# Concerning mandatory reporting for Catholic priests. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412 "2011-07-26T18:31:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/61 "2011-07-27T16:18:23Z")
Thank you! And yes, I absolutely agree. It could go either way. But we are also in agreement it ain’t gonna happen, because no one is going to make such a law in the religion dominated US. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/62 "2011-07-27T16:23:17Z")
> [@David42](#): > > You’re wrong. > A therapist only has a duty to disclose ongoing crimes or potential future crimes, not completed crimes in the past. > > Washington state’s law on the matter came up first, I will use it: > > [RCW 5.60.060: Who is disqualified—Privileged communications.](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=5.60.060) How does this provision interact with [Washington’s Rev. Code § 26.44.030](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.44.030)? > [@Rev. Code § 26.44.030(1)(a)](#): > > When any practitioner, county coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service counselor, [color] **psychologist** [/color], pharmacist, employee of the department of early learning, licensed or certified child care providers or their employees, employee of the department, juvenile probation officer, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills program staff, HOPE center staff, or state family and children’s ombudsman or any volunteer in the ombudsman’s office has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as provided in RCW 26.44.040. (colored emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/63 "2011-07-27T16:28:43Z")
I think that’s pretty sloppy, **david42** , since (while I am no expert on Washington state law) the Washington courts have spoken pretty clearly on the issue in _State v. Warner_, 889 P. 2d 479 (Wash 1995): > [@Washington State Supreme Court](#): > > The Legislature has addressed the need to foster an atmosphere where therapy can succeed. To that end, the Legislature enacted the psychologist-client privilege. RCW 18.83.110 provides that: > > > [@](#): > > > > Confidential communications between a client and a psychologist shall be privileged against compulsory disclosure to the same extent and subject to the same conditions as confidential communications between attorney and client, … > > **The psychologist-client privilege does not apply in this case, however. Another statutory provision creates a clear exception to this privilege**. RCW 26.44.030 contains a mandatory reporting provision for cases of child abuse that trumps the statutory privilege. “\*t is evident that, in its recent enactments, the legislature has attached greater importance to the reporting of incidents of child abuse and the prosecution of perpetrators than to counseling and treatment of persons whose mental or emotional problems cause them to inflict such abuse.” State v. Fagalde, 85 Wn.2d 730, 736, 539 P.2d 86 (1975). Since the Legislature has spoken on this issue, and has indicated that the policy objective of having child abuse reported is more important than fostering confidentiality in the treatment of the abusers, it is not the court’s role to question that legislative judgment. (colored emphasis added) And thus we see the danger of reading a single statute and assuming you know the law. You have to research the law, which includes annotated code and caselaw. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/64 "2011-07-27T16:34:59Z")
Given that Washington law, I think priests could be added without running into a problem under _Smith_. It seems pretty broad ranging as it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/65 "2011-07-27T16:53:14Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Given that Washington law, I think priests could be added without running into a problem under _Smith_. It seems pretty broad ranging as it is. Sure. And there are a small number of states that already include priests, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/66 "2011-07-27T17:00:53Z")
Did we just agree on a First Amendment issue there? Can anyone in England please check if there are any large black birds still perched at the Tower of London? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/67 "2011-07-27T17:01:36Z")
**Bricker** , could you help me out with my question in post #33? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/68 "2011-07-27T17:17:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Can a law firm legally require their lawyers not to disclose such information? I think so, yes, although of course the law firm’s sanctions would end with terminating the lawyer. The only thing I can think of that might limit this would be some expansive state whistleblower laws, but in general I think they apply to an employee revealing questionable conduct of the company, not of a client. I have done no research on this point, though, and so I welcome correction from anyone except **david42** that has. The lawyer may reveal the information to other members of his firm – this does not breach the privilege, but merely extends it. Certainly, if disclosure of the information resulted in malpractice liability against the firm, then the firm can expect a fiduciary duty from its partner or employee to not reveal it, and presumably can make job policy consistent with that duty. That’s my shoot-from-the-hip response, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/69 "2011-07-27T17:20:01Z")
Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/70 "2011-07-27T17:42:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So say you. > > Fortunately, you are not in charge of the laws of any state in the union, or of federal law. And more fortunately for the spiritual well-being of the majority of the nation, the priest-penitent privilege exists and protects confidential communications to a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, or other accredited religious figure in the vast majority of states. Then I can state my _opinion_ that the law is a giant, elderly ass in this case, and I look forward to the day when the law is changed such that all religious officials, regardless of religion, are treated the same in the topic at hand as an average person. BTW, do Physicians have any absolute immunity from disclosing private information, like a Lawyer does? How about a licensed professional Engineer? Any case law on those professions? These are honest questions; I don’t know the answer in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/71 "2011-07-27T17:48:23Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Then I can state my _opinion_ that the law is a giant, elderly ass in this case, and I look forward to the day when the law is changed such that all religious officials, regardless of religion, are treated the same in the topic at hand as an average person. Get used to disappointment. > [@](#): > > BTW, do Physicians have any absolute immunity from disclosing private information, like a Lawyer does? How about a licensed professional Engineer? Any case law on those professions? These are honest questions; I don’t know the answer in advance. No, I’d say it’s more accurate to characterize physicians’ privilege as more qualified, rather than absolute. As an exmaple I just mentioned above, Washington State appears to require psychologists to disclose child abuse when they become aware of it. I am not aware of any analogous provisions for licensed professional engineers. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/72 "2011-07-27T19:36:25Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > BTW, do Physicians have any absolute immunity from disclosing private information, like a Lawyer does? How about a licensed professional Engineer? Any case law on those professions? These are honest questions; I don’t know the answer in advance. Lawyers, counselors, physicians, and (licensed) engineers are all professions that are licensed by the state to provide a needed public service. On the other hand, clergy are not (and cannot be licensed due to our First Amendment). I have the same opinion as you - there should be no law that treats the clergy differently from any other “shlub.” ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/73 "2011-07-27T19:57:21Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I have the same opinion as you - there should be no law that treats the clergy differently from any other “shlub.” Allow me to offer the Bricker Rebuttalsup[/sup]: “yeah, well, there are, so tough shit.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/74 "2011-07-27T20:02:38Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Allow me to offer the Bricker Rebuttalsup[/sup]: “yeah, well, there are, so tough shit.” Awesome. Say, can you cover for me tomorrow afternoon? I have meetings until 6. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/75 "2011-07-27T20:14:56Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Lawyers, counselors, physicians, and (licensed) engineers are all professions that are licensed by the state to provide a needed public service. On the other hand, clergy are not (and cannot be licensed due to our First Amendment). I have the same opinion as you - there should be no law that treats the clergy differently from any other “shlub.” Since when are “shlubs” required to report what people tell them to the police. Clergy aren’t licensced and shouldn’t fall into the category of mandatory reporters. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/76 "2011-07-27T20:20:56Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I have the same opinion as you - there should be no law that treats the clergy differently from any other “shlub.” That’s not his opinion. He believes that the law SHOULD treat priests differently than private persons, since he believes priests should be forced to report what they learn, and we know that (in general) private persons are not. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/77 "2011-07-27T20:21:48Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > This wouldn’t merely be an excommunicated Catholic, but an excommunicated priest. For starters he would lose his job and career. > > Requiring priests to break the secret of confession would be similar to requiring lawyers to break their own confidentiality, as in both cases it’s such a basic tenet of the profession that breaking it leads to expulsion from it. But the original claim was that it was the worst thing that could happen to a catholic, _worse_ than rape. Losing your job is not worse than rape. I’m guessing that the same thing applies to murder as well? I just don’t see that a priest occupies a position in society that is different from mine. He is no moral authority, no legal authority. If I am under obligation to report crime than so is he. However, I have long since given up on the catholic church taking the moral and ethical lead on anything. As an institution it is rotten to the core and I expect no better. (note - here I refer to the institution rather than the congregation) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/78 "2011-07-27T20:26:35Z")
Quoth **Boyo Jim** : > [@](#): > > It is one thing for a priest not to disclose the confession of Joe Six Pack. > > It is another thing for the confessional to be used as a systematic tool among priests to to protect and cover up each others’ crimes. While priests do hear confessions of other priests, they generally don’t confess to other priests directly above themselves in the hierarchy, nor, I imagine, to those tasked with investigating wrongdoing among priests. Just because what they say in the confessional can’t be used against them, doesn’t mean that the church hierarchy can’t use anything at all against them. If the bishop learns outside of the confessional that one of his priests has been abusing children or committing some other crime, he can take the same actions against him that any other boss could, including removing him from all contact with children or turning him over to the law. Now, all too often, this doesn’t happen, and the offending priest is left in a situation where he can continue to do harm. This is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. But it’s a problem that’s completely unrelated to the sanctity and confidentiality of confessions. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/79 "2011-07-27T20:27:22Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Absolutely. Same friggin’ boat. Although, I might add since it seems to be open season on assumptions, that your blind loyalty to Catholicism prevents you from seeing things as they are. The only reason priests (or any clergy for that matter) gets the benefit of this confidentiality bullshit, is because of the fiction that God is sitting up there okaying the whole thing. > > Lawyers get a pass from me because it is their job to address the legal ramifications of the crimes at issue. > > Religion … whatever religion … is in the business of making their followers feel good. And I don’t care about that. > > If you’re wondering why I was addressing Catholicism in specific, I’d remind you to take a look at the thread title. This is a lot funnier if you read it alongside the Lamer quote. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412/80 "2011-07-27T20:38:24Z")
Whoops, sorry. I meant this quote: > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Fuck this. I stand by my sentiment. I don’t give a shit about the Catholic church thinking that they’re more important that the general population. Spiritual well-being of the nation? Give me a break. > > The ‘preist-penitent privelege’ is a horseshit concept that lets priests off the hook, as other therapists are not, when their loyal, tithe-paying, lemmings admit crimes to them. > > You can wrap spirituality around it as much as you like – it’s a disservice, if not an outright slap in the face, to victims of poor, poor penitent Catholic assholes. Juxtaposed with this (courtesy of **Captain Amazing** ): [QUOTE=SCC Chief Justice Lamer] The first is utilitarian. Religious confidentiality is vitally important not only to the maintenance of religious organizations but also to their individual members. Without it, individuals would be disinclined to confide in their religious leaders. Its value is the value to society of religion and religious organizations generally. Second, the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion indicates that a legal privilege for confidential religious communications is commensurate with Canadian values. The third rationale relates to privacy, where the emphasis is placed on the benefit to the individual as opposed to society as a whole. The religious element in the pastor-penitent relationship promotes special values of privacy characteristic of that relationship, and makes the privacy rationale a possible justification towards the recognition of the privilege. As well, it would be impractical and futile to attempt to force the clergy to testify because often the cleric would refuse. Compelling disclosure, or charging a cleric with contempt, could bring disrepute to the system of justice. Indeed, admitting such evidence has been compared to admitting confessions made under duress to police. . . A human need for a spiritual counsellor exists and, in a system of religious freedom and freedom of thought and belief, must be recognized. While serving a number of other policy interests, the value to society of disclosure to and guidance from a spiritual counsellor, in total and absolute confidence, must supercede the truth‑searching policy. An ad hoc approach may overshadow the long-term interest served by the recognition of the privilege since the relationship of the confidence between pastor and penitent may not develop in the absence of an assurance that communications will be protected. Not every religious communication will be protected. The creation of the category simply acknowledges that our society recognizes that the relationship should be fostered, and that disclosure of communications will generally do more harm than good. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerning-mandatory-reporting-for-catholic-priests/590412.md?page=5)