Washington State’s bill openly attacks the Catholic Faith

As noted in Catholic World Report, on May 2, 2025, Washington’s Democrat Governor Bob Ferguson signed Senate Bill 5375, “An ACT Relating to the duty of clergy to report child abuse and neglect” into law. A putative Catholic, Ferguson was untroubled that the statute, which goes into effect July 27, 2025, radically impinges on religious freedom by adding clergy, without exception, as mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect.

Section 2(a)(b) of the law goes so far as to require, “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….”

In light of how SB 5375 trammels religious freedom, this column briefly highlights the statute’s background before examining applicable canon law and American law. It then reflects on why SB 5375 is a serious threat to religious freedom for all Americans, leading the Federal Department of Justice to initiate a civil rights investigation on the basis that it “appears on its face to violate the First Amendment …[because it] appears to single out clergy as not entitled to assert applicable privileges, as compared to other reporting professionals.”

Senate Bill 5375

Having failed to do so on three previous occasions, critics and abuse victims of how leaders in the Catholic Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses handled complaints sought to close what they described as “a loophole” in Washington’s reporting laws.

Earlier versions of the law exempted clergy from having to report abuse if they learned of incidents during Confession or sessions in which persons sought spiritual counseling.

Describing current law as weak, the bill’s prime sponsor, Senator Noel Frame (D-Seattle), pointed to a federal study indicating that Washington was one of only a small handful of jurisdictions neither explicitly nor implicitly requiring clergy to report suspected child abuse or neglect.

Still, most, but not all, states respect the seal of Confession.

Legal Status of the Seal

The earliest reference to the seal of Confession was in 1151 in the work of the theologian Gratian., In compiling the edicts of Church councils, Gratian observed: “Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed.” The 2015 Fourth Lateran Council promulgated the earliest official Church pronouncement that “the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner.”

Later in the century, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica devoted a chapter to the seal. More recently in 1914, question 86 of St. Pius X’s Catechism reiterated the long-standing belief that “the confessor is bound by the seal of Confession under the gravest sin and under threat of the severest punishments both temporal and eternal.”

Church law, starting with Canon 983, emphasizes that the “sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” Further, Canon 1388 dictates that priests who violate the seal are subject to excommunication, a position Section 1467 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates.

In the limited amount of civil litigation on the seal of Confession, the first reported case on its recognition and protection occurred in 1913’s People v. Phillips. An appellate court in New York upheld the priest-penitent privilege under the seal on state constitutional grounds. The court agreed that forcing the priest to testify about what he heard in Confession when he ordered a penitent to return the jewelry he stole as his penance would have violated both common law principles and the religious liberty clause in the state constitution.

More recently, although not involving Confession, in 2013’s State of New Hampshire v Willis, its highest court affirmed that because the remarks a criminal defendant made in a conversation with his Baptist pastor about having been the aggressor in a sexual relationship with a minor, his words were subject to disclosure insofar as they were not covered by religious privilege.

Reflection and analysis

In defending the inviolability of the seal of Confession, let me emphasize that I have no sympathy at all for evildoers who freely engage in heinous criminal acts of sexual misconduct with minors. Individuals who abuse children must be punished to the full extent of the law.

As an initial concern, SB 5375 clearly violates the religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” by infringing on matters beyond state authority. Further, Sen. Leonard Christian (R-Spokane Valley) voiced a key concern during a debate on it in February. He cautioned that the bill “is forcing somebody who’s given their entire life–raised their hand, made an oath with God almighty to choose between God’s law and man’s law.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division echoed these words in recognizing that “SB 5375 demands that Catholic Priests violate their deeply held faith in order to obey the law, a violation of the Constitution and a breach of the free exercise of religion cannot stand under our Constitutional system of government,

On the other hand, when speaking with reporters after signing the bill, Gov. Ferguson commented that, as a Catholic, he viewed the bill as “pretty straightforward.” Then, in a non-sequitur, he said that because his “uncle was a Jesuit priest for many years, (I’ve) been to confession myself–and so I’m very familiar with that,” adding, “I felt this was important legislation and protecting kids is first priority.”

However, it is unclear how ignoring the sacred nature of the seal of Confession by placing priests in positions where they must either violate their word to God of state law protects children. Hopefully, American priests will not have to follow the path of their brothers who witnessed to the faith by becoming martyrs rather than violate the seal by revealing what they heard from penitents.

On May 2, 2024, repeating his earlier opposition to a proposal similar to HB 5375 and support for the seal, Bishop Daly wrote, “I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishops and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession–even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane.”

Because HB 5375 raises serious concerns amid ongoing threats to religious freedom, one hopes that, in light of the investigation the Department of Justice has initiated, Washington will revise the laws in order to respect the integrity of the seal by not attempting to single out priests to violate their obligation to never reveal what they hear in Confession. If this bill is allowed to stand, religious freedom in the United States may be at grave risk of death by the first of the proverbial thousand cuts.

While the government has a duty to adopt and enforce laws designed to protect children from sexual abuse, HB’s 5375’s denial of protection to the seal of Confession creates a slippery slope that damages and undermines religious freedom. More specifically, even as the United States Supreme Court has adopted a more religion-friendly attitude, this bill is part of efforts pushing the boundaries of how far civil authorities can intrude on the internal workings of faith-based organizations and their spiritual leaders, even if supposedly pursuing the worthwhile goal of protecting children.

If HB 5375 withstands the challenge from the Department of Justice, it is unclear where the limit will be on matters involving Church teachings to ensure conformity with the attitudes or values public officials think churches and their clergy should adopt.

In sum, the seal of Confession must remain inviolable because it is in the best interest of all that individuals have the religious freedom to speak openly and honestly, in complete confidence with their faith leaders, without fear that their conversations might be disclosed to others.