Red Mass marks opening of Supreme Court term in Washington
Washington’s 74th annual Red Mass marked the opening of the Supreme Court term, drawing more than 1,000 attendees, including justices and Vice President JD Vance. Archbishop Timothy Broglio urged public officials and legal professionals to seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance and let integrity, charity, and harmony shape their work. Broglio emphasized equal access to justice and called on legal professionals to be “architects of hope,” including in their treatment of immigrants and refugees. Security was increased after a threat against Catholics and Supreme Court justices at the previous year’s Red Mass.
about 3 hours ago
More than 1,000 people, including Supreme Court justices and Vice President JD Vance, attended Washington’s annual Red Mass on Oct. 4, ahead of the new judicial term. Archbishop Timothy Broglio’s homily emphasized seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance in public life and pursuing justice with integrity, charity, and concern for all. 1 2
Washington Cardinal Robert McElroy celebrated the Mass at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle, while Broglio, of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, delivered the homily. Hosted by the John Carroll Society, the service prayed for judges, attorneys, diplomats, and government leaders. 1 2
The event marked the 74th Washington Red Mass. Its name refers to the red vestments worn by participating Church officials, symbolizing the tongues of fire associated with the Holy Spirit; similar services are held in cities including Rome, Paris, and London. 1 2
Broglio said that seeking the Holy Spirit’s wisdom could help people fulfill their responsibilities, and prayed that understanding God’s presence and commandments would inspire integrity and harmony. He also urged those in legal and public service to let charity guide their work and to help ensure access to justice, including for the most vulnerable. 1 2
Broglio noted immigrants’ contributions to the United States and called on legal professionals to be “architects of hope,” shaping the pursuit of justice through charity and fraternity. Referring to Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, he said a society’s treatment of migrants, refugees, and displaced people reflects whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or fraternity. 1 2
Attendees included law students and faculty from Georgetown University and The Catholic University of America. John Carroll Society member and George Mason University adjunct professor Mark Cummings said the gathering gave students an opportunity to meet prominent members of the legal profession and described Broglio’s remarks as a call to support equal access to justice. 1 2
Security was increased following threats made by a New Jersey man against Catholics and Supreme Court justices at the previous year’s Red Mass. 1 2
Catholic moral theology and the pursuit of judicial impartiality
Catholic moral theology treats judicial impartiality not as cold detachment, but as a disciplined service to truth and justice. A judge must resist favoritism and personal pressure, assess the evidence objectively, and treat the people before the court with human concern—without letting compassion distort the judgment.
Impartiality means that a person’s status, identity, or the judge’s personal sympathies should not determine the outcome in place of the merits of the case. A Catholic account connects this fairness with the equal dignity of persons: justice should not assign people different worth or rights because of who they are.
Pope Paul VI describes the judge’s task as combining objectivity with aequitas—equity, or careful attention to the relevant circumstances of the case. Equity does not mean disregarding law or deciding according to personal feeling. It means evaluating the parties and circumstances fairly while remaining faithful to the law and to the demands of natural justice.
For John Paul II, the judge’s guiding commitment is love of truth: the judge must seek it even when it is uncomfortable or risks displeasing someone. A decision shaped by false compassion or pressure to reach a popular outcome is not a genuinely pastoral solution if it is unjust.
That principle also applies to advocates. Benedict XVI says that lawyers must respect the truth of the evidence and should not lend their professional support to a cause they believe cannot objectively be sustained. This illustrates that impartiality is part of a broader moral responsibility shared by those who participate in the administration of justice, each according to their role.
Catholic teaching does not require a judge to become indifferent to the people involved. Benedict XVI insists that justice must be joined to charity: those administering justice should recognize the difficulties faced by the parties and treat them with sensitivity. But charity must remain inseparable from justice; misplaced compassion can become sentimentality and lead to an unjust outcome.
This is the central moral balance: care for persons should shape how justice is administered, but it should not predetermine what justice requires. Mercy and attention to human hardship are not exceptions to truth; they must operate within it.
Impartiality does not mean that a judge has no human assumptions or prior understanding. A canonical-law study acknowledges that complete freedom from personal bias may be unrealistic. It distinguishes those inevitable perspectives from prejudgment that interferes with fair adjudication; views formed through weighing evidence during the trial, for example, are not automatically evidence of improper bias.
The moral aim, then, is not to pretend to be perspective-free, but to govern one’s perspectives honestly: test them against the evidence, the law, and the rights of the parties. Paul VI accordingly emphasizes impartiality, integrity, freedom from outside interests, and diligence as necessary qualities of judges.
The available sources support these moral principles but do not establish the current procedural rules for when a judge must withdraw or be disqualified in a particular court. That question would depend on the applicable legal system and its current rules.