Law The Trump administration is officially moving to overturn a law that requires clergy to report child sexual abuse, saying it violates priests' constit

[curryjunkie]

Covering up child abuse...it's what Jesus would have wanted...

 

[nostradumbass]

That part is in the article and in the OP. The priests and trumps admin are saying that if someone comes in and tells a priest they beat, tortured, and #%@&ed a child that priest doesn’t have to tell anyone.

No one is legally demanding that the whole of the catholic priesthood become mandatory reporters, just the ones in the United States. If they get kicked out of the religion for telling the cops that someone told them they beat, tortured and #%}&ed a small child, what does that say about that religion?

Oh, just the ones in the country that has a constitution specifically stating that they can't infringe on religious law? Good call.

 

[joy2day]

This isn't the free speech portion of the 1st amendment, it's the 800 year old law of their religion. Everywhere else in the world and all 49 other states respect the seal of confession.

If you tell them beforehand, then they just don't confess and you're in the same boat you would be if they had confessed and you just kept the seal of confession.

Not true. There are several states that have made laws similar to those in Washington; it's called mandatory reporting. Even in states that protect the seal, legal obligations and societal concerns around the protection of children sometimes override religious confidentiality in limited contexts (and well they should).

In my post I was showing how the entire First Amendment (both the freedom of speech AND the freedom of religion) have limits and should have limits.

That's how mandatory reporting works- they must be informed of limits of confidentiality before they go in. That's how it works for everyone else (including therapy where everything else is confidential), no reason it shouldn't work that way for them. If they choose to still report knowing the consequences, then they deal with them. ANY knowledge ANYWHERE is reportable; that's how mandatory reporting works.

The Aztecs sacrificed children painfully (they tortured them before they killed them to make sure they would cry a lot) because they believed their God (Tlaloc) liked children's tears. Is that going to be the next religious freedom?

 

[jefferz]

Uh, kind of leaving out a pretty big part there, no? The lawsuit is specifically about reporting what is told to them in confession because the punishment for that is excommunication. They still report anything told to them outside of confession. The seal of confession has been around since the early 13th century, it's not some shit they made up last week, so obviously demanding under threat of criminal penalty that the entire Catholic church violate canon law because of a law Washington state did just make 10 weeks ago that hasn't even taken effect is a pretty obvious violation of religious freedom.

What’s more important, a priest keeping the seal of confession or stopping a child from further harm?
The answer to the question is easy.

And of course this is the Catholic Church. They need to stop protecting people that harm children. Enough is enough of this shit.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Oh, just the ones in the country that has a constitution specifically stating that they can't infringe on religious law? Good call.

There has to be a line somewhere, right? We can agree that people shouldn’t be able to do anything under the guise of practicing their religion. That would be preposterous. So now it’s a matter of where does that line lie?

For me, this is clearly on the “it should be illegal for you to not report child harm to the proper authorities” side of things.

 

[Sweater of AV]

 

[nostradumbass]

Not true. There are several states that have made laws similar to those in Washington; it's called mandatory reporting. Even in states that protect the seal, legal obligations and societal concerns around the protection of children sometimes override religious confidentiality in limited contexts (and well they should).

In my post I was showing how the entire First Amendment (both the freedom of speech AND the freedom of religion) have limits and should have limits.

That's how mandatory reporting works- they must be informed of limits of confidentiality before they go in. That's how it works for everyone else (including therapy where everything else is confidential), no reason it shouldn't work that way for them. If they choose to still report knowing the consequences, then they deal with them. ANY knowledge ANYWHERE is reportable; that's how mandatory reporting works.

The Aztecs sacrificed children painfully (they tortured them before they killed them to make sure they would cry a lot) because they believed their God (Tlaloc) liked children's tears. Is that going to be the next religious freedom?

Well it's not, most states have exemptions for confession, some others are limited to threats of future harm, and it's not really enforceable even in the few that don't. If a state prosecuted a priest for not reporting a confession, then he would almost certainly appeal in federal appellate courts or all the way up to the SCOTUS. I don't think a therapist would have any such grounds for appeal.

 

[nostradumbass]

There has to be a line somewhere, right? We can agree that people shouldn’t be able to do anything under the guise of practicing their religion. That would be preposterous. So now it’s a matter of where does that line lie?

For me, this is clearly on the “it should be illegal for you to not report child harm to the proper authorities” side of things.

No, they shouldn't be able to do anything, but this isn't a matter of doing anything, it's a matter of prosecuting someone who isn't even the person who committed the crime just for abiding by the well established laws of their religion. It's not like they're helping the person clean up a crime scene or hide a body.

But if we are talking about drawing lines, then why is it limited to this and they aren't forced to report everything else too? The point of confession is that the person is looking religious or spiritual guidance for things they regret or feel guilty about, and are only free to do that knowing that it never leaves the confessional. They simply won't confess if they don't have that guarantee.

 

[joy2day]

Well it's not, most states have exemptions for confession, some others are limited to threats of future harm, and it's not really enforceable even in the few that don't. If a state prosecuted a priest for not reporting a confession, then he would almost certainly appeal in federal appellate courts or all the way up to the SCOTUS. I don't think a therapist would have any such grounds for appeal.

There are several states that have criminal statutes which are entirely enforceable just like any mandatory reporter. It's called mandatory for a reason. Anyone can appeal anything, that doesn't mean they will win, that's merely your speculation. The fact is there are laws in that regard already.

 

[nostradumbass]

There are several states that have criminal statutes which are entirely enforceable just like any mandatory reporter. It's called mandatory for a reason. Anyone can appeal anything, that doesn't mean they will win, that's merely your speculation. The fact is there are laws in that regard already.

And a state law doesn't and cannot override your constitutional rights.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Uh, kind of leaving out a pretty big part there, no? The lawsuit is specifically about reporting what is told to them in confession because the punishment for that is excommunication. They still report anything told to them outside of confession. The seal of confession has been around since the early 13th century, it's not some shit they made up last week, so obviously demanding under threat of criminal penalty that the entire Catholic church violate canon law because of a law Washington state did just make 10 weeks ago that hasn't even taken effect is a pretty obvious violation of religious freedom.

It seems like a pretty obvious violation of children that should be reported to law enforcement. If you don't want a priest telling on you then die with the guilt and the stain on your soul. If you're a priest and are willing to sit silently while children are abused then fuck you too.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

It's about the confessions not the priest that touch kids.



"closing a previous exemption that allowed clergy to withhold information learned during confidential religious confessions"

It's from Washington state's Senate Bill 5375, passed in 2023.

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on July 18, 2025, temporarily blocking the law's enforcement against Catholic priests in the Seattle, Yakima, and Spokane dioceses.

The Trump administration’s DOJ intervened in a lawsuit filed by Catholic bishops, arguing that the law violates First Amendment religious freedom protections by compelling clergy to break sacred confidentiality, particularly for Catholic priests who face excommunication for violating the seal of confession.


They don't report murder confessions, other crimes. Perhaps they should but it's about the first amendment it looks like.

Maybe there's a grey area but if the person is confessing to a serial crime or a rape/murder that is likely to happen they should inform the police. That's a lot different than someone confessing to a crime that might have been committed years ago when they were young. It's not difficult for the Bishop or Pope to take the priest's own confession afterwards to absolve him of his sin rather than excommunicating him.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

TBF, he just copied it from a literal paid propagandist on bluesky who was the one intentionally lying because it's bluesky where they won't settle for anything less than dishonest propaganda. It's why the sherdog lefties all fall for the same stories and start raging when they find out they've been duped.

The irony is rich...

 

[IanEdwards]

Its definitely about protecting the kids. Until it isn't. Good old MAGAts

 

[EndlessCritic]

Trump is trying to turn America into Quebec.

From the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/C-12

9. Every person has a right to non-disclosure of confidential information.

No person bound to professional secrecy by law and no priest or other minister of religion may, even in judicial proceedings, disclose confidential information revealed to him by reason of his position or profession, unless he is authorized to do so by the person who confided such information to him or by an express provision of law.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

This is dumb, religions is archaic and should be obsolete. Kids should be protected no matter what and should supersede everything else.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

That part is in the article and in the OP. The priests and trumps admin are saying that if someone comes in and tells a priest they beat, tortured, and #%@&ed a child that priest doesn’t have to tell anyone.

No one is legally demanding that the whole of the catholic priesthood become mandatory reporters, just the ones in the United States. If they get kicked out of the religion for telling the cops that someone told them they beat, tortured and #%}&ed a small child, what does that say about that religion?

So i understand it right - there is a law that FORCES priests to disclose if one comes and confesses to abuse of children? And their point is - there shouldn't be such a law?

Cause ok, if there isn't a law, they can keep doing it anyway, right? If their conscience forces them to do it, they will disclose it to the police. I don't see how a law would affect them, it's not like the pdf would confess to the deed AND to confessing about it to the priest, which would constitute a breach of law. maybe i'm not understanding it right.

 

[Michaelangelo]

“A motion filed in federal court by the Department of Justice argues the law, which takes effect next month, is unconstitutional because it “deprives Catholic priests of their fundamental right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, as guaranteed under the First Amendment.”

I guess we should expect the DOJ to cite something unconstitutional when it’s convenient for them

 

[sickc0d3r]

Uh, kind of leaving out a pretty big part there, no? The lawsuit is specifically about reporting what is told to them in confession because the punishment for that is excommunication. They still report anything told to them outside of confession. The seal of confession has been around since the early 13th century, it's not some shit they made up last week, so obviously demanding under threat of criminal penalty that the entire Catholic church violate canon law because of a law Washington state did just make 10 weeks ago that hasn't even taken effect is a pretty obvious violation of religious freedom.

Priests have been hiding kid diddlers amongst their own ranks since the early 13th century, too. Some of these religious nutjob traditions objectively suck and need to end.
But, hey, we all know why you guys suddenly had to stop pretending to care about kids recently, so carry on I guess.

 

[Mr Holmes]

That part is in the article and in the OP. The priests and trumps admin are saying that if someone comes in and tells a priest they beat, tortured, and #%@&ed a child that priest doesn’t have to tell anyone.

No one is legally demanding that the whole of the catholic priesthood become mandatory reporters, just the ones in the United States. If they get kicked out of the religion for telling the cops that someone told them they beat, tortured and #%}&ed a small child, what does that say about that religion?

Thats a big difference. You should consider updating your thread.