Alliance

Author of religious freedom report weighs in on Cardinal Parolin’s Nigeria comments #Catholic Marta Petrosillo, editor-in-chief of the Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) Religious Freedom Report. / Credit: Gael Kerbaol/Secours Catholique Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 24, 2025 / 09:14 am (CNA). The author of Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report, Marta Petrosillo, is coming to Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s defense after remarks he made regarding persecution of Nigerian Christians prompted pushback.Parolin sparked pushback after stating at a press conference on Tuesday that ongoing violence and unrest in Nigeria is a “social conflict” rather than a religious one. He told Vatican reporters during the presser for Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report release event: “I think they’ve already said, and some Nigerians have already said, that it’s not a religious conflict but rather a social conflict, for example, between herders and farmers.”“Let’s keep in mind that many Muslims who come to Nigeria are victims of this intolerance,” he continued.” So, these extremist groups, these groups that make no distinctions to advance their goals, their objectives, use violence against anyone they perceive as an opponent.” The remarks prompted immediate pushback, including from Sean Nelson of Alliance Defending Freedom International, who called them “particularly shocking.” Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute further characterized them as “repeating the Nigerian government’s talking points that obfuscate and downplay the persecution of the Catholic faithful and other Christians in Nigeria’s Middle Belt,” in comments to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner. As author of the report, Petrosillo weighed in on the controversy in an Oct. 23 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” telling Arroyo: “Cardinal Parolin didn’t say [the conflict was solely between farmers and herders] in his speech in our conference. His speech was really strong, underlining the importance of religious freedom.” “I know that Cardinal Parolin is one of the most important people on religious freedom,” she continued. “He has a huge knowledge on this.” Regarding the controversy that has ensued over Parolin’s comments, Petrosillo said: “I can only suppose that … it was referring to the complex situation there.” She added: “I think that this topic [is] too complex and too elaborate, just for one journalist to take one sentence outside a conference in a very rushed way. So I would not consider that as a statement from his eminence.”Petrosillo further pushed back against claims that the focus of the ACN report was to highlight Christian persecution alone, stating: “No, the focus of our report is not that Christians are the only group affected.” “In our report, we [documented] a violation of religious freedom against all the religious groups,” she told Arroyo. “Of course, in the case of Nigeria, there are specific anti-Christian incidents, but we are not saying that only Christians are targeted in Nigeria, because as I also said before, in some cases, we have also many Muslims that refuse extremist ideology ... being killed.”
Read More

Author of religious freedom report weighs in on Cardinal Parolin’s Nigeria comments #Catholic Marta Petrosillo, editor-in-chief of the Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) Religious Freedom Report. / Credit: Gael Kerbaol/Secours Catholique Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 24, 2025 / 09:14 am (CNA). The author of Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report, Marta Petrosillo, is coming to Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s defense after remarks he made regarding persecution of Nigerian Christians prompted pushback.Parolin sparked pushback after stating at a press conference on Tuesday that ongoing violence and unrest in Nigeria is a “social conflict” rather than a religious one. He told Vatican reporters during the presser for Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report release event: “I think they’ve already said, and some Nigerians have already said, that it’s not a religious conflict but rather a social conflict, for example, between herders and farmers.”“Let’s keep in mind that many Muslims who come to Nigeria are victims of this intolerance,” he continued.” So, these extremist groups, these groups that make no distinctions to advance their goals, their objectives, use violence against anyone they perceive as an opponent.” The remarks prompted immediate pushback, including from Sean Nelson of Alliance Defending Freedom International, who called them “particularly shocking.” Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute further characterized them as “repeating the Nigerian government’s talking points that obfuscate and downplay the persecution of the Catholic faithful and other Christians in Nigeria’s Middle Belt,” in comments to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner. As author of the report, Petrosillo weighed in on the controversy in an Oct. 23 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” telling Arroyo: “Cardinal Parolin didn’t say [the conflict was solely between farmers and herders] in his speech in our conference. His speech was really strong, underlining the importance of religious freedom.” “I know that Cardinal Parolin is one of the most important people on religious freedom,” she continued. “He has a huge knowledge on this.” Regarding the controversy that has ensued over Parolin’s comments, Petrosillo said: “I can only suppose that … it was referring to the complex situation there.” She added: “I think that this topic [is] too complex and too elaborate, just for one journalist to take one sentence outside a conference in a very rushed way. So I would not consider that as a statement from his eminence.”Petrosillo further pushed back against claims that the focus of the ACN report was to highlight Christian persecution alone, stating: “No, the focus of our report is not that Christians are the only group affected.” “In our report, we [documented] a violation of religious freedom against all the religious groups,” she told Arroyo. “Of course, in the case of Nigeria, there are specific anti-Christian incidents, but we are not saying that only Christians are targeted in Nigeria, because as I also said before, in some cases, we have also many Muslims that refuse extremist ideology … being killed.”

unitedyam

Marta Petrosillo, editor-in-chief of the Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) Religious Freedom Report. / Credit: Gael Kerbaol/Secours Catholique

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 24, 2025 / 09:14 am (CNA).

The author of Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report, Marta Petrosillo, is coming to Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s defense after remarks he made regarding persecution of Nigerian Christians prompted pushback.

Parolin sparked pushback after stating at a press conference on Tuesday that ongoing violence and unrest in Nigeria is a “social conflict” rather than a religious one. He told Vatican reporters during the presser for Aid to the Church in Need’s 2025 Religious Freedom Report release event: “I think they’ve already said, and some Nigerians have already said, that it’s not a religious conflict but rather a social conflict, for example, between herders and farmers.”

“Let’s keep in mind that many Muslims who come to Nigeria are victims of this intolerance,” he continued.” So, these extremist groups, these groups that make no distinctions to advance their goals, their objectives, use violence against anyone they perceive as an opponent.” 

The remarks prompted immediate pushback, including from Sean Nelson of Alliance Defending Freedom International, who called them “particularly shocking.” Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute further characterized them as “repeating the Nigerian government’s talking points that obfuscate and downplay the persecution of the Catholic faithful and other Christians in Nigeria’s Middle Belt,” in comments to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner. 

As author of the report, Petrosillo weighed in on the controversy in an Oct. 23 interview on EWTN’s “The World Over with Raymond Arroyo,” telling Arroyo: “Cardinal Parolin didn’t say [the conflict was solely between farmers and herders] in his speech in our conference. His speech was really strong, underlining the importance of religious freedom.” 

“I know that Cardinal Parolin is one of the most important people on religious freedom,” she continued. “He has a huge knowledge on this.” 

Regarding the controversy that has ensued over Parolin’s comments, Petrosillo said: “I can only suppose that … it was referring to the complex situation there.”

She added: “I think that this topic [is] too complex and too elaborate, just for one journalist to take one sentence outside a conference in a very rushed way. So I would not consider that as a statement from his eminence.”

Petrosillo further pushed back against claims that the focus of the ACN report was to highlight Christian persecution alone, stating: “No, the focus of our report is not that Christians are the only group affected.” 

“In our report, we [documented] a violation of religious freedom against all the religious groups,” she told Arroyo. “Of course, in the case of Nigeria, there are specific anti-Christian incidents, but we are not saying that only Christians are targeted in Nigeria, because as I also said before, in some cases, we have also many Muslims that refuse extremist ideology … being killed.”

Read More
Pregnancy centers fight California ‘censorship’ of abortion pill reversal drug #Catholic null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA). Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”Judges question California’s ‘state interest’The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”Ongoing scientific debateJudge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”
Read More

Pregnancy centers fight California ‘censorship’ of abortion pill reversal drug #Catholic null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA). Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”Judges question California’s ‘state interest’The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”Ongoing scientific debateJudge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”

unitedyam

null / Credit: Zolnierek / Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 10, 2025 / 16:37 pm (CNA).

Pro-life pregnancy centers urged an appellate court to block California’s alleged “censorship” of their speech about medication designed to thwart the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone during oral arguments on Oct. 9.

Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is recommended or dispensed by pro-life pregnancy centers to prevent the completion of an abortion shortly after a woman takes mifepristone to achieve a chemical abortion.

Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone, which cuts off the unborn child’s supply of oxygen and nutrients, according to the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute. APR operates as a progesterone supplement that is meant to compete with mifepristone by restoring the hormone in hopes that the woman can carry her pregnancy through to birth, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. 

Although California has not tried to prohibit use of APR or prevent medical professionals from supplying it to women, Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued five pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting the medicine, accusing them of making false and misleading claims. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) does not recommend the use of APR, citing insufficient evidence. Alternatively, the American Association of Pro-life OBGYNs (AAPLOG) states the literature “clearly shows that the blockade is reversible with natural progesterone.” 

Several pro-life pregnancy centers sued by California responded with lawsuits accusing Bonta of infringing on their First Amendment rights. Two cases were heard by a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 9.

“Abortion pill reversal is a lawful and life-saving treatment,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who is representing the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), told the judges.

“It occurs only after a conversation and informed consent from a licensed medical professional,” he said, and accused the attorney general of “trying to censor information about that so the conversation never happens.”

Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, who is representing Culture of Life Family Services (COLFS), told the judges the attorney general is motivated by “animus” toward the pro-life movement following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“There’s no evidence on the record that anyone’s been harmed, and we’re almost 20 years into this, over 10 years at COLFS, and 400 babies born,” Breen told the judges.

“There’s no consumer protection here,” he continued. “There is no consumer to be protected. Women have been choosing this. The problem is: Are they going to know that they even have the option?”

Judges question California’s ‘state interest’

The California attorney general’s office was represented in court by Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly, who argued that the studies backing the safety and effectiveness of APR are insufficient.

Connolly referenced an oft-cited study by George Delgado, which found that certain forms of progesterone supplements have a 64% to 68% success rate when used as an abortion pill reversal.

She accused pro-life pregnancy centers of misrepresenting the study and asserted the research is “not sufficient” in supporting its conclusions because it’s a “retrospective analysis” and “not a randomized controlled study.”

Judge Anthony Johnstone responded, asking: “As a matter of First Amendment doctrine, why does that matter if they’re reporting that a study says what the study says?” Johnstone also noted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs with lower effectiveness rates.

Connolly alternatively argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has restricted advertisements when studies are “insufficient.”

Johnstone followed up, noting that California has not regulated the procedure itself but only the speech surrounding it and asked: “Why would it require lower evidence to regulate speech about that process?”

Connolly responded by saying advertisements affect the “informed consent process.” She said one cannot advertise “a treatment is safe and effective and that it does something that the scientific evidence does not establish that it does.”

Both Johnstone and Judge Eric Miller also expressed concern that the attorney general’s office did not adequately demonstrate the state’s interest in regulating the speech surrounding APR. In response Connolly said the interest is in “protecting individuals from misleading commercial speech about medical treatments.”

Ongoing scientific debate

Judge Johnnie Rawlinson raised the point that some medical associations have declined to sign off on APR as effective, but Dalton argued that disagreements within the medical community are “exactly what the First Amendment protects.”

Dalton argued Californians should be free to discuss scientific studies “without fear that the attorney general is going to silence them.” He said the First Amendment provides for “open discussion — not censorship.”

Read More
Washington state drops effort to make priests violate seal of confession in reporting law #Catholic null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA). Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law. A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication. Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal. In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government. “Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit. “Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said. On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.” Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said. “In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.” “Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”
Read More

Washington state drops effort to make priests violate seal of confession in reporting law #Catholic null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA). Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law. A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication. Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal. In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government. “Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said. “This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit. “Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said. On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.” Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said. “In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.” “Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

unitedyam

null / Credit: Brian A Jackson/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Oct 10, 2025 / 14:37 pm (CNA).

Officials in Washington state have agreed to back off a controversial effort to force priests there to violate the seal of confession as part of a mandatory abuse reporting law.

A motion filed in federal district court on Oct. 10 affirmed that state and local governments would stop attempting to require priests to report child abuse learned during the sacrament of reconciliation.

The state attorney general’s office on Oct. 10 said in a press release that clergy would remain mandatory reporters under state law, but prosecutors would agree “not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths.”

The agreement brings an end to a high-profile and controversial effort by Washington government leaders to violate one of the Catholic Church’s most sacred and inviolable directives, one that requires priests to maintain absolute secrecy over what they learn during confession or else face excommunication.

Washington’s revised mandatory reporting law, passed by the state Legislature earlier this year and signed by Gov. Robert Ferguson, added clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state. But it didn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional, explicitly leaving priests out of a “privileged communication” exception afforded to other professionals.

The state’s bishops successfully blocked the law in federal court in July, though the threat of the statute still loomed if the state government was successful at appeal.

In the July ruling, District Judge David Estudillo said there was “no question” that the law burdened the free exercise of religion.

“In situations where [priests] hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, [the rule] places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law,” the judge wrote.

The state’s reversal on Oct. 10 brought cheers from religious liberty advocates, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented state bishops in their suit against the state government.

“Washington was wise to walk away from this draconian law and allow Catholic clergy to continue ministering to the faithful,” Becket CEO and President Mark Rienzi said.

“This is a victory for religious freedom and for common sense. Priests should never be forced to make the impossible choice of betraying their sacred vows or going to jail.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch on Friday said the legal advocacy group was “pleased the state agreed to swiftly restore the constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests.” The legal group had represented Orthodox churches and a priest in their own suit.

“Washington was targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That’s rank religious discrimination,” Bursch said.

On X, the Washington State Catholic Conference said that Church leaders in the state “consistently supported the law’s broader goal of strengthening protections for minors.”

Church leaders “asked only for a narrow exemption to protect the sacrament of confession,” the conference said.

“In every other setting other than the confessional, the Church has long supported — and continues to support — mandatory reporting,” the conference added. “We’re grateful Washington ultimately recognized it can prevent abuse without forcing priests to violate their sacred vows.”

The legal fight had drawn the backing of a wide variety of supporters and backers, including the Trump administration, Bishop Robert Barron, and a global priests’ group, among numerous others.

Well ahead of the law’s passage, Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly had promised Catholics in the state that priests would face prison time rather than violate the seal of confession. “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail,” Daly told the faithful in April 2023.

The Washington bishops, meanwhile, noted on Oct. 10 that the Catholic Church has upheld the sanctity of confession “for centuries.”

“Priests have been imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for upholding the seal of confession,” the state Catholic conference said. “Penitents today need the same assurance that their participation in a holy sacrament will remain free from government interference.”

Read More
High Court weighs free speech in Colorado’s law banning counseling on gender identity
Read More

High Court weighs free speech in Colorado’s law banning counseling on gender identity

unitedyam

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 8, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).

The U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments on Oct. 7 scrutinized Colorado’s law banning counseling on gender identity with some justices voicing concern about possible viewpoint discrimination and free speech restrictions embedded in the statute.

Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson defended the law, which prohibits licensed psychologists and therapists from engaging in any efforts that it considers “conversion therapy” when treating minors. It does not apply to parents, members of the clergy, or others.

Nearly half of U.S. states have a similar ban. The Supreme Court ruling on this matter could set nationwide precedent on the legality of such laws. 

The Colorado law defines “conversion therapy” as treatments designed to change a person’s “sexual orientation or gender identity,” including changes to “behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex” even if the minor and his or her family has requested that care.

Under the law, permitted therapy includes “acceptance, support, and understanding” of a minor’s self-asserted transgender identity or same-sex attraction.

The law is being challenged by Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who provides faith-based counseling to clients with gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction.

Free speech and viewpoint discrimination

Stevenson argued that Colorado’s law is not a speech restriction but instead a regulation on a specific type of “treatment,” saying that regulations cannot cease to apply “just because they are using words.”

“That treatment does not work and carries great risk of harm,” Stevenson said, referring to the practices the state considers to be “conversion therapy.”

She argued that health care has been “heavily regulated since the beginning of our country” and compared “conversion therapy” to doctors providing improper advice on how to treat a condition. She claimed this therapy falsely asserts “you can change this innate thing about yourself.”

“The client and the patient [are] expecting accurate information,” Stevenson said.

Justice Samuel Alito told Stevenson the law sounds like “blatant viewpoint discrimination,” noting that a minor can receive talk therapy welcoming homosexual inclinations but cannot access therapy to reduce those urges. He said it is a restriction “based on the viewpoint expressed.”

Alito said the state’s position is “a minor should not be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same-sex attraction [even] if that’s what he wants.”

Stevenson argued Colorado is not engaged in viewpoint discrimination and said: “Counseling is an evidence-based practice.” She said it would be wrong to suggest lawmakers “reach[ed] this conclusion based on anything other than protection of minors.”

“There is no other motive going on to suppress viewpoint or expression,” Stevenson said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch asked questions about how to handle issues where medical disagreement exists.

Gorsuch noted, for example, that homosexuality was historically viewed as a mental disorder and asked Stevenson whether it would have been legal for states to ban therapy that affirmed a person’s homosexuality at that time. Stevenson argued that at that time, it would have been legal.

Banning ‘voluntary conversations’

Alliance Defending Freedom Chief Counsel Jim Campbell argued on behalf of Chiles and her counseling services, telling the justices his client offers “voluntary speech between a licensed professional and a minor,” and the law bans “voluntary conversations.”

Campbell noted that if one of her minor clients says, “I would like help realigning my identity with my sex,” then the law requires that Chiles “has to deny them.”

“Kids and families that want this kind of help … are being left without any kind of support,” he added, warning that Chiles, her clients, and potential clients are suffering irreparable harm if access to this treatment continues to be denied.

Campbell argued that “many people have experienced life-changing benefits from this kind of counseling,” many of whom are seeking to “align their life with their religion” and improve their “relationship with God.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor contested whether the issue was about free speech, noting Colorado pointed to studies that such therapy efforts “harm the child … emotionally and physically.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly objected to the claim, questioning whether a counselor acting in her professional capacity “is really expressing … a message for a First Amendment purposes.” She said treatment is different than writing an article about conversion therapy or giving a speech about it.

Campbell disagreed, arguing: “This involves a conversation,” and “a one-on-one conversation is a form of speech.” He said Chiles is “discussing concepts of identity and behaviors and attraction” and simply helping her clients “achieve their goals.”

Read More
Christian photographer wins lawsuit against Louisville over same-sex discrimination rule
Read More

Christian photographer wins lawsuit against Louisville over same-sex discrimination rule

unitedyam

Photographer holding camera against newlywed couple. / Credit: Vectorfusionart/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 3, 2025 / 09:30 am (CNA).

A federal court awarded nominal damages to a Christian photographer after the city government of Louisville, Kentucky, sought to enforce an anti-discrimination ordinance that could have forced her to provide photography services for same-sex civil weddings.

Judge Benjamin Beaton found that Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance contained “two provisions” that limited the expression of Christian wedding photographer Chelsey Nelson, who sought $1 in damages. The court awarded Nelson the requested damages. 

According to the ruling, the ordinance prohibited “the denial of goods and services to members of protected classes,” which includes people with same-sex attraction. 

The publication provision of the ordinance also prevented her “from writing and publishing any indication or explanation that she wouldn’t photograph same-sex weddings, or that otherwise causes someone to feel unwelcome or undesirable based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.” 

Both provisions, Beaton ruled, “limit Nelson’s freedom to express her beliefs about marriage.”

The court stated Nelson “suffered a First Amendment injury” because she decided to limit the promotion of her business, ignore opportunities posted online, refrain from advertising to grow her business, and censored herself, which was done to avoid prosecution.

“The government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe, and state officials have paid and will continue to pay a price when they violate this foundational freedom,” Nelson said in a statement through her attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom following the ruling.

“The freedom to speak without fear of censorship is a God-given constitutionally guaranteed right,” she added.

In his ruling, Beaton noted the Supreme Court set nationwide precedent when it ruled on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. In that decision, the court ruled a Colorado law violated a web designer’s First Amendment rights because it would have forced him to design websites for same-sex civil weddings in spite of his religious beliefs.

Beaton wrote that in spite of the Supreme Court precedent, “Louisville apparently still ‘actively enforces’ the ordinance … [and] still won’t concede that the First Amendment protects Nelson from compelled expression.” 

His ruling noted that the mayor publicly stated that he would keep enforcing the ordinance, including against Nelson, after the 303 Creative decision.

Although the city’s lawyers argued in court that the city did not intend to enforce the law against Nelson, Beaton wrote: “Nothing in Louisville’s informal disavowal would prevent the city from making good on that promise [to enforce the rule against Nelson] tomorrow.”

“Anyone who’s tussled with the city’s lawyers this long and who continues to do business in and around Louisville might reasonably look askance at the city’s assurances that enforcement is unlikely,” Beaton wrote in his ruling.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart said in a statement that “free speech is for everyone” and the precedent set in 303 Creative ensures that Americans “have the freedom to express and create messages that align with their beliefs without fear of government punishment.”

“For over five years, Louisville officials said they could force Chelsey to promote views about marriage that violated her religious beliefs,” he said. 

“But the First Amendment leaves decisions about what to say with the people, not the government. The district court’s decision rests on this bedrock First Amendment principle and builds on the victory in 303 Creative.”

Read More
Religious Liberty Commission hears from teachers, coaches, school leaders
Read More

Religious Liberty Commission hears from teachers, coaches, school leaders

unitedyam

President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission meets on Sept. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. / Credit: Tessa Gervasini/CNA

Washington, D.C., Sep 29, 2025 / 19:13 pm (CNA).

Teachers, coaches, and other public and private school leaders said their religious liberty was threatened in American schools at a hearing conducted by President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission on Sept. 29.

Speakers said there must be a fight for schools to bring back the “truth” to protect students and religious liberty. Joe Kennedy, a high school football coach; Monica Gill, a high school teacher; Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a seventh grade teacher; and Keisha Russell, a lawyer for First Liberty Institute, addressed the commission led by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“There has to be a call to action,” commission member Dr. Phil McGraw said. “The most common way to lose power is to think you don’t have it to begin with. We do have power, and we need to rally with that power.”

Teachers and coaches describe experiences

Kennedy said he was suspended — and later fired — from his position as a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington for praying a brief and quiet prayer after football games.

“After the game, I took a knee to say thanks,” Kennedy explained. “That’s all. If that could be turned into a national controversy, it says more about the confusion in our country than the conduct of the person performing it.”

Kennedy told the commission the law is “cloudy and muddy” and they “have the power to clarify it.” Kennedy also said some lawyers “need to be held accountable” for actions taken in religious liberty cases.

Kennedy said: “I don’t know a lot about law and liberty, but I know that you’re supposed to advise people on the truth and the facts, and they’re not. They have an agenda, and their agenda is well set and in place and is working very well, keeping prayer out of the public square. They’re still doing it. That needs to be exposed.”

“Being a teacher has been one of the greatest blessings of my life,” Gill said to the committee. “God really gave my heart a mission … to show all of my students every day that they are loved. No matter what they’re going through, no matter what their grades are, no matter what their status is with their peers, I love them.”

“But in the summer of 2021 … Loudoun County Public Schools adopted a policy that forced teachers to deny the foundational truth of what it means to be human, created as male and female,” Gill said.

“This policy forced teachers to affirm all transgender students,” Gill said. “My employer gave teachers a choice: deny truth or risk everything … I knew that I could not stand in front of my Father in heaven one day and say: ‘My pension plan was more important than your truth.’ I also knew that if I say that I love my students, the only right choice would be to stand in love and truth for them.”

To combat the policy, Gill joined a lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom after a fellow Virginia teacher was fired for speaking out against the same policy. The lawsuit “resulted in victory for all teachers to freely speak truth and love when Loudoun County finally agreed not to require teachers to use pronouns in accordance with the student’s sex,” Gill said.

Arroyo-Castro testified that she was punished for displaying a cross in her private workspace in her seventh grade classroom in a New Britain School District school in Connecticut. 

“I share this with you to help you understand why the crucifix is so significant to me and why I will never hide it from anyone’s view,” Arroyo-Castro said. “The vice principal told me that the crucifix was of a religious nature, so against the Constitution of the United States, and that it had to be taken down by the end of the day.”

If she did not take it down it would be considered “insubordination and could lead to termination,” Arroyo-Castro said. She asked if she could have time to pray on it, and was told she could, but “it wouldn’t change anything.” 

“I was later called to a meeting with the district chief of staff, the principal, the vice principal, [and a] union representative. The chief of staff suggested that I put the crucifix in a drawer. I knew I couldn’t do that since my grandmother has instilled in me the meaning of the crucifix and how it should be treated with respect. But the chief of staff said that the Constitution says that I had to take it down,” Arroyo-Castro said.

After she refused to remove it, Arroyo-Castro was released from school with an unpaid suspension. She was offered legal defense by lawyers at First Liberty, which sued the school for violating the Constitution. While the lawsuit is ongoing she works in the administrative building “far from the students.”

Arroyo-Castro said: “Every day, I wonder how they’re doing.”

“Please do what you can to educate the districts in American schools about the true meaning of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause,” Arroyo-Castro advised the commission members. “How can we do our jobs well when many education leaders today don’t understand the Constitution themselves? We must understand as Americans that freedom of religion is a right that benefits all Americans.”

Suggestions from faith leaders

Leaders at Jewish, Catholic, and Christian schools also recounted religious freedom issues facing faith-based schools across the nation and what the country can do.

The leaders highlighted the need to protect the financial aid faith-based institutions receive and stop any threats of losing money if certain values are not enforced. Todd J. Williams, provost at Cairn University, said: “Schools will begin to cave because they’re worried about the millions of dollars that will go out the door.”

Father Robert Sirico, a priest at Sacred Heart Catholic School in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said he was recently affected by a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court that redefined sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. 

“While presented as a matter of fairness, this reinterpretation proposes grave dangers, grave risks for all religious institutions, even those like Sacred Heart that receive absolutely no public support,” he said.

Sacred Heart has filed a lawsuit to combat the issue, but Sirico said what needs to be done “exceeds the competency of [the] commission and the competency of this administration.” 

“We have to think of this in existential terms, and we have to come at this project with the understanding that this is going to take years to transform. This is why religious people can transform the world: We believe in something that’s greater than our politics. We can reenvision.”

Read More