved in missionary work in Papua New Guinea. Although O’Malley himself was not a missionary there, he spoke about conversations with colleagues who were working with people accepting Christianity in large numbers.O’Malley noted that when new converts had learned about the various Christian denominations, many felt “sad and embarrassed.” Although many Christians view the disunity as “normative,” he said, the people of Papua New Guinea correctly recognized it as “scandalous.”“All disciples of Jesus Christ must feel an impulse to work for unity among Christians,” O’Malley said.O’Malley said Catholics should see Orthodoxy as the “greatest possibility of success in this task in fulfilling Christ’s wish so that we all become one so the world may believe.” He noted that the two share “so many saints and devotions” and are more similar to Catholics in theology than any other Christian community.He expressed joy that many Orthodox churches send representatives to meetings held by the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and that the Catholic Church also sent representatives to the Orthodox Council of Crete in 2016. Yet, he encouraged a stronger bond.O’Malley urged the bodies to “consider the possibility of joint pastoral letters or statements” on issues of mutual agreement like world hunger, euthanasia, and abortion. He said they should establish committees together to organize joint prayer, study sessions, and works of mercy.His idea of unity, he explained, would be “communion without absorption” and said there is a difference between “unity and uniformity.” He said people should look to the Eastern Catholic Churches as a model, saying “they are bridges for reconciliation and laboratories for synodal communion.”Although Rome’s relationship with the Eastern Catholics was not always perfect (O’Malley noted historical attempts at forced Latinization), the cardinal said there is an opportunity to work more closely with Eastern Catholics as part of ecumenical efforts, focused on “greater respect for their uniqueness.”Mollard, speaking from the Orthodox position, echoed O’Malley’s desire for unity and the feeling of pain over continued separation.“It affects the faithful in the parishes and how they live their lives,” the metropolitan said. “And perhaps encourage[s] us all to not just reach out and educate but really inspire in people that faith in Christ and love for the Church can drive … [the path toward] unity.”O’Malley told EWTN News that ecumenism requires “different groups that would be Catholic and Orthodox, working together,” and Church leaders should be “letting people know the progress that has been made in the dialogue.”He said Eastern Orthodox Christians “have the sacraments,” they have apostolic succession, and “the differences are not great.” Although theological disputes remain a division between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, he said he believes the causes of the schism were more political and cultural.“Most Catholics and Orthodox in the pews are not focused on those fine points of theology,” O’Malley said.Ongoing Vatican ecumenical workMany theological disputes, however, are being hashed out at the highest levels of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Some of the biggest include questions of papal supremacy, primacy, and jurisdiction as well as the language of the Nicene Creed and subsequently certain details about the Holy Trinity.Pace, who flew in from Rome, discussed some of the history and recent progress on ecumenism related to these subjects during his speech, noting that the end goal is “full unity” between the East and the West.
Archbishop Flavio Pace, secretary of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, speaks at the Orientale Lumen Foundation conference at the retreat house for the St. John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, D.C., on July 15, 2026. | Credit: Tyler Arnold/EWTN News
The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, formed in 1980, created two subcommittees in 2024. One focuses on infallibility, which is the current priority. The other is about the dispute about the Nicene Creed.\"We have to prepare a very good draft,” Pace told EWTN News.He said once the subcommittee completes its draft on infallibility, the body will consider a call for a full meeting for approval. He said the subcommittee must “arrive to a good document that the [full committee] can discuss and approve.”The First Vatican Council teaches that the pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals when defining matters of doctrine and invoking his papal authority, binding the declaration on the entire Church.Bishop Anthony Vrame, a Greek Orthodox bishop and director of Holy Cross Orthodox Press, said in a panel discussion that Orthodoxy recognizes the indefectibility of councils: “When the Church gathers together in council, … no error is possible.” Yet, papal infallibility is different, as it is “designated to one person.”Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, offered a prerecorded video message for the conference, stating that he hopes the eventual documents will be received by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches.Koch emphasized the importance of clergy informing the laity when there are developments, so the progress is “not to be remained known only by experts.”")
Cardinal Seán O’Malley discussed ways in which Catholics and Orthodox Christians can build closer bonds. Archbishop Flavio Pace discussed ongoing Vatican efforts to help bring about unity.
