Criminal Law Library Blog
Opening Statement
This essay does not advocate a predetermined legal or religious outcome. Its purpose is to examine, as fairly and carefully as possible, the competing arguments surrounding proposals to create a child-abuse exception to the clergy-penitent privilege or sacramental seal of confession. The protection of children, the preservation of religious liberty, the responsibilities of clergy, and the practical consequences of mandatory-reporting laws all deserve serious consideration. After reviewing these perspectives, readers should be left to decide how, or whether, these important interests can be reconciled.¹
Introduction: A Difficult Intersection of Law, Religion, and Child Protection
Few issues illustrate the intersection of law, religion, ethics, and child protection more clearly than the continuing debate over whether clergy should be legally required to report suspected child sexual abuse when the information is learned through a confidential religious communication.
The question received renewed attention on July 14, 2026, when constitutional-law scholar Marci A. Hamilton published An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIV About the Need to Create an Exception to the Confessional Privilege to Prevent Child Sex Abuse in Justia Verdict. Hamilton argues expressly for mandatory reporting even when information concerning abuse is learned in confession.
Her essay serves as a catalyst for the present discussion, not as its conclusion. The questions it raises reach well beyond one article, one religious tradition, or one jurisdiction. They involve the relationship between civil evidentiary privileges and religious doctrine, the constitutional protection of religious exercise, the responsibilities imposed by child-abuse reporting laws, and society’s interest in preventing continuing harm to children.
Recent developments in Washington state and Arizona demonstrate that these are not merely theoretical questions. Legislatures and courts are confronting them now.
What Are the Clergy-Penitent Privilege and the Sacramental Seal?
Important distinctions should be made at the outset.
The clergy-penitent privilege (Law): This is a civil evidentiary rule governed by secular statute or common law. It dictates whether a court can compel a religious leader to testify about confidential communications.
Ownership of the privilege (Law): In U.S. law, evidentiary privileges usually belong to (are “owned” by) the confessor/penitent, not the religious institution itself. Secular courts view it as a privacy/protection for the individual rather than an institutional immunity.
The sacramental seal of confession (Theology) By contrast, this is an absolute, inviolable spiritual obligation in Roman Catholic Canon Law (Canon 983 Section 1) that forbids a priest from disclosing a penitent’s sins under any circumstances, punishable by automatic excommunication. Therefore, §1 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law states that the sacramental seal is “inviolable” and that a confessor is therefore forbidden to betray a penitent “in any manner and for any reason.” Canon 984 separately prohibits a confessor from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent. Thus, changing a civil evidentiary privilege does not by itself change Catholic doctrine. Conversely, the existence of a religious rule does not automatically determine the scope of civil law. Clergy-Penitent Privilege; Confessional Privilege; Seal of Confession; Mandatory Reporting; Child Sexual Abuse; Child Protection; Religious Liberty; First Amendment; Free Exercise Clause; Canon Law; Pope Leo XIV; Marci A. Hamilton. It is precisely where these two systems overlap that the present controversy arises.
Mandatory Reporting and the Protection of Children
American states have developed mandatory reporting laws requiring designated persons to report suspected child abuse or neglect. The details differ substantially from state to state, including which professionals must report and whether confidential communications with clergy receive an exemption.
Vermont provides one example of an attempt to distinguish ordinary clergy communications from certain confidential spiritual communications. Under 33 V.S.A. § 4913, clergy are among mandated reporters, but the statute provides an exception where specified conditions are met. The communication must be made to clergy acting as a spiritual adviser, intended to be confidential, concern contrition or conscience, and be required to remain confidential by religious law, doctrine, or tenet.
Missouri illustrates continuing legislative debate. House Bill 2340, introduced during the state’s 2026 legislative session, proposed allowing the reporting of otherwise privileged communications concerning child abuse or neglect made to a minister or clergyperson. As of May 15, 2026, the bill had been referred to the Missouri House Committee on Emerging Issues.
These examples caution against speaking of a single American rule. The legal landscape consists instead of differing state statutes, privileges, exceptions, and constitutional questions.
The Justia Open Letter: The Argument for an Exception
Hamilton’s July, 2026, Justia Verdict essay makes the case for requiring clergy to report child sexual abuse even when the information is obtained through confession.
Her argument rests principally on child protection and prevention of future harm. She contends that child sexual abuse presents a sufficiently compelling public interest to justify a narrowly drawn reporting requirement. She also challenges the proposition that the First Amendment necessarily prevents such legislation, arguing that neutral and generally applicable reporting laws may constitutionally regulate conduct even when religious practices are affected. Hamilton further emphasizes the possibility of repeated victimization. If an abuser has access to additional children, she argues, disclosure to authorities may prevent future harm.
These are arguments advanced by Hamilton and others who favor narrowing the privilege. They should not, however, be mistaken for settled constitutional law. Questions involving religious exercise, evidentiary privileges, state reporting requirements, and the extent to which government may burden religious practices remain dependent upon statutory language, particular facts, and applicable constitutional doctrine. That distinction is important to maintaining a balanced discussion.
The Case for Preserving Confidentiality
Those opposing an exception begin from a fundamentally different premise. For the Catholic Church, the secrecy of sacramental confession is not simply an evidentiary convenience created by legislatures. It is an obligation imposed upon the priest by canon law. A priest confronted with a civil law requiring disclosure of sacramental confession could therefore face a direct conflict between civil law and what the Church understands as a binding religious obligation.
Opponents of Mandatory Disclosure
Opponents of mandatory disclosure also raise practical questions. Would individuals disclose criminal conduct during confession if they knew it would automatically be reported? Could eliminating confidentiality discourage some offenders from seeking spiritual counseling that might encourage them to surrender to authorities, obtain treatment, or otherwise change their conduct? How would civil authorities establish what was said during a confession without requiring inquiry into religious practices themselves?
These questions do not resolve the debate. They demonstrate why the issue extends beyond a simple choice between secrecy and disclosure.
Washington State: When the Conflict Became Concrete
Washington State provides a particularly instructive recent example. In 2025, the Washington Legislature enacted Senate Bill 5375, adding clergy to the state’s mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect. Governor Bob Ferguson signed the measure on May 2, 2025, and it became effective July 27. The legislation generated litigation challenging its application to sacramental confession and equivalent confidential religious communications.
In October, 2025, the Washington Attorney General’s Office announced stipulations under which clergy would remain mandatory reporters generally, but state and county prosecutors agreed not to enforce the reporting requirement when information was learned solely through confession or its equivalent in other faith traditions.
Washington therefore illustrates the competing considerations in unusually concrete form. The Legislature sought broader child protection reporting; religious plaintiffs asserted constitutional objections; and the resulting arrangement preserved much of the mandatory reporting law while limiting its application to specified confidential religious communications. The example does not establish how other jurisdictions must resolve the question. It does show how difficult the balance can become when abstract principles are translated into enforceable law.
Arizona: A New Judicial Development
An even more recent development came from Arizona. In late July, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in litigation arising from allegations that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had learned of child abuse through confidential religious communications but had not reported it to civil authorities. The court concluded that Arizona law protected the confidential religious communications at issue and addressed the constitutional limits on courts evaluating religious doctrine when determining whether clergy were required to report.
The Arizona litigation arose from exceptionally troubling underlying allegations. Yet the legal question before the court concerned not whether child abuse should be condemned. It plainly should, but how statutory reporting requirements and protections for confidential religious communications operate together.
Read alongside Washington state, the Arizona decision demonstrates the absence of a simple nationwide answer. Legislatures and courts continue to define the boundaries between mandatory reporting and religious confidentiality.
Pope Leo XIV and Safeguarding Minors
Any examination of the Catholic position should also recognize another important part of the record: the Church’s stated commitment to protecting minors.
Addressing the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors on March 16, 2026, Pope Leo XIV described the Commission’s work protecting children, adolescents, and vulnerable persons as “essential for the life of the Church” and called for an authentic “culture of care.”
That commitment continued in June. Pope Leo approved revised statutes for the Pontifical Commission intended to strengthen its safeguarding mandate, including its work concerning accountability, transparency, survivor-informed approaches, reporting systems, and cooperation within the Church.
On June 17, Vatican News reported the Pope’s statement that safeguarding minors is “a mandate for everyone in the Church.” He encouraged cooperation between local Churches and civil institutions and emphasized prevention and care for vulnerable persons.
These statements matter because they show the debate cannot fairly be reduced to the Church versus child protection.
The Church maintains two commitments at once: it upholds the inviolability of sacramental confession, and it identifies the protection of minors and vulnerable persons as a fundamental responsibility.
How those commitments interact when information about abuse is revealed only during sacramental confession is precisely the difficult question under consideration.
Religious Liberty and the Limits of Government Authority
The First Amendment inevitably forms part of the American discussion. Supporters of mandatory reporting argue that religious belief does not necessarily exempt conduct from neutral laws protecting children and that preventing child abuse represents an exceptionally strong governmental interest. Opponents respond that compelling a priest to violate the sacramental seal directly burdens religious exercise and may require government officials and courts to make determinations concerning religious doctrine and practice.
The constitutional analysis can become especially complicated because clergy-penitent privilege, mandatory reporting statutes, free exercise principles, and state religious freedom protections do not necessarily operate identically in every jurisdiction. For that reason, broad assertions that the First Amendment either unquestionably requires or unquestionably forbids a confessional exception should be approached cautiously.
The recent Washington litigation and Arizona decision show why statutory wording, the nature of religious communication, and applicable constitutional principles are critical.
Beyond Catholicism
Although much of the contemporary discussion focuses on Catholic sacramental confession, clergy confidentiality is not exclusively a Catholic issue. The Arizona litigation involved the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and state statutes frequently employ broader terminology encompassing ministers, clergy, spiritual advisers, or comparable religious roles. That raises another question for legislators: if confidential religious communications receive protection, how should the law define them without favoring one religious tradition over another? A rule written exclusively around the Catholic sacrament of confession could raise different concerns from one written broadly enough to encompass comparable confidential practices across faith traditions.
The issue therefore implicates not only religious liberty but also governmental neutrality among religions.
Questions for Continuing Reflection
The sources examined here do not produce a single answer. Instead, they sharpen the questions:
Can government require disclosure of information obtained through sacramental confession without intruding impermissibly upon religious exercise?
Should the answer differ when there is reason to believe that a child remains in immediate or continuing danger?
Would eliminating confidentiality increase reporting and prevent future abuse, or could it discourage disclosures that might otherwise lead offenders toward accountability?
Can legislation distinguish sacramental confession from other confidential clergy communications in a way that remains neutral among religious traditions?
What can be learned from the differing approaches taken by Washington state, Arizona, Vermont, Missouri, and other jurisdictions?
And perhaps the broadest question: Can a legal framework simultaneously provide the strongest practicable protection for vulnerable children and meaningful protection for religious liberty when those principles come into direct conflict?
Reasonable people may reach different conclusions.
The purpose of examining these questions is therefore not to declare a winner in the debate. It is to understand more precisely what is being debated, what the principal authorities actually say, where genuine disagreement exists, and what consequences may follow from the different approaches under consideration. That task belongs not only to courts and legislatures, but also to religious authorities, scholars, researchers, child-protection professionals, advocates, and citizens willing to examine the competing considerations carefully.
Author’s Note
¹ Because this article addresses questions involving constitutional law, criminal law, evidence, canon law, religious liberty, and public policy, I believe it is appropriate to explain briefly the perspective from which it has been written.
I am not an attorney, nor do I hold a law degree. My professional career, however, has been devoted to legal information, legal research, and law librarianship. Over the course of many years, I have worked to assist judges, attorneys, scholars, librarians, students, and members of the public in locating, understanding, and evaluating authoritative legal sources.
That same objective has guided the preparation of this article. It is not intended to offer legal or theological advice or to reach definitive conclusions on questions that continue to be debated by courts, legislatures, religious authorities, scholars, and others. Instead, I have sought to describe the legal arguments and theological doctrines under consideration, provide historical and contemporary context, and present competing perspectives as accurately and fairly as possible.
My experience has taught me that careful research, accurate attribution, and fair presentation of competing authorities are indispensable to informed discussion of difficult issues.
If this article succeeds, it will not be because it persuades readers to adopt a particular position. Rather, I hope it will help them better understand the issues, consult the underlying authorities, and reach their own informed conclusions.
References and Additional Resources
Primary and Official Sources
Vatican Code of Canon Law—Canons 959–997— The Holy See.
The principal Catholic canonical authority concerning the inviolability of the sacramental seal and restrictions on the use of information acquired through confession.
Pope Leo XIVPope Leo XIV’s March 16, 2026 address— The Holy See.
Official papal address describing safeguarding work as essential to the life of the Church and emphasizing a broader culture of care.
Pope Leo XIV approves new statutes for child protection commission Documents concerning the Commission’s renewed safeguarding mandate, accountability, transparency, and survivor-informed approaches.
Washington State Legislature Washington SB 5375 legislative record).
Legislation concerning the duty of clergy to report child abuse and neglect; signed May 2, 2025.
Washington State Attorney General’s October 2025 statement, “Washington State Reaches Agreement to Preserve Key Portions of Law Requiring Clergy to Report Child Abuse,” October 10, 2025.
Official explanation of the stipulations concerning enforcement of SB 5375 and information learned solely through confession or its equivalent.
Vermont’s mandatory reporting statute
Mandatory child-abuse reporting statute identifying clergy as mandated reporters while establishing specified protections for certain confidential spiritual communications.
Missouri HB 2340. (2026).
Proposed legislation concerning privileged communications to ministers or clergy involving child abuse or neglect.
Principal Contemporary Commentary
Hamilton’s July 14 .2026 Justia Verdict; “An Open Letter to Pope Leo About the Need to Create an Exception to the Confessional Privilege to Prevent Child Sex Abuse,” .The principal contemporary commentary that prompted this article. Hamilton argues in favor of requiring reporting of child sexual abuse even when knowledge is acquired through confession.
Selected Secondary Sources
Caroline Donze, “ Breaking the Seal of Confession: Examining the Constitutionality of the Clergy-Penitent Privilege in Mandatory Reporting Law
Norman Abrams, “ADDRESSING THE TENSION BETWEEN THE CLERGY-COMMUNICANT PRIVILEGE AND THE DUTY TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE IN STATE STATUTES” 44 Boston College Law Review 1127 (2003).
Kathryn Keegan, “The Clergy-Penitent Privilege and the Child Abuse Reporting Statute: Is the Secret Sacred?” 19 John Marshall Law Review 1031 (1986).
An earlier scholarly treatment illustrating the longstanding nature of the conflict between clergy confidentiality and child-abuse reporting requirements.
Vatican News, “Protection of Minors Commission Receives New Statutes, Renewed Mandate,” June 13, 2026.
Reporting on Pope Leo XIV’s approval of revised statutes strengthening the Pontifical Commission’s safeguarding mission.
Vatican News, “Pope Leo: Safeguarding Minors ‘Is a Mandate’ for the Church,” June 17, 2026.
Reporting on Pope Leo XIV’s statements concerning prevention, safe environments, and cooperation between Church and civil institutions.
Recent reporting concerning the Arizona Supreme Court’s 2026 clergy-confidentiality decision.
Useful for understanding the factual and legal background of the Arizona litigation while the court’s decision itself should remain the principal authority for detailed legal analysis.
Arizona high court says churches, not judges, define a confession.