Day: January 7, 2026

Credit: Digital Storm/Shutterstock

Jan 7, 2026 / 15:04 pm (CNA).

A federal appeals court this week upheld a years-old principle of U.S. law that allows religious organizations to hire only like-minded believers as staff members.

Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington, will be permitted to hire only those employees who share the group’s religious beliefs about marriage and sexuality, according to a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The court’s Jan. 6 ruling said the state of Washington would be forbidden from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination against the Christian group.

The mission group originally brought suit against the state in 2023, arguing that the nondiscrimination law hindered its ability to hire solely workers who agree with the group’s Christian worldview.

The “ministerial exception” generally allows religious groups to be exempt from U.S. discrimination laws when hiring for ministry roles. But in its lawsuit Union Gospel Mission sought broader relief from the state discrimination law, arguing that it wanted to ensure even “non-ministerial” employees were adhering to the Christian faith.

In its ruling, the 9th Circuit said that the principle of church autonomy, as recognized by U.S. courts, “forbids interference” with “an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.”

“[I]n cases involving the hiring of non-ministerial employees, a religious institution may enjoy [church autonomy] when a challenged hiring decision is rooted in a sincerely held religious belief,” the court said.

Union Gospel’s hiring policy qualifies as an “internal management decision” protected by U.S. law, the court held. Allowing the state to enforce the discrimination policy “could interfere with a religious mission and drive it from the public sphere.”

The decision was hailed by the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which has represented the Christian group for nearly three years. Attorney Jeremiah Galus said the court “correctly ruled that the First Amendment protects the mission’s freedom to hire fellow believers who share that calling.”

“Religious organizations shouldn’t be punished for exercising their constitutionally protected freedom to hire employees who are aligned with and live out their shared religious beliefs,” Galus said.

In a phone interview with CNA on Jan. 7, Galus said the decision represents a “pretty significant victory.”

The ministerial exception is a “somewhat unremarkable principle,” he pointed out. Yet the Washington Supreme Court had earlier ruled for a narrower interpretation of that exception, creating uncertainty around the scope of the principle there.

The 9th Circuit ruling is the “first appeals decision of its kind that holds the First Amendment allows religious orgs to operate in this way,” Galus said.

The appeals court ruling upheld a lower court’s block of the state law.

It is unclear if Washington state will appeal the decision. The Supreme Court has previously ruled broadly in favor of ministerial exceptions, including in the 2012 decision of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, in which the high court unanimously ruled that the First Amendment “prevents the government from appointing ministers” and “prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.”

The court expanded that principle in the 2020 decision Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru when it held that religious schools are permitted to hire and fire teachers as they please under the ministerial exception.

Galus, meanwhile, pointed out that the appeals ruling extends beyond Washington state to encompass the entirety of the 9th Circuit.

The decision “affirms what we have been saying all along, which is that the First Amendment protects this right regardless of a statutory exemption,” he said.

Confessional. | Credit: Paul Lowry (CC BY 2.0)

Jan 7, 2026 / 14:34 pm (CNA).

A proposed law in Arizona could see priests facing felony charges if they fail to break the seal of confession after learning of child abuse during the sacrament.

The measure, HB 2039, was introduced in December 2025 by state Rep. Anastasia Travers. It is awaiting action in the state House after Travers prefiled it on Dec. 4.

The bill would amend the state code to require priests to report abuse learned during confession if they have “reasonable suspicion to believe that the abuse is ongoing, will continue, or may be a threat to other minors.”

Failure to report a “reportable offense” could lead to class 6 felony charges under the bill. Those charges in Arizona can lead to up to $150,000 in fines and up to two years of imprisonment.

Travers did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the bill and why she proposed it. She previously filed a similar bill in 2023.

Lawmakers in multiple U.S. states in recent years have moved to require priests to violate the seal of confession as part of mandatory reporting laws.

One such law in Washington state suffered a dramatic defeat in July 2025 after a federal court blocked the measure on First Amendment grounds. The rule had drawn rebuke from the U.S. bishops, the White House, Orthodox church leaders, and other advocates. The state backed off the law in October 2025.

Similar measures in Delaware, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Montana have been proposed over the past few years, though none have come to pass. One such law was also proposed in Hungary in October 2025. In 2019, California lawmakers proposed and then backed off of a similar bill.

Priests are bound to never divulge what they hear in confession on pain of excommunication. Multiple priests in Church history have been martyred after they were executed for refusing to break that seal.

Church canon law dictates that it is “absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”

St. Mary’s Catholic Cathedral in Edinburgh, Scotland. | Credit: Gastao at English Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Jan 7, 2026 / 13:40 pm (CNA).

Scottish bishops have denounced a law establishing so-called “buffer zones” around abortion facilities, saying it “restricts free speech, free expression, and freedom of religion in ways that should concern us all.”

The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act 2024 establishes “buffer zones” up to 200 meters (656 feet) around 30 locations across Scotland. The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland said: “Within those zones, any conduct deemed to ‘influence’ a decision about abortion may be criminalized.”

“We oppose this law because it is disproportionate and undemocratic,” the bishops said in a Jan. 6 statement. “The Catholic Church does not condone harassment or intimidation, but that was not the intention of this law.”

The Scottish government lists several activities that might violate the law, including “silent vigils,” “handing out leaflets,” “religious preaching,” and “approaching someone to try and persuade them not to access abortion services.”

It is “unsettling” that this Christmas season “saw the first person in Scotland charged under the … law in Scotland,” the bishops said. A law “the Church believes curtails Scotland’s commitment to freedom of expression and conscience, and restricts critical voices from democratic debate in the public square.”

In December 2025, 74-year-old Rose Docherty was charged under the law, following her original arrest in February 2025 in Glasgow. She was arrested when she was silently standing outside Queen Elizabeth University Hospital holding a sign that said: “Coercion is a crime; here to talk, only if you want.”

Risks of the law

The bishops highlighted the “troubling” implications and concerns of the legislation.

The law potentially “criminalizes a person standing alone in a buffer zone without any visible expression of protest but who is deemed by others to be offering a silent pro-life inspired prayer,” the bishops said.

It “extends to private homes within designated zones,” they said. “A pro-life poster displayed in a window, a conversation overheard, a prayer said by a window; all could, in principle, fall within the scope of criminal sanction.”

When asked if praying by a window in your own home could constitute an offense, Gillian Mackay, the Scottish Green Party member of Parliament who spearheaded the legislation, replied: “That depends on who’s passing the window.”

Scotland’s police have also “expressed unease,” the bishops said. Superintendent Gerry Corrigan told Parliament that policing thought is an area they “would stay clear of.” He added: “I do not think we could go down the road of asking people what they are thinking or what their thoughts are.”

The bishops said the law could also affect women experiencing crisis pregnancies who may be denied the opportunity to freely speak to people and organizations that can help them. They said: “A law supposedly designed to protect choice risks doing the opposite — eliminating one side of a conversation and one set of choices altogether.”

Some parliamentarians attempted to mitigate the effects of the law by proposing a “reasonableness defense” or “exemptions for chaplains who might be criminalized for pastoral conversations,” but “all amendments were rejected or withdrawn,” the bishops said.

“We support all those who, motivated by conscience and compassion, stand up for the right to life. It cannot be a crime to give our voice and our prayers to the unborn,” they said.

“As we look to the child in the manger this Christmas and Epiphany, we are reminded that babies do not have a voice of their own. It is a shame that the state has now also curtailed the voices of ordinary citizens who advocate for them within its borders,” they said.