So does this law apply to other confidentiality protections like attorney client privilege, or just the confessional seal? If you confess to a lawyer, does the lawyer have to report you?
The article also doesn't seem to accurately represent what confessions would be covered. The reporting requirement is not just for child abuse, but instead appears to be more broadly for abuse, maltreatment or neglect. Depending on how the law views neglect, that could be quite broad, eg, if one thinks about the occasional claims in parts of the US of things like allowing children to walk places on their own being neglect.
[1]: https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Se...
>(a) When any member of the clergy, practitioner, county coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care providers or their employees, employee of the department of social and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children's ombuds or any volunteer in the ombuds' office, or host home program 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 as provided ...
>(b) When any person, in his or her official supervisory capacity with a nonprofit or for-profit organization, has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect caused by a person over whom he or she regularly exercises supervisory authority, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency, provided that the person alleged to have caused the abuse or neglect is employed by, contracted by, or volunteers with the organization and coaches, trains, educates, or counsels a child or children or regularly has unsupervised access to a child or children as part of the employment, contract, or voluntary service. ....
> 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 5.60.060.14.
Here, the change in this bill specifically was to add the “except for members of the clergy“.
The tendency on this site to immediately leap toward assuming someone is simply wrong, without first considering that they may be saying something different, is rather dismaying.
While I agree with you, it’s also in keeping with typical Silicon Valley behavior. Edit: which isn’t a defense of that tendency by any means.
Catholic priest on the other hand may take confession every day from child abuser who works with children and says nothing.
Murder? Sure.
How about other violent crimes?
Damaging property at a protest? The police will think they need this information. Catholic doctrine is even minor sins should be confessed.
Priests will eventually need to govern a Miranda warning to penitents entering the confessional. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you confess can and will be reported to law enforcement. You have the right to have an attorney and a canon lawyer present in this confessional. If you can’t afford a canon lawyer, please join the years-long waitlist for one. Knowing these rights, do you still wish to confess to me?”
Past crimes, generally no responsibility. Danger or repeating a crime, obviously. What is there to discuss?
The general idea is that confessors shouldn’t be civil agents (particularly in the confessional) conducting investigations on each person who comes in.
And no, priests aren’t treated like any other person. You or I (assuming neither of us are in some profession like teacher, police officer etc) don’t have to go “report” to the police if we think someone is in danger of repeating a crime.
That organization seems evil to me.
No religious authority or relationship should receive special treatment under civil law.
This is not an “it’s for the children” argument, but rather about complete separation of church and state. Religious law should never overrule civil law in any circumstance, in the US.
Mostly, not particularly. “Canon lawyer” and “priest” are... not the same thing, and most priests’ jobs aren't particularly canon law centered.