From the Seattle Archbishop...

Quote:

---

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.

---

More details at the link.
https://www.archbishopetienne.com/clergy-answerable-to-god-or-state

BMX Bandit said:

---

According to the actual law:

Quote:

---

c) The requirement to report under this section applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner, a social worker, a mental health professional, an employee or member of a board that licenses or certifies a professional, and an employee of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services.

---

---

Learn something new every day!

Not surprising from an organization that has a history of protecting child abusers at the expense of children.

Privileges only apply for past crimes, not ongoing or sufficient specific future crimes.

Im Gipper said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

According to the actual law:

Quote:

---

c) The requirement to report under this section applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner, a social worker, a mental health professional, an employee or member of a board that licenses or certifies a professional, and an employee of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services.

---

---

Learn something new every day!

---

Yup

And I'd bet most clergy do not know or understand this

In Texas, it pretty much comes down to whether or not it's worth getting hit with a Class A misdemeanor failure to report charge

An organization that is 2,000+ years old has a "history" of all sorts of misconduct. It is an organization of humans, and we are all imperfect.

It is a lazy take to cite previous and recent misconduct as the reason Catholics are opposed to this.

The Catholic Church also does a lot of good for people all over the world and over a billion people worldwide are Catholics.

It seems like you really do not like Catholics.

Maybe 12% of the world's population could band together around the teachings of Christ and do good for the world. If only they could choose someone to do just that.

Let's watch the smoke and see.

txagB2 said:

---

The priest, when acting in the confessional during the sacrament of confession, is in persona Cristo… you are not confessing to the priest you are confessing to God. He cannot break the seal because the sin confessed is between the sinner and God.

You think this is the first time in the 2,000 years of the church some authoritarian government has tried to do this? It won't be successful this time either.

---

If you can pray when you are alone... speaking to Jesus/God... why do you need a middleman, the priest?

Don't need no "seal". Just confess directly to God. Why leave witnesses?

RebelE Infantry said:

---

RAB91 said:

---

A good overview from before it was passed.

---

1- Huge Fr. David Michael Moses fan.

2- This exact situation is the kind of thing that interdicts are for. Perhaps it's time to bring them back.

(For those who don't know, an "interdict" is when all sacraments are suspended in a particular Church jurisdiction. Typically this was used to combat civil intrusions into Church matters and/or bring an unruly diocese or kingdom to obedience in Church matters.)

---

Wouldn't work today. Not in America.

JamesPShelley said:

---

txagB2 said:

---

The priest, when acting in the confessional during the sacrament of confession, is in persona Cristo… you are not confessing to the priest you are confessing to God. He cannot break the seal because the sin confessed is between the sinner and God.

You think this is the first time in the 2,000 years of the church some authoritarian government has tried to do this? It won't be successful this time either.

---

If you can pray when you are alone... speaking to Jesus/God... why do you need a middleman, the priest?

Don't need no "seal". Just confess directly to God. Why leave witnesses?

---

Nobody should tell me what my religious "needs" are. Confessions have been happening for centuries. Hell, even Leviticus speaks of confession when offering sacrifices. That was well before Jesus was even born.

Only a total moron would see this anything other than leftist trying to hammer the Catholic Church. Been doing it for a long time.

It will be maybe one in a priest's lifetime where a confessor will let him know who he actually is. Most confessions are behind a wall where they can't see each other, and even when they do see each other, the confessor would have to know the priest personally. So, this isn't about protecting children. Not even close.

The only way anything would ever come out of this is some cop to set up a priest by going to confession, confessing a sin with an actual name being provided, and taping it for later use against the church.

This is incredibly horrific. Tell Washington to **** off. Confessions are private.

JamesPShelley said:

---

txagB2 said:

---

The priest, when acting in the confessional during the sacrament of confession, is in persona Cristo… you are not confessing to the priest you are confessing to God. He cannot break the seal because the sin confessed is between the sinner and God.

You think this is the first time in the 2,000 years of the church some authoritarian government has tried to do this? It won't be successful this time either.

---

If you can pray when you are alone... speaking to Jesus/God... why do you need a middleman, the priest?

Don't need no "seal". Just confess directly to God. Why leave witnesses?

---

Here is a helpful 8ish minute video by Father GigaChad (Fr Mike Schmitz) explaining just that question.

https://media.ascensionpress.com/video/why-confess-my-sins-to-a-priest/

Quote:

---

Why leave witnesses?

---

Not on expert on this, but if you are worried about leaving witnesses, my guess is you aren't really penitent! LOL

If someone has the notion to go to confession to admit CRIMES then they should have no issue either confessing their crimes to the authorities, the law enforcement kind.

Why would a Christian institution demand to have its own justice outside of the legal system of the country they are in? A kid diddler should not have an option to go confess to a priest, say a few hell mary's, then be able to go back on their merry way with all their diddling ways washed away.

Laws of United States >>> Catholic church practices

Quote:

---

After the first priest abides by this law, confessions will stop.

---

I think that is the Washington State goal.

The victims have Constitutional rights also.

If a priest gets a confession from someone who planted a bomb that will kill hundreds in an hour, the priest has no duty to intervene?

If the abuse, the violation of an innocents personal rights, is ongoing the priest doean't get to hide behind the churches interpretation of it's group rights. IMO, he is actually criminally liable.

Islam calls for the eradication of infidels. That doesn't give mosques cart blanque for planning attacks on infidels, and then having a member execute said plans.

If the abuse is not ongoing, I don't know. I don't believe the priest would have the same obligation, but if the person want's absolution, they need to atone for their actions.

flown-the-coop said:

---

If someone has the notion to go to confession to admit CRIMES then they should have no issue either confessing their crimes to the authorities, the law enforcement kind.

Why would a Christian institution demand to have its own justice outside of the legal system of the country they are in? A kid diddler should not have an option to go confess to a priest, say a few hell mary's, then be able to go back on their merry way with all their diddling ways washed away.

Laws of United States >>> Catholic church practices

---

Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Constitution >>> liberal laws designed to persecute the Church.

Science Denier said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If someone has the notion to go to confession to admit CRIMES then they should have no issue either confessing their crimes to the authorities, the law enforcement kind.

Why would a Christian institution demand to have its own justice outside of the legal system of the country they are in? A kid diddler should not have an option to go confess to a priest, say a few hell mary's, then be able to go back on their merry way with all their diddling ways washed away.

Laws of United States >>> Catholic church practices

---

Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Constitution >>> liberal laws designed to persecute the Church.

---

Laws designed to protect children from abuse / neglect >>> church protecting kid diddlers (again) spouting about muh sacraments and such.

Requiring clergy to spill the beans (like other mandatory reporters) is not persecuting the "church".

Quote:

---

f the abuse, the violation of an innocents personal rights, is ongoing the priest doean't get to hide behind the churches interpretation of it's group rights. IMO, he is actually criminally liable.

---

In the eyes of the state of texas, he is criminally liable even if its not ongoing.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If someone has the notion to go to confession to admit CRIMES then they should have no issue either confessing their crimes to the authorities, the law enforcement kind.

Why would a Christian institution demand to have its own justice outside of the legal system of the country they are in? A kid diddler should not have an option to go confess to a priest, say a few hell mary's, then be able to go back on their merry way with all their diddling ways washed away.

Laws of United States >>> Catholic church practices

---

Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Constitution >>> liberal laws designed to persecute the Church.

---

Laws designed to protect children from abuse / neglect >>> church protecting kid diddlers (again) spouting about muh sacraments and such.

Requiring clergy to spill the beans (like other mandatory reporters) is not persecuting the "church".

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address?

This is just an attack on the Church.

Science Denier said:

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address? [[Good idea and they should mandate that CRIMES be reported immediately.]]

This is just something I don't like an attack on the Church.

---

Look, we see this issue much differently.

Mandatory reporting laws have EVERYTHING to do with protecting the innocent children. Seems more bizarre to me that some believe in a church doctrine that would allow for criminals to remain free / undiscovered / unreported.

That's my position. I respect your position, I just absolutely disagree with it.

Wow. Was not expecting a well reasoned post on this.

JUST IN: A federal judge has barred Washington state from enforcing a law that would have required priests to report evidence of child abuse learned during confession.

The Trump administration had intervened on the side of the Catholic clergy.https://t.co/CkAt8urSd4 pic.twitter.com/nP2rL2tBD9

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) July 18, 2025

Any time some one claiming to be a Christian is pro abortion i hit them with the, what you talkiin about Willis look

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.

---

Spanking kids is banned?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address? [[Good idea and they should mandate that CRIMES be reported immediately.]]

This is just something I don't like an attack on the Church.

---

Look, we see this issue much differently.

Mandatory reporting laws have EVERYTHING to do with protecting the innocent children. Seems more bizarre to me that some believe in a church doctrine that would allow for criminals to remain free / undiscovered / unreported.

That's my position. I respect your position, I just absolutely disagree with it.

---

Let's play this out.

Priest John Smith is hearing confessions from 2-4 p.m. on a Saturday. There is a line of people waiting to go in and confess their sins. At 2:30 p.m., an adult male comes in behind the wall and confesses to abusing a kid, then walks back out. Priest John Smith has no idea who the guy is, no idea who the kid is, and no idea when or where it happened.

What do you propose Priest John Smith should be required to do?

the most cool guy said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address? [[Good idea and they should mandate that CRIMES be reported immediately.]]

This is just something I don't like an attack on the Church.

---

Look, we see this issue much differently.

Mandatory reporting laws have EVERYTHING to do with protecting the innocent children. Seems more bizarre to me that some believe in a church doctrine that would allow for criminals to remain free / undiscovered / unreported.

That's my position. I respect your position, I just absolutely disagree with it.

---

Let's play this out.

Priest John Smith is hearing confessions from 2-4 p.m. on a Saturday. There is a line of people waiting to go in and confess their sins. At 2:30 p.m., an adult male comes in behind the wall and confesses to abusing a kid, then walks back out. Priest John Smith has no idea who the guy is, no idea who the kid is, and no idea when or where it happened.

What do you propose Priest John Smith should be required to do?

---

It's not super common to receive confession from a parishioner that you don't know.

At least it's that way in the Orthodox Church (the actual one and only real Church ;-).

We also don't have tiny little rooms where people can't see each other.

It's done in the open quite often in front of everyone during Morning Prayers before Liturgy or during Vespers.

Obviously, nobody can hear the conversations.

the most cool guy said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address? [[Good idea and they should mandate that CRIMES be reported immediately.]]

This is just something I don't like an attack on the Church.

---

Look, we see this issue much differently.

Mandatory reporting laws have EVERYTHING to do with protecting the innocent children. Seems more bizarre to me that some believe in a church doctrine that would allow for criminals to remain free / undiscovered / unreported.

That's my position. I respect your position, I just absolutely disagree with it.

---

Let's play this out.

Priest John Smith is hearing confessions from 2-4 p.m. on a Saturday. There is a line of people waiting to go in and confess their sins. At 2:30 p.m., an adult male comes in behind the wall and confesses to abusing a kid, then walks back out. Priest John Smith has no idea who the guy is, no idea who the kid is, and no idea when or where it happened.

What do you propose Priest John Smith should be required to do?

---

He should report it along with any details. Police can decide how to investigate from there.

Its bizarre that on this thread, some want to protect priests from having to report abuse, and on others demanding that Trump release any and all details on purported abuse by Epstein & friends regardless of the veracity of claims.

So if it involves the Catholic church and the "sanctity" of confession, we must protect the process. If it involves politicization of the FBI and intelligence process, release it all and peoples rights, truthfulness and such be damned.

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.

---

First of all, the freedom to communicate with one's minister -- regardless of title -- should be protected. The benefits outweigh the costs. Your bizarre and worst case example is a lot like saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive because there are too many killed in traffic accidents.

But second and more importantly, there is little to be gained here. If there was no protection, there would likely be no such communication. You're acting like everyone who "beat(s) the **** out of" his or her spouse and kids goes running to a priest to tell him about it, and that priest is just itching to tell law enforcement. One doesn't have to weigh "religion" (as you call it) against not "killing a toddler" because they are not mutually exclusive. Besides, the confession, to the extent it happened, is AFTER the offense. In other words, the toddler would already be dead.

Your emotional rant here adds nothing to the conversation/issue as I could continue for a while.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address? [[Good idea and they should mandate that CRIMES be reported immediately.]]

This is just something I don't like an attack on the Church.

---

Look, we see this issue much differently.

Mandatory reporting laws have EVERYTHING to do with protecting the innocent children. Seems more bizarre to me that some believe in a church doctrine that would allow for criminals to remain free / undiscovered / unreported.

That's my position. I respect your position, I just absolutely disagree with it.

---

Let's play this out.

Priest John Smith is hearing confessions from 2-4 p.m. on a Saturday. There is a line of people waiting to go in and confess their sins. At 2:30 p.m., an adult male comes in behind the wall and confesses to abusing a kid, then walks back out. Priest John Smith has no idea who the guy is, no idea who the kid is, and no idea when or where it happened.

What do you propose Priest John Smith should be required to do?

---

It's not super common to receive confession from a parishioner that you don't know.

At least it's that way in the Orthodox Church (the actual one and only real Church ;-).

We also don't have tiny little rooms where people can't see each other.

It's done in the open quite often in front of everyone during Morning Prayers before Liturgy or during Vespers.

Obviously, nobody can hear the conversations.

---

In the Catholic Church, priests don't know the overwhelming majority of the people whose confessions they are hearing.

flown-the-coop said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address? [[Good idea and they should mandate that CRIMES be reported immediately.]]

This is just something I don't like an attack on the Church.

---

Look, we see this issue much differently.

Mandatory reporting laws have EVERYTHING to do with protecting the innocent children. Seems more bizarre to me that some believe in a church doctrine that would allow for criminals to remain free / undiscovered / unreported.

That's my position. I respect your position, I just absolutely disagree with it.

---

Let's play this out.

Priest John Smith is hearing confessions from 2-4 p.m. on a Saturday. There is a line of people waiting to go in and confess their sins. At 2:30 p.m., an adult male comes in behind the wall and confesses to abusing a kid, then walks back out. Priest John Smith has no idea who the guy is, no idea who the kid is, and no idea when or where it happened.

What do you propose Priest John Smith should be required to do?

---

He should report it along with any details. Police can decide how to investigate from there.

Its bizarre that on this thread, some want to protect priests from having to report abuse, and on others demanding that Trump release any and all details on purported abuse by Epstein & friends regardless of the veracity of claims.

So if it involves the Catholic church and the "sanctity" of confession, we must protect the process. If it involves politicization of the FBI and intelligence process, release it all and peoples rights, truthfulness and such be damned.

---

What's bizarre is the same ones who lament Christians wielding influence in government to enact law that aligns with Christian moral precepts because you say they impose their religion on others, are the ones who want a law that would jail priests for not breaking the seal of the confessional.

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.

---

Eternal damnation kinda makes prison seem like a vacation.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Aggie Joe 93 said:

---

After the first priest abides by this law, confessions will stop. Congrats unconstitutional law lovers! You've done nothing.

---

I care more about stopping sexual abuse of an innocent child than some child molestor getting "absolution".

---

I am sure they catch a ton of criminals with this new law. I doubt anybody will just stop confessing since they know that they may go to jail if they do it.

flown-the-coop said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address? [[Good idea and they should mandate that CRIMES be reported immediately.]]

This is just something I don't like an attack on the Church.

---

Look, we see this issue much differently.

Mandatory reporting laws have EVERYTHING to do with protecting the innocent children. Seems more bizarre to me that some believe in a church doctrine that would allow for criminals to remain free / undiscovered / unreported.

That's my position. I respect your position, I just absolutely disagree with it.

---

Let's play this out.

Priest John Smith is hearing confessions from 2-4 p.m. on a Saturday. There is a line of people waiting to go in and confess their sins. At 2:30 p.m., an adult male comes in behind the wall and confesses to abusing a kid, then walks back out. Priest John Smith has no idea who the guy is, no idea who the kid is, and no idea when or where it happened.

What do you propose Priest John Smith should be required to do?

---

He should report it along with any details. Police can decide how to investigate from there.

Its bizarre that on this thread, some want to protect priests from having to report abuse, and on others demanding that Trump release any and all details on purported abuse by Epstein & friends regardless of the veracity of claims.

So if it involves the Catholic church and the "sanctity" of confession, we must protect the process. If it involves politicization of the FBI and intelligence process, release it all and peoples rights, truthfulness and such be damned.

---

Those aren't even remotely equivalent, but I see you're unable to have a rational conversation about it.

the most cool guy said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

This law has zero to do with "protecting children". As stated, most confessions are behind a wall and a priest has no way of knowing WHO is confessing a sin. Unless they go face to face, or specifically tell the priest his name.

So, is the state going to mandate that for certain sins, a priest has to go around the wall and look at the person? Or ask for a name and address? [[Good idea and they should mandate that CRIMES be reported immediately.]]

This is just something I don't like an attack on the Church.

---

Look, we see this issue much differently.

Mandatory reporting laws have EVERYTHING to do with protecting the innocent children. Seems more bizarre to me that some believe in a church doctrine that would allow for criminals to remain free / undiscovered / unreported.

That's my position. I respect your position, I just absolutely disagree with it.

---

Let's play this out.

Priest John Smith is hearing confessions from 2-4 p.m. on a Saturday. There is a line of people waiting to go in and confess their sins. At 2:30 p.m., an adult male comes in behind the wall and confesses to abusing a kid, then walks back out. Priest John Smith has no idea who the guy is, no idea who the kid is, and no idea when or where it happened.

What do you propose Priest John Smith should be required to do?

---

He should report it along with any details. Police can decide how to investigate from there.

Its bizarre that on this thread, some want to protect priests from having to report abuse, and on others demanding that Trump release any and all details on purported abuse by Epstein & friends regardless of the veracity of claims.

So if it involves the Catholic church and the "sanctity" of confession, we must protect the process. If it involves politicization of the FBI and intelligence process, release it all and peoples rights, truthfulness and such be damned.

---

Those aren't even remotely equivalent, but I see you're unable to have a rational conversation about it.

---

They are absolutely equivalent from a practical, non-religious standpoint.

This is about mandatory reporting laws. Not freedom of religion. Nothing prohibits you from communicating with your priest or otherwise practicing your religion.

You do not have an inalienable right to discuss your kid diddling with your priest and for them to be exempt to reporting it when all other citizens have a duty to report. In Texas, that means everybody. Everybody. It would be a violation of the US Constitution to treat priests separately here.

A Protestant preacher will inform authorities. They believe only the blood of Jesus Christ saves you from sin.