Discrimination

7 fascinating facts about St. Martin de Porres, the first Black saint of the Americas #Catholic St. Martin de Porres. / Credit: AnonymousUnknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons CNA Staff, Nov 3, 2025 / 04:00 am (CNA). On Nov. 3, the Catholic Church celebrates the feast of St. Martin de Porres, a Peruvian Dominican brother who lived a life of humble service and charity and became the first Black saint of the Americas.Here are seven fascinating facts about this inspiring saint:1. His father refused to acknowledge him. De Porres was born in Lima, Peru, in 1579. He was the son of a Spanish nobleman and former Panamanian Black slave. His father, Don Juan de Porres, refused to publicly acknowledge the boy as his own because Martin was Black, like his mother. Being biracial would prove challenging for Martin de Porres throughout his life. 2. He started practicing medicine before he was 13. De Porres served as an apprentice to a doctor, and before the age of 13 he began to learn the practice of medicine. He would eventually become a barber, which at the time performed minor medical and surgical procedures like pulling teeth or emptying abscesses. 3. He faced discrimination as a Dominican. De Porres entered the Dominican order in 1603. Becoming a Dominican brother proved to be challenging for de Porres because a Peruvian law at the time prevented people of mixed race from joining religious orders. Therefore, he lived with the community and did manual work, earning himself the nickname “the saint of the broom” for his diligence in cleaning the Dominicans’ quarters.Eventually he was allowed to enter the order, despite the law, and worked in the infirmary tending to the sick and among the impoverished of Peru. “I cure them, but God heals them,” de Porres would say when curing the sick. He also had the task of begging for alms that the community would use to clothe and feed the poor. He also established an orphanage and planted an orchard from which those in need could freely take a day’s supply of fruit. 4. He levitated and bilocated. De Porres was deeply prayerful, so much so that many of the brothers witnessed him levitating in intense prayer and embracing the crucified cross. De Porres reportedly also had the gift of bilocation, and some of his contemporaries said they encountered him in places as far off as Japan even as he remained in Lima. Some claimed he had appeared to them supernaturally behind locked doors or under otherwise impossible circumstances. 5. He refused to eat meat. De Porres loved animals. He refused to eat meat and ran a veterinary hospital for sick animals that seemed to seek out his help. Portrayals of the saint often include cats, dogs, and even the rats to whom he showed compassion.6. He is the patron saint of multiple manual labor occupations. De Porres was known for the various assignments he carried out and which earned him the title of patron saint of barbers, the sick, and street cleaners. On the 50th anniversary of St. Martin de Porres’ canonization, Father Juan Anguerri, director of the St. Martin de Porres Home for the Poor, said: “These are often thankless tasks, but yet through his humble service, St. Martin sent a message to revitalize these jobs.”7. He was canonized more than 300 years after his death. Martin de Porres died on Nov. 3, 1639, at age 60. He was canonized by Pope John XXIII on May 16, 1962. At his canonization Mass, John XXIII called him “Martin of Charity.”  This story was first published on Nov. 3, 2021, and has been updated.
Read More

7 fascinating facts about St. Martin de Porres, the first Black saint of the Americas #Catholic St. Martin de Porres. / Credit: AnonymousUnknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons CNA Staff, Nov 3, 2025 / 04:00 am (CNA). On Nov. 3, the Catholic Church celebrates the feast of St. Martin de Porres, a Peruvian Dominican brother who lived a life of humble service and charity and became the first Black saint of the Americas.Here are seven fascinating facts about this inspiring saint:1. His father refused to acknowledge him. De Porres was born in Lima, Peru, in 1579. He was the son of a Spanish nobleman and former Panamanian Black slave. His father, Don Juan de Porres, refused to publicly acknowledge the boy as his own because Martin was Black, like his mother. Being biracial would prove challenging for Martin de Porres throughout his life. 2. He started practicing medicine before he was 13. De Porres served as an apprentice to a doctor, and before the age of 13 he began to learn the practice of medicine. He would eventually become a barber, which at the time performed minor medical and surgical procedures like pulling teeth or emptying abscesses. 3. He faced discrimination as a Dominican. De Porres entered the Dominican order in 1603. Becoming a Dominican brother proved to be challenging for de Porres because a Peruvian law at the time prevented people of mixed race from joining religious orders. Therefore, he lived with the community and did manual work, earning himself the nickname “the saint of the broom” for his diligence in cleaning the Dominicans’ quarters.Eventually he was allowed to enter the order, despite the law, and worked in the infirmary tending to the sick and among the impoverished of Peru. “I cure them, but God heals them,” de Porres would say when curing the sick. He also had the task of begging for alms that the community would use to clothe and feed the poor. He also established an orphanage and planted an orchard from which those in need could freely take a day’s supply of fruit. 4. He levitated and bilocated. De Porres was deeply prayerful, so much so that many of the brothers witnessed him levitating in intense prayer and embracing the crucified cross. De Porres reportedly also had the gift of bilocation, and some of his contemporaries said they encountered him in places as far off as Japan even as he remained in Lima. Some claimed he had appeared to them supernaturally behind locked doors or under otherwise impossible circumstances. 5. He refused to eat meat. De Porres loved animals. He refused to eat meat and ran a veterinary hospital for sick animals that seemed to seek out his help. Portrayals of the saint often include cats, dogs, and even the rats to whom he showed compassion.6. He is the patron saint of multiple manual labor occupations. De Porres was known for the various assignments he carried out and which earned him the title of patron saint of barbers, the sick, and street cleaners. On the 50th anniversary of St. Martin de Porres’ canonization, Father Juan Anguerri, director of the St. Martin de Porres Home for the Poor, said: “These are often thankless tasks, but yet through his humble service, St. Martin sent a message to revitalize these jobs.”7. He was canonized more than 300 years after his death. Martin de Porres died on Nov. 3, 1639, at age 60. He was canonized by Pope John XXIII on May 16, 1962. At his canonization Mass, John XXIII called him “Martin of Charity.”  This story was first published on Nov. 3, 2021, and has been updated.

unitedyam

St. Martin de Porres. / Credit: AnonymousUnknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

CNA Staff, Nov 3, 2025 / 04:00 am (CNA).

On Nov. 3, the Catholic Church celebrates the feast of St. Martin de Porres, a Peruvian Dominican brother who lived a life of humble service and charity and became the first Black saint of the Americas.

Here are seven fascinating facts about this inspiring saint:

1. His father refused to acknowledge him.

De Porres was born in Lima, Peru, in 1579. He was the son of a Spanish nobleman and former Panamanian Black slave. His father, Don Juan de Porres, refused to publicly acknowledge the boy as his own because Martin was Black, like his mother. Being biracial would prove challenging for Martin de Porres throughout his life. 

2. He started practicing medicine before he was 13.

De Porres served as an apprentice to a doctor, and before the age of 13 he began to learn the practice of medicine. He would eventually become a barber, which at the time performed minor medical and surgical procedures like pulling teeth or emptying abscesses. 

3. He faced discrimination as a Dominican.

De Porres entered the Dominican order in 1603. Becoming a Dominican brother proved to be challenging for de Porres because a Peruvian law at the time prevented people of mixed race from joining religious orders. Therefore, he lived with the community and did manual work, earning himself the nickname “the saint of the broom” for his diligence in cleaning the Dominicans’ quarters.

Eventually he was allowed to enter the order, despite the law, and worked in the infirmary tending to the sick and among the impoverished of Peru. “I cure them, but God heals them,” de Porres would say when curing the sick. He also had the task of begging for alms that the community would use to clothe and feed the poor. He also established an orphanage and planted an orchard from which those in need could freely take a day’s supply of fruit. 

4. He levitated and bilocated.

De Porres was deeply prayerful, so much so that many of the brothers witnessed him levitating in intense prayer and embracing the crucified cross. De Porres reportedly also had the gift of bilocation, and some of his contemporaries said they encountered him in places as far off as Japan even as he remained in Lima. Some claimed he had appeared to them supernaturally behind locked doors or under otherwise impossible circumstances. 

5. He refused to eat meat.

De Porres loved animals. He refused to eat meat and ran a veterinary hospital for sick animals that seemed to seek out his help. Portrayals of the saint often include cats, dogs, and even the rats to whom he showed compassion.

6. He is the patron saint of multiple manual labor occupations.

De Porres was known for the various assignments he carried out and which earned him the title of patron saint of barbers, the sick, and street cleaners. On the 50th anniversary of St. Martin de Porres’ canonization, Father Juan Anguerri, director of the St. Martin de Porres Home for the Poor, said: “These are often thankless tasks, but yet through his humble service, St. Martin sent a message to revitalize these jobs.”

7. He was canonized more than 300 years after his death.

Martin de Porres died on Nov. 3, 1639, at age 60. He was canonized by Pope John XXIII on May 16, 1962. At his canonization Mass, John XXIII called him “Martin of Charity.” 

This story was first published on Nov. 3, 2021, and has been updated.

Read More
State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.
Read More

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

unitedyam

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.

As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. 

The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. 

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.

“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.

However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”

In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. 

“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

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