this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025

67 points (98.6% liked)

Seattle

1904 readers

13 users here now

A community for news and discussion of Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Judge blocks Washington requirement for priests to report child abuse disclosed in confession (washingtonstatestandard.com)

submitted 1 week ago by DougHolland@lemmy.world to c/seattle@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 32 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I get that confession is sort of a sacred and private thing, but I'm a firm believer any priest who refuses to report child abuse because of privacy should start repenting immediately.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Kind of a situation where God asks you why you didn't report the child being abused in order to save them and you try to weasel your way out by telling him that your sacred vow prevented you. Only for God to cut you off mid sentence and ask in a more firm tone why you didn't report the child being abused.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

pulls lever opening trap door

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yes yes, that sounds good, but think for a few more minutes.

If the secrecy is legally disallowed, no one will confess it. Which is better: never hearing about it, or giving the priest the chance to intervene and report on their own.

[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 week ago

As someone who was once a mandated reporter, fuck that and fuck them.

[–] DougHolland@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Most of the perps doing most of the confessing are probably Catholic priests themselves.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Now according to the Supreme Court doesn't this ruling only hold true for these three Bishop's then? I thought that was the new law of the land but you could only sue for yourself and your own rights and not for anyone else's. Every other priest in Washington would have to sue on their own correct? Seems like quite a burden on all the child rapists I'm sorry I mean Catholic priests in that state.

[+] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

A clearly unconstitutional law. I'm surprised that state legislators thought it could possibly be constitutional. Maybe they didn't but they preferred to vote for it anyway and let the courts fix their mess rather than giving their opponents in the next election ammunition against them.

(I suppose practicing Catholics aren't a major voting bloc?)

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 week ago

Agreed! Don't they KNOW Abusing Children is a SACRED Part of the Religion? ANYTHING stopping Child Abuse would be ANTI CATHOLIC!

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's constitutional for therapists, I don't see how this is different just because they're cult leaders.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The constitution doesn't have special protection for therapists the way that it does for religious expression.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Just cause it's something religious doesn't mean it is ungovernable. There are a lot of things that religious institutions can't do because of the law, this seems like an arbitrary line to draw.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I wouldn't say that letting Catholics practice their sacraments is arbitrary. The idea of religious freedom, as understood at the time the Constitution was written, was developed in large part as a reaction to two and a half centuries of brutal religious war and oppression between Protestants and Catholics (and between different Protestant sects) with non-Christian religions as an afterthought. Therefore, the right of Catholics to practice their religion is a central example of what is protected by the First Amendment. Religious freedom isn't absolute and where the line is drawn is to some extent arbitrary, but Catholicism is well within any reasonable line.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the secrecy of confession is also required by the Episcopal Church. It was definitely on the minds of the authors of the Constitution, most of whom were Episcopalians.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Not arbitrary at all, if you love institutionalized pedophilia

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I truly can't believe I have to say this: Child rape is not a valid form of religious expression.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No one is saying that it is.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If that wasn't your implication, you should be clearer in your language. I've reread your previous comment multiple times now and still can't get any other meaning out of it.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not reporting a crime is not the same thing as committing that crime. The issue here is that Catholic priests have a religious obligation not to report crimes they find out about in certain specific circumstances, and this law would prevent them from fulfilling that obligation. There's no claim that actually attacking children is a religious obligation, or that it would be constitutionally protected if it were.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

not reporting a crime is inaction, committing a crime is action. the trolley problem is basically about this exact question.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Not reporting a crime is not the same thing as committing that crime.

That's only true of certain situations and I'm of the opinion that this is not one of them. I've had this exact discussion on here recently so sorry if I skip all the Wikipedia hyperlinks, feel free to trawl through my comments if you really need them lol. Suffice it to say aiding & abetting laws and criminal accessory laws both provide means of charging people with knowledge of criminal activity with the crimes committed, circumstantially of course. I see absolutely no reason why the guys helping rapists feel better about raping shouldn't be held criminally liable. Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech and the press and assembly and all that, is not absolute and necessarily has limits. It's why you don't see a lot of human sacrifice-based religions in the US. At least not mainstream ones. Your freedom to express yourself religiously ends weeeeell before my freedom to not have my children raped.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago

They can practice their religion in jail