![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 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.
A Wyoming Catholic College student wins a White House civics competition, Benedictine College shows off its new library, and more in this week’s roundup of Catholic education news in the U.S.
Because the traditionalist group consecrated bishops without papal approval, the Vatican issued a decree on July 2 declaring those bishops and their consecrators automatically excommunicated.
![Seton Hall president ‘not implicated’ in internal sex allegation report, Newark Archdiocese says #Catholic Seton Hall University President Monsignor Joseph Reilly was “not implicated” in an internal report examining the school’s response to sex abuse allegations, the Archdiocese of Newark said this week.The archdiocese on July 1 announced the release of its own report into whether an internal investigation commissioned by Seton Hall — the latter known as the “Latham report” — revealed that Reilly knew about abuse allegations at the university and yet failed to report them. Reilly was appointed president of the school in 2024. Archbishop Cardinal Joseph Tobin said in the July 1 announcement that the archdiocese’s report, which was launched in February 2025 and performed by the law firm Ropes & Gray LLP, revealed that Reilly “was not implicated in the Latham report.”The archdiocesan report reveals that Reilly “responded promptly to allegations of sexual harassment involving seminarians at [Seton Hall’s] Immaculate Conception Seminary in 2012,” though Reilly “did not follow the university’s Title IX reporting requirements” because he had not been trained on them, Tobin said. The Latham report, which has never been made public, was expected to examine whether Reilly, then-rector of Seton Hall’s Immaculate Conception Seminary, knew about sexual misconduct allegations against now-deceased former cardinal Theodore McCarrick and failed to report them.The Ropes & Gray inquiry, however, states that the Latham report “contains no findings or allegations that Monsignor Reilly … witnessed or received reports of any sexual misconduct by McCarrick (or any other individuals) at any time,” including during a stint as McCarrick’s secretary in the early 1990s. Among its findings, the Ropes & Gray report said Reilly in 2012 removed a seminarian from the school’s seminary after the younger man was found to have engaged in sexual harassment. Reilly was “not involved” in a separate 2014 dispute over inappropriate conduct involving two adults, meanwhile. In his announcement on July 1, Tobin said that “nothing in [the] thorough report changes my firm view that Monsignor Reilly is a good priest with formidable experience and a deep commitment to a Catholic institution serving the Church and the world.” “He is highly regarded across the Seton Hall community and has my full respect and confidence,” the archbishop said. The Latham report was commissioned by Seton Hall in 2019 and produced by the law firm Latham & Watkins; the school ordered it after bombshell allegations involving McCarrick, who died in 2025. A New Jersey appeals court ruled in June that Seton Hall would not have to fully disclose the report as part of ongoing clergy abuse lawsuits. The appeals court did rule that one section of the report regarding the university’s sexual harassment policies could be disclosed in court, though parts of that section could be subject to redactions depending on the contents.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/seton-hall-president-not-implicated-in-internal-sex-allegation-report-newark-archdiocese-says-catholic-seton-hall-university-president-monsignor-joseph-reilly-was-not-impl.jpg "Seton Hall president ‘not implicated’ in internal sex allegation report, Newark Archdiocese says #Catholic Seton Hall University President Monsignor Joseph Reilly was “not implicated” in an internal report examining the school’s response to sex abuse allegations, the Archdiocese of Newark said this week.The archdiocese on July 1 announced the release of its own report into whether an internal investigation commissioned by Seton Hall — the latter known as the “Latham report” — revealed that Reilly knew about abuse allegations at the university and yet failed to report them. Reilly was appointed president of the school in 2024. Archbishop Cardinal Joseph Tobin said in the July 1 announcement that the archdiocese’s report, which was launched in February 2025 and performed by the law firm Ropes & Gray LLP, revealed that Reilly “was not implicated in the Latham report.”The archdiocesan report reveals that Reilly “responded promptly to allegations of sexual harassment involving seminarians at [Seton Hall’s] Immaculate Conception Seminary in 2012,” though Reilly “did not follow the university’s Title IX reporting requirements” because he had not been trained on them, Tobin said. The Latham report, which has never been made public, was expected to examine whether Reilly, then-rector of Seton Hall’s Immaculate Conception Seminary, knew about sexual misconduct allegations against now-deceased former cardinal Theodore McCarrick and failed to report them.The Ropes & Gray inquiry, however, states that the Latham report “contains no findings or allegations that Monsignor Reilly … witnessed or received reports of any sexual misconduct by McCarrick (or any other individuals) at any time,” including during a stint as McCarrick’s secretary in the early 1990s. Among its findings, the Ropes & Gray report said Reilly in 2012 removed a seminarian from the school’s seminary after the younger man was found to have engaged in sexual harassment. Reilly was “not involved” in a separate 2014 dispute over inappropriate conduct involving two adults, meanwhile. In his announcement on July 1, Tobin said that “nothing in [the] thorough report changes my firm view that Monsignor Reilly is a good priest with formidable experience and a deep commitment to a Catholic institution serving the Church and the world.” “He is highly regarded across the Seton Hall community and has my full respect and confidence,” the archbishop said. The Latham report was commissioned by Seton Hall in 2019 and produced by the law firm Latham & Watkins; the school ordered it after bombshell allegations involving McCarrick, who died in 2025. A New Jersey appeals court ruled in June that Seton Hall would not have to fully disclose the report as part of ongoing clergy abuse lawsuits. The appeals court did rule that one section of the report regarding the university’s sexual harassment policies could be disclosed in court, though parts of that section could be subject to redactions depending on the contents.")
Cardinal Joseph Tobin said Monsignor Joseph Reilly “responded promptly” to sexual harassment allegations, though he failed to follow Title IX requirements due to a lack of training.
Bishops across the UK and other Catholic leaders say they want more information before endorsing a proposal to ban social media for youth under 16.
God’s “divine love gives meaning to the life of every person and, far from ending with death, invites us to a new fullness in eternity,” the pope said.
