DOJ Investigating Washington Law Forcing Catholic Priests to Break Confessional Seal
Catholic Can. 983 §1: “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”
Washington’s Senate Bill 5375 adds members of the clergy to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement.
Members of the clergy include “any regularly licensed, accredited, or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly positioned religious or spiritual leader.”
Yes, that includes Catholic priests.
“SB 5375 demands that Catholic Priests violate their deeply held faith in order to obey the law, a violation of the Constitution and a breach of the free exercise of religion cannot stand under our Constitutional system of government,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Worse, the law appears to single out clergy as not entitled to assert applicable privileges, as compared to other reporting professionals. We take this matter very seriously and look forward to Washington State’s cooperation with our investigation.”
I looked up the laws regarding reporting crimes for protestants, Islam, Judaism, etc. (If I am wrong, please let me know.)
Those laws allow it.
Catholic law: “Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”
A priest cannot break the confessional seal. Never. Not for anything.
He can encourage people to go to the police. He cannot make that a condition for absolution.
The man who hears the confession “who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.”
The penalty is automatic.
Even Seattle Archbishop Paul D. Etienne spoke out against the law:
This weekend at Mass, the first reading was from the Acts of the Apostles. After the apostles were arrested and thrown into jail for preaching the name of Jesus Christ, St. Peter responds to the Sanhedrin: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This is our stance now in the face of this new law. Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession – or they will be excommunicated from the Church. All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential and protected by the law of the Church.
A priest can report anything to police if he did not hear about the crime during confession.
Bishop Thomas A. Daly of Spokane said: “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. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane.”
This is from five years ago but it’s still relevant:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There is no question that WA legislators knew that priests are absolutely barred from disclosing anything uttered in the sacrament of Reconciliation, AKA confession.
It is not that they worry that priests are concealing crimes, but they see this as an opportunity to make Catholic clergy bend the knee.
The I-5 corridor which rules so progressively and absolutely in Washington is deeply unchurched, and overtly hostile to religious expression.
I have no doubt that many legislators and voters would be delighted should these troublesome priests be thrown in jail.
Don’t worry. Crucifixion isn’t too far away. Legislative hacks and murderers in the US aren’t much different than Muslim murders and hacks.
Haven’t you read The Book? Believers (not just Catholics) will be beheaded. Crucifixion is just so Roman and uncool.
I’ve read the end of the book, and know that even beheadings will not win them the final battle.
spoiler alert: the good guys win in the end 🙂
That Book is an excellent novel. A thriller, a nail biter, a compelling plot with engaging dialogue, that captivates the reader. And yes, the good guys win in the end.
But unfortunately, many people sacrifice their lives to make sure that happens.
The Tree of Piety ain’t that different from the Tree of Liberty.
Amen!
Unless the state proposes to bug confessionals, this law appears nigh on unenforceable. The state would have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that said child abuser confessed something to the priest that would trigger the requirement for the priest to report it.
This is not a matter of defending the sin that was confessed or protecting a wrong doer. It is a matter of protecting the confidentiality of the confession itself from intrusion by the state.
I could see another plausible scenario other than bugging the confessionals (although, I wouldn’t put it past them):
Criminal confesses (or doesn’t) to a priest.
Criminal gets caught.
Criminal tells cops (s/he could easily lie), “but I confessed to the priest”.
Priest gets arrested and charged for not reporting the crime.
And the Catholic priest, in a liberal court, in a liberal jurisdiction, has no legitimate defense except “I’m bound by the Confessional Seal”. It’s not even a he-said-she-said because the priest cannot confirm or deny anything that is said (or not said) in Confession.
Also, what will happen is activists will falsely confess, then report the priest when he doesn’t report it.
This is long settled constitutional law, so one wonders what the lawyers crafting this legislation are smoking.
No! This is (D)ifferent.
Marxists/Democrats can’t stand freedom, especially when it comes to to religion, but important, Christianity/Catholicism.
Coming from the state with the biggest pedo government.
the only religion allowed is the comunistnazi regimes idolatry
The Washington legislators do not know history. Many priests earned the Crown of Martyrdom by refusing to break the seal of the confession. St. John Nepomucene may be the best known.
Well, now that St. Donald of Trump has been selected as the new Pope, the left needs to destroy the Catholic. Church. By any means necessary.
Nothing is sacred to these people except their woke, broken agenda.
What on Earth is sacred about concealing the identity of a pedo?
Professional courtesy?
That was kinda harsh, sir. I’m not Catholic, but my wife is. And there is a much higher rate of pedophilia in the Protestant churches than there is in the Catholic church. Catholics just seem to catch all the flack for it though.
If I am misunderstanding your point, I offer my apology.
Confess only to good deeds.
Father, I helped an old lady across the street, I found a home for a stray cat I found starving in the alley. I did my homework without being told, and I returned a dime I found in the schoolyard to a boy I knew it belonged to, instead of keeping it. I don’t have impure thoughts even though I’m old enough to be thinking about girls …
(Peter deVries)
I see your point but of course the confession isn’t meant for that…
“If you want to confess to the sin of pride, I could do without the commercials. Two Hail Marys.”
and a few bucks in the poor box
If you think you need absolution for your good deeds, you need to cast out that demon.
That is not the point of “reconciliation”, if your acts were close to God anyway. Hence “confessional” not “boasting”. I’m not a Catholic but I’m pretty sure I understand this point.
Right this way, folks…You wanted it and got it. Please, step through this door to face the State Cleric.
There is no religion in man’s own understanding
Religion (all religions) is man’s way to attempt to reach God.
Christ Jesus is God’s attempt to reach man.
To be fair, a law can’t force anyone to do anything.
Catholic priests can still stay true to their oaths…they just may have to accept being sent to jail for it.
If Catholics live up the the courage of their convictions, the WA law won’t do anything but put a bunch of priests in jail. Won’t have any impact at all on the confessional.
Of course, it will end up in front of the Supreme Court, who will have to decide if “separation of Church and State” works both ways.
You shouldn’t have to go to prison for adhering to your religion. Not sure why this is a hard concept.
It would be worth it — IF AND ONLY IF — at the end, the legislators who voted yes and the governor who signed it were sent to prison for abusing yours.
Maybe someday, but not in any future I am apt to live to see.
Why not? Some religious obligations may conflict with legal ones. In those cases, the legal system should enforce its rules, and most religions have an expectation that there may be earthly penalties associated with the practice of the religion.
If a Catholic priest is not willing to take that chance, he should not hear confessions in Washington state. That’s not to say I like the law; I don’t.
The question is, how would this be enforced?
“Did the convict confess to you?”
“I cannot discuss what was said in confession.”
Will that be the basis for a conviction?
How will the state know if a confession meets their criteria? Will they send in agents to falsely confess to this sin and entrap the clergy.
Why didn’t they include rape and murder?
Will psychiatrists be next to rat on patients so the state can use the information to seize their guns under red flag laws.
Psychiatrists are already legally required to report a patient who is a danger to themselves andor others to the authorities. It’s not such a huge leap to require them to report about past crimes to the authorities as well.
And, since it is just the patient and doctor in the room, it becomes a he-said-she-said type of scenario. Who is a jury going to believe? The “obviously” mentally ill person who sees a psychiatrist, or the “professional”.
There may be a subtlety that is missing in this discussion.
If the priest is required to divulge who is abusing a child through a confession, that is different than notifying authorities that a child is being abused.
In other words, a priest being required to say “Frank is abusing a child” is different than saying “8 year old Suzie is being sexually abused.”
Reporting the child abuse would not be contrary to:
….as the penitent is not being reported to authorities. It would be the victim – the child – that is being reported.
Given the Roman Catholic Church’s recent history in covering up sexual abuse by priests, I do not see the moral high ground for the church in refusing to protect children from abuse.
If Seattle Archbishop Paul D. Etienne wants to quote Acts 5:29 and use it as a justification, he should be able to show the world where in the Bible (either Old or New Testament) that the Church should allow children to be abused.
Finally, it is hard to reconcile the idea of not protecting a child and Christ’s words:
If the Roman Catholic Church refuses to protect children from abuse, that says a great deal about the Church and a definite need for more millstones.
Sorry, you are incorrect. A priest is empowered to divulge NOTHING said during the sacrament, and that would include the name of the child being abused (although I doubt seriously that the name would be admitted by the offender) or the bank to be robbed or the murder to be committed, or whatever sin has been or will be.
.
This is because the priest in this instance is just a stand-in or proxy for Christ; he speaks the words of absolution but the absolution is from God, not the priest.
This is a seal that is inviolable even if it leads to the death of the priest or someone else, says Canon Law..
I realize that is what the cannon the Church wrote say.
The Word of God does not support the idea that priests should allow the harming of children,
The penitent is being indirectly divulged by implication. Even indirectly exposing a penitent is against church law.
This leads to an argument that seems to be missing. What about the penitent’s rights? The penitent expects the priest to remain silent. Even if the above argument (concerning indirectly alerting authorities to the existence of a perpetrator by directing them to the victim) is valid insofar as priests are concerned (and I believe it is not), the penitent has a right, in the exercise of his religious beliefs, to know the the priest can’t make a report to anyone based on what is said in the confessional. Even if the priest has no intention to do so, the law creates doubt in the minds of penitents, and they may curtail their own reporting in the confessional, a confession to which they have a right. According to doctrine, this failure could lead to not being forgiven and to potentially being punished (by God). This law is not only an infringement upon church law on the matter, it will tend to chill participation by congregants in the church’s rites as they believe they should be able to participate, secure in the knowledge that what they say in the confessional can’t be used (even by the priest) against them, directly or indirectly.
Taking your argument at face value, wasn’t David chided for thinking that what was said and done in private would not be made public?
The penitent does not need a priest to be forgiven by God. The Bible is clear concerning that.
The Church has written a policy that, in this case, allows the continual harm to children. There is no possible way that harm is justified in God’s Word.
The Catholic Church disagrees. What matters is the religious beliefs held by the church and its congregants, not how we may view the Bible. I’m an atheist. AFAIC, we can do without any of it. But I defend the rights of those who believe because I want my rights respected too.
Didn’t Jesus bring a new covenant with God? One that preached forgiveness for sins could be had through faith in Jesus? So it doesn’t matter what the OT god said. (Gnostics would say that wasn’t even god, it was an ignorant and deluded demiurge who thought he was God.)
Quoting from the church law quoted in the article:
“The man who hears the confession “who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; he who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence.””
I think that reporting to legal authorities that “Suzie is being abused” if the evidence for that comes from what was heard in confession from the abuser him- or herself, would be the “indirect” sort, with the gravity to be determined.
If some third party not involved in the abuse said it in confession, it would be hearsay and there might be other constraints on reporting that to authorities, but it seems to me that it not violate the priest’s obligations under this section.
Funny how all this talk is about priests molesting children. But how about daddy, uncle Joe, Teacher Jane or James Johnson, Scout Master Ken, Police Officer Carl, Aunt Susie and a host of the close proximity molesters who have access to slipping it to a child.
But no. “IT’S THE PRIEST! IT’S THE PRIEST!!!”
If you read the actual law, it talks about the same reporting requirements for large number of people and groups of people. Even doctors who would enjoy doctor / patient confidentiality are not immune to the reporting requirement.
There are far too many people in the people you listed that abuse children.
The difference here is that while most people think that the abuse should end, the RCC seems to be taking the position – without Biblical support – that children should allowed to be harmed.
The RCC claims continuous receipt of divine revelation through Popes. Therefore, claiming there is no evidence in the Bible does not score.
That is NOT the position the Church is taking. They’re taking the position that confession is inviolable. They’re not allowed to report theft or murder, either. Existing case law supports them.
Your argument seems to be entirely orthogonal to any claim I made.
Also funny how everybody automatically goes to sexual abuse. Not that I have studied the problem, but I suspect the majority of child abuse has nothing to do with sex.
Leftists have been trying for decades to find something that enables the state to arrest clergy for obeying the tenets of their faith. Once that foot is in the door it becomes easier to pass the next law… and the next… until religion is outlawed.
When people live under a totalitarian state they seek strength from God to rise up and overthrow the boot on their necks — which is why the priests are always the first to be rounded up.
After all, …with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence is what enabled the American Revolution.
So “tenants of faith” should outweigh the law that protects innocent children?
By that thinking, terrorists who believe that attacking Jews should not be held accountable.
Faiths that practice the sacrifice of virgins should be allowed as that is tenant of their faith.
It is difficult to believe that God and or Jesus wants children to be continually harmed because of a “tenant of faith” that protects the sinner and harms the innocent.
People who do the actual harm are still accountable. Your logic is faulty.
It’s “tenets,” for heaven’s sake. They’re beliefs, not nuns.
The Church doctrine is silence, i.e., lack of action. This law compels speech.
Do you also favor a law that compels a defendant’s lawyer to disclose to a judge that his client is guilty?
Do nuns pay rent?
Their families did when my sister was one.
WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
I hope your words were autocorrupted, because it’s a “tenet of faith”.
IMO, the Catholic Church is the world’s largest pedophile ring, It’s no surprise that the Church requires sealed lips re: confession……. However, Catholic Canons have no force of law and besides, what kind of low life would not report an abuse of a child to legal authorities?
As in another article on LI right now, pedophilia is the State’s “panda bear” with respect to the Church and child sexual abuse (as concern for “pandas” is the hook for radical environmentalism). Infringements upon religion (infringements upon property rights) are justified by the existence of child abuse (by the threat to pandas). In our system of government the nature of the threat isn’t supposed to create opportunities for the contraction or elimination of rights. But politicians use these threats, playing upon the public’s sentiments, to build popular consensus to do exactly that.
As “concerned family members” are the panda bear for red flag laws.
Once passed, statistics show the vast majority of non-due-process confiscations are applied for by police, with no family involvement at all.
And in states whose laws were explicitly written to require family involvement, we are now seeing pressure to amend them to allow law enforcement to file unilaterally.
They’re all Trojan horses, Admiral Ackbar.
No. The greatest threat to children are the teachers. The coaches. The music teachers. The choir directors. Male and female.
No, i think public/government school teachers have that distinction.
Another bigot self-identifies.
Ah yes, of course. To save the chilluns. Here’s what comes next: failure to cut Billy’s pee-pee off when his purple-haired groomer ‘teacher’ convinced him he’s a she will be grounds to report ‘…suspected child abuse.’
Isn’t that already the law in California?
So why don’t we make attorneys narc on their clients?
Oh, the bar association objects? Must support child abuse.
This is being done while the Buffalo schools have been shown to cover up r@pe, abuse, and kidnapping, despite being mandatory reporters.
Let’s not forget Loudoun County.
Respectfully, to some of the commenters here, there are and always have been both Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox clergy who have committed great sins and crimes they should be punished for. All Christians are human and we all sin. And we will have to answer to someone much more holy and powerful some day for those sins.
But its really interesting to see, hear, and read that many people ignore their own sins, and ignore all the good and marvelous things the Church does for people across the world, and the first thing brought up in discussions like this are failures. And its pretty obvious there are a lot more non-Christian people who these heinous things than practicing Christians.
If I lived in Washington state I would be standing with the priests who will risk jail to keep to their oath. I’m a Protestant, but if Antifa and all kinds of other weird, sinful, violent groups try to protect their own from consequences for their actions, I’ll stand with the priests.
Leave a Comment