Washington State Hit With Second Lawsuit Over ‘Discriminatory’ Law Violating Confessional Seal
“Down the centuries, countless priests have honored [the seal of the confessional], submitting to torture and death rather than yield to demands from tyrannical kings, military dictators, and civil authorities,” the complaint states.
Four Orthodox churches and one Orthodox priest sued Washington State on Monday over a new “discriminatory” mandatory reporter law. The law requires priests to violate the seal of the confessional when they learn of child sex abuse during confession.
The law allegedly unfairly targets religion while respecting confidentiality in secular settings, like attorney-client privilege. The plaintiffs fear the law “would result in people refusing to confess, thus depriving themselves of God’s mercy” and would burden their religious exercise.
Legal Insurrection reported on a similar lawsuit brought last month by Catholic bishops in Washington State.
The Alliance Defending Freedom represents the plaintiff churches and priest in the action filed in federal court. A press release from the group alleges the law “targets priests by criminalizing their religious obligations to keep confession confidential.”
The law “burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise because each of the Plaintiff Church’s priests and [the plaintiff priest] must either violate his religious convictions or face criminal punishment and civil liability,” the complaint states.
Washington State’s law currently exempts clergy from mandatory reporting, along with attorneys who learn of child sex abuse from a client “in the course of professional employment.” The revised law, which takes effect on July 27, expressly removes the protection for clergy but not for attorneys.
The complaint notes the plaintiffs support reporting, except in the narrow case of when a penitent reveals incriminating information during confession.
“Plaintiffs do not object to alerting authorities when they have genuine concerns about children that they learn outside of Confession—indeed, Plaintiff Priest and other clergy are already required to make such reports under their own bishops’ policies,” according to the complaint.
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, for example, requires clergy to report suspected child sex abuse to law enforcement.
The complaint alleges the new law violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The law allegedly violates the Free Exercise Clause by threatening church autonomy and “target[ing] Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious convictions and duties by facially targeting religion, embodying animus towards religion, and treating other practices more favorably than religious ones.”
The law allegedly violates the Free Speech Clause by compelling speech because it “compels Plaintiffs to speak about what they heard during Confession—speech that their religion mandates must remain confidential.”
The law allegedly violates the Equal Protection Clause by requiring clergy to violate confidentiality while protecting confidentiality in secular settings.
The complaint frames Washington State’s new law as at odds with longstanding common law tradition.
“For 150 years, the United States Supreme Court has recognized the clergy-penitent privilege as part of the common law,” the complaint reads, citing Totten v. United States (1875).
“[P]ublic policy forbids . . . any suit . . . which would inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confidential. . . . On this principle, suits cannot be maintained which would require a disclosure of the confidences of the confessional,” the Court stated in Totten.
The complaint requests injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the new law and a declaration that the new law “is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
meanwhile, criminals under the age of 18 are given the seal of confidentiality to continue to commit crimes b/c the msm wont name them ( despite courts saying they can) and they are also given weaker sentencing …if at all
but the religious persecution from the left continues
But, but… they are just CHILLLLLLL-RENNNN!
Does it surprise anyone that indigo-blue Washington state requires priests but not lawyers to violate their obligation of confidentiality?
And requiring this in re: child sexual abuse while at the same time making it illegal for parents to interfere in their child’s “trans care”?
Washington; a once beautiful state to live in now ruined by progressivism.
AOC says the work around is to have the law, instead, apply to the Revelatory Walrus.
During confession, I have never been asked to identify myself.
I am curious how a priest, who does not know who he is speaking with, can identify the penitent.
(All the priest knows is an unknown person did x.)
even better reasoning for lefty
torture or name the person
so the priests will make sure they know your identity
If you think of confession in the old-style confessional, no, but many parishes use the face-to-face model of Reconciliation.
Well then perhaps many parishes are going to have to re-think their ideas on confession and forego the “face to face model of Reconciliation” and return to the more traditional form of confession until the matter of confessional confidentiality is resolved in Washington State.
In the Orthodox church, the priest and penitent see and hear each other.
A lot of Roman Catholic churches no longer have the phone booth style confessionals. You have a room where you can sit behind a screen or where the priest can see you. Also if you attend church regular and talk to the priests outside of confession they probably know who you are, especially if it is a small parish.
so, here’s the deal,..If you or I were told or overheard in a bar, someone admitting to pedophilia, are we legally obligated to notify the authorities? If we are, the church is, if we are not, neither is the Church, Canon law cannot supersede civil law
“Overheard in a bar” is hearsay, and most people are not mandated reporters obligated by law to contact the authorities.
I’m a teacher, and I am a mandated reporter regarding my school and students–I honestly don’t know whether I’m legally obligated to report something I learn outside of those two things; I’m going to check today. (I would because I’m I decent human being).
If attorneys are exempt from the law, and clergy have been so far, changing the law for the latter not the forme is the issue.
Here’s the law in Florida: https://www.flcourts.gov/content/download/634439/file/Mandatory-Reporting-of-Abuse-Checklist.pdf
https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect-florida/#:~:text=Training%20for%20mandatory%20reporters%20is,policies%2C%20and%20online%20resources%20reviewed.&text=A%20person%20from%20the%20general,they%20choose%20to%20do%20so.
There is an exemption for attorney-client and clergy/penitent privilege.
I just asked my wife (an ER doctor) what her obligation is in our state (GA). Here, she’s only legally obligated to report suspected child abuse/sexual assault that she encounters in a clinical setting (ie at work). She would of course report any incident she suspected no matter where she learned of it. But, she says that’s not true in every state. In some states, that legal obligation as a mandatory reporter extends outside of work. You’re smart to ask because if you live in such a state, it’s conceivable it could apply to teachers.
Interestingly though, even ‘hearsay’ information that a doctor receives will trigger the ‘reasonable cause’ obligation. In fact, I guess it’s common; a child she may be treating will tell her that a sibling is being abused. Even though that could technically be hearsay, she’s now obligated by law to report it.
Requiring priests to violate the sanctity of confession violates their freedom of religion.
Which for a Leftist/Democrat government is considered to be a good thing.
Subotai Bahadur
The seal of the confessional is above civil law; it is a solemn obligation of the priest to the Almighty.
That obligation cannot be dissolved, no matter what any random lefty legislature decides. And our Constitution has always supported that obligation.
The constitution doesn’t absolutely protect religious practices such as the seal of the confession. If Washington were to make a law that everyone must report, no matter how they heard it, no exceptions, that would be constitutional (at least according to Smith, which is the current precedent). The state would not be required to make an exception for the confession, but it would be permitted to.
The same is true, for instance, were San Francisco to ban circumcision, always and for everyone. It would be constitutional for it to make an exception for Jews, Moslems, and other religions that require it, but it would also be constitutional for it to refuse such an exception. In that case, Jews and Moslems would have to take their children out of the city line to circumcise them. Or move somewhere else.
What a state or city can’t do is make exceptions for other things but not for religious practice. As soon as you start making exceptions you have to make one for that too.
The same is true for freedom of speech. The reason NYC is required to allow people to sell all kinds of printed matter and art work on the street without any license is because its law requiring street vendors to be licensed has an exception for veterans. Since veterans can sell without a license, so can anyone selling any material protected by the first amendment.
I strongly disagree.
Although you may be correct with respect to the responsibility of the priest, the argument neglects to consider the effect on the citizen penitent. His religious belief requires him to confess to receive absolution. The threat that he may be turned over to authorities for sins/crimes that he confesses to receive god’s grace would tend to chill his ability to exercise his religious beliefs. Even if civil law could control the behavior of priests, it can’t do it in a way that chills the ability of the believer to exercise his religious beliefs. If anything, this is what will cause this law to be found unconstitutional.
Initially, the objection to this law was strictly with regard to it effects on priests. I was the first person I saw commenting on how this law also adversely affects the rights of the citizen/believer. I’m glad to see that someone else has caught on, because I believe this angle is far more powerful than the initial challenge.
Dave, under Smith a state is not required to make exceptions to its laws to accommodate anyone’s religious exercise — so long as it makes no other exceptions either.
For instance under prohibition Congress chose to make an exception for religious needs, but it didn’t have to. It could have said no alcohol whatsoever under any circumstances, and if that means you can’t say kiddush, or mass, that’s your problem not ours. Thankfully it chose not to take such an approach, but nothing in the constitution prevented it.
What it can’t do is make exceptions for other purposes and not for this one. Or enact a law whose purpose is to restrict religious exercise, e.g. it absolutely bans for everyone a practice that only religious people do.
MarkS, the answer to your original question is that in the default case no one is required to report anything they learn, no matter how. The law is different only for “mandatory reporters” specified by law. There is a list of occupations that make certain people mandatory reporters, and they must report crimes they learn in the course of their occupation, or perhaps even outside it, depending on the state.
In almost all states clergy are not on the list, just as lawyers are not. What Washington has now done is to add clergy to the list, with no exception for confessional privilege. They have no objection to being on the list, so long as they get that exception, so they’re only suing for that.
As written this statute probably is discriminatory b/c it creates an imbalance between secular and religious advisors. The better (though imperfect) way to proceed is to place Clergy, Attorneys and Psychologists on the same footing by protecting admissions of Past actions but to require reporting for disclosure of threats of future actions beloved to be genuine. Any other way leaves some sort of imbalance between secular and religious advisors which creates either an advantage or disadvantage based upon religion and that is inconsistent with a neutral application of the 1A.
I would say that lawyers are in unique position as they are defending clients
Not always. Attorneys are also referred to as counselor b/c they offer advice and counsel. For example you go see an Attorney about Family law b/c you PO your wife again, she’s threatening a divorce and you want to get a feel for how much it might cost you, that conversation is privileged. If you got to the same attorney a.week later and tell him you need defense counsel b/c you killed your wife before she could file for divorce…that’s privileged as well. In contrast a conversation with an Attorney where one reveals the intent to commit a future criminal act isn’t protected by privilege; ‘I’m gonna murder my wife’ and asking the Attorney to give you a primer on how not to get convicted wouldn’t usually be privileged. Past acts yes, future acts no… in general so long as the Attorney has the reasonable belief it is a genuine threat to commit a specific crime it ain’t privileged.
And priests are in a unique position because they’re absolving sin on God’s behalf. Once a state makes an exception for lawyers it must make one for the free exercise of religion as well.
The state doesn’t have to make an exception for priests, because it can’t impinge upon the rights of religious believers to freely confess their sins to the priest.
Attorneys have an “exception” for similar reason. Citizens have a right to counsel. If counsel is mandated to rat out those who seek assistance, that would chill the exercise of the right to counsel. Therefore the state can’t require counsel to be rats, just as it can’t require priests to be rats.
This argument is based on the legal concept that a law that is constitutional in its letter may still be unconstitutional its effect. I believe we have an example of that here when discussing what the state can require from whom and under what conditions. The state can lawfully require anything of anyone only so long as it does not affect the rights of those so required and so long as it does not affect the rights of others when the law is applied by those laboring under it. If a law has an unconstitutional knock-on effect downstream from its primary subject, the law is unconstitutional.
Has the American Civil Liberties Union weighed in yet? This seems like the kind of thing that they were formed to take on.
I didn’t know that an orthodox priest could mandate an outside act as a condition for absolution, like publicly exposing oneself for committing a crime by making a police report. That’s absolutely, unequivocally, not allowed in the Roman Catholic Church.
this is classic behaviour of people born with drd4 liberal gene dna…they cannot help their hate and bullying…they are born to do it….
It really doesn’t matter what Washington does. Priests will go to jail before breaking the seal of confession. Washington will just be added to the long list of governments that have persecuted Catholics over the years.
Uh, I have it on good authority that there was a nationwide NO KINGS protest last weekend that ended all forms of this type of unilateral kingly tyranny to trample in the rights of we the people. Dang it! So obviously Washington State has capitulated to the signs, banners, and slogans which proclaimed NO KINGS. Right? Right??
My sadness for Washington State knows no bounds.
God has been silent during the decline, as with other places that are becoming hell holes. Jesus in not in their hearts and they are gleefully and forcefully choosing darkness.
I look at scripture for what is NOT written as much as what IS written. The future for those who always choose the dark is clear in both. God might be waiting for them to choose differently, but I’m personally hoping His hand does some Old Testament action here.
I would urge everyone to take a step back and reframe the debate to it’s most basic framework; whether to
Grant an exemption to a particular group from the general requirement to abide by the neutral application of a statute due to their group’s objection based on the conflict of secular law with their religious beliefs and practices.
Now substitute Muslims as the group demanding an exemption(s) from secular laws that conflict with Islam. Then add in our judiciary and the rest of the wokiesta lefty nonsense and assure me that the precedent of granting an exemption due to sincere religious beliefs in this instance won’t have unintended consequences in the future. IMO the better option is to push for equivalent treatment of Clergy, Attorneys and Psychologists.
We’re not doing that. We’re doing the opposite. We’re requiring something of priests we don’t require of average people. Something that will condemn their souls to hell. And something they can’t even defend themselves from. Because someone can lie and say they confessed child abuse. But the priest can’t say the person didn’t tell them that because it breaks the seal. He can’t even say whether the person came to confession or not. What you want is evil and unconstitutional.
And your example doesn’t hold. For it to be true it would be to demand that imams be subject to a requirement that the average person is not, that would condemn their souls to hell to do so, and to remove any ability to defend themselves from it. I would be against it as well, and I hope all other Americans would as well.
What you are describing is an exception for ‘Priests’. You didn’t use a broader term like ‘Clergy’. That indicates you want a narrow exemption based on the religious practices of a couple of religious sects who use ‘Priest’ to designate their religious officials.
I am not gonna denigrate your religious beliefs or those of your co religionists. I appreciate and understand that you sincerely believe and follow the teachings and precepts of your religious sect. The State is supposed to be neutral in application of law…you don’t want a neutral application you want to carve out an exclusive exception for ‘Priests’ of your religious faith. We can see that from your choice of language.
If it’s ok for your religious sect to be granted exemptions from criminal statutes based on your religious beliefs then its ok for those of other religious faiths to demand their exemptions based on the tenants of their faith.
Any Freemasons on here?
you know what I’m talking about.
Again there is not an exception being made for preists or clergy or whichever term you want. The state is specifically saying that clergy have a duty to report that secular people do not. The state made clergy mandated reporters where the average person is not required to be.
You also ignore the lack of ability for Catholic priests to defend themselves. They literally cannot contest the facts of any case filed against them without breaking the seal of confession. To file charges against them is an automatic conviction. How are you ok with that?
And at the end, it doesn’t matter you or Washington want or think is a compromise. The priests and the Church will not comply.
Exactly. Jews know all about that. Especially those of us with backgrounds in the USSR.
I don’t doubt it and I would absolutely respect the moral courage of the Priests who defied the State based on their religious beliefs.
Personally I’d suggest that Clergy, Attorneys and Psychologists be afforded the same protections so that discussion of Past criminal acts is protected, privileged but any credible threats of future criminal acts would not be. That would be a neutral application which the WA statute here is not.
There will be no compromise
How about this: You have a right to remain silent. Period. The officer who arrests you must inform you of that fact.
Now tell me that a law requiring you to rat someone out when you discover his crime is constitutional.
Don’t give may any BS about this being only the right of suspects. It’s not. It’s the right of a suspect because it’s a right that belongs to everyone. Don’t give me BS about it only applicable to “self-incrimination,” because it’s not. You don’t know how anything you say might be used against you, when even statements you believe are exculpatory can be turned against you, so you can’t know that what you say won’t be used against you.
The state can compel speech? Pretty sure compelled speech is unconstitutional. But that’s exactly what these laws require. Pretty sure slavery and involuntary servitude are also unconstitutional, but these laws also compel performance from people who haven’t agreed to such performance.
Reluctant and unwilling testimony is compelled from folks every day in our legal system via subpoena.
Praise God that he had me be born to Presbyterians! I only confess to Him, and He already knows my sins.