U.S. Catholic Bishops Meet and Pray with President Trump at the White House
Denver Archbishop James Golka and a group of U.S. Catholic bishops held a meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House on October 22. During the visit, the bishops and the president joined together in prayer for the nation and its leadership. The discussion encompassed various topics including religious freedom, school choice, and life policy. While the meeting aimed to foster dialogue on Church concerns, the USCCB clarified that it did not organize or officially affiliate with the event. The participants acknowledged that although they share some common ground, they remain divided on significant issues such as abortion, IVF, and immigration policy.
about 4 hours ago
U.S. Catholic bishops met with President Donald Trump at the White House on Oct. 22, discussed religious and policy issues, and prayed with him in the Oval Office. Accounts differ on who organized the meeting: the White House Faith Office, according to its director, or a Heritage Foundation official, according to people familiar with the gathering. 1 3
Denver Archbishop James Golka and more than half a dozen other bishops met with Trump in the Oval Office. Participants included Bishops Abdallah Elias Zaidan, Edward Burns, James Wall, William Joensen and Michael Barber, as well as Archbishop Jeffrey Grob and Archbishop Emeritus Joseph Naumann. 1 2
At the end of the meeting, the bishops gathered around Trump at the Resolute desk to pray. Golka thanked God for the United States, its government and the presidency, asked for a blessing on Trump, and prayed that the Holy Spirit would protect the country from evil. 1 2
Golka said afterward that he hoped the encounter would encourage further dialogue on the sanctity of life, human dignity and other concerns of the Catholic Church. 1 2
White House Faith Director Jenny Korn said the meeting was organized by the White House Faith Office as part of its engagement with religious leaders. She said participants discussed religious freedom, the Faith Office’s role, school choice, religious visas and life policy, and described the gathering as “not politics” but policy discussion followed by prayer. Trump’s spiritual adviser, Paula White-Cain, also attended. 1 2
The Pillar reported a different account of the organization: citing several people close to the meeting, it said an official at the Heritage Foundation arranged it. The Pillar also noted criticism of the meeting’s timing, close to the upcoming midterm elections. 3
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it did not organize the event and was not affiliated with it. 1 2
The reporting described areas of overlap between the bishops’ conference and the Trump administration, including religious liberty, opposition to gender ideology and some pro-life initiatives. It also noted disagreements over the administration’s approach to mail-order abortion drugs, Trump’s support for in vitro fertilization, and mass deportations. 1 2*
Catholic principles governing bishops’ engagement with political power
Catholic teaching does not require bishops to avoid political leaders. It calls them to engage public life by teaching moral principles, forming consciences, and advocating justice—while refusing to turn the Church into a partisan instrument or to take over the state’s political role. A meeting with a president or other official can therefore be appropriate, but its purpose and conduct matter: dialogue should serve the common good, not suggest Church endorsement of a candidate or party.
Bishops have a particular responsibility to hand on the Church’s moral and social teaching. They may explain the moral stakes of public decisions, help Catholics form their consciences, and encourage the faithful to participate in political life. The Church’s role is not to replace government or conduct the political contest for power; neither, however, should it remain silent when justice is at stake.
That distinction is important. Political questions often have moral dimensions—such as how a society treats human dignity, the vulnerable, or the common good. Bishops can speak to those dimensions without claiming that the Church has the technical expertise or authority to settle every policy detail. Catholic social teaching offers moral principles for evaluating public choices; it does not make the Church a political party or a substitute government.
The U.S. bishops affirm both that the Church is engaged in political life and that it is not partisan:
“The Church is involved in the political process but is not partisan. The Church cannot champion any candidate or party.”
In practice, this allows bishops to meet public officials, raise concerns, explain Church teaching, and seek action on matters of justice. The bishops’ statement expressly welcomes dialogue with political leaders and candidates and says that the Church seeks to engage and persuade public officials. But it also warns that the Church “should not be used”: a public appearance or photo opportunity is no substitute for serious dialogue.
So the relevant question is not simply whether a bishop was seen with a politician. It is whether the engagement communicates the Church’s moral concerns honestly and independently—or whether it is presented in a way that makes the Church appear to endorse a political figure, party, or agenda. The available sources establish that distinction as a principle; they do not, by themselves, determine the meaning or effects of any particular meeting.
Bishops’ teaching role does not erase lay Catholics’ responsibility to make political judgments. The U.S. bishops describe clergy and laity as having complementary roles: Church leaders teach moral principles and guide conscience formation, while political choices remain the responsibility of individuals acting with properly formed consciences. Participation also extends beyond voting, to the broader responsibilities of public life.
A bishop can therefore teach that an issue raises serious moral concerns without prescribing a vote for or against a particular candidate. The English and Welsh bishops likewise caution Church leaders not to exceed their competence or infringe on the proper autonomy of laypeople; bishops, clergy, and laity should work together while respecting one another’s experience and responsibilities.
This is not a claim that every political choice is morally interchangeable. It means that moral guidance and the final prudential judgment about a particular political choice are distinct tasks. The bishops’ 2023 statement says its aim is to help Catholics form their consciences, not to tell them for whom or against whom to vote.
Catholic political engagement is meant to be principled rather than ideological. The U.S. bishops identify the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity as basic principles of Catholic social doctrine. In simple terms, these direct attention to the worth of every person, the conditions that allow people and communities to flourish, decisions being made at an appropriate level, and responsibilities toward one another—especially those in need.
The bishops say that this framework does not fit neatly into political labels such as “right” and “left,” and they caution against allowing party loyalty to displace fundamental moral truths. They call for politics that gives greater weight to moral principles than to polling, to the needs of the weak rather than the benefits of the powerful, and to the common good rather than narrow interests.
That means bishops’ engagement should not be reduced to whether it benefits one side of the political spectrum. Nor does nonpartisanship require moral silence or equal approval of every policy position. The bishops state that the Church cannot compromise its moral teaching, while also insisting on civility and charity in public life.
When bishops engage political authorities, the Catholic principles in these sources point to several practical tests:
In short, Catholic principles support bishops’ direct engagement with those who govern, provided that it remains oriented to truth, justice, human dignity, and the common good. Such engagement is most faithful to the Church’s role when it allows bishops to speak independently, keeps the distinction between moral teaching and partisan campaigning clear, and respects the responsibility of the laity to act in public life.