Amid Catholic coverup, new controversy strikes at the heart of both faith and law

A new chapter in the legal and moral struggle over religious freedom and child protection is unfolding in Washington state, where a coalition of Orthodox Christian churches has joined the Catholic bishops in a battle against a state law that mandates clergy to report child abuse, even when learned during the sacrament of confession.

This momentous lawsuit, filed on behalf of multiple Orthodox jurisdictions, challenges the constitutionality of a new law that, when enacted on July 27, will make clergy mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse but explicitly denies them the privilege of confidentiality during confession.

The lawsuit not only calls for the law to be struck down, but also asserts that it violates the fundamental religious rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The law, signed by Governor Bob Ferguson on May 2, was designed to bolster child protection efforts in Washington by ensuring that clergy join the ranks of other mandatory reporters, such as teachers and healthcare professionals, required to inform authorities if they suspect abuse.

However, this law stands as an outlier among the nation’s mandatory reporting laws by stripping clergy of the “privileged communication” exemption that has long been afforded to other professionals in the course of their work.

Under the law, priests who fail to report abuse revealed in the context of confession could face up to 364 days in jail and a hefty fine of $5,000.

For religious leaders, this presents an ethical and legal quandary. In their lawsuit, the Orthodox plaintiffs, echoing their Catholic counterparts, emphasize that the sanctity of confession is an inviolable tenet of their faith.

Orthodox priests, they argue, have a “strict religious duty” to maintain the absolute confidentiality of what is disclosed during confession.

To violate this sacred trust is not only a canonical crime, but a grave sin that could result in the removal of the offending priest from the priesthood.

This doctrine, deeply embedded in the Orthodox Christian tradition, compels the plaintiffs to seek legal protection for the “clergy-penitent privilege,” a fundamental religious right that the plaintiffs argue has been unjustly compromised by the new law.

The state of Washington insists that the protection of children must take precedence, according to supporters of the law who pointed to the need to ensure that children are not left in harm’s way.

“Protecting our kids, first, is the most important thing,” said Ferguson, underscoring his belief that no individual or institution, not even the Church, should be exempt from the responsibility of safeguarding vulnerable children.

This sentiment was echoed by Senator Noel Frame, the bill’s champion, who argued that “you never put somebody’s conscience above the protection of a child.”

Despite the intention to protect children, the law has been sharply criticized by religious leaders, who contend that it undermines a foundational principle of their faith.

Spokane’s Bishop Thomas Daly vowed that the clergy in his diocese would not break the seal of confession, even if it meant facing jail time.

“The sacrament of penance is sacred,” Daly declared, “and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane.” This steadfast commitment to the inviolability of the confessional seal, even in the face of severe legal consequences, has become a rallying cry for religious leaders across the state.

While the state’s clergy remain committed to upholding the sanctity of the confessional, it is important to note that their lawsuit does not challenge the broader goal of child protection.

The Orthodox and Catholic leaders involved in the case have expressed their willingness to report abuse when it is disclosed outside the confessional setting, as part of their ongoing commitment to the well-being of children.

However, they argue that the state’s law unjustly compels them to violate a sacred religious duty that is protected by the Constitution.

This dispute is far from a mere legal technicality.

It is a profound clash of values—on one side, the moral and religious obligations of clergy to preserve the privacy of the confessional, and on the other, the state’s compelling interest in protecting vulnerable children from abuse.

The legal questions at stake are weighty: whether the state can lawfully override a deeply held religious practice in the name of child protection and whether the state’s law is constitutionally sound in doing so.

Religious freedom advocates have decried the law as an infringement on the rights of clergy to practice their faith without government interference.

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who has voiced concerns about the law, described it as a “legislative attack on the Catholic Church and its sacrament of confession.”

Dhillon’s criticism reflects a broader fear that such laws may set a dangerous precedent for religious liberty across the nation. The U.S. Department of Justice, which opened an investigation into the law on May 6, has also raised alarms about the potential for such measures to target religious institutions in ways that undermine constitutional protections.

Yet, despite the outcry from religious communities, there are those who support the law, arguing that it is necessary for the protection of children and that no institution should be above the law when it comes to such a fundamental issue.

Advocates for child abuse survivors, including Mary Dispenza of the Catholic Accountability Project, have voiced their approval, saying that the law will help prevent future abuse by ensuring that clergy are held accountable.

This legal battle is not just confined to Washington State. Similar measures have been proposed in other states, such as Montana and Delaware, though many of these attempts have stalled in the legislative process.

Washington’s law, however, has ignited a firestorm of debate that will likely resonate far beyond the state’s borders.

As this case moves through the courts, it will have profound implications not only for religious communities but also for the broader discourse on the intersection of religious freedom and child protection.

The outcome of this lawsuit will likely reverberate throughout the nation, shaping the future of both religious liberty and child protection laws.

As the plaintiffs, led by Orthodox and Catholic clergy, stand firm in their defense of the confessional seal, they are also making a larger statement about the need to balance the protection of children with respect for religious freedom—a fundamental principle that has long been enshrined in the Constitution.