When the government oversteps its bounds in one area of spiritual practice, it sets a precedent that could affect any other faith organization.
F or Catholics, the sacrament of confession is sacred. It is a place where penitents can speak freely, knowing that what is said remains forever sealed between them, their priest, and God. On July 18, U.S. district Judge David Estudillo defended this sacred trust by issuing a preliminary injunction against Washington State’s Senate Bill 5375, which aimed to compel clergy to break the seal of confession to report suspected child abuse or neglect disclosed during confession, effectively eliminating the priest-penitent privilege.
The statute drew criticism from clergy across the state and the world. Catholic priests, bound by the seal of confession, are absolutely forbidden from disclosing anything revealed in the confessional. Judge Estudillo ruled that forcing priests to violate this oath marked a clear infringement on the free exercise of religion by placing clergy “in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law.”
The injunction recognized what should have been evident from the start: This law was constitutionally bankrupt, practically unenforceable, and crafted by legislators who fundamentally misunderstood the nature and inviolability of the sacrament of confession.
This law never had a legal leg to stand on and should have been killed in committee. Beyond the fact that one would be hard-pressed to find a more flagrant example of prohibiting the free exercise of religion than mandating priests either to violate their sacred vows or risk imprisonment, Washington State’s own judicial precedent had already ruled that mandatory reporting laws cannot override the confidentiality of confession.
Judge Estudillo also noted that the law unjustifiably treated religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity by singling out clergy as the only supervisors unable to rely on applicable legal privileges — lawyers, doctors, therapists, and even spouses retained theirs. This, coupled with the legislature’s subsequent exemption for university attorneys, highlights the fact that the only standard known to those who peddled this bill is the double standard.
Advocates of the bill had a compelling and simple political narrative: Support the bill, or be complicit in harboring predators. As Governor Bob Ferguson put it after the injunction, “I’m disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids.” This deeply unfair framing obscured the legitimate legal grievances raised by the Department of Justice and the Catholic Church’s clergy. It also ignored repeated attempts by Catholic bishops to offer support for the bill if it upheld the exemption for mandatory reporting in the confessional.
The bill’s advocates did not understand either the inviolable nature of confession or the practical realities of how it actually functions. Canon law cannot possibly be more transparent with how seriously the Catholic Church takes the confidentiality of confession. Canon 1386 § 1 states unequivocally that a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs an automatic excommunication. Regardless of what politicians like Washington State Senator Noel Frame claim, core doctrinal and sacramental principles, such as the seal of confession, are inviolable and thus cannot be abrogated under any circumstances, as stated in Can. 983 §1.
Governor Ferguson’s Catholic background doesn’t alter these realities or provide him with a special dispensation to override fundamental church doctrine. If anything, it makes his support for this bill all the more troubling. While some may claim that the seal of confession is merely a practice rather than a sacred mandate, history tells a different story. Throughout the church’s history, clergy have faced imprisonment, torture, and even martyrdom rather than violate the seal of confession at the behest of secular authorities (most commonly the state). It’s a principle more deeply rooted than any statute being debated in Olympia.
The law’s practical enforcement was as incoherent as its legal foundation. With some exceptions, the confessional tends to operate under complete anonymity. No identification or names are presented, no written records are maintained, and, traditionally, confessional booths use screens to prevent visual contact between the priest and the penitent. Even if priests thought they recognized a voice, a criminal report based on “I think that sounded like someone I know” would create evidentiary problems that prosecutors would have a tough time reasonably pursuing in court.
Furthermore, as many priests have pointed out, this bill also would have undermined the pastoral mechanisms that exist to address these issues. Confession enables the priest to guide troubled individuals toward accountability and healing. On a practical level, absolution of one’s sins in confession requires contrition, as well as ardent desires to sin no more, and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Absolution cannot be granted for future sins or without genuine contrition, which provides a pastoral framework for addressing abuse within the confines of the sacrament. A priest can exhort penitents to turn themselves in or consult proper authorities, and even withhold absolution (the reason the penitent would be there in the first place) until they do so.
Acknowledging these pastoral tools or rightly celebrating the blocking of this bill does not absolve the church of its own misdeeds and institutional failures in addressing the abuse crisis. While some simply supported SB 5375 out of a personal anti-Catholic animus, many others have been gravely wronged by the church and have failed to receive justice due to its complicity. They genuinely believed this bill was a vital step towards building transparency and protecting children.
Washington’s State’s hostility towards the church stems, in part, from years of frustration with past cover-ups by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics. A host of local scandals and national debacles, such as the Archbishop McCarrick affair, has understandably eroded public trust and provided ammunition for laws like SB 5375. While some Washington dioceses have made strides in adopting and implementing policies to protect minors, the church, if it hopes to regain the public’s trust and repair its tarnished reputation, must do better. That means no more bishops dragging their feet when asked to cooperate with government authorities, no more quiet transfers of abusive clergy to cover up scandals, and no more hush-money settlements aimed at avoiding prosecution and silencing survivors.
The confessional law went far beyond a reasonable attempt to address the abuse crisis. In doing so, it became a serious threat to religious liberty. And that should concern everyone. Religious liberty is not a sectarian issue. It’s a cornerstone of our republic, and when the government oversteps its bounds in one area of spiritual practice, it sets a precedent that could affect any other faith organization. Judge Estudillo’s ruling didn’t just vindicate Catholic teaching; it preserved core constitutional protections that benefit every Washingtonian who values freedom of conscience.
The liberty that protects the confidentiality between lawyers, doctors, and therapists and their clients must also extend to the religious liberty that allows priests to uphold their sacred oaths and retain the sacred trust that pastors have when counseling their congregants, rabbis have when leading their communities, and imams have when providing spiritual guidance. As legal expert Tim Rosenberger put it: “By protecting the ‘sacramental seal’ of confession, the court upheld the principle that the government should not interfere in the internal practices of religious institutions.”
While the injunction on SB 5375 marks a victory for religious liberty, the fact that the bill was passed in the first place exposes a deeper discomfort — or even suspicion — within Washington’s state legislature toward the independence of its religious organizations. With this bill blocked for now, both parties have an opportunity for genuine dialogue based on constructive cooperation rather than coercion. The path forward must strike a balance between upholding the sanctity of religious practices and the moral imperative of public safety, recognizing that protecting the free exercise of one’s religion and safeguarding children are mutually beneficial goals that should be in everyone’s interest.