Speech – United Yam

Arthur Brooks at SEEK26: ‘Your job isn’t to win arguments, it’s to win a soul’ #Catholic

Arthur Brooks gives a keynote address at SEEK 2026 on Jan. 4, 2026, in Columbus, Ohio. | Credit: Madalaine Elhabbal/CNA

Jan 6, 2026 / 12:29 pm (CNA).
New York Times bestselling author and Harvard professor Arthur Brooks encouraged attendees at SEEK 2026 to resist the temptation as missionaries to “fight fire with fire.”In his Jan. 4 keynote speech in Columbus, Ohio, Brooks said the world “is not just a cold world” but “a world that attacks you.” In this context, he said, it can be challenging not to fight back.However, he said, “your job isn’t to win arguments, it’s to win a soul.”Brooks teaches at the Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School and has written multiple books on finding happiness and meaning in life, including “From Strength to Strength” and “Build the Life You Want,” which he coauthored with Oprah Winfrey. He also writes a column for The Free Press.Some 26,000 attendees have gathered through Jan. 5 in Columbus, Denver, and Fort Worth, Texas, for the SEEK 2026 conference organized by FOCUS.“The spirit of the missionary will take you into the heart of a culture war,” Brooks said. “And in that culture war, you won’t win with violence … as you can win with love.” Brooks recounted his experience giving a talk in Manchester, New Hampshire, in 2014 for an audience he said was “a very ideologically oriented group.”According to Brooks, he was the only speaker out of the 15 present who was not a presidential candidate. He said that during his address, he told his audience: “You’ve been hearing from political candidates who want your vote. And what they’re telling you is that you’re right and the people who disagree with you are stupid people and hate America, but I want you to remember something. Those people, they’re your neighbors, and they’re your family … It’s not that they hate America, it’s that they disagree with you.”When acting as a missionary, he said, the goal is to persuade people. “If you want to persuade them, you can’t do that with hatred, because nobody has ever been insulted into agreement,” Brooks said.‘Entering mission territory’Brooks concluded by telling about a retreat center that he and his wife, Ester, visit when they give marriage preparation. Inside the chapel of the retreat center, he said, there is a sign over the door to exit the chapel that reads: “You are now entering mission territory.”“So as you leave this beautiful, beautiful gathering tomorrow, the signs on the door of your hotel or this conference facility, any place that you find yourself as you leave this city, and effectively for the last time tomorrow, is that you’re entering mission territory,” Brooks said. “Let’s set the world on fire together.”Katie Tangeman, a sophomore at Northwest Missouri State University, said she came away from Brooks’ talk motivated to “just take a step back whenever I’m feeling frustrated or annoyed with somebody, or if they’re attacking me, to just see them as a beloved son or daughter of God and approach them with love instead of the contempt and hate that [Brooks] was talking about.”“Because that’s not being a good Christian,” she added.“I want to say the biggest thing I took away from Arthur Brooks’ talk tonight, his keynote speech, [is] that you can change the trajectory of how a conversation goes by battling it with kindness in a way,” said Andrew Stuart, an agricultural business major, also at Northwest Missouri State.

unitedyam January 6, 2026

Arthur Brooks gives a keynote address at SEEK 2026 on Jan. 4, 2026, in Columbus, Ohio. | Credit: Madalaine Elhabbal/CNA

Jan 6, 2026 / 12:29 pm (CNA).

New York Times bestselling author and Harvard professor Arthur Brooks encouraged attendees at SEEK 2026 to resist the temptation as missionaries to “fight fire with fire.”

In his Jan. 4 keynote speech in Columbus, Ohio, Brooks said the world “is not just a cold world” but “a world that attacks you.” In this context, he said, it can be challenging not to fight back.

However, he said, “your job isn’t to win arguments, it’s to win a soul.”

Brooks teaches at the Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School and has written multiple books on finding happiness and meaning in life, including “From Strength to Strength” and “Build the Life You Want,” which he coauthored with Oprah Winfrey. He also writes a column for The Free Press.

Some 26,000 attendees have gathered through Jan. 5 in Columbus, Denver, and Fort Worth, Texas, for the SEEK 2026 conference organized by FOCUS.

“The spirit of the missionary will take you into the heart of a culture war,” Brooks said. “And in that culture war, you won’t win with violence … as you can win with love.” Brooks recounted his experience giving a talk in Manchester, New Hampshire, in 2014 for an audience he said was “a very ideologically oriented group.”

According to Brooks, he was the only speaker out of the 15 present who was not a presidential candidate. He said that during his address, he told his audience: “You’ve been hearing from political candidates who want your vote. And what they’re telling you is that you’re right and the people who disagree with you are stupid people and hate America, but I want you to remember something. Those people, they’re your neighbors, and they’re your family … It’s not that they hate America, it’s that they disagree with you.”

When acting as a missionary, he said, the goal is to persuade people. “If you want to persuade them, you can’t do that with hatred, because nobody has ever been insulted into agreement,” Brooks said.

‘Entering mission territory’

Brooks concluded by telling about a retreat center that he and his wife, Ester, visit when they give marriage preparation. Inside the chapel of the retreat center, he said, there is a sign over the door to exit the chapel that reads: “You are now entering mission territory.”

“So as you leave this beautiful, beautiful gathering tomorrow, the signs on the door of your hotel or this conference facility, any place that you find yourself as you leave this city, and effectively for the last time tomorrow, is that you’re entering mission territory,” Brooks said. “Let’s set the world on fire together.”

Katie Tangeman, a sophomore at Northwest Missouri State University, said she came away from Brooks’ talk motivated to “just take a step back whenever I’m feeling frustrated or annoyed with somebody, or if they’re attacking me, to just see them as a beloved son or daughter of God and approach them with love instead of the contempt and hate that [Brooks] was talking about.”

“Because that’s not being a good Christian,” she added.

“I want to say the biggest thing I took away from Arthur Brooks’ talk tonight, his keynote speech, [is] that you can change the trajectory of how a conversation goes by battling it with kindness in a way,” said Andrew Stuart, an agricultural business major, also at Northwest Missouri State.

In interview with Bishop Barron, Justice Barrett opens up about her faith #Catholic

Judge Amy Coney Barrett. – Rachel Malehorn/wikimedia CC BY SA 3.0

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her Catholic faith “grounds her” and gives her “perspective.”During an interview with Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Barrett tackled a number of topics including free speech, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and her law career. The U.S. Supreme Court justice also opened up about her Catholic faith, including how she prays and her relationship with the saints.A ‘love for the saints’When asked which spiritual figures have influenced her, Barrett shared about her relationships with the saints, specifically her love for St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.“My favorite was Thérèse of Lisieux. We have a daughter named Thérèse,” Barrett said. “I was captivated when I was young by how young she was when she just completely gave her life over to the Lord.”“Her Little Way is so accessible to so many,” she said. “I minored in French and I studied in France. It was actually Lisieux, where I was … that’s where I decided to go that summer. So I spent a lot of time in the gardens of the Martin home. I think those examples of faith were important to me.”“One thing that we’ve tried to do with our children is really cultivate in them a love for the saints, because I do think they are great examples that can inspire our love of the faith.”Barrett said she has “prayed in different ways at different phases” of her life. As a law professor, she often prayed a “ lectio divina.” Now as a judge, she said she tends “to do more reading reflections” and will “read the daily ‘ Magnificat.’”A “personal struggle in these last couple of years has been an ability to quiet my mind so that I can pray in a very deep and focused way,” she said. Listening to reflections “helps me, if my mind is wandering, to be able to focus on reading something and the task at hand.”The Constitution and the common goodDespite her faith, Barrett also discussed how it is not what can influence her decisions as a judge. “The Constitution distributes authority in a particular way,” she said. “The authority that I have is circumscribed.”“I believe in natural law, and I certainly believe in the common good,” Barrett said. “I think legislators have the duty to pursue the common good within the confines of the Constitution and respect for religious freedom.”“You have to imagine, ‘What if I didn’t like the composition of the court I was in front of, the court that was making these decisions, and they view the common good quite differently than I do?’ That’s the reason why we have a document like the Constitution, because it’s a point of consensus and common ground.”“And if we start veering away from that and reading into it our own individual ideas of the common good, it’s going to go nowhere good fast.”Roe v. WadeBarrett said both people who agreed with the Dobbs decision and those who did not “may well assume” she cast her vote based on her “faith” and “personal views about abortion.”“But especially given the framework with which I view the Constitution, there are plenty of people who support abortion rights but who recognize that Roe was ill-reasoned and inconsistent with the Constitution itself,” she said.Barrett further discussed “the trouble with Roe.”“There’s nothing in the Constitution … that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” she said. “The best defense of Roe, the commonly thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ and the due process clause, that we protect life, liberty, and property and it can’t be taken away without due process of law.”The “word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise, we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” Barrett said.The problem with Roe “is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution.”The reason why it’s difficult to amend the Constitution is because “it reflects a super-majority consensus,” she said. “The rights that are protected in the Constitution, as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution, are not of my making. They are ones that Americans have agreed to.”“Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution.”Free speech and freedom of religion“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” Barrett said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas … we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”If the United States were to have “an established religion, then it would be very difficult to simultaneously guarantee freedom of religion because there would be one voice with which the government was speaking,” Barrett explained.An established religion would “sacrifice the religious liberty,” she said. “But by the same token, the religious liberty, it would become self-defeating if the logical end to it was to force everyone to see things your way.”DiscernmentAt the end of the conversation, Barron asked Barrett what advice she would give young Catholics who want to be involved in public life, law, or the government.“Discern first,” Barrett said. Ask: “What are you called to do?”“If you do feel like this is a vocation and something you’re called to do, I think it can never be the most important thing,” Barrett said. “I think being grounded in your faith and who you are and being right in the Lord, so that you’re not tossed like a ship everywhere because there are enormous pressures.”Faith “grounds me as a person,” Barrett said. “Not because my faith informs the substance of the decisions that I make, it emphatically does not, but I think it grounds me as a person. It’s who I am as a person.”“So it’s what enables me to keep my job in public life in perspective and remain the person who I am and continue to try to be the person I hope to be despite the pressures of public life,” she said.

unitedyam December 26, 2025

Judge Amy Coney Barrett. – Rachel Malehorn/wikimedia CC BY SA 3.0

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 26, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says her Catholic faith “grounds her” and gives her “perspective.”

During an interview with Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Barrett tackled a number of topics including free speech, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and her law career. The U.S. Supreme Court justice also opened up about her Catholic faith, including how she prays and her relationship with the saints.

A ‘love for the saints’

When asked which spiritual figures have influenced her, Barrett shared about her relationships with the saints, specifically her love for St. Catherine of Siena and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

“My favorite was Thérèse of Lisieux. We have a daughter named Thérèse,” Barrett said. “I was captivated when I was young by how young she was when she just completely gave her life over to the Lord.”

“Her Little Way is so accessible to so many,” she said. “I minored in French and I studied in France. It was actually Lisieux, where I was … that’s where I decided to go that summer. So I spent a lot of time in the gardens of the Martin home. I think those examples of faith were important to me.”

“One thing that we’ve tried to do with our children is really cultivate in them a love for the saints, because I do think they are great examples that can inspire our love of the faith.”

Barrett said she has “prayed in different ways at different phases” of her life. As a law professor, she often prayed a “ lectio divina.” Now as a judge, she said she tends “to do more reading reflections” and will “read the daily ‘ Magnificat.’”

A “personal struggle in these last couple of years has been an ability to quiet my mind so that I can pray in a very deep and focused way,” she said. Listening to reflections “helps me, if my mind is wandering, to be able to focus on reading something and the task at hand.”

The Constitution and the common good

Despite her faith, Barrett also discussed how it is not what can influence her decisions as a judge. “The Constitution distributes authority in a particular way,” she said. “The authority that I have is circumscribed.”

“I believe in natural law, and I certainly believe in the common good,” Barrett said. “I think legislators have the duty to pursue the common good within the confines of the Constitution and respect for religious freedom.”

“You have to imagine, ‘What if I didn’t like the composition of the court I was in front of, the court that was making these decisions, and they view the common good quite differently than I do?’ That’s the reason why we have a document like the Constitution, because it’s a point of consensus and common ground.”

“And if we start veering away from that and reading into it our own individual ideas of the common good, it’s going to go nowhere good fast.”

Roe v. Wade

Barrett said both people who agreed with the Dobbs decision and those who did not “may well assume” she cast her vote based on her “faith” and “personal views about abortion.”

“But especially given the framework with which I view the Constitution, there are plenty of people who support abortion rights but who recognize that Roe was ill-reasoned and inconsistent with the Constitution itself,” she said.

Barrett further discussed “the trouble with Roe.”

“There’s nothing in the Constitution … that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” she said. “The best defense of Roe, the commonly thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ and the due process clause, that we protect life, liberty, and property and it can’t be taken away without due process of law.”

The “word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise, we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” Barrett said.

The problem with Roe “is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution.”

The reason why it’s difficult to amend the Constitution is because “it reflects a super-majority consensus,” she said. “The rights that are protected in the Constitution, as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution, are not of my making. They are ones that Americans have agreed to.”

“Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution.”

Free speech and freedom of religion

“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement,” Barrett said. “There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas … we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”

“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”

If the United States were to have “an established religion, then it would be very difficult to simultaneously guarantee freedom of religion because there would be one voice with which the government was speaking,” Barrett explained.

An established religion would “sacrifice the religious liberty,” she said. “But by the same token, the religious liberty, it would become self-defeating if the logical end to it was to force everyone to see things your way.”

Discernment

At the end of the conversation, Barron asked Barrett what advice she would give young Catholics who want to be involved in public life, law, or the government.

“Discern first,” Barrett said. Ask: “What are you called to do?”

“If you do feel like this is a vocation and something you’re called to do, I think it can never be the most important thing,” Barrett said. “I think being grounded in your faith and who you are and being right in the Lord, so that you’re not tossed like a ship everywhere because there are enormous pressures.”

Faith “grounds me as a person,” Barrett said. “Not because my faith informs the substance of the decisions that I make, it emphatically does not, but I think it grounds me as a person. It’s who I am as a person.”

“So it’s what enables me to keep my job in public life in perspective and remain the person who I am and continue to try to be the person I hope to be despite the pressures of public life,” she said.

Vice President Vance presents a Christian vision of politics #Catholic

U.S. Vice President JD Vance. / Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 14:27 pm (CNA).
U.S. Vice President JD Vance, America’s second Catholic vice president, laid out a distinctly Christian vision for American politics in a speech this week, declaring that “the only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and, by the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”Speaking to more than 30,000 young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2025 some three months after the death of its founder Charlie Kirk, Vance called for a politics rooted in a Christian faith that honors the family, protects the weak, and rejects what he described as a decades-long “war” on Christianity in public life.The Christian faith has provided a “shared moral language” since the nation’s founding, the Yale-trained lawyer argued, which led to “our understanding of natural law and rights, our sense of duty to one’s neighbor, the conviction that the strong must protect the weak, and the belief in individual conscience.”“Christianity is America’s creed,” the vice president said to loud cheers, while acknowledging that not everyone needs to be a Christian and “we must respect each individual’s pathway” to God. Even so, he said, “even our famously American idea of religious liberty is a Christian concept.” Vance described how, over the past several decades, “freedom of religion transformed into freedom from religion” as a result of the cultural assault on Christian faith from those on “the left” who have “labored to push Christianity out of national life. They’ve kicked it out of the schools, out of the workplace, out of the fundamental parts of the public square.”He continued: “And in a public square devoid of God, we got a vacuum. And the ideas that filled that void preyed on the very worst of human nature rather than uplifting it.”Vance said cultural voices opposed to Christian faith “told us not that we were children of God, but children of this or that identity group. They replaced God’s beautiful design for the family that men and women could rely on … with the idea that men could turn into women so long as they bought the right bunch of pills from Big Pharma.” The former U.S. senator and Catholic convert credited President Donald Trump for ending the cultural “war that has been waged on Christians and Christianity in the United States of America,” touting the administration’s policy priorities as the fruit of Christian motivation.“We help older Americans in retirement, including by ending taxes on Social Security, because we believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all of their money off to Ukraine,” he said. “We believe in taking care of the poor, which is why we have Medicaid, so that the least among us can afford their prescriptions or to take their kids to see a doctor.”Speaking of the despair he felt after the assassination of his friend Kirk, he said: “What saved me was realizing that the story of the Christian faith … is one of immense loss followed by even bigger victory. It’s a story of very dark nights followed by very bright dawns. What saved me was remembering the inherent goodness of God and that his grace overflows when we least expect it.”Of masculinity, Vance said: “The fruits of true Christianity are good husbands, patient fathers, builders of great things, and slayers of dragons. And yes, men who are willing to die for a principle if that’s what God asked them to do.”He described how he saw the fruits of Christian men living out their faith during a recent visit to a men’s ministry that aids those who struggle with addiction and homelessness: “They feed them. They clothe them. They give them shelter and financial advice. They live out the very best part of Christ’s commission.”After eating lunch with some of the men who were “all back on their feet” after receiving help, Vance said he saw that the answer to “What saved them?” was not “racial commonality or grievance … a DEI prep course” or “a welfare check.”“It was the fact that a carpenter died 2,000 years ago and changed the world in the process.” “A true Christian politics,” he said, “cannot just be about the protection of the unborn or the promotion of the family. As important as those things absolutely are, it must be at the heart of our full understanding of government.” On immigration policy, Vance has challenged U.S. bishops, popesThe vice president has publicly disagreed with the U.S. bishops on their reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, as well as with Pope Leo XIV and the late Pope Francis, who seemed to criticize Vance in a letter the pontiff penned to the U.S. bishops last winter. In defense of the administration’s approach to immigration, Vance had in a late January interview invoked an “old school … Christian concept” he later identified as the “ordo amoris,” or “rightly ordered love.” He said that according to the concept, one’s “compassion belongs first” to one’s family and fellow citizens, “and then after that” to the rest of the world.After Pope Leo on Nov. 18 asked Americans to listen to U.S. bishops’ message opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and urging the humane treatment of migrants, Vance countered: “Border security is not just good for American citizens. It is the humanitarian thing to do for the entire world.”Vance continued: “Open borders” do not promote “[human] dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves,” citing drug and sex trafficking.“When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world,” Vance said.In this week’s AmFest speech, he touted the administration’s successes regarding immigration: “December marks seven months straight of zero releases at the southern border. More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States. The first time in over 50 years that we have had negative net migration.”At the end of the speech, Vance told the thousands of young people that while “only God can promise you salvation in heaven” if they have faith in God, “I promise you closed borders and safe communities. I promise you good jobs and a dignified life … together, we can fulfill the promise of the greatest nation in the history of the earth.”

unitedyam December 23, 2025

U.S. Vice President JD Vance. / Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Dec 23, 2025 / 14:27 pm (CNA).

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, America’s second Catholic vice president, laid out a distinctly Christian vision for American politics in a speech this week, declaring that “the only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been and, by the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”

Speaking to more than 30,000 young conservatives at Turning Point USA’s AmFest 2025 some three months after the death of its founder Charlie Kirk, Vance called for a politics rooted in a Christian faith that honors the family, protects the weak, and rejects what he described as a decades-long “war” on Christianity in public life.

The Christian faith has provided a “shared moral language” since the nation’s founding, the Yale-trained lawyer argued, which led to “our understanding of natural law and rights, our sense of duty to one’s neighbor, the conviction that the strong must protect the weak, and the belief in individual conscience.”

“Christianity is America’s creed,” the vice president said to loud cheers, while acknowledging that not everyone needs to be a Christian and “we must respect each individual’s pathway” to God. Even so, he said, “even our famously American idea of religious liberty is a Christian concept.”

Vance described how, over the past several decades, “freedom of religion transformed into freedom from religion” as a result of the cultural assault on Christian faith from those on “the left” who have “labored to push Christianity out of national life. They’ve kicked it out of the schools, out of the workplace, out of the fundamental parts of the public square.”

He continued: “And in a public square devoid of God, we got a vacuum. And the ideas that filled that void preyed on the very worst of human nature rather than uplifting it.”

Vance said cultural voices opposed to Christian faith “told us not that we were children of God, but children of this or that identity group. They replaced God’s beautiful design for the family that men and women could rely on … with the idea that men could turn into women so long as they bought the right bunch of pills from Big Pharma.”

The former U.S. senator and Catholic convert credited President Donald Trump for ending the cultural “war that has been waged on Christians and Christianity in the United States of America,” touting the administration’s policy priorities as the fruit of Christian motivation.

“We help older Americans in retirement, including by ending taxes on Social Security, because we believe in honoring your father and mother rather than shipping all of their money off to Ukraine,” he said. “We believe in taking care of the poor, which is why we have Medicaid, so that the least among us can afford their prescriptions or to take their kids to see a doctor.”

Speaking of the despair he felt after the assassination of his friend Kirk, he said: “What saved me was realizing that the story of the Christian faith … is one of immense loss followed by even bigger victory. It’s a story of very dark nights followed by very bright dawns. What saved me was remembering the inherent goodness of God and that his grace overflows when we least expect it.”

Of masculinity, Vance said: “The fruits of true Christianity are good husbands, patient fathers, builders of great things, and slayers of dragons. And yes, men who are willing to die for a principle if that’s what God asked them to do.”

He described how he saw the fruits of Christian men living out their faith during a recent visit to a men’s ministry that aids those who struggle with addiction and homelessness: “They feed them. They clothe them. They give them shelter and financial advice. They live out the very best part of Christ’s commission.”

After eating lunch with some of the men who were “all back on their feet” after receiving help, Vance said he saw that the answer to “What saved them?” was not “racial commonality or grievance … a DEI prep course” or “a welfare check.”

“It was the fact that a carpenter died 2,000 years ago and changed the world in the process.”

“A true Christian politics,” he said, “cannot just be about the protection of the unborn or the promotion of the family. As important as those things absolutely are, it must be at the heart of our full understanding of government.”

On immigration policy, Vance has challenged U.S. bishops, popes

The vice president has publicly disagreed with the U.S. bishops on their reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, as well as with Pope Leo XIV and the late Pope Francis, who seemed to criticize Vance in a letter the pontiff penned to the U.S. bishops last winter.

In defense of the administration’s approach to immigration, Vance had in a late January interview invoked an “old school … Christian concept” he later identified as the “ordo amoris,” or “rightly ordered love.”

He said that according to the concept, one’s “compassion belongs first” to one’s family and fellow citizens, “and then after that” to the rest of the world.

After Pope Leo on Nov. 18 asked Americans to listen to U.S. bishops’ message opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and urging the humane treatment of migrants, Vance countered: “Border security is not just good for American citizens. It is the humanitarian thing to do for the entire world.”

Vance continued: “Open borders” do not promote “[human] dignity, even of the illegal migrants themselves,” citing drug and sex trafficking.

“When you empower the cartels and when you empower the human traffickers, whether in the United States or anywhere else, you’re empowering the very worst people in the world,” Vance said.

In this week’s AmFest speech, he touted the administration’s successes regarding immigration: “December marks seven months straight of zero releases at the southern border. More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States. The first time in over 50 years that we have had negative net migration.”

At the end of the speech, Vance told the thousands of young people that while “only God can promise you salvation in heaven” if they have faith in God, “I promise you closed borders and safe communities. I promise you good jobs and a dignified life … together, we can fulfill the promise of the greatest nation in the history of the earth.”

Catholic leaders back pregnancy centers, doctors in federal suit over abortion referrals #Catholic

Illinois state capitol in Springfield. / Credit: Paul Brady Photography/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 12:34 pm (CNA).
Catholic leaders in Illinois are backing a coalition of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors suing the state government over a law that requires them to refer women to abortion providers even if they object to the procedure on religious grounds. The lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, challenges a 2016 Illinois rule that requires health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to nevertheless tout the “benefits” of the procedure and refer women to abortion clinics. In April the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois partly blocked the law, ruling that it violates freedom of speech in forcing providers to relay the alleged benefits of abortion. The court, however, held that the abortion referral requirement is legal. The case is currently at appeal from both sides in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Dec. 16, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Catholic Health Association joined several Orthodox advocates in an amicus brief urging the court to offer the “highest level of protection” to the religious speech of the pro-life plaintiffs. “Providing the highest level of First Amendment protection to religious institutions gives them the predictability they need to pursue their religious missions,” the filing said, arguing that forcing health care providers to refer abortions “could lead people to believe that such conduct is morally acceptable.”First Amendment jurisprudence, the filing argues, leaves “no doubt that the abortion-referral requirement burdens core religious speech without proper justification.”Chicago archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich said in a press statement that “every life deserves protection and care, no matter how fragile or dependent.” “The Church in Illinois is standing up for that eternal truth against Illinois’ effort to deny it,” the prelate said. Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki similarly argued that Catholics “must be free to live according to the 2,000-year-old teachings of our faith without government intrusion.” “Illinois’ mandate threatens that freedom by forcing Catholic ministries and health care professionals to promote a practice we believe is gravely wrong,” he said. “We pray the court will put a swift stop to it.”The amicus brief was filed by the religious liberty law group Becket. Lawyers for the pro-life plaintiffs have argued that the abortion referral requirement violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which was brought by the same organization at the head of the Illinois dispute. The Supreme Court held in that decision that a similar California rule appeared to violate the First Amendment by “requiring [pro-life providers] to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions.”

unitedyam December 17, 2025

Illinois state capitol in Springfield. / Credit: Paul Brady Photography/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 17, 2025 / 12:34 pm (CNA).

Catholic leaders in Illinois are backing a coalition of pro-life pregnancy centers and doctors suing the state government over a law that requires them to refer women to abortion providers even if they object to the procedure on religious grounds.

The lawsuit, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto, challenges a 2016 Illinois rule that requires health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to nevertheless tout the “benefits” of the procedure and refer women to abortion clinics.

In April the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois partly blocked the law, ruling that it violates freedom of speech in forcing providers to relay the alleged benefits of abortion. The court, however, held that the abortion referral requirement is legal.

The case is currently at appeal from both sides in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Dec. 16, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Catholic Health Association joined several Orthodox advocates in an amicus brief urging the court to offer the “highest level of protection” to the religious speech of the pro-life plaintiffs.

“Providing the highest level of First Amendment protection to religious institutions gives them the predictability they need to pursue their religious missions,” the filing said, arguing that forcing health care providers to refer abortions “could lead people to believe that such conduct is morally acceptable.”

First Amendment jurisprudence, the filing argues, leaves “no doubt that the abortion-referral requirement burdens core religious speech without proper justification.”

Chicago archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich said in a press statement that “every life deserves protection and care, no matter how fragile or dependent.”

“The Church in Illinois is standing up for that eternal truth against Illinois’ effort to deny it,” the prelate said.

Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki similarly argued that Catholics “must be free to live according to the 2,000-year-old teachings of our faith without government intrusion.”

“Illinois’ mandate threatens that freedom by forcing Catholic ministries and health care professionals to promote a practice we believe is gravely wrong,” he said. “We pray the court will put a swift stop to it.”

The amicus brief was filed by the religious liberty law group Becket.

Lawyers for the pro-life plaintiffs have argued that the abortion referral requirement violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which was brought by the same organization at the head of the Illinois dispute.

The Supreme Court held in that decision that a similar California rule appeared to violate the First Amendment by “requiring [pro-life providers] to inform women how they can obtain state-subsidized abortions.”

unitedyam December 5, 2025

null / Credit: Paul Gueu/Shutterstock

Denver, Colorado, Dec 5, 2025 / 18:18 pm (CNA).

After receiving a letter of excommunication from the Vatican, the leader of a schismatic group in Colorado Springs told congregants he would ignore it — furthering the divide between the small splinter group and the Catholic Church.

Anthony Ward heads the Servants of the Holy Family, a group that labels itself as Catholic in spite of the Diocese of Colorado Springs’ declaration that the group is schismatic.

In a 40-minute speech to his congregation in which he called Church authorities “a kangaroo court” of “heretics” and “freemasons,” Ward went public on Nov. 16 about his excommunication and his plans to continue ignoring the Catholic Church’s directives.

During a secret ceremony in 2024, a bishop whose name was withheld at the time consecrated Ward as a bishop without papal permission.

In the Catholic Church, only the pope can appoint bishops. Consecrating a bishop without papal mandate is considered illicit and incurs an automatic “latae sententiae” excommunication for both parties.

During the meeting at the Servants’ chapel on Nov. 16, Ward told his congregation that the Catholic Church had made a declaration of excommunication against him due to what he described as “persistent, rebellious disobedience.”

Though excommunication is a “medicinal penalty” designed to urge an individual to repent, Ward has said he is “ignoring” the letter and will not be responding within the 30-day window given to him.

Embracing the claims of the letter, Ward said he will continue to disobey, instead putting his loyalty toward what he called “the true Catholic faith.”

“I have not and will not obey commands from the kangaroo court composed of heretics, schismatics, Freemasons, representatives of the most vile sinful perversions, enemies of the cross of Christ,” Ward told the congregation, “of whom the majority of bishops — particularly in this country — no longer believe in the real presence of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, Christ in the Eucharist.”

The U.S. Catholic bishops recently led a yearslong Eucharistic Revival that centered on the Catholic belief that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Despite the local Catholic diocese’s denouncement of the Servants, the group continues to hold Eucharistic celebrations and is recruiting minors as well as adult men to be trained as priests.

The Servants’ website advertises the group as “faithful to the Latin Mass” as well as to “Catholic doctrine and morals” and claims it is “endorsed by Catholic bishops worldwide.”

Ward named Archbishop Telesphore George Mpundu Lusaka, the African archbishop emeritus of Zambia, as the bishop who illicitly consecrated him, but the other bishops are not specified readily on the website.

When asked to comment, a spokesperson for the Diocese of Colorado Springs referred to the most recent public statement by Bishop James Golka in April 2024.

Since 2013, the Diocese of Colorado Springs has publicly held that the Servants are “not in good standing” with the Church.

Pointing to continued “obstinate ill will” by the Servants, Golka declared last year that Ward and other priests affiliated with the Servants “are not in good standing with the diocesan or the universal Catholic Church” and declared it “a schismatic group.”

Pointing to canon law, Golka declared that its Eucharistic celebration “is illicit and a grave moral offense” and that its celebration of baptism “is illicit.” The bishop also declared celebrations of penance, the sacrament of matrimony, confirmation, and holy orders by this group to be invalid.

Golka said it would be “an act of spiritual danger” for Catholics to attend celebrations led by the Servants and encouraged the faithful to pray for reconciliation.

The Servants did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

1 in 4 post-abortive women regret abortion decades later, study finds #Catholic

null / Credit: MikeDotta/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 4, 2025 / 15:37 pm (CNA).
Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news:1 in 4 post-abortive women regret abortion decades later, study finds A new study found that 1 in 4 women regret their abortion decades after undergoing the procedure. The study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Health Care, measured the levels of distress abortive women feel years after having an abortion. Authored by Father Donald Paul Sullins with The Catholic University of America and the Ruth Institute, the study found that 24% of postabortive women in the U.S. “suffer from serious post-abortion distress.” Of these post-abortive women, just under half showed “multiple symptoms of post-traumatic stress,” according to the study. In the study, Sullins called for more research on the long-term effects of abortion as well as the development of “effective therapeutic interventions.”“The health care of this population of women is understudied and underserved,” the study read. “Women considering an abortion should be informed of the possibility that they may experience persistent emotional distress.” 1 million ‘conversion counts’ highlights pregnancy center’s lifesaving workA group that promotes life-affirming pregnancy centers has logged 1 million “conversions” away from abortion since its inception, the group announced earlier this week.Choose Life Marketing works with more than 900 pro-life clients, including pregnancy centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies. The group found that a million women experiencing unplanned pregnancies had scheduled an appointment with a pregnancy help center since the agency’s founding in 2016. “It reflects women choosing connection over isolation, hope over fear, and the courage to reach out for help,” said Nelly Roach, who heads Choose Life Marketing. “Pregnancy help centers across the country continue to meet those moments with the compassion, excellence, and support women deserve.”“One million women reached out,” she continued. “Hundreds of thousands found the support they needed to choose life. Their courage and their children will shape families, communities, and futures for generations.” Appeals court rules in favor of pregnancy centers in legal battle A federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of pregnancy centers in a legal battle over abortion pill reversal services.A panel on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction allowing pregnancy clinics to advertise abortion pill reversal.New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the group Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy centers in May 2024 accusing them of fraud in promoting a drug regimen that purports to reverse the effects of mifepristone. In response, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates sued James, claiming she was attacking their right to free speech. The three-judge panel at the appeals court ruled unanimously that the pregnancy centers could continue to advertise abortion reversal. Thomas Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, heralded the ruling, saying that pregnancy resource centers in the state “are now free to help women who regret taking the abortion pill and want a chance at saving the lives of their babies.” “Abortion pill reversal, like the court said, offers no financial gains for pregnancy centers,” Glessner said in a statement shared with CNA. “They are simply giving women another option than ending the life of their unborn babies.”Iowa lawmaker reintroduces bill in support of pregnant college students Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, has reintroduced a bill requiring colleges to inform pregnant students of their rights and the resources available to them in their schools.Under Title IX, pregnant students have the right to remain in school and complete their education, but about 30% of abortions are performed on college-aged women, according to Hinson’s press release. Resources that colleges offer to pregnant students often include flexible class schedules, excused absences, and child care assistance.Students “deserve to know every resource available to them,” Hinson said in a statement.“It is unacceptable that so many often feel they have to choose between finishing their education and having their baby,” the lawmaker continued.Praising the bill, Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, said in a statement: “Women balancing school, pregnancy, and family deserve our support. Yet, ironically, far too few know about Title IX, the law that is supposed to protect their rights.”

unitedyam December 4, 2025

null / Credit: MikeDotta/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Dec 4, 2025 / 15:37 pm (CNA).

Here is a roundup of recent pro-life and abortion-related news:

1 in 4 post-abortive women regret abortion decades later, study finds

A new study found that 1 in 4 women regret their abortion decades after undergoing the procedure.

The study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Health Care, measured the levels of distress abortive women feel years after having an abortion.

Authored by Father Donald Paul Sullins with The Catholic University of America and the Ruth Institute, the study found that 24% of postabortive women in the U.S. “suffer from serious post-abortion distress.”

Of these post-abortive women, just under half showed “multiple symptoms of post-traumatic stress,” according to the study.

In the study, Sullins called for more research on the long-term effects of abortion as well as the development of “effective therapeutic interventions.”

“The health care of this population of women is understudied and underserved,” the study read. “Women considering an abortion should be informed of the possibility that they may experience persistent emotional distress.”

1 million ‘conversion counts’ highlights pregnancy center’s lifesaving work

A group that promotes life-affirming pregnancy centers has logged 1 million “conversions” away from abortion since its inception, the group announced earlier this week.

Choose Life Marketing works with more than 900 pro-life clients, including pregnancy centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies.

The group found that a million women experiencing unplanned pregnancies had scheduled an appointment with a pregnancy help center since the agency’s founding in 2016.

“It reflects women choosing connection over isolation, hope over fear, and the courage to reach out for help,” said Nelly Roach, who heads Choose Life Marketing. “Pregnancy help centers across the country continue to meet those moments with the compassion, excellence, and support women deserve.”

“One million women reached out,” she continued. “Hundreds of thousands found the support they needed to choose life. Their courage and their children will shape families, communities, and futures for generations.”

Appeals court rules in favor of pregnancy centers in legal battle

A federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of pregnancy centers in a legal battle over abortion pill reversal services.

A panel on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction allowing pregnancy clinics to advertise abortion pill reversal.

New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the group Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy centers in May 2024 accusing them of fraud in promoting a drug regimen that purports to reverse the effects of mifepristone.

In response, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates sued James, claiming she was attacking their right to free speech. The three-judge panel at the appeals court ruled unanimously that the pregnancy centers could continue to advertise abortion reversal.

Thomas Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, heralded the ruling, saying that pregnancy resource centers in the state “are now free to help women who regret taking the abortion pill and want a chance at saving the lives of their babies.”

“Abortion pill reversal, like the court said, offers no financial gains for pregnancy centers,” Glessner said in a statement shared with CNA. “They are simply giving women another option than ending the life of their unborn babies.”

Iowa lawmaker reintroduces bill in support of pregnant college students

Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, has reintroduced a bill requiring colleges to inform pregnant students of their rights and the resources available to them in their schools.

Under Title IX, pregnant students have the right to remain in school and complete their education, but about 30% of abortions are performed on college-aged women, according to Hinson’s press release. Resources that colleges offer to pregnant students often include flexible class schedules, excused absences, and child care assistance.

Students “deserve to know every resource available to them,” Hinson said in a statement.

“It is unacceptable that so many often feel they have to choose between finishing their education and having their baby,” the lawmaker continued.

Praising the bill, Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, said in a statement: “Women balancing school, pregnancy, and family deserve our support. Yet, ironically, far too few know about Title IX, the law that is supposed to protect their rights.”

U.S. Supreme Court hears dispute over faith-based pregnancy centers #Catholic

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA).
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

unitedyam December 2, 2025

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA).

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.

The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.

At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”

In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.

Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.

The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”

First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.

At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”

Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”

She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”

Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.

Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”

In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

Report details persecution of Turkish Christians ahead of Pope Leo XIV's visit #Catholic

The scene outside a Catholic church in Istanbul, Turkey, where a reported armed attack took place on Jan. 28, 2024. / Credit: Rudolf Gehrig/EWTN

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 26, 2025 / 16:15 pm (CNA).
A Christian advocacy group’s report details “legal, institutional, and social hostility” toward Turkish Christians as Pope Leo XIV begins his six-day visit to Turkey and Lebanon Thursday.The report from The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), titled “The Persecution of Christians in Turkey,” explores government interference against clergy and Christian entities, restrictions on foreign Christians who visit the country, and widespread social animosity toward the faithful, which sometimes includes direct violence.“Communities that were once integral to the cultural, religious, and historical fabric of Anatolia have been reduced to a fragile remnant,” the authors state.“Their disappearance is not the product of a single event but the cumulative result of restrictive legislation, administrative obstruction, property confiscations, denial of legal personality, and — more recently — arbitrary expulsions of clergy, missionaries, and converts,” they add.Modern-day Turkey, which was governed by Christians prior to the Ottoman Empire invasions in late Middle Ages, is still home to about 257,000 Christians. In 1915, Christians still accounted for about 20% of the Turkish population, but the number has dwindled over the past century and they now account for less than 0.3% of the population.Persecution of ChristiansThe report says hostility toward Christians is kept alive through environmental factors, such as Turkey’s refusal to recognize its past by continuing to deny the genocide of Armenians and other Christians during World War I. At that time, about 1.5 million Armenians and 500,000 other Christians were forcibly deported or massacred, and Turkey’s criminalization of “insulting the Turkish nation” and “insulting Turkishness” is often enforced to quell speech about the historical events, according to the report.It notes that politicians and state-run media frequently scapegoat Christians for societal issues and depict them as an external and internal threat, with one example being President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan referring to survivors of the genocide as “terrorists escaped from the sword” and another being the state-run Yeni Akit allegedly editing Wikipedia to smear Christians, Jews, and other groups.In some cases, this hostility yields violence, including a 2024 terrorist attack on a Catholic church that killed one person, and other acts of violence and vandalism.The report notes that Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne after the Armenian genocide, which granted people who believe some non-majority faiths full legal recognition and property rights.Yet, a narrow interpretation of the treaty ensures “a national narrative that presents Sunni Islam as the primary marker of Turkish identity,” the report says. The treaty also fails to recognize all Christians, only giving a specific reference to Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic Christians, and Jews, but not Catholics or Protestants, according to the report.It states that Sunni Islam is often tied to Turkish identity in public education and the process to be exempt from compulsory Islamic education is burdensome for Christians not covered under the treaty.No church holds legal personality as a religious institution, which means patriarchates, dioceses, and churches cannot “own property in their own name, initiate legal proceedings, employ staff, open bank accounts, or formally interact with public authorities,” the report states.The government also interferes with religious leadership, prohibiting non-Turkish citizens from being elected as Ecumenical Patriarch, sitting on the Holy Synod, or participating in patriarchal elections in the Greek Orthodox Church. The government also regulates elections for leadership in the Armenian Apostolic Church.Turkey shut down the Greek Orthodox Halki Seminary in 1971 and — despite promises to let it reopen — keeps it shut down, according to the report.The report also says Turkey imposes legal constraints and administrative obstruction on Christian “community foundations,” which operate churches, schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions.This includes blocking board elections and failing to enforce court orders. One of the more egregious violations is imposing “mazbut” trusteeship, which ends Christian institutions’ legal recognition and grants control to the government, which essentially confiscates property, the report said.“These practices reveal a structural system designed to undermine the autonomy, continuity, and survival of Christian communities in Turkey,” the report states.According to the report, foreign Protestant pastors are often expelled from seminaries. More broadly, it states that foreign missionaries and converts are often targeted as “national security” threats and frequently expelled from Turkey. The authors encouraged Turkey to grant full legal recognition to all churches, halt interference in Christian organizations, protect places of worship, end arbitrary expulsions, and return property that has been confiscated.

unitedyam November 26, 2025

The scene outside a Catholic church in Istanbul, Turkey, where a reported armed attack took place on Jan. 28, 2024. / Credit: Rudolf Gehrig/EWTN

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 26, 2025 / 16:15 pm (CNA).

A Christian advocacy group’s report details “legal, institutional, and social hostility” toward Turkish Christians as Pope Leo XIV begins his six-day visit to Turkey and Lebanon Thursday.

The report from The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), titled “The Persecution of Christians in Turkey,” explores government interference against clergy and Christian entities, restrictions on foreign Christians who visit the country, and widespread social animosity toward the faithful, which sometimes includes direct violence.

“Communities that were once integral to the cultural, religious, and historical fabric of Anatolia have been reduced to a fragile remnant,” the authors state.

“Their disappearance is not the product of a single event but the cumulative result of restrictive legislation, administrative obstruction, property confiscations, denial of legal personality, and — more recently — arbitrary expulsions of clergy, missionaries, and converts,” they add.

Modern-day Turkey, which was governed by Christians prior to the Ottoman Empire invasions in late Middle Ages, is still home to about 257,000 Christians. In 1915, Christians still accounted for about 20% of the Turkish population, but the number has dwindled over the past century and they now account for less than 0.3% of the population.

Persecution of Christians

The report says hostility toward Christians is kept alive through environmental factors, such as Turkey’s refusal to recognize its past by continuing to deny the genocide of Armenians and other Christians during World War I.

At that time, about 1.5 million Armenians and 500,000 other Christians were forcibly deported or massacred, and Turkey’s criminalization of “insulting the Turkish nation” and “insulting Turkishness” is often enforced to quell speech about the historical events, according to the report.

It notes that politicians and state-run media frequently scapegoat Christians for societal issues and depict them as an external and internal threat, with one example being President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan referring to survivors of the genocide as “terrorists escaped from the sword” and another being the state-run Yeni Akit allegedly editing Wikipedia to smear Christians, Jews, and other groups.

In some cases, this hostility yields violence, including a 2024 terrorist attack on a Catholic church that killed one person, and other acts of violence and vandalism.

The report notes that Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne after the Armenian genocide, which granted people who believe some non-majority faiths full legal recognition and property rights.

Yet, a narrow interpretation of the treaty ensures “a national narrative that presents Sunni Islam as the primary marker of Turkish identity,” the report says. The treaty also fails to recognize all Christians, only giving a specific reference to Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic Christians, and Jews, but not Catholics or Protestants, according to the report.

It states that Sunni Islam is often tied to Turkish identity in public education and the process to be exempt from compulsory Islamic education is burdensome for Christians not covered under the treaty.

No church holds legal personality as a religious institution, which means patriarchates, dioceses, and churches cannot “own property in their own name, initiate legal proceedings, employ staff, open bank accounts, or formally interact with public authorities,” the report states.

The government also interferes with religious leadership, prohibiting non-Turkish citizens from being elected as Ecumenical Patriarch, sitting on the Holy Synod, or participating in patriarchal elections in the Greek Orthodox Church. The government also regulates elections for leadership in the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Turkey shut down the Greek Orthodox Halki Seminary in 1971 and — despite promises to let it reopen — keeps it shut down, according to the report.

The report also says Turkey imposes legal constraints and administrative obstruction on Christian “community foundations,” which operate churches, schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions.

This includes blocking board elections and failing to enforce court orders. One of the more egregious violations is imposing “mazbut” trusteeship, which ends Christian institutions’ legal recognition and grants control to the government, which essentially confiscates property, the report said.

“These practices reveal a structural system designed to undermine the autonomy, continuity, and survival of Christian communities in Turkey,” the report states.

According to the report, foreign Protestant pastors are often expelled from seminaries. More broadly, it states that foreign missionaries and converts are often targeted as “national security” threats and frequently expelled from Turkey.

The authors encouraged Turkey to grant full legal recognition to all churches, halt interference in Christian organizations, protect places of worship, end arbitrary expulsions, and return property that has been confiscated.