The Catholic Church has issued a warning to its clergy in Washington state: Any priest who complies with a new law requiring the reporting of child abuse confessions to authorities will be excommunicated.
https://www.newsweek.com/catholic-church-excommunicate-priests-following-new-us-state-law-2069039
Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they suspect child abuse. The church thinks it is above secular law and only answers to God, not to mention the protection it offers to its own child abusers. It’s complete nonsense and a good example of why religious tolerance has limits.
Remember that episode of South Park where the Catholic priest saw child rape and exploration as a kind of perks of the job. Whelp they hit the nail right on the head 10 years ago with that one and it’s still relevant to this day.
That’s not quite accurate. Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they believe there is an ongoing risk to others, not because someone tells them of child abuse they committed in the past. In that sense, a confessional would probably be the same - you don’t confess to things that haven’t happened yet. You’re more likely to express ongoing risk in therapy than in confession.
If the confessor indicated that they were going to continue doing things, that’s when a confession should become reportable, if we’re want the law to be secular and equitable.
What’s your source for this? I find nothing that says therapists don’t have to report cases of child abuse.
I just responded to someone else with a long list of sources that indicate that therapists across the US are required to report child abuse.
It almost certainly varies between jurisdictions. However, a few minutes ago I looked it up the proposed law in Washington[1] for this story, and it does actually require reporting of all past cases of child abuse for all groups listed (therapists and other professionals, and now priests also).
To be clear, it’s the time that varies, almost everywhere has laws requiring some level of mandatory reporting. But, for example, the federal definition[2] does not require reporting of child abuse cases in the distant past (my emphasis):
What Constitutes Child Abuse and Neglect?
At the federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides a minimum definition of child abuse and neglect. It is defined as, “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation…or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
The key part is that it only covers recent harm and imminent risk. This is the baseline that’s pretty much universal, but it seems many, or at least some, states have laws that go further and require all reporting. The Washington state law[1:1] is summarised as:
When [any member of these groups] 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 or to the department
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025 - direct pdf link: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/Senate/5375.SL.pdf?q=20250510110254 (see Sec. 2. page 6) ↩︎ ↩︎
https://govfacts.org/federal/hhs/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect-a-guide-for-action/ ↩︎
Technically everything you’ve done is in the past, unless you’re doing it at this very second in time. So by that rationale, a priest could say, well, they’re confessing, it’s in the past, they’re repentant–not an ongoing risk–therefore I don’t have to report. But that’s obviously bullshit.
This is completely accurate, and yet so many responses are pretending it’s not.
A mandated reporter is a person who is required by law to report crimes, typically if they know or suspect a child or vulnerable adult has been or is at risk of being abused or neglected
Mandated reporters have to report child abuse. Full goddamn stop. No, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the past, why the fuck would that change anything?
These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
These people really think that it’s okay not to report pedophilia? Why? Because the pedophile confessed to inarguably one of the worst crimes imaginable, and promised not to do it anymore?
So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
You think a therapist wouldn’t report that because their patient said they won’t do it anymore? Did they pinky swear?
Over here in Germany, therapists may break confidentiality over planned or grave crimes, but are not required to. It’s always a balancing act and from what I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
Mandatory reporting doesn’t solve problems and while doing that causes a ton of others. There’s a gazillion things you can do to address things, making snitching mandatory is about the least useful and most damaging.
So that paedophiles don’t stay away from confession, so that priests can tell them that god wants them to go to the police as penance. Noone is helped when paedophiles instead keep their mouths shut.
There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit. Without mandated reporting, we can literally never know what happened.
There is very little evidence of societal benefits or needs when it comes to secrecy in confession. There are benefits and needs when it comes to secrecy with mental health professionals, and yet they often are mandated to report these crimes anyway, because the risks of not reporting far outweigh the benefits of secrecy.
Germany is behind the times and most of the EU on this one:
In 15 Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) reporting obligations are in place for all professionals.
In 10 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal and Slovakia) existing obligations only address certain professional groups such as social workers or teachers.
In Germany, Malta and the Netherlands, no reporting obligations were in place in March 2014.
This isn’t “the US is the exception” for once.
I’ve heard in the US you can get arrested for telling your therapist that you took drugs which is insane.
Source? I have literally never heard that.
Source? I have literally never heard that.
Don’t know where I got it from, but second google hit: https://www.amahahealth.com/blog/can-i-talk-to-my-therapist-about-my-illicit-drug-use/
But, there is a condition - your therapist is also bound by the ethical duty of reducing harm, so if they find out that your drug use can cause harm to you or someone else, they might have to report you to the authorities.
So if they figure that you are in a state where you might be leaving needles behind at playgrounds, they have to report you. They have no leeway to say “I can convince this guy to be more mindful”. That alone wouldn’t be that bad, but if you’re in a downward spiral, “causing harm to yourself”, they also have to report you. Which, given the state of the US criminal justice system, is going to do even more harm. The whole thing is unethical AF.
There are specifically no systems in place for that to happen, or indication that that actually does happen. There is specifically every indication that churches often cover up these crimes as a matter of habit.
[citation needed]
I mean not the matter of habit covering up thing particularly when it comes to the Catholic Church, but e.g. Lutherans also take confessions and over here the EKD very much had not that kind of issue: Abuse exists, as it does everywhere, but it did not have institutional backing, much less wide-spread. When one instance of one superior covering for one subordinate came to light they stepped on it hard and passed new laws that include mandatory reporting – but not when it comes to confession. “See something, do something”, yes, but not “Take confession, do something”.
It’s that kind of thing the Catholics should be criticised for – somehow the Lutherans had several magnitudes less of a problem, and yet reacted magnitudes more decisively when it comes to stopping it, making sure that church structures don’t turn into a criminal conspiracy. Lifting or not lifting the seal won’t do anything to institutional rot. You’re focussing on the wrong thing.
I’m a medical student in America and we’re required to know some of the legal cases that define our standards and practices. The legal precedent that requires the breach of confidentiality to report a patient for being a danger to themselves or others is the Tarasoff case.
A patient has to be a direct threat to themselves or others in terms of suicide, self-harm, assault, or murder (i.e. meaningful bodily harm) to justify the breach of confidentiality.
The TL;DR of the Tarasoff case was a patient was talking to his physician about wanting to kill his stalking target and then he did so. The precedent means that a physician is required to notify the potential victim and/or the police if a direct threat is made.
That drug use thing is a massive stretch of the words “cause harm to yourself or others”. That clause is - to my knowledge - used exclusively to mean things like abuse, assault, murder, or suicide.
Please provide a source of that actually happening or a legislative or judicial ruling that supports that idea at all.
While there is some support for absolute secrecy of a private confession, Lutheran history and the Book of Concord do not support the concept of keeping a confidence if it risks the ongoing abuse or death of a child or requires the pastor to violate civil or criminal laws designed to protect children from abuse.
While Scripture discourages gossiping and speech designed to damage the reputation of another, keeping a confidence “is not an absolute, especially when others are being harmed or may be hurt."
That drug use thing is a massive stretch of the words “cause harm to yourself or others”. That clause is - to my knowledge - used exclusively to mean things like abuse, assault, murder, or suicide.
Did some further googling and it appears that what I remember might apply to a) school councillors and the like, and b) law enforcement getting reports about type of treatment after they dropped someone off. Why law enforcement is doing EMT stuff is of course yet a whole another topic.
While Scripture discourages gossiping and speech designed to damage the reputation of another, keeping a confidence “is not an absolute, especially when others are being harmed or may be hurt.
And that’s exactly how German law sees it: Breaking confidence is permitted in certain cases, but not mandated. On the flipside, if you’re e.g. a cop or a child care worker, when you see certain things you are required to pursue them, that’s different in e.g. the Netherlands where cops are free to ignore you if you light up a joint in front of them, and tell them about it, and don’t even hide it in a brown bag. People taking confessions including therapists are neither of those, though, so they do not have that kind of duty.
Law will never be able to cover, in detail, the balancing process necessary to actually reduce harm in any specific case. It is a very blunt instrument.
You’re exchanging one absolute for another. The original absolute btw, not being that absolute because catholic priests can tattle anonymously (if the state allows for such things, different topic), and then themselves confess. But it should never be a “hear X, do Y” kind of deal. That doesn’t serve the situation.
Shit like this is why it is explicitly written that Baha’is must follow the law of the land before the laws of god.
This is not true. A therapist would be required to break confidentially if they became aware that their Client is going to harm themselves or others, or if they are mandated by law.
What someone already did in the past generally isn’t reported.
I find zero sources that agree with your claim.
I find several sources that indicate that therapists in all US states are required to break confidentiality when child abuse has occurred.
https://psychcentral.com/health/what-do-therapists-have-to-report
https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/when-must-a-therapist-file-a-report
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-therapists-report-confidentiality_l_5d2cf063e4b0bca603641a62
https://www.mentalyc.com/blog/exceptions-to-confidentiality-in-counseling
So either you’re talking about another country’s laws (in which case I’d like to know which country), or you’re just incorrect.
I’m in Colombia, where psychologists are required to report “human rights violations, mistreatment or cruel, inhuman or degrading conditions of confinement of which any person is a victim and of which they become aware in the exercise of their profession.”
deleted by creator
Imagine thinking you could sin recklessly, tell it to some dude in a funny hat/robe and that God is somehow okay with it. Imagine keeping the identities of child abusers secret because of that stupid line of thought (or because you can relate to the person touching kids).
In Catholicism, presumption makes a confession invalid
Confession is invalid.* (respectfully)
Is this about God’s forgiveness not being deserved?
The worlds largest pedophile ring doing gods work I guess.
Teaching has the most pedophiles, followed by music tutor, and priests/clerics are 3rd.
Is parenting no longer a job? Because that’s top by far.
Step-fathers in particular seem unusually prone to child abuse in all its forms.
By straight numbers I’m sure that’s the case, but i doubt its true by percentage. But to be honest I’m not sure if the study included parents.
Teaching might have the most reported pedophiles. (Might because there’s no citations)
This comment below the post about how the Catholic Church will excommunicate those who report pedophiles may be… not as supportive for your argument as you might think.
Teaching might have the most reported pedophiles. (Might because there’s no citations)
There are also mandatory reporting law in many states.
Could be more like they give children a safe space they can trust to confess, but I’m more on team they just want to cover up their own diddling.
Yeah but is there a central leader for for teachers?
There is for Catholics. They’re all pederasts. Or at least comfortable with pederasts
It’s not like the pope or the catholic leadership is encouraging pedophiles. They’ve covered things up that happened, but it’s pretty wild to act like it’s some kind of pedo ring.
Hahahaha yeah ok.
Hundreds of millions of dollars spent to silence the countless victims of their systematic abuse but they’re not a pedo ring. lol
😂
I guess I would define a pedophile ring as an organization whose purpose is to abuse children.
Do you really think a pedophile ring would publicly advertise as such?
Hold on, you seriously believe that the purpose of the catholic church is to promote pedophilia?
That dumbass really isn’t living up to the username.
Bingo! You described Catholicism!!! And all religions. Actually!!!
Religion is child abuse. Catholics actually systematically rape the kids too.
Not sure if you are just being an edge lord or if you are a moron.
Covering thins like that up, is encouraging pedophiles. It let’s pedos know that it’s safe for them on the church.
There is a difference between wanting to deal with things internally without involving authorities, and actively promoting pedophilia. But I’m not here to go to bat for Catholics, I’m just pointing out the difference.
I feel like the distinction starts to get pretty blurry when “dealing with things internally without authorities” mostly just means covering stuff up and protecting predators, but yeah they don’t literally advertise to pedophiles
My only real problem with the narrative in this thread is with distilling the catholic church down to pedophile ring. It’s super reductive, ignoring so much history and the world views of so many decent people in light of a single issue. But just to be clear, I get that it’s a serious issue and they did a very poor job in dealing with it.
: reads headline
Woo! Good for them! Stick it to The Man!
: reads article body
ahhhh fuck these guys
I support this state law, though I think it’s unlikely to directly have the intended effect and will probably just prevent people from confessing instead.
I don’t think people with a guilty conscience should have a way to clear their conscience other than behaving better and making up for their wrongs with better behavior.
At the same time, I get why the Catholic Church opposes the state law. And it’s one of the biggest reasons I’m against all Christian religions, Evangelicalism included: they’re more concerned about power than about people. And yeah, I think the Catholic Church’s stance on this issue is fucked up, just like most Christian stances on political moral issues are fucked up these days.
But the timing of this article, and the right wing motivations against Catholicism make it clear that this article is also more concerned about power than about people. The state law doesn’t stop child abuse or result in any more reporting of child abuse.
The way I see it, this article is actually right wing propaganda targeting the Pope because he supports Europe and Ukraine against Russia.
though I think it’s unlikely to directly have the intended effect and will probably just prevent people from confessing instead.
That’s the thing, if you violate the confidentiality of confessionals then people simply won’t confess, and then you lose the avenue for a priest to try and convince someone to address their behaviour. Maybe that’s not very effective, but it’s more effective than not having it.
In line with your assessment of the article’s agenda, I have to question how much of an issue this even is. Like, the Catholic church has a long history with child abuse, but wasn’t that primarily about Priests abusing children in their parish, and the church protecting its priests? This is an accusation that Catholics themselves are a bunch of child molesters, which is not something I’ve seen any evidence in support of.
The same line of reasoning applies to mental health professionals. But even more so since a judge can order mental health care, but not confession. So why is it considered in one case to keep the avenue open, but not the other?
Well you already pointed at why: because you can be ordered into mental health care. You can’t be ordered into confession, it’s completely voluntary. Furthermore, priests do not have a legal duty of care; they are not registered professionals with professional standards to follow. Their role is defined by the church, not law and regulation.
In a practical sense, such a law isn’t going to work much anyway. It would be almost impossible to prove that a priest had been confessed to, short of someone admitting it directly. So the only way it works is if the child abuser wants to get one over on their priest - giving the child abuser another avenue to hurt someone else.
On the second point, many priests are good people. And they may follow the law simply gecause it exists. So the law could have some impact.
I also wonder logistically how it would work with the confessional booth. The church allows you to confess without the priest ever seeing your face or knowing your name. Would they be required to perform citizens arrests upon hearing of a crime?
Priest: I’d like to report child abuse because that’s the law. Church: You’re out! Go to hell, dickbag.
And for extra reading, learn about how the new pope covered up for priests that abused kids when he was a bishop:
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-853274
*Edit: removed the bad source. The Jpost article is good and includes several additional sources. For more: https://www.qwant.com/?q=+Robert+Prevost+abuse+cover+up
If you’re gonna bash the guy, at least use a credible source for christ’s sake.
the Will County Gazette is an imposter site, lacks transparency, and publishes false information. As a result, we rate them right-center, biased, and Questionable.
Right you are, updated accordingly. Thanks for the tip.
Fucking… of course he did 🤦♂️
Time to start shutting 'em down and seizing assets, in that case.
Or Washington State should modify the law to protect the anonymity of priests who comply.
The directive came from the Archidiocese of Seattle, not (apparently) the Vatican. This archdiocese has been at the center of the scandal that prompted the law, so it looks like the archbishop may be doubling down on the cover-up.
A curious question. Why isn’t everyone a mandatory reporter for child abuse? And assuming there is a good reason why, then why are doctors and such specifically seperated out. And do priests fit that same criteria?
It has to do with professional training and responsibility (duty of care), coupled with kids trusting them more and they are considered to have some para-custodial responsibility for children.
Priests aren’t entirely in that category, but they probably should be, the question is the relationship of the priests, ie a random priest who heard a rumor is very different from one who heard confession or tends the victim or abuser directly.
Also, you don’t want to empower random-ass people too much, people are absolute fucking morons and media will incite them to do something more moronic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
Inbred rednecks just danger incarnate, empowering them in any way is insane and will guarantee needess innocent victims.
Why isn’t everyone a mandatory reporter for child abuse?
Why isn’t everyone a mandatory reporter for any crime?
There have been numerous societies in history where ratting out one’s neighbors was expected behavior. None of them were fit places for people to live.
You’ve touched on a key point, I think. Doctors and other professionals have mandatory reporting because a) they are in positions of respect and trust within the community, and b) they are professionals, as defined in law, and have standards to uphold.
Priests definitely meet the definition of a), however b) is a bit of a sticking point: their role isn’t defined by law, but by the church. Furthermore, a court can order you to go to therapy sessions, but they can’t order you to go to confession - it’s completely voluntary. A therapist could tease out previous abuse, but a priest will only hear what the confessor wants to tell them about.
I’m in line with you in thinking that everyone should report abuse, but I think that a priest has more in common with an average person in this regard compared to a person working in a legally protected profession. There would be legal consequences for impersonating a therapist, but not for impersonating a priest.
So it was unclear to me from the article if it simply made priests mandatory reporters or if it went further. My understanding is that mandatory reporters don’t have to report past occurrences specifically. They only havecto report if it is currently happening or they suspect going to happen. If that is the case, it should be fine. Confession isn’t about what you are going to do.
It would be fine as long as it didn’t apply to confession where the seal of confession applies to all information. Any other time the priest can and should use any information available to him properly, and that could include that sort of reporting. But the seal is absolute. And honestly it’s protected by law, by the constitution and case law, so the Washington law is a hassle but completely toothless as it’ll be struck down the moment any challenges to it get brought to the right courts. The authors had to have known it was unconstitutional, so it was basically just them doing this for show, and to antagonize Catholics.
I agree it was for show. But question. You say the seal is absolute and protected by law and the constitution. That seems odd. Any source on that. I totally buy that case law has upheld it. But plenty of case law is beyond the actual written law. And since the constitution covered the separation of church and state, guaranteeing a specific part of a specific religion like confession seems out of place. Though it was common to all the religions they cared about, so they might have.
Priests are being made into mandatory reporters in Washington state. In Washington state, the mandatory reporting law appears to require reporting of all past events of abuse - it does not make reference to recent acts or imminent risk.
Sec. 2. (1) (a) When [any member of these groups] 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 or to the department
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=5375&Year=2025
The Catholic church is hardly going to allow priests to be forced to go to the police and admit crimes.
This law is more about priests hearing others confessing to crimes.
Yeah presumably not other priests confessing to crimes involving abusing children.
Holy Shit!
The holiest of shits
Holy fuck that’s awful
K, so, maybe an unpopular opinion, but given the current administration and local governments of some states… would you have the same reaction if Texas passed a law that priests have to report confessions about being trans, or gay?
I would argue that being trans or gay isn’t actively harming anyone else just like being cis or straight isn’t. There’s no difference.
This is about client/attorney or patient/doctor privilege. It’s about the state defining laws that violate said confidentiality agreements. If it the state can violate one confidentiality with a law, why not another?
More importantly, there’s a difference to you and to me, but I’ll bet there are people in the MAGA base who disagree. Who believe abortion is murder and is therefore worse than child abuse. Who will, when it occurs to them, to pass laws saying that if you admit to an abortion, the priest has to turn you in.
I mean, abortion is already an unforgivable sin in the Catholic church, so that’s probably no conflict; but child abuse isn’t a mortal sin. You’re trying to apply secular logic to an organization whose rules come from a collection is fairy tales.
Excommunicated vs Imprisoned. The choice is yours.
Imprisoned for what? I can’t see how any jury could ever convict someone “beyond a reasonable doubt” or what not on someone saying something. Most prosecutors would likely say you’d need more evidence to even start building a case. Now if the person went to the police and reported being sexually assaulted and then the priest came forward it might go somewhere, but even then it may not go anywhere if there wasn’t evidence. They have to prove someone performed an illegal act, which someone’s word counts for shit. We could get 1,000,000 people to say pdiddy raped Selina Gomez, but without any other evidence, it shouldn’t go anywhere with the way our justice system is set up.
Public Defender: “were you there?” Priest: “No”
It is illegal to be complicit in child sex abuse.
“Oh but the rapist must be comfortable in knowing their confession is scared knowledge”
Rights never are allowed to harm others so gravely. Will this law flush it all out? Doubt it, but the duty to protect children has nothing to do with religion.
I find it hard to believe this is controversial.
It’s not yours, though. It is the choice of the state/federal prosecutors. And that’s where this gets hairy.
Because the modern political order is dripping with pedophiles and rapists and accomplices to the same. They go about openly admitting to their crimes, while silencing their critics and avoiding any kind of punishment. Meanwhile, they unleash the fully-unchecked power of the police, in defiance of court order and legislative statute, to arrest and remove suspects without trial or even serious investigation.
A legal system operating in this capacity - one in which a donation to Trump’s bitcoin fund matters more than the contents of a case file or a jury’s verdict - cannot deliver anything resembling justice.
Found the bot.
