New law eliminates clergy-penitent privilege in abuse cases, prompting resistance from Catholic leaders
On May 2, 2025, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed Senate Bill 5375 into law, mandating clergy members to report suspected child abuse or neglect, even if the information is obtained during the sacrament of confession. This legislation positions Washington among a minority of states that do not exempt confessional communications from mandatory reporting laws.
The law, effective July 27, 2025, adds clergy to the list of mandatory reporters, aligning them with professions such as teachers, nurses, and social workers. It defines “member of the clergy” broadly, encompassing ordained ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, elders, and similar religious leaders.
The Washington State Catholic Conference opposed the legislation, arguing that it forces priests to violate the sacred seal of confession, a core tenet of Catholic doctrine. Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane stated that clergy in his diocese would uphold the confidentiality of confession, even under threat of legal consequences.
The law’s passage follows similar legislative efforts in other states, such as Montana, Delaware, and Vermont, where proposals to eliminate clergy-penitent privilege in abuse reporting have been introduced but failed to advance.
As the law takes effect, it is anticipated that legal challenges may arise, particularly concerning First Amendment protections of religious freedom. The outcome of such challenges could have implications for similar legislation in other jurisdictions.
St. John Nepomucene, a 14th-century Bohemian priest, is venerated in the Catholic Church as the first martyr of the seal of confession. Serving as confessor to Queen Sofia of Bavaria, wife of King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia, he was ordered by the king to reveal the queen’s confessions. Upon his refusal, the king subjected him to torture and ultimately had him drowned in the Vltava River in 1393. Nepomucene was canonized in 1729 by Pope Benedict XIII and is often depicted with a finger to his lips, symbolizing his commitment to the confidentiality of confession.
Here is a breakdown of the primary pros and cons of Washington’s new law (SB 5375) requiring clergy to report child abuse, even if learned during confession:
⸻
Pros
1. Enhanced Child Protection:
The law aims to close a gap in mandatory reporting by ensuring that all suspected abuse—regardless of how it’s learned—is reported to authorities, potentially preventing future harm to children.
2. Consistency Across Professions:
Other mandatory reporters (like teachers and doctors) cannot claim confidentiality when it comes to abuse. This law brings clergy under the same legal expectations.
3. Deterrent for Abusers:
If abusers fear that confessions could be reported, they may be less likely to seek absolution without taking responsibility or might be discouraged from offending in the first place.
⸻
Cons
1. Violation of Religious Freedom:
The Catholic Church teaches that the seal of confession is inviolable. Forcing clergy to break that seal may violate First Amendment protections and set a precedent for state interference in religious practices.
2. Practical Enforcement Issues:
Priests who honor church doctrine may simply refuse to comply, making the law difficult to enforce and creating legal standoffs without increasing actual reporting.
3. Reduced Use of Confession:
If penitents know confessions could be reported, they may avoid the sacrament altogether—cutting off an avenue where they might otherwise seek spiritual help or even agree to turn themselves in.
4. Potential Legal Challenges:
The law is likely to face constitutional challenges. Courts in other states (like Louisiana) have struck down similar provisions, and ongoing litigation could delay or undo the law’s effects.
Some additional problems, benefits to consider
Problems:
1. Opens the door to adding other categories of crimes.
2. Unlikely to pass the Supreme Court with 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court currently.
Benefits:
1. Some crimes are so heinous that they should have no protections even under the First Amendment. Child abuse stands in 1st place on that list for several reasons: A. When a child is abused, it destroys that child’s sense of self worth permanently and permanently scars that child for life. B. Children who are abuse are several times more likely to go on to be abusers themselves than the general population, so this evil compounds itself. C. The cost to society at large is immeasurably high. 2. It forces religious groups to address evil in their midst,, and to take a moral stand, and not sweep it under the carpet, as so often happens in many if not all religious groups. I know my own church is guilty of doing that in the past. My current local congregation has taken huge strides in addressing this issue and protecting children in our congregation. The institutional church though has a big history of shuffling leaders around, covering up, and not addressing the fundamental evil that is in this crime. I personally know of more than one such case.
Somehings to think about:
While my faith tradition does not condone or recommend the confessional process, recognizing only God can absolve guilt and heal the guilty, I do not condemn those who belong to a different tradition that recommends this as part of their faith tradition. I will say, however, that the Roman Catholic Church brought this on themselves by doing exactly what my institutional church has done–and move child abusers around, cover for them, not defrock or dis-fellowship them, and not turn them into the law, which has held child abuse to be a crime for greater than 75 years in the US, and I don’t know how long in European countries. Challenging the “Sanctity of the Confessional” with a law like this is exactly because the church has misused the “Sanctity of the Confessional” to cover their own sins in this regard. All the guilty priest had to do was confess in the Confessional, and he was absolved and it could never by their own internal policies have his sins revealed no matter how many times he re-offended. The “Sanctity of the Confessional” should never have been allowed by the Church to cover or protect perpetrators of violent crimes. Had the Church taken that position early, they would not be facing this dilemma. They have bankrupted more than one diocese because of their adherence to this doctrine.