'Will not sit idly by': DOJ sues to prevent Catholic priests from violating secrecy of confessional by having to report
Source: Law & Crime
Jun 23rd, 2025, 2:38 pm
The Trump administration and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice are going to bat for Catholic priests, the sacrament of penance, and the seal of confession, claiming in a lawsuit against the state of Washington that newly-signed mandatory reporting legislation amounts to an attack on the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion.
The DOJ said Monday that it's suing in order to intervene and protect Catholic priests from having to choose between excommunication from the church — if they were to speak of a given confession — or facing potential prosecution by the state, if they did not comply with child abuse and neglect reporting mandates.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington asserts that SB 5375, set to take effect as of July 27, violates the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by purporting to compel clerics to report child abuse or neglect and thereby override their sincere religious beliefs.
Under the law, when "any member of the clergy … has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency," the law says. The duty to report already exists for others in positions of responsibility outside the context of religion, including law enforcement officers, psychologists, nurses, and child care providers. A key distinction, however, is that confidentiality of the confessional is nonnegotiable under canon law, and the breaking of that seal is punishable by excommunication — being cut off from the church.
Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/will-not-sit-idly-by-doj-sues-to-prevent-catholic-priests-from-violating-secrecy-of-confessional-by-having-to-report-child-abuse/
Full headline: 'Will not sit idly by': DOJ sues to prevent Catholic priests from violating secrecy of confessional by having to report child abuse
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Srkdqltr
(8,694 posts)
iemanja
(56,336 posts)Confessions are protected, in most states by law.
DiverDave
(5,146 posts)With a guy confessing to raping a child
Not to be reported?
How about murder? Raping YOUR mother?
I would think the church would mandate reporting a crime.
But they did cover for pedophiles...
Where in the Bible is that written?
TomSlick
(12,621 posts)A Catholic priest may not disclose information obtained in a confession on pain of his soul.
I'm not Catholic and do not agree with the Church's teachings on the matter. Nevertheless, I do not support jailing priests for heeding the centuries long anathema.
The legal protection of the seal of the confession is of very long standing. Support of the rule of law includes situations when we don't like the result.
Retrograde
(11,217 posts)we were taught that while priests can not divulge anything said to them under the seal of confession, they could make the penitent confess to the authorities as a condition of absolution.
And , of course, any behavior they observe outside of the confessional can be reported. They can also call social workers if they see signs of abuse.
Bondi, as usual, is trying to grab headlines by making mountains out of molehills
Jit423
(1,568 posts)The pro-life cabal once again proves they only care about the fetus, not about the born children who suffer under the control of perverts and pedophiles.
The scripture that begins "Suffer the little children..." For the party of the pro-life should just end there.
WinstonSmith4740
(3,363 posts)I was raised as a Catholic, and did all the catechism stuff as a kid. I seemed to remember something about priests being able to somehow circumvent the confessional restriction if a person confessed something really heinous. The whole turning themselves in as a condition of absolution makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
Just had a thought, though. I'm a teacher, and here in Nevada, we are mandated reporters. If a kid tells us some kind of abuse is going on, we HAVE to report it before the end of the work day. These kids feeling it was their own fault is not uncommon, so I could see them telling a priest in confession that they are guilty of temptation because this is happening to them. And idea if a priest can report it if the victim tells him it's happening?
pnwmom
(109,995 posts)Because the priest who raped her at age 7 wasn't reported to police (after she reported him as a teenager in the Confessional) the priest went on to abuse dozens of other children.
AZ8theist
(6,803 posts)What about the pain of victims of child rape?
I personally know someone who was a victim and years later commited suicide because of it.
You know what else was church doctrine for centuries? SLAVERY.
How about nearly executing Galileo for the BLASPHEMY of suggesting the Earth wasn't the center of the universe?
Took them 400 years to finally admit they were stupid on that one.
AIDS in Africa.
Exorcisms, faith healing, miracles.....I could on and on......
Church doctrine is the most reprehensible BULLSHIT man has ever known.
Irish_Dem
(72,736 posts)For centuries priests could do whatever they want.
Time to protect children not priests.
Ireland basically kicked the Catholic Church to the curb over this issue.
malthaussen
(18,192 posts)No one is going to be idiot enough to confess to something that will be reported to law enforcement. That should be simple enough to comprehend.
Given this fact, the question becomes one of the sanctity of a sacrament, and the State's right to deny that sanctity at pleasure.
"Separation of Church and State" should work both ways. And while it is certainly true that many religions violate this separation, that is no excuse for the State to fail to hold up its end of the bargain.
Whether one thinks "confession is good for the soul" or not (I don't; I'm not sold on the ideas of souls in the first place), the sacrament is designed with that belief, and participated in with that belief. I do not think it is proper for the State to interfere with that.
You ask a couple of inflammatory questions with the expectation that they are rhetorical, that any human being would be prepared to violate a principle if someone close to him were injured. Surprisingly, it is not so cut-and-dried as all that. But it is certainly intellectually dishonest manipulation of the most overt kind.
-- Mal
pnwmom
(109,995 posts)A former nun who leads a survivors group has said that if the priest who heard her painful confession, as a teenager, had reported her rape to the police, that would have protected dozens of future victims.
If she'd made the same confession to a teacher or doctor, they'd have had to report it. When a child is raped and tells a priest, there should be an exception made to the "seal of the confessional."
DiverDave
(5,146 posts)Dishonest.
If YOUR daughter was molested. And a fucking priest KNEW IT.
You are saying it's fine...
I really don't know how you twist logic to make that ok.
How can anyone argue otherwise.
But, apparently you have 3 other brainwashed people.
I was molested as a child. NOTHING can make me think you have a moral leg to stand on.
Oh, and keeping such knowledge from the police is a crime. Now don't try and make me believe that it's ok. Because I will no longer see what you write.
"intellectually dishonest manipulation of the most overt kind." Lol.
Jilly_in_VA
(12,533 posts)because you or someone told him OUTSIDE of the confessional, that's one thing and an entirely separate one. If he only knew it because you or she told him in the confessional, that's what this is about. Now if YOU knew it and went to the cops, that's a whole different ballgame.
malthaussen
(18,192 posts)If priests start reporting crimes they learned of in confession, then people will simply stop confessing crimes. Thus, demanding that priests violate the confessional will do absolutely nothing. I doubt you'd get many priests to go along with the State's law, either. It's a pretty fundamental principle of all religions that their god's law supersedes that of men. And it is a pretty fundamental law of the US that the State will not interfere with the activities of a church so long as they are reasonably orderly and lawful.
You also seem to disregard the fact that to demand this is to demand the priest commit what is a mortal sin within his own religion. You may or may not subscribe to that belief, but you have no right to tell someone else what he should believe. This is not of the same silly order as refusing to bake a cake for a LBTQ wedding. Confession, and the sanctity of the confession, is one of the seven major sacraments of the Catholic Church. To violate it is an attack on some of the foundations of that Church, with ramifications beyond the Confessional. It might be a good thing if the Catholic Church ceased to exist, but given that it poses no existential threat to the US, making war on it would seem to be not in our best interests, and would probably be unpopular with a significant percentage of the American public.
Now, I don't know what "okay" means in this context. Nor do I "think it is fine," another rhetorical turn that I don't understand at all. Many things are necessary which are neither "okay" nor "fine." Honoring the right of a church to practice it's own beliefs when there is no social good served by denying that right is one of them. And there is no social good to be served by denying the sanctity of the confessional. If the law in question were obeyed, it might lead to the investigation of one or two criminals who are currently getting away with their crimes, but that will dry up almost immediately when people realize that the confessional is not safe. Of course, just because they're investigated doesn't mean a conviction will follow, or even an indictment. My experience is that when it comes to abuse, trafficking, rape, or any other form of sexual crime, the perp walks far more often than he gets locked up.
-- Mal
iemanja
(56,336 posts)It’s how it is.
Martin68
(26,221 posts)who they will report and who they will not.
DenaliDemocrat
(1,660 posts)What a priest should do is withhold absolution until they turn themselves in.
harumph
(2,879 posts)with regard to rounding up migrants. How convenient.
Ms. Toad
(37,374 posts)The Quaker litigation challenging intrusion into the church on this matter is still pending.
LymphocyteLover
(8,409 posts)Ms. Toad
(37,374 posts)And if we win, they will be permanently barred, regardless of what they want to do.
LymphocyteLover
(8,409 posts)
JoseBalow
(8,018 posts)
Skittles
(166,311 posts)
moniss
(7,755 posts)fascists want the sexual abuse of children to continue unhindered? It's their brand.
Skittles
(166,311 posts)all too many with religious backgrounds, too 
Karasu
(1,697 posts)acting like it somehow trumps every other single fucking right people have in this country.
slightlv
(6,192 posts)their one, true, and only acceptable religion. All others need not apply....
leftyladyfrommo
(19,902 posts)on this one. They are damned if they do and condemned if they don't. Talk about a sticky wicket.
pnwmom
(109,995 posts)When a child, in confession, describes abuse by an adult, the priest should be required to report it. The child isn't asking the priest to protect the privacy of their abuser.
leftyladyfrommo
(19,902 posts)getting your sins absolved by saying "sorry" was a little weird. And pretty nonsensical.
But I'm not Catholic.
KG
(28,784 posts)Martin68
(26,221 posts)punishment, refugees, and all the boring stuff.
Lancero
(3,220 posts)No wonder religious fanatics are up in arms over this.
kkmarie
(280 posts)You would think that, even in the very early years, that someone confessing to murder or the like, that the confession was not protected.
The catholic church created by man has always protected man. In 1215 when the church made the rules protecting the confession there most likely was money involved. Rich men buying their place heaven.
My brother in law is buying his burial in a catholic cemetery because he's been divorced. Without his meetings with the pastor and sizeable donations he wouldn't be able to be buried in consecrated ground.
Just googled and the age of marriage in the 1200s for the nobles, was 12 years old for a girl and 14 for a boy. Or younger if the family wanted. But the younger weren't expected to consummate the marriage until they were a more mature age (12-14)
So there was probably not many children being assaulted under that scenario.
The deadly sins are Mortal Sins
ancianita
(41,174 posts)From Chapter 16 in the Gospel of the Apostle Matthew:
"15 He saith unto them [who at the time were his disciples],
But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said,
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him,
Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee,
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Jesus did NOT say, 'You will build my church.'
The sins of any individuals are their free will decisions, and not any sins of the Church Jesus founded. No ordained priest or bishop would protect a mortal sinner who abused children, since the Church's mission on Earth is to enable all humans to reach heaven. And there is no sinful "by any means necessary" about that.
kkmarie
(280 posts)The catholic church has become intertwined with many man made rules.
ancianita
(41,174 posts)kkmarie
(280 posts)My brother in law was divorced. He married my sister. The church doesn't allow a divorced person to be buried in a catholiccemetery. However they came to an agreement, for a certain sum of money, that he would be able to be buried in the catholic cemetery.
It's been a long time since I was a practicing catholic but I don't recall Jesus saying anything about that.
Also knew a guy who was in a 30+ year extramarital affair. He would not get a divorce because he wouldn't be allowed to be buried in the catholic cemetery. But he didn't see anything wrong with breaking a commandment.
I have googled it and apparently the church does allow it. Of course these guys were in their 80s so maybe it was what was being done at the time
ancianita
(41,174 posts)will against and expect the Church Jesus founded to support that. The Church allow the member absolution through the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation, but the member who still wants their will to prevail would have to make an appeal and have a meeting with the Bishop.
My issue about your personal examples stands. Since you and your sister and BIL know the church has changed and allows it, how does their particular situation stand as a condemning example against the Church?
I refer you to this post, and suggest that it's not the fault of the Church that you or they or others don't understand what Jesus said about marriage.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3485089
Besides Google you can look it up in Wikipedia, or in the Catechism link of the above post, so that like your sister and BIL, you can feel better about a worldwide church whose structure is always changing as the spiritual needs of its people are attended to. St Paul and Church Fathers didn't call it "the body of Christ" centuries ago for nothing. Its headquarters might still be in the smallest country on Earth, the Vatican, but so far, the body of Christ population is larger than the population of India.
dpibel
(3,627 posts)Aren't all those abuser priest settlements happening precisely because ordained priests and bishops protected child abusers?
dpibel
(3,627 posts)You are saying you're not aware that the Roman Catholic Church has paid out somewhere north of a billion dollars because priests abused children and other priests, and bishops, and cardinals protected those abusers?
Really?
Or are you playing some rhetorical game here?
In any case, check out this: https://www.bishop-accountability.org/settlements/
and this: https://archive.ph/hlJdv
And if your next dodge is that you do not believe rando links from the Internets, then your game will be clear.
BTW: Please provide links to establish the truth of Bible verses you quoted. There's not proof of any of that outside the Bible, which is the very definition of tautology.
ancianita
(41,174 posts)So thanks for posting them.
The numbers are hard to face, but faced they must be.
The link charts show latest case was 14 years ago (2011).
So these records are either as up to date as we can find, or they're final and there have been no more cases per the Zero Tolerance policy by the [link:US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)|US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).]
Details of what each Catholic Diocese does...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3485089
Here's the Bible quote link
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016%3A15-19&version=KJV
The sins of 700+ priests do not condemn the Church worldwide anymore than this society's sex offenders condemn all of this society.
For any and all of us Jesus said, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%205%3A31-32&version=KJV
dpibel
(3,627 posts)1. Assuming you will not dismiss out of hand Wikipedia, you might find this article illuminating. Not sure that some magic thing happened 14 years ago that fixed everything.
2. It is charmingly optimistic to think that something so widespread was just solved by making some rules. You'll note that, at your self-link, you say that the charter was approved in 2002. Even by your own optimistic estimate that everything's been real good for 14 years, that leaves a number of years when the mighty charter had, apparently, no effect.
2. "700+ priests" may be a bit optimistic. See, e.g., the Wiki article which notes, "According to a 2004 research study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and 2002 have been plausibly (neither withdrawn nor disproven) accused of underage sexual abuse by 10,667 individuals."
But the actual number is not the point. Your argument supported by that number is fallacious. Because, you see, the existence of sex offenders is not the point. You claim that, just as our society at large contains sex offenders, but is not condemned, thus we should not condemn Catholicism for including sex offenders.
But our society does not, as official acts of those in charge, hide sexual abuse or move known sexual abusers to new places where their proclivities are not known. That is what the Catholic Church's authorities (bishops and cardinals) did. If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you.
3. Sending me a link that allows me to verify that you are accurately quoting the Bible is a lot like me posting "the sky is purple" and, when asked to provide support for the proposition, linking to my own post. Yes. The words you have pasted are the words from the Bible. But, other than the Bible, there's not a lick of evidence that Jesus said any such thing. Assuming, of course, for the sake of argument, the historicity of Jesus.
4. Here's the real deal: The Trump administration is trying to kill a Washington state law requiring priests to report confessed sexual abuse. You seem to be saying that the Church is already totes on board with that idea. If that is so, then I'm sure the Church will be right there telling Pam Bondi to back off.
No?
Sanctity of the confessional?
I'm not actually entirely sure you've thought this through.
ancianita
(41,174 posts)had easily challenged and debunked the morality and integrity of believer systems and aligned with secular humanist society. And however differently we might word them, and statistical logic aside, I still get your points.
I won't bore you with the road that got me here, but in general have gathered from a long, well lived life that there are some things that even a humane secularist or "being spiritual" can't fix, and I've been heartened by how much this 2,000 year old church has changed in my lifetime (walked away from it 56 years ago).
I'm currently reading a book (recommended to the whole congregation by my Polish parish priest in this west Florida diocese) called Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed (which obviously requires a God to have a theology about).
As I'm reading it (along with other books I've learned from upon my return) I see the Church's growth and appreciation for the laity's intellect that no other believer system comes anywhere close to.
Gone are the days when Sting's song "Spirits in the Material World" could do "it" for me.
Thanks for taking the time to lay out your thoughts. We're straight.
Haggard Celine
(17,333 posts)If another denomination, a much smaller denomination, decided to stay quiet about molestation by their clergy, would the Justice Department go to bat for them too? When the ATF decided to attack the Branch Davidians, one of the main reasons given was that Koresh was molesting children there. Would they have attacked a Catholic school if there was a priest there who diddling kids? Hell no! We have legitimate religions and illegitimate ones in this country. The Catholic church enjoys a special relationship with our government.
travelingthrulife
(2,944 posts)
oberle
(129 posts)Especially considering how many justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic.
oberle
(129 posts)Especially considering how many justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic.
ancianita
(41,174 posts)The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has a policy called the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," also known as the Dallas Charter, which outlines procedures for handling allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy. This policy, approved in 2002 and revised in 2011 and 2018, aims to create a "safe environment" within the Church and includes measures like mandatory background checks, training, and reporting procedures.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Zero Tolerance Policy:
The charter promotes a "zero tolerance" policy towards sexual abuse, emphasizing prevention and accountability.
Safe Environment:
It commits the Church to providing a safe environment for children and young people in all Church-related activities.
Specific Measures:
The charter mandates several measures, including:
Background Checks: Implementing background checks for all Church employees, volunteers, seminarians, priests, and deacons.
Training: Providing abuse prevention training for those interacting with children.
Code of Conduct: Establishing a code of conduct that prohibits misconduct and boundary violations.
Reporting Procedures: Requiring dioceses to report allegations to civil authorities, conduct investigations, and remove the accused from duty.
Compliance and Audits:
The USCCB established a National Review Board to audit diocesan compliance with the charter.
Church doctrine is the basis of all Catholic Bishops' lives, decisions and actions in fulfilling the mission of Jesus' church on earth, and
the Catechism of the Catholic Church IS the Church's doctrine, and
is available to all (on Amazon) so all people will know the Church's position on "social sin," "society of law," "well being of society" and
30 other issues in the Catechism's Index under "Society,"
20 other doctrinal teaching under "Children," and
hundreds of other related teachings under "Education," "Family," "Marriage," "Parents" and "Common Good," among others.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)LymphocyteLover
(8,409 posts)travelingthrulife
(2,944 posts)dlk
(12,802 posts)And if so, whose best interest does the protection serve?
malthaussen
(18,192 posts)But that is not exactly the issue.
What interest of society is served by permitting religion at all? Or, if we can't find one in specific, let's ask if any (vague) interest of society is served by permitting religion? If the answer is "yes," then an entire bag of worms is opened. If the answer is "no," then you're declaring war on most of humanity, and will meet with a considerable amount of opposition in pursuit of ideological purity.
In any event, the people who founded the US and wrote its Constitution decided that some interest of society was served by permitting religion, to the point where they specifically guaranteed the right to free exercise of it (within certain broad parameters). It may be a guarantee honored more in the breach than we'd prefer, but it has worked about as well as could be expected. Having stipulated that, we cannot then decide we didn't mean it, and legislate restrictions to the free practice of a religion because we don't like one of it's tenets (a tenet that we knew right from the start, and that antedates the formation of the US by a good few centuries). At least, not unless we go through the stipulated process of amending the Constitution (and we'd run into some interesting problems about prejudicial practice in the process).
Lawyers have rules of confidentiality. Doctors have rules of confidentiality. Both of these, though, are purely social constructs. A lawyer could practice law if his records were not privileged (although it would surely cramp his style). A doctor even more easily could practice medicine without keeping a patient's health records privileged. There is nothing in either profession that requires confidentiality to function.
A priest is in a different position, and the confidentiality of the confessional is more than a social convenience. If we undermine that confidentiality, we undermine the very profession (well, vocation) of the priest. We undermine one of the pillars of the Catholic Church. This may not be something we want to do, and perhaps does not better serve the interests of society than does honoring their privilege. In any event, it is much more serious an action than it seems, looked at out of context. It's intriguing to me how so many people appear to think that attacking the sanctity of the confessional is not a big deal, or even some worthy thing that eliminates some unjust loophole that protects wrong-doers. Nobody is going to confess a crime if he knows it will be reported, so eliminating the confidentiality of the confessional will do exactly nothing, except undermine the authority and position of the priesthood, which I don't think is the intended result (although frankly, I can't understand what result *is* intended by this legislation). One thing is clear to me, if not to some others around here: the legislation under discussion will not reduce crime one percent.
-- Mal
dlk
(12,802 posts)You make it sound that without the power of protecting criminal behavior in the confessional, there’s nothing else the priesthood can offer. Seems a bit shortsighted to me.
twodogsbarking
(14,618 posts)travelingthrulife
(2,944 posts)I will bet that out of the other side of their mouth they threaten priests for not revealing immigrants they have discovered via confession or safe harbor.
onenote
(45,490 posts)"From the law, as amended:Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication as provided in RCW 5.60.060."
This exempts, for example, attorney-client and doctor-patient communications.
ancianita
(41,174 posts)mandatary reporting laws still hold all professionals who work with children and vulnerable populations -- including priests -- legally required to report child abuse. Mandatory reporting laws exist in all 50 states.
Mandated reporters are professionals who are legally required to report suspected cases of child abuse or neglect to the appropriate authorities. These professionals typically work in fields where they frequently interact with children or vulnerable adults.
Common categories of mandated reporters include:
Healthcare professionals: Doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists, and other medical staff.
Educational professionals: Teachers, school administrators, counselors, and day care providers.
Social service professionals: Social workers, foster care workers, and probation officers.
Law enforcement and emergency services: Police officers, EMTs, and other first responders.
Other professionals: Clergy, therapists, and those working in residential facilities for children or vulnerable adults.
The specific requirements and definitions of mandated reporters can vary by state, but the core principle is to ensure that those who work with vulnerable populations report suspected abuse or neglect to protect them.
republianmushroom
(20,774 posts)how many senators, congressman and aides are Catholic, went to confession and spilled their guts ? Must not let the rubes know what is going on.