Confession is a church matter, not a state matter. This law is an invasion of religious freedom.

I get people being very upset about this. But, I agree, confession would largely end if it became common-place for priests to report confessed crimes to the police. In the end, this just be one more way that religion is attacked by the state.

I am not very religious myself, but strongly believe "most" mainstream Judeo-Christian religions, Hindu etc. are a strong positive force on society. And that it is not the state's place to weaken religion, particularly with how ineffective this would be, long term, in reducing the rate of any crime.

In short, this law being enforced, along with the inevitable consequential legal prosecution, suits etc. is a loser in my opinion.

BTW, one logical protection against this prosecution would be using technology to make confession more anonymous, but again, that would weaken the tie between religions and their followers.

BQ78 said:

---

Why are they targeting clergy, why wouldn't it apply to anyone who doesn't report child abuse?

---

You know the answer...

Roger. We obviously see it very differently regarding the Constitutional issue.

Regarding a victim or even a an abuser truly seeking help being discouraged from doing so because of this, that is a valid concern and a tough one to strike the balance on. It's also an issue with other mandatory reporters as one of the reason there are mandatory reporters is that they are the people who folks trust and get close to and would divulge such information.

From the linked Twitter thread with an abuse survivor, that is also an issue when the abuse is from years and years ago. In such an instance a member of clergy would still need to report a decades ago incident. Then you have statute of limitations issues (for better and worse) and certainly go down the path of lack of accurate memory, evidence, witnesses.

But I do understand how other see it as a freedom of religion issue, I just do not agree with that conclusion being the correct one.

Ag with kids said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Why are they targeting clergy, why wouldn't it apply to anyone who doesn't report child abuse?

---

You know the answer...

---

Clergy were added to an existing list. Clergy were not "targeted".

But the list should be everyone, no?

In Texas it is.

So you would agree that a list targets certain groups/occupations?

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

New Hampshire and West Virginia have already voided confession as a privilege for clergy so either this has already been held up by the courts or no one has actually challenged it yet.

---

I'm betting the latter.

And this WA law probably won't get challenged either.

---

Someone needs to challenge it by using the argument that they are afraid to actually say anything in confessional because they're afraid they could be prosecuted.

That IS a restriction on their free exercise, so there IS harm.

Not in Texas regarding child abuse and neglect.

But my understanding is that many places there are list of certain occupations / relationships that are mandatory reporters.

To me, people should report crimes they are aware of regardless of occupation or relationship.

But that quickly becomes a matter complicated by individual facts & circumstances.

And what crimes are mandatory reports and which are not and who should and should not is certainly debateable.

Didn't Frank Reagan already solve this in Blue Bloods?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Roger. We obviously see it very differently regarding the Constitutional issue.

Regarding a victim or even a an abuser truly seeking help being discouraged from doing so because of this, that is a valid concern and a tough one to strike the balance on. It's also an issue with other mandatory reporters as one of the reason there are mandatory reporters is that they are the people who folks trust and get close to and would divulge such information.

From the linked Twitter thread with an abuse survivor, that is also an issue when the abuse is from years and years ago. In such an instance a member of clergy would still need to report a decades ago incident. Then you have statute of limitations issues (for better and worse) and certainly go down the path of lack of accurate memory, evidence, witnesses.

But I do understand how other see it as a freedom of religion issue, I just do not agree with that conclusion being the correct one.

---

Look...

I don't like that the Constitution would shelter these sick ****s from being reported and prosecuted. But, I think the erosion of rights by the government is actually a worse thing.

Today the government nibbles off this little bit of a right. Tomorrow another. After awhile, why not just get rid of the rest of that right since it's effectively not protected any more.

I absolutely appreciate that sentiment.

And it is true that they nibbled, bite then take a limb telling you tiz a flesh wound.

I have been changing my thought on the 2nd amendment as well. There seems to be no way to be rationale so then it should be as written… shall not be infringed.

Running a society is not easy. That's why it takes those of us here on f16 to help figure this all out.

Now, back to the baseball game. My corndog wife
Is starting to gloat over their one run lead.

An electrician not reporting child abuse is no less a problem than a fireman or any other profession. Therefore targeting certain professions seems like government pandering to community prejudices.

Texas makes no distinction, not sure if there are states that do the same.

And I covered the reason that certain professions o er others are targeted. You may not agree they should be targeted, I may not agree they should be targeted, but it's not nefarious.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I absolutely appreciate that sentiment.

And it is true that they nibbled, bite then take a limb telling you tiz a flesh wound.

I have been changing my thought on the 2nd amendment as well. There seems to be no way to be rationale so then it should be as written… shall not be infringed.

Running a society is not easy. That's why it takes those of us here on f16 to help figure this all out.

Now, back to the baseball game. My corndog wife
Is starting to gloat over their one run lead.

---

And sorry about the abuse you're having to deal with tonight...

Ah yes, the historical document "Seinfeld" predicted this

Quote:

---

but it's not nefarious.

---

Disagree, I think it is.

Mega Lops said:

---

Ah yes, the historical document "Seinfeld" predicted this

---

Anti-Dentite.

bobbranco said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

So it is okay to confess how much you beat the **** out of your kids and wife because religion is more important than not killing a toddler.

---

Confessional is a church matter not a state matter.

Like the priest said, outside of the confessional they must report abuse.

---

Does abuse include gender transforming of minors?

newbie11 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

So it is okay to confess how much you beat the **** out of your kids and wife because religion is more important than not killing a toddler.

---

Confessional is a church matter not a state matter.

Like the priest said, outside of the confessional they must report abuse.

---

Does abuse include gender transforming of minors?

---

Yes.

If you give a child booze or tobacco before 18, you're liable for endangering a minor are you not? Yeah cutting off your junk should be classified in the same.

However, the seal of confession is a different story. I'm all for withholding absolution until those who committed the act confess, but it's a Catholic sacrament that the confession is between the confessor and Christ. That seal shouldn't be broken.

It's also important to remember (or know, if you didn't) that breaking the seal of confession is a sin so grave that absolution is reserved to the Holy See. As in- if a priest violates the seal not even his bishop may absolve him. Only the POPE HIMSELF can absolve the sin. It's about as serious as it gets for a priest.

The list of priests who have gone to their death before breaking the seal is long and distinguished.

Ok I was skeptical that this new law would be found unconstitutional since the penitent-confessor privilege is a carveout, but lol the way they wrote this no question its unconstitutional pic.twitter.com/xKSozP6hdw

— Otto Von Tweetmarck (@OVTweetmarck) May 3, 2025

TexAgs F16: Where the first amendment matters until it protects a church that has a sacrament you disagree with.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Texas makes no distinction, not sure if there are states that do the same.

And I covered the reason that certain professions o er others are targeted. You may not agree they should be targeted, I may not agree they should be targeted, but it's not nefarious.

---

My brief research shows there are 16 states including Texas that make no distinction but others should validate.

To get back on topic, I guess we are going to see real soon whether or not the illegal aliens in Washington State are able to vote.

TLDR.... is this gonna make the priests tell on each other?

A good, easy to understand video from a young priest on confession, what it is, and why it is important. Good video for non-Catholics to watch.

texas rule of evidence 505 creates a privilege against clergy disclosing what they are told in the context of a confession or similar spiritual advisement for other religions

however, section 261.101(c) of the texas family codes says the mandatory reporting requirements apply "without exception" to any privilege that might exist.

the family code provision trumps the rule of evidence.



I don't think this has ever been challenged on first amendment grounds

Has it ever been enforced? Unless the confessor confesses they confessed, clergy will be safe from prosecution under targeted or un targeted laws

BMX Bandit said:

---

texas rule of evidence 505 creates a privilege against clergy disclosing what they are told in the context of a confession or similar spiritual advisement for other religions

however, section 261.101(c) of the texas family codes says the mandatory reporting requirements apply "without exception" to any privilege that might exist.

the family code provision trumps the rule of evidence.



I don't think this has ever been challenged on first amendment grounds

---

How can a priest provide evidence of a confession if he doesn't know who is confessing?

Maybe all dioceses in Washington St should just ban all face to face confessions to remove all doubt.

Im Gipper said:

---

The clergy can't be made to testify in Court.

This is about mandatory reporting, not court testimony.

---

Thank you

I got news for y'all, priests in Texas are required to report child abuse even if the information is received in confession

Priest-penitent privilege exists in court testimony, but priests still must report it

BMX Bandit said:

---

texas rule of evidence 505 creates a privilege against clergy disclosing what they are told in the context of a confession or similar spiritual advisement for other religions

however, section 261.101(c) of the texas family codes says the mandatory reporting requirements apply "without exception" to any privilege that might exist.

the family code provision trumps the rule of evidence.



I don't think this has ever been challenged on first amendment grounds

---

Didn't see this before posting

This is correct