6 ms·

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

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?

nabla9 1y ago
An attorney must break privilege if they suspect their client may commit an additional crime, or if concealing the information would bring financial or bodily harm to another person. Catholic priest on the other hand may take confession every day from child abuser who works with children and says nothing.
- trollbridge 1y ago
  How far should breaking the confessional seal go? 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?”
  - nabla9 1y ago
    Priests should be treated like any any other person. Past crimes, generally no responsibility. Danger or repeating a crime, obviously. What is there to discuss?
    - ndriscoll 1y ago
      Any other (generic) person is not obligated to report suspicion of crimes. This seems to specifically be targeting religious leaders purely based on their status among their fellow practitioners.
    - trollbridge 1y ago
      A confessional isn’t a counselling office and a penitent wouldn’t go in there to discuss future acts they plan to do. 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.
      - nabla9 1y ago
        The issue is that there is an organization that attempts to prevent it's members to voluntarily reports crimes and future crimes. That organization seems evil to me.
        readthenotes1 1y ago
        I'm confused whether your talking about the response to Washington State law or the decades long effort to coverup priests raping children.
  - drivingmenuts 1y ago
    No protection for clergy is how far it should go. As far as government is concerned, clergy should be exactly the same as any other civilian. Confession, in this case, is about a person’s relationship with a deity, over which government can make no claim, or relationship to church law, likewise. 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.
    - cgriswald 1y ago
      This law breaks separation of church and state by making clergy de facto agents of the state and treats them differently than civilians.
wat10000 1y ago
No, only members of the clergy are required to report when the communication was privileged.
cge 1y ago
The bill is SB 5375 [1]; it's frustrating that the text of the article does not mention that. The relevant part appears to be narrowly written to cover only privileged communication with clergy. All other privileged communication is excluded from this specific reporting requirement. 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/Session%20Laws/Senate/5375.SL.pdf?q=20250509053303 https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Se...
- nabla9 1y ago
  You read it wrong. Here is who it applies to: >(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. ....
trollbridge 1y ago
Quick hack: priests are admitted as lawyers, and seminaries add a few classes to count as law schools. The Vatican opens up its own bar exams.
- lvass 1y ago
  You jest, but psychologists probably qualify and there are probably enough of them in the Church that can be moved to Washington.
- jll29 1y ago
  Great idea - they already know Canon Law anyhow.
  - trollbridge 1y ago
    I recently had a priest tell me he doesn’t know enough about canon law to settle a little debate we were having. It takes years of training. Imagine legal precedent that goes back 2,000 years, and is literally quite Byzantine.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > they already know Canon Law anyhow. Mostly, not particularly. “Canon lawyer” and “priest” are... not the same thing, and most priests’ jobs aren't particularly canon law centered.

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?

nabla9 1y ago

An attorney must break privilege if they suspect their client may commit an additional crime, or if concealing the information would bring financial or bodily harm to another person. Catholic priest on the other hand may take confession every day from child abuser who works with children and says nothing.

trollbridge 1y ago
How far should breaking the confessional seal go? 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?”
- nabla9 1y ago
  Priests should be treated like any any other person. Past crimes, generally no responsibility. Danger or repeating a crime, obviously. What is there to discuss?
  - ndriscoll 1y ago
    Any other (generic) person is not obligated to report suspicion of crimes. This seems to specifically be targeting religious leaders purely based on their status among their fellow practitioners.
  - trollbridge 1y ago
    A confessional isn’t a counselling office and a penitent wouldn’t go in there to discuss future acts they plan to do. 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.
    - nabla9 1y ago
      The issue is that there is an organization that attempts to prevent it's members to voluntarily reports crimes and future crimes. That organization seems evil to me.
      - readthenotes1 1y ago
        I'm confused whether your talking about the response to Washington State law or the decades long effort to coverup priests raping children.
- drivingmenuts 1y ago
  No protection for clergy is how far it should go. As far as government is concerned, clergy should be exactly the same as any other civilian. Confession, in this case, is about a person’s relationship with a deity, over which government can make no claim, or relationship to church law, likewise. 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.
  - cgriswald 1y ago
    This law breaks separation of church and state by making clergy de facto agents of the state and treats them differently than civilians.

wat10000 1y ago

No, only members of the clergy are required to report when the communication was privileged.

cge 1y ago

The bill is SB 5375 [1]; it's frustrating that the text of the article does not mention that. The relevant part appears to be narrowly written to cover only privileged communication with clergy. All other privileged communication is excluded from this specific reporting requirement. 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/Session%20Laws/Senate/5375.SL.pdf?q=20250509053303 https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Se...

nabla9 1y ago
You read it wrong. Here is who it applies to: >(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. ....

trollbridge 1y ago

Quick hack: priests are admitted as lawyers, and seminaries add a few classes to count as law schools. The Vatican opens up its own bar exams.

lvass 1y ago
You jest, but psychologists probably qualify and there are probably enough of them in the Church that can be moved to Washington.
jll29 1y ago
Great idea - they already know Canon Law anyhow.
- trollbridge 1y ago
  I recently had a priest tell me he doesn’t know enough about canon law to settle a little debate we were having. It takes years of training. Imagine legal precedent that goes back 2,000 years, and is literally quite Byzantine.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > they already know Canon Law anyhow. Mostly, not particularly. “Canon lawyer” and “priest” are... not the same thing, and most priests’ jobs aren't particularly canon law centered.