March 19, 2025 – Pastor’s Note

Cascadia Daily News Articles

A few articles in Cascadia Daily News have featured Catholics stories recently.

Most recently, this article about Partners in the Gospel.

Also recently, an article about Bellingham Community Meal.

That article built on the article from December.

I want to thank our dedicated local reporters for working to tell our community’s stories, including stories from our Catholic community.

42^nd District Town Hall and SB 5375

On Saturday, I attended the 42^nd District Town Hall in Ferndale, with Sen. Shewmake and Reps. Hall and Timmons. While I have a deep appreciation for local government in general, as the most pure and effective expression of American democracy, I was there for a specific purpose, which was to lobby our representatives about SB 5375, which I discussed in a Pastor’s Note last month. As a review, the bill includes clergy in the category of “mandatory reporter” – meaning we would be legally obligated to call the state if we hear about child sex abuse (something already required of Catholic priests by Archdiocesan policy). The Archdiocese of Seattle firmly agrees with this change, except that the current bill does not have a carve out for the confessional, meaning priests could be fined or jailed if it comes to light that a priest did not break the seal of confession when hearing about sex abuse (either from the perpetrator or from the victim).

Regarding the town hall in general, I was not particularly impressed with the activist groups who chose to show up, seemingly with the express purpose of making a lot of noise – we have lost a lot of civic-mindedness in recent decades, and democracy has become a contest of who can yell the loudest. I was, however, impressed with the 42^nd district representatives – they seemed thoughtful, engaged, and civic-minded, even if I did not agree with every position they articulated.

The representatives were kind enough to stay around for individual discussion after the main event, and I was able to speak directly with Rep. Rule about the bill. [I also spoke to the legislative aid for Rep. Timmons.] I chose to stand in Rep. Rule’s line because she was on the House committee two years ago that made the decision to remove the clergy-penitent privilege from the first attempt at this bill, so she was familiar with the debates that led up to this point. Again, I found her personally warm and engaging, and she talked about how she was impressed by the goodwill shown by everyone on all sides of this debate, and how hard a problem this is to solve. She asked me what I would recommend, listened to my points, and thanked me for my time.

Unfortunately, as much as I recognize the goodwill of our representatives on this issue, and I particularly appreciate my brief conversation with Rep. Rule, this conversation did not leave me with high confidence in an outcome that respects the sacramental seal.

The problem is this: “clergy-penitent privilege” is a recognized and protected legal category (Wikipedia article), similar to attorney-client or doctor-patient privileges. Unfortunately, because religion is messy and every denomination has different definitions of “clergy” or “penance”, when the clergy-penitent privilege applies is a lot murkier than with doctors or attorneys. Catholics are very clear about who constitutes clergy, and what constitutes a confession; but some religions or denominations are so loose with their definitions that this could create a loophole such that, at its extreme, any vaguely religious figure could claim any vaguely spiritual conversation is protected, undercutting the entire bill.

When Rep. Rule asked me for my recommendation, I suggested the bill preserve the long-standing legal privilege in writing and allow the courts to deal with the murky situations, since this is a privilege originating from common law and the courts anyway. She was uncomfortable with that idea, which I do empathize with, since she wants to legislature to do its job and not punt to the courts. Nevertheless, her position requires the legislature to remove the privilege entirely, putting priests in the position of following their Church or following the law. My final point to her was a request for fairness – if we are no longer going to protect clergy, then the logic of the bill pushes us to ask whether we should really be protecting attorneys and doctors, too. Clergy should not be singled out.

Now, our county is represented by both the 42^nd and the 40^th district representatives, so I do not mean to focus unduly on the 42^nd district folks. That is simply where I personally live and vote, so it made sense for me to attend that town hall.

If you are willing to contact your representatives, in either the 40^th or 42^nd district, what would be most helpful would be telling your stories about how the absolute secrecy of the confessional has allowed you to reconcile with God and improve your lives. I think our representatives lack an understanding of why absolute secrecy is worth protecting in law, and you are the only ones who can convey those stories adequately.

You can find contact information for your legislators by clicking these links:

• 40^th District
  • Sen. Lovelett: https://leg.wa.gov/legislators/member/liz-lovelett
  • Rep. Lekanoff: https://leg.wa.gov/legislators/member/debra-lekanoff
  • Rep. Ramel: https://leg.wa.gov/legislators/member/alex-ramel
• 42^nd District
  • Sen. Shewmake: https://leg.wa.gov/legislators/member/sharon-shewmake
  • Rep. Rule: https://leg.wa.gov/legislators/member/alicia-rule
  • Rep. Timmons: https://leg.wa.gov/legislators/member/joe-timmons