Posted on 05/05/2025 8:33:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A new Washington state law now compels Catholic priests to report child abuse even if the information is revealed in the sacrament of confession.
The controversial legislation, signed May 2 by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, makes Washington the first state to explicitly eliminate legal protections for the sacred seal of confession in abuse-related cases.
Some states have laws requiring clergy to report abuse that also don’t include exemptions for clergy-penitent privilege, but Washington’s Senate Bill 5375 — which passed 64-31 in the House and 28-20 in the Senate — was the first with direct legislative intent to remove protections for sacramental confession in cases of child abuse and neglect.
The law takes effect July 27, according to the Washington State Standard.
Senate Bill 5375 was framed as a child protection measure, requiring all clergy in the state to become mandatory reporters of abuse, as CatholicVote reported in March. However, the law’s reach into confessional privacy has triggered strong objections from Catholic leaders across the state.
Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane issued a statement May 2 reaffirming the Church’s stance to the faithful of his diocese.
“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,” he wrote. “The Sacrament of Penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane.”
The Washington State Catholic Conference, representing all bishops in the state, had lobbied lawmakers to amend the bill to preserve the clergy-penitent privilege, a principle rooted in both canon law and centuries of Catholic tradition. Breaking the seal of confession is considered a grave offense, punishable by automatic excommunication.
In a 2023 statement, the bishops urged legislators to amend the bill to preserve the clergy-penitent privilege, highlighting that requiring priests to break the confessional seal would constitute a grave violation of religious freedom and could lead to the excommunication of priests who comply with the measure.
“The U.S. Constitution has protected the clergy-penitent privilege for over two hundred years, and removing the clergy-penitent privilege would be an unconstitutional violation of civil liberties,” the statement reads. “It would violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause because it would threaten priests with legal sanctions unless they violate their religious vows.”
The bishops’ statement also noted that the bill singled out the clergy-penitent privilege but kept attorney-client privilege intact.
“The bill attempts to interfere with our Catholic worship and unfairly targets religious liberty, both of which are bad precedents,” the bishops added.
The law’s passage marks the end of a three-year legislative push by State Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle, who insisted that no exceptions be made for confessional conversations. For Frame, removing legal protections for clergy-penitent confidentiality was a defining feature of the bill.
“You never put somebody’s conscience above the protection of a child,” she said, according to the Washington State Standard.
While her conviction resonates with the urgency to protect vulnerable children — a mission the Church shares — Catholic leaders caution against viewing the controversy as a zero-sum conflict between conscience and safety.
“For those legislators who question our commitment to the safety of your children,” Bishop Daly stated Friday, “simply speak with any mom who volunteers with a parish youth group, any Catholic school teacher, any dad who coaches a parochial school basketball team or any priest, deacon or seminarian, and you will learn first-hand about our solid protocols and procedures.”
“The Diocese of Spokane maintains an entire department at the Chancery, the Office of Child and Youth protection, staffed by professional laypeople,” the bishop added. “We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding child sexual abuse.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) further clarifies the Church’s position in “The Seal of Confession and Priest-Penitent Privilege.”
“If priests were required to report crimes heard during confessions, penitents would likely stop confessing them,” the USCCB states. “The opportunity that the sacrament presents for healing — not just of the penitent’s soul, but of the wounds that the penitent’s sin has inflicted on others — would be lost.”
That’s where the separation comes in. Government can’t challenge church doctrine.
Open that door even a crack and we can all forget about confession altogether
Ash hole ,”CINOs” in Washington that would vote for Hitler instead of a Republican are to blame for this. But hey Orange Man Bad and all that crap.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. And God already knows if you been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.
Just wondering if Washington attorneys are required to report when clients reveal child sex abuse??
They will send undercover cops with a wire to set up the priest
As a Protestant, I couldn’t care less about the ‘sanctity of the confessional’, but setting that aside for the moment, I also can’t imagine the idea that someone gets told of a heinous crime against a child and then refuses to do anything to end that child’s suffering/exploitation. Such a rescue is supported a lot more in scripture than even the existence of a priestly confessional.
That’s exactly the opposite. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That means religion doesn’t get to have special rules exempting them.
I have no problem with this. If some rapist, child molester or killer confesses something, he needs to report it. And maybe there’s an added benefit here, maybe the killer rapist or child molester doesn’t go to confession and they can’t go to heaven.
There’s freedom of religion all right, but what’s to stop a muslim from using that clause to push his beliefs that don’t contradict civil or criminal law? I do not believe priests should be able to conceal criminals. When Nicky Cruz became a Christian, he confessed to Pastor David Wilkerson (of the Cross and the Switchblade fame) that he had killed a man. Wilkerson told Cruz he must turn himself in to the police, and he accompanied him to the police station for him to do so. The police investigated and searched for witnesses. They interviewed several, but not one of them testified against Cruz; the police let him go, telling him that they could not make a case against him.
It could be interesting to propose a state law that all defense attorneys are compelled to reveal to the judge any information that their client has divulged which may indicate guilt.
Obviously, no one would support that. BUT it would be government regulation of the government’s justice system. It would be permissible, but not wise.
Once that proposed law is defeated, it would be very obvious that government regulation of long established religious practices would be completely impermissible and also not wise.
Is the Catholic Church supposed to be exempt when they decide they can hide illegal aliens inside of their church? If a bank robber runs inside a church, do they get to claim sanctuary because that’s a Catholic doctrine? If there’s that worried about his soul, tournament and then go visit him in prison to take a confession.
No, but they can require by law (and do already in many jurisdictions) that the priest report information if it involved criminal activity or a threat to the public.
They can’t force the priest to disclose, but they can indeed punish them if they find out they did not.
Personally someone confessed to me they were raping or molesting children, cops would be getting an anonymous tip at the very least even if I was a priest
Misprision of a felony is a federal crime in the United States, defined in 18 U.S.C. § 4. It involves concealing knowledge of a felony committed by another person, without being an accessory before or after the fact. Essentially, it's the failure to report a felony that you know has been committed.
“Religious Freedom” should never allow one person to harm another. My oath to uphold and defend the Constitution has no expiration date and my Christianity has no conditions either. Harming a child is also inviolate. Harm a child and I believe you need punishment.
The same exception that allows for confidentiality in the confessional also protects private conversations between a minister and his flock. And “do it for the abused children” is just the camel’s nose under the tent. Once the government establishes the precedent, it will be used anywhere they want to use it.
No, that means the Fedgov is prohibited from establishing a state church. The very next clause guarantees free exercise of religion, and this law explicitly tramples on that.
The Church protecting the children and the santicty of Confession? How quickly they forget the thousands of children that have been violated for so many years by priests themselves. Nearly everyday it’s in our newspapers.
Attorney/Client privileges allow the attorney to keep confidential child sexual abuses committed by their client.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-a-lawyer-required-to-report-34n1NJqgTiKFQEQT7FF7WQ
Should that also apply to priests? I don’t so. Especially considering the history of child sexual abuse committed by priests.
Big picture. The government is trying to force Catholicism to change its doctrine, a Sacrament of the Church. That is an abomination and goes against the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.