
Spokane and Seattle bishops say they won't comply with new mandatory reporting for child abuse if information obtained in confessions
May 7—The Catholic bishops in Spokane and Seattle have told parishioners they will not fully comply with a new Washington law that requires clergy to report sexual abuse to police, similar to teachers, police officers and other professionals.
Catholic leaders say that priests who hear confessions are obligated to keep those confessions secret, but that they are supportive of the rule outside of the Catholic sacrament of confession.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced this week that it has opened an investigation into the law, alleging that it "appears on its face to violate the First Amendment."
In separate statements, Thomas Daly, bishop of Spokane, said "shepherds, bishops and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession — even to the point of going to jail," and Archbishop Paul Etienne of Seattle said those who break the seal of confession face excommunication from the church.
"All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential, and protected by the law of the Church," Etienne wrote.
Gov. Bob Ferguson signed the law Friday that will take effect on July 27. Washington is one of five states that does not designate clergy as mandatory reporters, but most states exempt the sacrament of confession.
Under current state law, a variety of other professions that frequently interact with children, including police officers, nurses and school personnel, are required to report incidents of suspected abuse within 48 hours, with failure to do so considered a gross misdemeanor.
In a statement Monday, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said the law "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."
In a statement Wednesday, Ferguson said, "We look forward to protecting Washington kids from sexual abuse in the face of this 'investigation' from the Trump Administration."
The legislation Ferguson signed does not include an exemption for the information learned during penitential communication, or communication between clergy and a congregation member, such as in the confession of sins. Daly said in a statement Friday that the "Sacrament of Penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane."
"For those legislators who question our commitment to the safety of your children, simply speak with any mom who volunteers with a parish youth group, any Catholic school teacher, any dad who coaches a parochial school basketball team or any priest, deacon or seminarian, and you will learn firsthand about our solid protocols and procedures," Daly wrote.
According to Daly, the Diocese of Spokane maintains a department called the Office of Child and Youth Protection and has a zero-tolerance policy for child sex abuse.
On Sunday, Etienne said the first reading from that day's Mass was from the Acts of the Apostles.
"After the apostles were arrested and thrown into jail for preaching the name of Jesus Christ, St. Peter responds to the Sanhedrin: 'We must obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29)," Etienne wrote. "This is our stance now in the face of this new law."
In a statement, Etienne cited two chapters of Canon Law, which state in part that "The sacramental seal is inviolable" and that a "confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication."
According to Etienne, current church policies already designate priests as mandatory reporters, unless the information is obtained during confession.
"While we remain committed to protecting minors and all vulnerable people from abuse, priests cannot comply with this law if the knowledge of abuse is obtained during the Sacrament of Reconciliation," Etienne wrote.
According to Etienne, the Washington State Catholic Conference staff discussed the proposal with legislators during the session. However, "efforts to collaborate on an amicable solution eventually failed this session, ushering this most extreme version of the bill to pass."
Once passed, the bishops of the state of Washington requested a meeting to discuss the legislation with Ferguson, who, according to Etienne, did not respond.
As he signed the bill into law on Friday, Ferguson said it "protects Washingtonians from abuse and harm."
A Catholic, Ferguson said his uncle served as a Jesuit priest "for many, many, many years here in the Pacific Northwest."
"I obviously have a personal perspective on this," Ferguson said. "But protecting our kids first is the most important thing."
Ferguson added that the need for the law was "very clear" and that it was "very important legislation."
Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle, the bill's sponsor, introduced similar legislation in both 2023 and 2024. In 2023, a proposal that did not contain an exemption for confidential penitential communication failed. The version proposed by Frame last year would have established a "duty to warn" for abuse disclosed in penitential communication, though that, too, failed.
Ahead of a vote in the Senate, Frame told lawmakers that the bill is about "checking on the child."
"This is about making sure we, the state, have the information we need to go make sure that kid is OK," Frame said. "What our mandatory reporter laws do is, it compels our Department of Children, Youth and Families or law enforcement to further investigate and substantiate that report, but in the meantime, make sure that child is safe."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pope names Chinese bishop as he keeps historic Vatican-Beijing accord
Pope Leo XIV has appointed the first Chinese bishop of his papacy, signalling that he will continue a historic agreement that sought to improve relations between the Vatican and China. Both sides have hailed the appointment of Fuzhou Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Lin Yuntuan as an affirmation of their commitment to the 2018 accord, which was reached under the late Pope Francis. The agreement gave Chinese officials some input on the appointment of bishops. However, its contents were never fully disclosed to the public. Beijing insists that the state must approve the appointment of bishops in China, running contrary to the Catholic Church's insistence that it is a papal decision. China has some 10 million Catholics. Currently, they face the choice of attending state-sanctioned churches approved by Beijing or worshipping in underground congregations that have sworn allegiance to the Vatican. On Wednesday, the Vatican said Yuntuan's ministry had been "recognised" by Chinese law. "This event constitutes a further fruit of the dialogue between the Holy See and the Chinese Authorities and is an important step in the journey of communion of the Diocese," the Vatican said. When asked about Yuntuan's appointment, foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian told reporters on Thursday that this showed how the 2018 agreement had been "smoothly implemented", state media reported. China is willing to work with the Vatican to continue improving relations, he said. The Pope's move shows a "willingness to support reconciliation instead of antagonism", Michel Chambon, a research fellow at the Asia Research Institute in Singapore who has written extensively about the Catholic Church, told Reuters news agency. In September 2018, Pope Francis recognised seven bishops appointed by China. The Vatican also posthumously recognised an eighth bishop who died the year before. China first broke off diplomatic ties with the Holy See in 1951, and many Catholics were forced to go underground during former communist leader Mao Zedong's rule, emerging only in the 1980s when religious practices were tolerated again. China, the Vatican and a controversial deal Pope and China in historic deal on bishops


Fox News
43 minutes ago
- Fox News
Chicago mayor says Trump's America looks like Confederacy won, suggests ICE are 'terrorists'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends bill signing ceremony at the White House


Forbes
43 minutes ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.