Bishops Apologise After Oval Office Prayer With Trump Today Latest

Twelve bishops, one prayer, and then the photographs appeared online before some of the men in them had even had time to explain what they had done. That sequence, more than the prayer itself, is what turned a private meeting into a public apology within days.

Twelve Catholic bishops prayed over President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on 22 October 2026, twelve days before the US midterm elections, Religion News Service reported. The bishops first had a 90-minute discussion with White House staff and policy advisers, focused on matters including immigration enforcement, religious worker visas and human dignity, before being escorted into the Oval Office, the Daily Caller reported.

Archbishop James Golka, tapped by Pope Leo XIV to lead the Archdiocese of Denver, led the prayer, thanking God for the nation, the government and the presidency, Religion News Service reported. The White House posted the video and photos of the prayer soon after the meeting, and that publication is at the heart of the regret that followed.

Archbishop Grob Apologises Over Trump Prayer Meeting

Archbishop Jeffrey Grob of Milwaukee issued a public apology on 25 October, saying the White House had not obtained permission from any meeting attendees before posting photos and video of the private prayer, the Daily Caller reported. Grob said the meeting was the second of two meetings arranged by the Heritage Foundation, that he was invited in mid-September, and that his attendance was not an endorsement of Trump or his policies.

Grob said he then received messages of serious concern that he had inadvertently participated in a political event less than two weeks before a national election. His own words, as reported by the Daily Caller, set out the moment the private meeting became a public problem for him.

I soon began receiving messages of serious concern over the possibility that I had inadvertently participated in a political event less than two weeks before a national election.

That quotation is Grob's own account of what happened after the photographs were published, and it should be read as his account rather than as a finding about anyone else's intentions. Grob has characterised the episode as a political stunt in his accusation, as reflected in the Daily Caller headline, but this article does not present a claim about the White House's intention as established fact.

The timing is what gave the messages their force. Twelve days before midterm elections is close enough that any photograph of bishops with a president will be read politically, whatever the bishops intended, and Grob's apology acknowledges that the bishops did not control how the images would be read once they were posted.

Bishop Joensen Regret Over Oval Office Prayer With Trump

Bishop William Joensen of Des Moines, Iowa, also expressed regret, saying the meeting was organised by White House Faith Office officials to discuss immigration, international clergy visas and the exploitation of vulnerable poor persons. He said that in no way did any of those involved intend by their involvement to endorse any political party or any individual candidate, Brussels Reporter reported.

Joensen's regret was expressed in strikingly personal language, and it is worth quoting because it shows a bishop judging his own judgement in public. He wished he had been more shrewd and less simple, in his own words, about how the meeting could be used, and that self-criticism is the clearest sign of how seriously he took the episode.

The policy discussion that came before the prayer matters to understanding why the bishops went at all. Immigration enforcement, religious worker visas and human dignity are not abstract topics for bishops whose parishes include immigrant families and clergy waiting on visas, and the bishops' account is that they went to discuss those matters, not to campaign.

Religion News Service reported that recent surveys showed support for President Trump slipping among Catholic voters, citing a Pew finding and a PRRI survey in which 61% of white Catholics said their opinion of Trump had changed mostly for the worse over the previous two years. That survey context is part of why the photographs landed as they did, because they appeared at a moment when Catholic opinion was already moving.

Catholic Bishops Prayer: Private Meeting, Public Photographs

The distinction the two bishops are drawing is a narrow one, and it is worth stating it carefully. They are not apologising for praying, and they are not apologising for meeting White House officials to discuss immigration and visas. They are apologising for, and expressing regret over, a private prayer being published as public images without, on Grob's account, permission from those present.

That distinction may not satisfy every reader, and it is fair to say so. Once bishops are photographed praying over a president days before an election, the photograph does political work whether or not the bishops wanted it to, and an apology after publication cannot un-publish the images.

The wider church context includes other recent calls for a compassionate approach to immigration, including Catholic and evangelical leaders calling for compassionate immigration reform, and the prayer meeting should be read alongside that longer conversation rather than as a single isolated photograph. Readers following Pope Leo XIV's recent public appearances can also read the latest health update on Pope Leo XIV and his Angelus message on love of God overflowing into love for neighbours, which set out the tone of this pontificate in his own words.

What remains unresolved is the question the two bishops have left hanging in their own statements. If a private meeting can become a public political image without permission, what safeguards will bishops seek before the next invitation, and will the White House change how it publishes such meetings? The bishops went in to discuss vulnerable people, visas and human dignity, and they came out having to explain a photograph instead, and whether that trade is one they would make again is the question their apologies leave open.

But the most surprising part of this story is yet to come — keep reading.