Catholic groups stress efforts to combat hunger as Senate prepares to consider farm bill
Catholic groups and U.S. bishops urged Senate to prioritize hunger relief in upcoming farm bill. They highlighted the need for strong support for SNAP, a key component of the nation's food assistance system. The push comes as the Senate prepares to review a farm bill that had already passed the House. The groups emphasized that farm policy decisions directly affect food security and poverty reduction.
5 months ago
Catholic leaders are urging Congress to protect and strengthen federal nutrition programs as the Senate prepares to debate a new farm bill, emphasizing that food security is a matter of human dignity and a core teaching of Pope Leo XIV. Their appeals focus on preserving SNAP, expanding assistance to Puerto Rico, and maintaining international food‑aid programs while warning that recent policy cuts threaten millions of vulnerable Americans. 1 2
The House passed a $390 billion farm bill on April 30, 2026, but the Senate’s upcoming review faces uncertainty after a near‑party‑line vote in the lower chamber. Julie Bodnar of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) highlighted the bill’s historic bipartisan nature and urged its continuation. 1
Francisco “Frankie” Chevere of Catholic Charities USA warned that Senate approval is “at best, doubtful,” noting the bill’s growing polarization. 1
The House version locks in about $187 billion of SNAP reductions enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which added work‑requirements and state cost‑sharing. Since July of the previous year, 3–4.3 million participants have lost benefits. 1
Catholic groups—including Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Relief Services, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Catholic Rural Life, and USCCB committees—called for:
John Berry of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul cited Pope Leo XIV’s statement that “No one can remain on the sidelines in the fight against hunger.” 1
Marilyn Richardson of Catholic Relief Services stressed that the farm bill also funds U.S. international food‑aid programs such as Food for Peace and McGovern‑Dole, which support global hunger relief, farmer livelihoods, and nutrition outcomes. 1
On April 28, the USCCB and the same Catholic partners issued a joint letter to Congress urging robust funding for nutrition and agriculture programs in the FY 2027 appropriations bill. The appeal framed food access as a “human right” rooted in Catholic social teaching and echoed Pope Leo XIV’s May prayer intention that “everyone might have food.” 2
The letter cited USDA data showing 13.7 % of U.S. households experienced food insecurity in 2024 and warned that grocery prices are projected to keep rising in 2026. 2
The coalition asked lawmakers to:
Catholic groups sought greater flexibility in SNAP work requirements, stronger support for food banks, and expanded eligibility for lawfully present immigrants and refugees. 2
Rep. Andy Harris (R‑MD) questioned the fiscal impact of the proposed spending, asking the bishops to address the “moral dimension” of adding to the $2 trillion deficit and $37 trillion national debt. 2
The House Appropriations Committee approved the FY 2027 agriculture appropriations bill at $26.27 billion, slightly below FY 2026 levels, while debates continue over the broader farm bill’s nutrition provisions. 2
Both sets of statements invoke Catholic doctrine that every person has a right to adequate nutrition, linking policy advocacy to the Church’s teaching on human dignity. 1 2
The USCCB, Catholic Charities USA, Catholic Relief Services, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and Catholic Rural Life act as a coordinated voice, urging lawmakers to protect existing programs, reverse recent cuts, and ensure equitable treatment for territories such as Puerto Rico. 1 2
---*
Catholic teachings mandate state support for national food security
Catholic teaching supports the moral necessity of public responsibility for ensuring access to food, and it can therefore justify state support for national food security. However, Catholic doctrine typically expresses this not as a one-line “mandate for governments to run X program,” but as a duty rooted in the right to nutrition, solidarity, and the common good, to be carried out in a way consistent with subsidiarity (i.e., empowering families and civil society, while the state intervenes when they cannot).
Pope Francis describes famine/starvation as a scandalous injustice and a grave offense when society “silently” accepts it, noting that those who cause starvation through “usury and greed” are indirectly committing “a homicide.” This frames hunger as morally intolerable and calls for “concerted effort” and “no effort should be spared” to lift people out of poverty and hunger.
John Paul II states plainly that “The right to have enough to eat is certainly an inalienable human right,” and that it “imposes the obligation to ensure that everyone really does have enough food.” He also links this right to concrete “food security” goals (production, emergency resource stability, and ongoing access to necessary resources).
Pope Benedict XVI likewise connects food access to the protection of human life and adds that people who lack food must be helped “to gradually become capable of satisfying their own needs for sufficient and healthy nutrition,” a point that matters for understanding what “state support” should look like (empowering capacity, not only distributing goods).
John Paul II explicitly extends moral responsibility beyond individuals to nations: “We should not only apply this principle to individuals but also to nations.” When people cannot satisfy basic needs due to war, poverty, bad government, mismanagement, or natural disasters, “others have the moral duty to intervene to help them.”
In that framework, “national food security” is not merely a technocratic target—it is a way of fulfilling duties tied to the right to nutrition and to preventing hunger from becoming normal.
Pope Francis emphasizes hunger as “a consequence of broader social and economic injustices,” with poverty as a major contributing factor, and thus demands a change at the level of systems, not only isolated relief.
Archbishop Caccia (Holy See) likewise argues that all states should place “efforts to meet basic human needs above partisan interests,” and avoid treating food as “mere commodities” to the highest bidder. That strongly supports the legitimacy (and necessity) of public policy rather than leaving food outcomes solely to markets.
John Paul II’s “food security” description includes concrete objectives and ongoing responsibilities, including stabilizing resources for emergencies and ensuring continuous development-related access. That implies that governments should build durable structures capable of meeting needs over time, which is exactly what “national food security” typically means.
The US bishops apply Catholic principles to agriculture policy, stating: “A first priority for agriculture policy should be food security for all. Because no one should face hunger in a land of plenty…” They call for nutrition programs (including SNAP and WIC) to be “strong and effective.”
Their later letter on U.S. farm bill legislation similarly treats access to food and nutrition as “a basic need and a fundamental human right,” urging Congress to “strengthen and protect programs that feed hungry individuals and families,” with SNAP described as “a critical component.”
These applications show that Catholic teaching is not only “general morality,” but can support concrete governmental programs aimed at ensuring real access to food.
Pope Benedict XVI teaches that food security requires strategies against poverty and rural development, including structural reform and increasing food availability by promoting industrious small farmers—alongside effective distribution—and doing so in ways consistent with subsidiarity.
The US bishops’ agriculture policy priorities include stewardship and sustainable agriculture as “vital elements” of agricultural policy. In other words, “state support” in Catholic terms is not just buying food; it includes enabling families and local producers to contribute to a stable system.
John Paul II explicitly includes emergency-oriented stabilization as part of food security. Catholic policy advocacy in the U.S. likewise describes emergency backstops (e.g., TEFAP) and urges strengthening them with additional mandatory funding.
Catholic teaching endorses state responsibility, but it does not equate “food security” with one specific mechanism. For example, Benedict XVI emphasizes helping people “gradually become capable” of meeting their own needs, implying that public support should build long-term capacity.
Even when the state has a duty, Catholic thought (reflected in the sources) insists that solutions should include involving those nearest to the problem and enabling them. Benedict XVI explicitly mentions subsidiarity’s role in enabling a direct role in distribution chain/trading to reduce intermediary costs and favor small-scale production. That means the “state support” contemplated by Catholic teaching is compatible with empowering farmers, local communities, and humanitarian actors rather than crowding them out.
The claim “Catholic teachings mandate state support for national food security” is substantially correct, provided it is understood in Catholic terms: the Church teaches an inalienable right to adequate food, that this right “imposes the obligation” to ensure access, and that nations have a moral duty to intervene when basic needs cannot be met—through enduring structures addressing both regular supply and emergency stability, guided by justice, solidarity, and subsidiarity.