Discrimination

CNA explains: Why does the Catholic Church prohibit ‘gay marriage’? #Catholic null / Credit: Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Slightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman. That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades. The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teachingJohn Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination. Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself. Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse. The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis. The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level. In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”
Read More

CNA explains: Why does the Catholic Church prohibit ‘gay marriage’? #Catholic null / Credit: Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Slightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman. That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades. The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teachingJohn Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination. Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself. Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse. The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis. The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level. In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”

unitedyam

null / Credit: Daniel Jedzura/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Slightly over 10 years after it redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 declined to revisit that controversial decision, upholding at least for now its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that made “gay marriage” the law of the land.

A decade after that ruling, nearly a million same-sex couples in the U.S. are participating in what the law now defines as marriage. Yet the Catholic Church has continued to affirm the definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman. 

That has been the prevailing definition of marriage around the world for at least about 5,000 years of human history, though many societies have allowed polygamy, or multiple spouses, in various forms. The same-sex variant of marriage, meanwhile, only became accepted in recent decades. 

The Church has held since its beginning that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church directs that marriage occurs when “a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life.” It is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”

Church Fathers and theologians from the earliest days of Catholicism have consistently upheld that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, permanent union between one man and one woman, with St. Augustine explicitly naming “offspring” as one of the blessings of marriage, along with “fidelity” and “the sacramental bond.”

Gay marriage a ‘misnomer’ by Church teaching

John Grabowski, a professor of moral theology at The Catholic University of America, told CNA that marriage in the Catholic Church’s teaching is based on “unity, indissolubility, and [is ordered] toward life,” or the begetting of children.

“Those criteria can only be met in a union between a man and a woman,” he said. “They cannot be met in a union between two men and two women. ‘Gay marriage’ is thus a misnomer in the Church’s understanding.”

The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, Grabowski argued, was an act of “judicial fiat” rather than a recognition of what marriage actually is. He said the high court was functioning more as a “cultural barometer” reflecting an erroneous shift in perception on what marriage is.

“It would be similar to if the court passed a rule saying we could call a square a circle,” he said. “It’s just not based on the reality of the natural world.”

The Obergefell ruling came after years of LGBT activist efforts to redefine marriage both within individual states and at the federal level. Advocates had argued that there was no meaningful reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and that to do so constituted discrimination. 

Many critics have claimed that the Church’s broader teaching on marriage actually left the door open for same-sex couples to marry — for instance, they argued, by allowing opposite-sex couples to marry even if one or both of the spouses are infertile, the Church implicitly divorces biological childbearing from marriage itself. 

Grabowski acknowledged that the Church does allow infertile couples to get married (and to stay married if infertility occurs at a later date). But he pointed out that the Church does in fact prohibit marriage for those who are impotent, or constitutionally incapable of intercourse. 

The key point for the Church, he said, is what St. John Paul II called the “spousal meaning of the body.” The late pope argued that men and women “exist in the relationship of the reciprocal gift of self,” ordered to the communion of “one flesh” of which the Bible speaks in Genesis. 

The Church’s teaching, Grabowski said, “is based on the natural law. It tells us that the way God designed us is for the good of our flourishing, both as individuals and as the good of society.”

Though marriage advocates have continued to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision over the past decade, others have at times suggested a pivot away from directly challenging it at the legal level. 

In 2017, for instance, Winona-Rochester, Minnesota, Bishop Robert Barron affirmed his opposition to gay marriage but questioned “the prudence and wisdom” of attempting to legislatively outlaw it at that time. The bishop suggested instead that “personal witness and education” were better tools for the current political climate.

Grabowski acknowledged that one “could say, realistically, the ship has sailed and the political question is dead.”

“But that’s a political judgment,” he said. Catholics should not lose sight of the goal to reestablish correct laws on marriage, he argued.

“In terms of something to hope for, pray for, and to the degree that we’re able to, work for it — that’s something Catholics should aspire to.”

Read More
Denver Archdiocese, Catholic schools ask Supreme Court for access to preschool program #Catholic null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA). The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release. “That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.” Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.
Read More

Denver Archdiocese, Catholic schools ask Supreme Court for access to preschool program #Catholic null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA). The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release. “That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.” Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.

unitedyam

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller|Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Nov 15, 2025 / 11:00 am (CNA).

The Archdiocese of Denver and a coalition of Catholic preschools are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to access a Colorado universal preschool program.

The petition to the high court comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in September that Colorado may continue to exclude Catholic preschools from its Universal Preschool Program because of their religious beliefs.

Catholic preschools in Denver ask teachers and families to sign a pledge promising to uphold their religious mission, including teachings on sexuality and gender identity. The Colorado preschool program’s nondiscrimination clause, however, requires schools to uphold provisions on sexual orientation and “gender identity.”

Two Catholic parish preschools and the Denver Archdiocese first filed suit in August 2023 against the requirement.

In a Nov. 14 press release, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — which has represented the schools and the archdiocese in the lawsuit — said the Catholic schools “are asking the Supreme Court to ensure that Colorado makes good on its promise of universal preschool.”

“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, a senior lawyer at Becket, said in the release. 

“That sort of religious discrimination flies in the face of our nation’s traditions and decades of Supreme Court rulings,” he said. “We’re asking the court to step in and make sure ‘universal’ preschool really is universal.” 

Scott Elmer, who serves as chief mission officer for the Denver Archdiocese, said the schools are seeking “the ability to offer families who choose a Catholic education the same access to free preschool services that’s available at thousands of other preschools across Colorado.”

Becket in its press release said the Colorado rules have had a “predictable effect” in which “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors.”

The law group said the lower court rulings go against recent Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom, including Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that the Montana Constitution’s bar on public funding of religious institutions violated the First Amendment.

In May the Supreme Court declined to rule in a contentious case involving what was proposed to be the nation’s first religious charter school, leaving untouched a lower court ruling that forbade the Oklahoma Catholic institution from accessing state funds.

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.
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