Santa Fe Archbishop criticizes Speaker Johnson for using Scripture as political weapon

Archbishop Wester warns House speaker against using Scripture to undermine human dignity

House Speaker Mike Johnson defended mass deportations in response to Pope Leo XIV’s opposition. Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe said the lawmaker’s response was “deeply concerning.” 

House Speaker Mike Johnson speaks at the rally before the 2024 March for Life in Washington, D.C. | Credit: EWTN News

By Tyler Arnold

Santa Fe, New Mexico, Archbishop John C. Wester said while nations may regulate their borders, Catholic teaching requires that all policies and rhetoric uphold the inherent dignity of migrants and avoid using Scripture as a political weapon.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson had put forth a biblical defense of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts Feb. 3 after a reporter asked him to respond to Pope Leo XIV’s criticism of mass deportations. The pontiff cited Matthew 25:35, in which Jesus Christ speaks about those who will inherit the kingdom of God, saying “[when I was] a stranger and you welcomed me.”

In response, Johnson, a Southern Baptist, said immigration is not “frowned upon” in the Bible but instead welcomed, and “we’re going to welcome the sojourner and love our neighbor as ourself.” However, Johnson said that biblical command to welcome the stranger falls on “individuals” instead of “civil authorities,” which Wester said is contrary to Christian ethics.

Johnson said civil authorities maintain a divine right to establish immigration laws that maintain order. He called national borders and walls “biblical.” He said God “allowed us to set up our civil societies and have separate nations.”

“When someone comes into your country, comes into your nation, they do not have the right to change its laws or to change a society,” he said. “They’re expected to assimilate.”

The speaker cited Romans 13, in which St. Paul instructs Christians to be “subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.”

Johnson said there was not proper order under former President Joe Biden and criticized him for the number of unlawful border crossings, which he said included “many dangerous people.” He said borders are “good and right,” not because “we hate the people on the outside” but because “we love the people on the inside.”

“We should love our neighbor as ourself as individuals,” he said. “But the civil authority and the government has to maintain the law, and that is biblical and it’s right and it’s just.”

Archbishop calls comments ‘deeply concerning’

In a Feb. 6 statement, Wester — whose archdiocese is near the southern U.S. border — said “it is deeply concerning when theological language and sacred texts are used to diminish the fundamental dignity of human beings created in the image of God.”

Wester said Catholic teaching acknowledges the right of governments to manage their borders but that the right “is never absolute” and policies must “reflect the inherent dignity of every person, and must be ordered toward justice, mercy, and the common good.”

The archbishop said those with power have “a greater duty … to protect the vulnerable” and “not to treat them as political fodder.”

“To suggest that compassion, dignity, and respect for the stranger are merely personal virtues rather than obligations of society betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian ethics,” the archbishop said.

“The Gospel is not a collection of sound bites for political advantage; it is the call to love our neighbors as ourselves, to defend the defenseless, and to remember that every human being bears the imprint of God,” he continued. “Reducing Scripture to a political tool undermines its transformative power and our shared humanity.”

Wester said the national right to regulate borders “must be balanced with the call to show compassion, protect human dignity, and seek just and humane solutions” and that “strong policies and humane treatment are not mutually exclusive.”

“In fact, justice demands both,” the archbishop said. “Let us pray for our leaders that they may be guided by wisdom, informed by truth, and moved by the love and mercy of Christ, who came not to condemn but to call us into communion with all people.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that prosperous nations have an obligation, “to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner.” The immigrant has an obligation “to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws, and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

“Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions,” it adds.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted 216-5 in November to adopt a special message that expresses opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.” A November 2025 poll from EWTN News and RealClear Opinion Research found that 54% of Catholics support “broad scale” deportations, while only 30% oppose it and 17% neither support nor oppose it.

40 Faith leaders, including 20 Catholic Bishops oppose the One Big Beautiful Bill

 

20 US bishops join interfaith effort opposing ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

written by Kate Scanlon 

Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, N.M., (right) takes part in a demonstration in El Paso, Texas, against mass deportation alongside Bishop Peter Baldacchino of Las Cruces, N.M.; Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller of San Antonio and Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso. Archbishop Wester promulgated June 26, 2025, a letter by 40 leaders of several faiths — including 20 Catholic bishops — calling the budget bill before Congress a “moral failure” that should be opposed. (OSV News photo/Bob Roller)

WASHINGTON (OSV News) — Twenty U.S. Catholic bishops have signed onto an interfaith effort opposing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would enact key provisions of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda on taxes and immigration, calling it a “moral failure.”

The Senate is drafting its version of the budget legislation that House Republicans passed in May under rules that would allow it to pass with a simple majority and avoid a filibuster. Trump has called for the Senate to pass the bill by July 4.

A letter from more than 40 faith leaders of several faith traditions — promulgated by Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, on June 26 — urged senators to reject the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“We, the undersigned faith leaders, write to ask for your opposition to HR 1, the budget reconciliation legislation currently being considered by the U.S. Senate,” the letter said. “We believe that the changes made by the U.S. Senate to the legislation are insufficient and do not significantly mitigate its adverse effects.”

Diverse Voices Raised over Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Archbishop Wester, who was joined by 19 U.S. bishops in signing the letter, told OSV News they thought it would be “a good idea for faith leaders to come together to express our deep and profound concern about this bill, because it’s going to hurt and harm so many people, particularly immigrants and families and those who depend on the government to assist them for their medical needs.”

“This (legislation) is really violating our Catholic social teaching in terms of a preferential option for the poor, welcoming the stranger in our midst, the common good, subsidiarity,” he said. “It’s a very draconian kind of a bill that seems to have little or no regard for the people that will be affected by it.”

The letter objected to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act allocating millions of dollars to the government’s mass deportation campaign, expressing concern that campaign would also infringe upon their houses of worship. 

“We have already witnessed a reduction in attendance at many of our religious services in our denominations, as the threat of enforcement has deterred many families from practicing their faith,” the letter said.

It also objected to “severe cuts in healthcare coverage and food assistance to millions of both low-income citizens and legal residents, including asylum-seekers and refugees.” It argued those cuts would drive them “deeper into poverty.”

“From our various faith perspectives, the moral test of a nation is how it treats those most in need of support. In our view, this legislation will harm the poor and vulnerable in our nation, to the detriment of the common good,” the letter said. “Its passage would be a moral failure for American society as a whole.”

Among the bishops leading dioceses joining Archbishop Wester were Cardinal Robert W. McElroy of Washington; Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin of Newark, New Jersey; Bishop Steven Biegler of Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bishop John P. Dolan of Phoenix; Archbishop Paul D. Etienne of Seattle; Bishop Joseph R. Kopacz of Jackson, Mississippi; Bishop Michael M. Pham of San Diego; Archbishop Mitchell T. Rozanski of St. Louis; Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento, California; Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky; Bishop Joseph J. Tyson of Yakima, Washington; and Archbishop Edward J. Weisenberger of Detroit. Retired Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, New York, several other auxiliary bishops, and representatives of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas rounded out the Catholic signatories on that letter, which also included representatives from Protestant, Jewish and Islamic faith

US Bishops Conference Raises Substantial Concerns

In a separate letter issued the same day through the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the conference commended senators for “provisions that promote the dignity of human life and support parental choice in education” in that legislation. But it also made clear “drastic changes” to the legislation are needed to prevent “provisions that will harm the poor and vulnerable.”

In a statement on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services, president of the USCCB, said, “Congress must be consistent in protecting human life and dignity.”

“As Pope Leo XIV recently stated, it is the responsibility of politicians to promote and protect the common good, including by working to overcome great wealth inequality,” Archbishop Broglio said. “This bill does not answer this call. It takes from the poor to give to the wealthy. It provides tax breaks for some while undermining the social safety net for others through major cuts to nutrition assistance and Medicaid. It fails to protect families and children by promoting an enforcement-only approach to immigration and eroding access to legal protections. It harms God’s creation and future generations through cuts to clean energy incentives and environmental programs.”

Citing the letter the conference sent to senators, Archbishop Broglio said he urged them to “think and act with courage and creativity to protect human dignity for all, to uphold the common good, and to change provisions that undermine these fundamental values.”

The letter from the bishops’ conference said that it supports provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that would strip some taxpayer funds from Planned Parenthood, one promoting school choice, and another they said would incentivize charitable giving and development.

However, they objected to Medicaid and SNAP cuts, cuts to environmental efforts, and to an increase in funds for “punitive” immigration policies. 

“We urge you to remain consistent in protecting human life and dignity by pursuing a better way forward that protects rather than harms poor and vulnerable people,” the letter said. “Before advancing this bill, we ask you to think and act with courage and creativity to preserve human dignity and uphold the common good and to change the provisions that undermine these fundamental values.”

Asked about the USCCB’s letter to senators, Archbishop Wester said he was “pleased that the USCCB did list in their letter their objections to the bill.”

“I think that was a good thing from my perspective,” he said, adding that his own personal view, and that of the signatories on the interfaith letter, is that “this bill is so awful that it has to be rejected out of hand.”

Impact of ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ on Abortion

Meanwhile, several pro-life groups are urging senators to approve the One Big Beautiful Bill Act based on the provision that would strip some funds from Planned Parenthood. While Planned Parenthood has warned the decision could lead to the closure of 200 out of its 600 nationwide clinics, it is not clear how many lives would be saved from abortion as a result. 

A #WeCount report published in June shows abortion in the U.S. has actually increased after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, in part due to an uptick in abortion facilitated by telehealth abortion providers.

Asked about how he would respond to those who support the One Big Beautiful Bill Act due to that provision, Archbishop Wester said abortion is “a terrible scourge.” But he emphasized if more people are “forced deeper into poverty,” it would likely further increase the abortion rate. 

“We know there’s a direct correlation between poverty and abortions,” Archbishop Wester said. “In my estimation, this bill is probably going to increase the gap.”

Abortion in the U.S. is heavily correlated with poverty and low incomes. Guttmacher Institute, which supports legal abortion, reported 75% of women seeking abortion were low-income, with 50% below the federal poverty line. About six out of 10 women seeking abortion were already mothers. The top concerns reported included not being able to afford another child, losing the ability to work or continue education, or having to care for dependents or other family responsibilities.

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate and can only afford three defections from their members if they are to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act without any Democratic support. 

Kate Scanlon is a national reporter for OSV News covering Washington. Follow her on X @kgscanlon.

Various Bishops response to the immigration orders of President Trump

 

Here’s how U.S. bishops have responded to Trump’s immigration orders

Migrants walk alongside the railroad tracks after dismounting from the “La Bestia” train, which they rode through Mexico to reach the Mexico-U.S. border near Chihuahua, Mexico, on Sept. 27, 2025. | Credit: David Peinado Romero/Shutterstock

By Jonah McKeown

CNA Staff, Jan 30, 2025 / 18:25 pm

Since last week, Catholic bishops across the country have publicly responded to President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders on immigration, with many calling for a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration policy that respects the dignity of migrants and refugees. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, newly empowered to make arrests at places like churches and schools without needing to seek a superior’s approval, have reportedly already begun ramping up arrests in some major cities after Trump promised “the largest deportation operation in American history” focusing primarily on “the most dangerous criminals.” 

Trump’s other first-day orders, following through on numerous campaign promises, included a declaration of a national emergency at the southern U.S.-Mexico border, a reinstatement of the controversial “Remain in Mexico” border policy from his previous term, and a designation of drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Another Trump-signed order set in motion a process to end birthright citizenship for individuals born within U.S. territory irrespective of the legal status of their parents, though a judge has already blocked that order amid a significant legal challenge led by a coalition of states

The Catholic Church teaches that countries, especially wealthier ones, should try to welcome migrants “to the extent they are able” but that nations also have the right to regulate migration.

Trump’s immigration plans, many now coming to fruition, have attracted criticism from Catholic leaders at the national level, with U.S. bishops’ conference president Archbishop Timothy Broglio saying Jan. 22 that “some provisions” of the immigration orders are “deeply troubling and will have negative consequences, many of which will harm the most vulnerable among us.” 

Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ committee on migration, on Jan. 23 decried “sweeping generalizations to denigrate any group, such as describing all undocumented immigrants as ‘criminals’ or ‘invaders’ to deprive them of protection under the law.” Doing so, he wrote, “is an affront to God, who has created each of us in his own image.”

Many individual bishops’ statements have been addressed directly to immigrants, seeking to offer words of encouragement and support and assurances that the Church welcomes them. 

The Catholic bishops of Michigan in a recent statement expressed concern over “mass deportations and harmful rhetoric that broadly demeans our immigrant brothers and sisters.” They pledged “unyielding support and respect for the human dignity of all migrant people” and urged elected officials to support policies that keep immigrant families safe and united. 

The Michigan bishops clarified, however, that Catholic teaching on immigration rejects the idea of completely “open borders” in favor of a balanced approach that prioritizes both border security and compassionate welcome. They called for a “humane immigration system that welcomes refugees and immigrants by providing a fair pathway to citizenship.”

The bishops of Maryland released a joint statement Jan. 27 to express their solidarity with immigrants and recommitting to advocating for policies that protect rights and uphold their dignity. Quoting Pope Francis, they called for people to see in every migrant “not ‘a problem to be solved but ... brothers and sisters to be welcomed, respected, and loved.’”

“The Church has always been a home for those in search of refuge and peace, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to welcome the stranger and embrace the vulnerable,” the Maryland bishops wrote. 

Texas is at the epicenter of the immigration debate due to its lengthy and highly contested border with Mexico. The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, criticizing the use of sweeping generalizations to refer to immigrants, stated that the bishops of Texas “will continue to work with governmental officials and other people of goodwill to implement policies that recognize the dignity of every person, prioritize family unity, and address the root causes of forced migration while respecting the right and responsibility of our country to secure its borders.” 

The Texas bishops said they “urge President Trump to pivot from these enforcement-only policies to just and merciful solutions.”

The bishops of Colorado, another state with a large Latino population, said the rhetoric of mass deportations has “created genuine fear for many we shepherd.” The bishops committed “to walking in solidarity with you, our migrant brothers, sisters, and families” and advocated for “comprehensive immigration reform... that respects human dignity, protects the vulnerable, and ensures safety and security for all people.” 

The bishops of New Mexico had in December articulated a strongly worded statement against a policy of mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants, saying such a policy “will not fix the broken immigration system but, rather, create chaos, family separation, and the traumatization of children.” They called for Trump to instead “return to bipartisan negotiations to repair the U.S. immigration system.”

Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe, building on the New Mexico bishops’ earlier statement, said on Jan. 21 that “overly simplistic solutions” to the immigration issue don’t tend to work and that comprehensive reform is needed. 

He further stated that as Catholics, “we firmly believe that all human beings are children of God, brothers and sisters created in God’s image.” 

“We must not treat [migrants] as mere pawns in a game of chess nor politicize them. Instead, we must place their needs and concerns at the forefront of our debates, considering both the citizens of our nation and those seeking refuge at our borders. Our Christian faith urges us to care for the resident and the stranger,” Wester said. 

“The truth is that immigrants are a benefit to our country. They help the economy by increasing the labor force, creating jobs, and boosting productivity. It is a fact that immigrants are often among the most law-abiding, religious, hardworking, and community-minded individuals in our country. They have a lower incarceration rate than the native-born population, and research shows that as the immigration population grows, the crime rate declines.”

Archbishop Jose Gómez of Los Angeles invoked the maternal protection of Our Lady of Guadalupe, expressing in a statement his solidarity with undocumented migrants facing potential deportation. Emphasizing the Gospel’s message of human dignity, he criticized fear-based policies and said any enforcement actions should be “matched by immediate action in Congress to fix our immigration system, which has been broken for decades now.”

“For Catholics, immigration is not a political issue. It is a matter of our deeply held religious beliefs. Jesus Christ commanded us to love God as our Father and to love our brothers and sisters, especially the most vulnerable, and regardless of what country they came from or how they got here. Our love for Jesus compels us to continue our works of love and service in our parishes, schools, and other ministries,” Gomez said. 

Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, prior to Trump’s inauguration, condemned reports of planned mass deportations, saying they are “not only profoundly disturbing but also wound us deeply.” He stated that “if the reports are true, it should be known that we would oppose any plan that includes a mass deportation of U.S. citizens born of undocumented parents.” 

He affirmed that while the government has a responsibility to secure borders, it is also “committed to defending the rights of all people and protecting their human dignity.”

Bishop James V. Johnston of Kansas City-St. Joseph urged members of his diocese to “embody the Gospel values of love, mercy, and justice” in light of the recent executive orders. He also called on people to “understand the teachings of the Church on migration and the rights of individuals, articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2241, and as outlined by the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services.”

New Mexico Bishop sides with New Mexico Governor in what appears to be a 2nd amendment violation

 

New Mexico bishop defends governor’s controversial gun ban

By Peter Pinedo

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Sep 12, 2023 / 13:30 pm

Archbishop John Wester of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe in a Monday statement defended the New Mexico governor’s recent controversial executive order banning the carrying of guns in the state’s most populated county.

“I believe Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is correct to point out the crisis we are experiencing in Albuquerque and the County of Bernalillo,” Wester said, adding that “the number of gun deaths we witness here is deplorable and tragic. I hope we can come together in New Mexico to address this issue.” 

“In my view, the governor has been consistent in addressing gun safety through legislation and is not now attacking the Second Amendment,” Wester went on. “She knows the law. Rather, I believe she is trying to get us to solve what has become a crisis in our state.” 

“I do not see the governor’s call to action and discernment as a threat to the Constitution,” Wester said. “The focus should be on the sanctity of human life. That is the point.” 

The order, issued by Lujan Grisham on Sept. 7, temporarily suspends the right of citizens to bear arms in public in Bernalillo County, home to New Mexico’s largest city, Albuquerque.

Lujan Grisham issued the order following the deaths by shootings of several Albuquerque children in recent months. The order suspended the carrying of guns by citizens for 30 days and was given on the grounds that gun violence in the state constitutes a “public health emergency.”

The public health order issued by Patrick Allen, secretary of the New Mexico Department of Health, in conjunction with the governor’s office stated that “no person, other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer, shall possess a firearm … either openly or concealed, within cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year.”

In his official statement, the public health secretary said that “temporary firearm restrictions, drug monitoring, and other public safety measures are necessary to address the current public health emergencies.”

The measure stirred immediate controversy in the state and across the nation.

New Mexico citizens have held several protests in the streets of Albuquerque in which they openly carried pistols and various types of rifles.

The Albuquerque mayor and police chief have signaled that they will not enforce the gun ban and that they will leave it to state authorities to do so.

Shortly following the release of the order, Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said that though “every lost life is a tragedy, and the well-being of our community is of paramount concern to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office” the temporary ban “challenges the foundation of our Constitution.”

In a Monday press conference, Sheriff Allen said he believes the order is “unconstitutional” and that “in reference to concealed carry and open carry,” the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department “will not enforce this segment of the order.”

Responding to the criticism, Lujan Grisham said during a Friday press conference that if there is an emergency, “no constitutional right, in my view, is intended to be absolute.”

Despite the county police department’s refusal to enforce the order, Source New Mexico reported that Lujan Grisham is planning to find other ways to enforce her measure.

“The order is being enforced, and citations will be forthcoming from the state police,” Caroline Sweeney, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office, was reported saying on Monday. 

The office added that they would not be providing additional details “to ensure officer safety.” 

Bishop Wester is the only Catholic prelate to have weighed in on the controversy thus far.

In the past, both the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Pope Francis have advocated for stricter gun control laws. 

Following the deadly 2021 shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Francis said that “it is time to say ‘enough’ to the indiscriminate trafficking of weapons” and called for “all [to] make a commitment so that tragedies like this cannot happen again.”

“I hope to hear more of an outcry over an 11-year-old boy killed by a bullet fired in a road rage incident than over the right to carry a gun,” Wester said in his release. 

The Santa Fe bishop concluded his statement by calling on the faithful in his diocese and across the whole Church “to keep the victims of gun violence in your prayers so that we might take steps to solve the tragedy of gun violence in our society.”

Two U.S. Archbishops lead pilgrimage to Japan promoting nuclear disarmement

 U.S archbishops call for disarmament in ‘pilgrimage of peace’ to Japan

by Gina Christian

 

July 19, 2023

 

(OSV News) — Two U.S. archbishops are leading a “Pilgrimage of Peace” to Japan, hoping to promote global nuclear disarmament.

Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Archbishop Paul D. Etienne of Seattle are traveling July 31 – Aug. 12 to Japan’s cities of Tokyo, Akita, Kyoto, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Joining the archbishops are representatives from archdiocesan offices and various organizations focusing on nuclear disarmament and social justice. Funding for the trip is underwritten by “grants and personal contributions,” rather than archdiocesan funds, according to a July 18 news release from the Archdiocese of Santa Fe.

Participants are escorted by Hirokazu Miyazaki, anthropology professor at Northwestern University, and a peace correspondent for Nagasaki, appointed by that city to speak on behalf of its residents for nuclear disarmament.

The pilgrimage features a “Novena for Nuclear Disarmament,” prayers for which are available in English on the trip’s website.

Abolishing nuclear weapons

According to the website, the pilgrimage’s mission is to “establish an ecclesial and personal relationship with the bishops of Japan to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons, expressing our heartfelt sorrow for the devastating experiences endured by their nation.”

An estimated 140,000 people were killed in Hiroshima during World War II when the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Aug. 6, 1945, followed by a second atomic bomb Aug. 9, 1945, on Nagasaki that left 74,000 people dead. Survivors, known as “hibakusha”, faced numerous physical and psychological ailments in the bombings’ aftermath, which led to Japan’s unconditional surrender to the U.S. and its allies.

In the release, Archbishop Wester said that he hoped during the pilgrimage to “encourage conversation about universal, verifiable nuclear disarmament and to walk together toward a new future of peace, a new promised land of peace, a new culture of peace and nonviolence where we all might learn to live in peace as sisters and brothers on this beautiful planet, our common home.”

“God calls us to build a global community where the whole human family can flourish,” added Archbishop Etienne, according to the release. “Let us keep educating ourselves, praying for peace, and appealing for verifiable nuclear disarmament, which reflects our Catholic teachings and is the path for the common good.”

‘Compelled’ to speak out

In May, both bishops joined Archbishop Peter Michiaki Nakamura of Nagasaki and Bishop Alexis Mitsuru Shirahama of Hiroshima in issuing a letter to leaders of the Group of Seven nations, as the G7 met in Hiroshima, calling on them to take “concrete steps” toward ending the use of nuclear weapons.

“As the Roman Catholic spiritual leaders of the diocese with the most spending on nuclear weapons in the United States (Santa Fe, NM), the diocese with the most deployed strategic nuclear weapons in the United States (Seattle, WA), and the only two dioceses in the world to have suffered atomic attacks (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan), we are compelled by providence to speak out,” the bishops said in the May 15 letter.

“Rather than viewing the war in Ukraine as an overwhelming impediment toward making substantial progress, we view it instead as a clear demonstration of the absolute need to do so,” the letter stated.

In their letter to the G7, the bishops also emphasized “that serious talks should be restored” between the U.S. and Russia to renew the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty — Russia’s participation in New START was suspended by its president, Vladimir Putin, in February — and called on leaders to “enter into serious multilateral negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.”

American Archbishop says we should baptize children of same-sex couples

 

Archbishop Wester: The Catholic Church should baptize children of same-sex couples

Editor’s Note: In some Catholic dioceses and parishes, the question of whether to baptize the children of same-sex couples is not disputed. The child, say some dioceses and parishes, should be treated like any other children whose parents present them for the sacrament of baptism. In other dioceses and parishes, the approach is far different, with some couples being turned away. Here, Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe, N.M., addresses a pastoral question that has caused distress in parishes and among same-sex Catholic parents.

The Great Commission, as presented at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (cf. 28:16-20), could easily be called “The Great Gift,” as the risen and ascended Christ, who possesses “all power in heaven and on earth,” empowers the disciples to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

From that mountaintop 2,000 years ago down to the present age, the church has been conducting its divine mission and sharing the gift of baptism with the same generosity with which our Savior gave it to us.

This generous impulse of the church is mirrored in the Book of Isaiah: “All you who are thirsty, come to the water! You who have no money, come, buy grain and eat; Come, buy grain without money, wine and milk, without cost!” (55:1). Although speaking of the Eucharist, Pope Francis also captured this theme in his latest apostolic letter, “Desiderio Desideravi.” He wrote: “No one had earned a place at that Supper. All had been invited. Or better said: all had been drawn there by the burning desire that Jesus had to eat that Passover with them.”

It is of great concern, therefore, when people are refused the sacrament of baptism, or any of the sacraments, for that matter. I understand that the church, as guardian and dispenser of the graces of the sacraments, must exercise prudence in their celebration and even, in certain serious and rare cases, refuse the sacraments to some until reconciliation and/or the lifting of impediments are removed.

Nonetheless, the general disposition of the church is one of hospitality, openness and welcome, in the spirit of the new evangelization. Refusing to baptize children of same-sex couples is not in keeping with this outreach, and I find it quite troubling. To refuse baptism to these children solely on the basis of the fact that they have same-sex parents, while possibly done with good intentions, is not supported by church teaching or practice, in my view.

Let me say from the outset that when a parent (or parents) request baptism for their child, this is a moment of grace not only for the child but for the parents as well. Indeed, the first response should never be “Sure!” or “Nope!” Automatic approvals or blanket refusals are never good pastoral practices. Rather, the priest, deacon or lay leader should journey with the parent(s) and help them to understand the beauty, implications, responsibilities and rights of this important moment of faith. This is true for all parents requesting to have their child baptized, including same-sex couples.

The Vatican II declaration on religious freedom, “Dignitatis Humanae,” states that the family, “since it is a society in its own original right, has the right freely to live its own domestic religious life under the guidance of parents. "Hence, not only is the church’s outreach one of welcome, but it is also incumbent upon the institutional church to respect the domestic church, the family.

While the ideal family, according to church teaching, is headed by one father and one mother, in reality we baptize many children from families who do not live up to this ideal. Some families have only one parent due to divorce, abandonment or death. Sadly, many families are fragmented by addiction, violence, dysfunction and poverty. In all of these cases, I am not aware that the norm is to refuse baptism to their children.

Rather, we meet these couples where they find themselves and encourage them to grow in the faith as they pass that faith on to their children. Yet same-sex couples are at times refused baptism of their children. Why?

I suspect that same-sex couples’ children are refused baptism because a judgment has been made that they cannot raise their child in the Catholic faith as L.G.B.T.Q. parents. This is not true. It is true that same-sex couples cannot live up to the understanding of marriage intended by God and taught by the church in every respect, but we must admit that no couple can ever live up to this understanding in every respect.

In church teaching, marriage is a human reality, consisting in a committed, lifelong, exclusive relationship of total love between one man and one woman; the marital act is the privileged expression of that (and requires the complementarity of male and female to be unitive), and in God’s design, this marital act of love also brings new life into the world. No wonder that this graced relationship is seen as analogous to Christ’s bond with the church.

The church’s minister is called to help the couple seeking baptism for their child to strive to make their marriage ever more attuned to the church’s understanding of this bond, allowing that this openness to the faith will give them credibility in raising their children as Catholics.

It is important to keep in mind that the question at hand is the baptism of the child and not the ability of the parents to live up to all of the church’s teaching on marriage. Just the same, there are substantial, foundational and critical elements in the same-sex couples’ relationship that do offer strong assurances that the child will be raised in the faith.

I want to underscore here the critical importance of love. In the baptismal rite, the priest or deacon tells the parents that they are “the first teachers of their children in the ways of faith, bearing witness to the faith by what they say and do, in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Without a doubt, same-sex couples are quite capable of teaching their children about the faith, by living lives that respect others, by remaining faithful to each other and by loving one another.

God is love and the most fundamental catechesis that a child can receive is to be loved, to return love and to be a member of a loving family. All other catechesis is based on this. In addition, same-sex couples give witness to many other aspects of Catholic life that form a coherent catechesis for children: commitment, fidelity, self-giving, honesty, humility, kindness, spiritual depth, church attendance, respect and so much more. These considerations form the basis for the specific Catholic teaching that same sex parents give to their children.

Hence, I see no reason why a couple would be refused when they present their child for baptism based solely on the fact that they are a same-sex couple.

As a pastor, I am also persuaded to baptize children of same-sex parents because the parents, by requesting baptism for their children, are showing good faith. The mere fact that they are approaching the Catholic Church in this regard, knowing that their relationship cannot be recognized as a sacrament, gives evidence that they are serious about their faith and that they wish to raise their children in that faith. Good will on their part should be presumed.

This is a time of grace for the parents. The priest, deacon or lay minister should take advantage of it by spending time with the couple, exploring the faith with them, challenging them to grow in that faith and supporting them in their desire follow Christ as Catholics. I believe that undue attention given to the fact that the couple is gay blinds the church’s minister to the abundance of positive and virtuous qualities that abide in their relationship.

Moreover, the believing community into which the child is initiated, and which is represented by the godparents, is also responsible for the deepening of the faith in this child. The church has always pointed to the Body of Christ as an integral part of the faith development of the newly baptized. Years ago, when missionaries asked Rome if they could baptize children even if the parents had not converted, they were told that the community assumes the responsibility of raising the children in the Catholic faith.

This is lived out quite well by the multitude of religious education teachers in our parishes and schools. It is also exemplified in our parishes as children are catechized by the celebration of the Eucharist and the witness given by the parishioners throughout the week. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we are given a beautiful reflection on the community of faith into which the baptized are initiated and which becomes a conduit of grace for the newly initiated (Nos. 1267-71).

Scripture also gives us guidance in approaching the question at hand. The Gospel of Mark shows that Jesus responds generously to the father who wanted his son cured of a mute spirit (9:14-29). Even though the father’s faith was weak (“I do believe, help my unbelief!”), Jesus performed the miracle and cured his son. L.G.B.T.Q. parents who believe, though aware of their own challenges to faith, are no less worthy, by having their child baptized, of the healing sought by the man in Mark’s Gospel.

In the ninth chapter of John’s Gospel, we see that Jesus rejects the idea that children are punished for the actions of their parents. This trajectory of grace leads me to the view that the children of same-sex parents should not be refused baptism on the basis of their parents’ same-sex relationship alone.

The church’s proclivity to baptize is captured in the Acts of the Apostles (8:26-40). The words jump out with enthusiasm and joy as the Ethiopian eunuch says: “Look there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?” The chariot was ordered to stop then and there, and Philip baptized him. Jesus echoed this impulse to baptize in Matthew’s Gospel: “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (19:14).

L.G.B.T.Q. parents who strive to live and love their Catholic faith may rightly ask, like the Ethiopian in Acts, “What prevents us from baptizing our child?” I believe that the answer is: Nothing. “All you who are thirsty, come to the water!” (Is 55:1).

This article was originally published at Outreach: An LGBTQ Catholic Resource