Trump Admin, Church Confessions, And Children: The Danger Of Shielding Abusers In Sacred Robes

While the possible presence of Donald Trump in the notorious Epstein list is receiving enormous publicity, in fact, it is often the quieter stories, the ones that do not make international news, that hold the most profound warnings.

As an observer in India, news of a court case in a distant American state does not usually cause a stir. But the story of Etienne v. Ferguson is different. It is a story that is disturbing—a cautionary tale from across the globe that echoes controversies and concerns we should be aware of. It is a stark reminder that the battle between institutional power and the safety of a child is a universal one.

The case, on its face, is about a legal conflict in Washington State. Lawmakers there passed a bill, SB 5375, to make clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse, closing a loophole that allowed religious bodies to handle such horrors internally. The bill's prime sponsor was State Senator Noel Frame (Democrat), who is also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse.

In response, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches sued, arguing the law violated their religious freedom by forcing priests to break the absolute seal of confession.

Then a U.S. court, with the backing of the Trump administration's Justice Department, agreed with the churches and blocked the law.

To see a modern, secular state back down on child protection laws is frightening. Senator Frame, the abuse survivor and sponsor of the bill, voiced the core of the issue:

This sentiment cuts through all the legal jargon. It is a cry for moral clarity that resonates powerfully here, particularly when the lines between religious authority and public accountability have become dangerously blurred and intentionally so in favour of a religious ritual called 'confession'.

The arguments made in the U.S. courtroom are the same arguments that the Church has always used to evade scrutiny. The claim of the 'sacramental seal' as an inviolable, sacred space, is a hollow argument when the very recent and the happening history shows that such secrecy has been used to shield predators and silence the innocent.

The Church also has an ingenious legal argument: forcing the priests to report abuse made to them in confession would have a 'chilling effect,' preventing abusers from coming forward.

This is an outrageous proposition.

The first priority can never be to create a comfortable space for a predator to confess; it must be to rescue the child from their grip. What is most alarming is how this institutionalised criminal failure of the Church is legally justified.

Perhaps most baffling from an external perspective is the legal reasoning for the court's decision. The injunction was granted not on a grand principle that religious freedom always trumps child safety, but on a peculiar technicality.

The court found the law was not "neutral and generally applicable" because the Washington legislature, in the same session, passed a separate bill that restored legal privilege for a secular group: university lawyers who work with children. It is a legal logic many outside the U.S. would find perplexing—that a law to protect children is halted because secular lawyers were granted a shield that was simultaneously being denied to priests.

Into this already fraught situation stepped the Trump administration's Justice Department, which formally intervened to support the lawsuit against the child protection law. This was a deliberate choice by the federal government to champion the cause of institutional secrecy over a state’s effort to safeguard its most vulnerable citizens.

When a government defends religious institutional secrecy over child safety, we must recognise it not as a uniquely American problem, but as a global warning.

This case is a lesson for all of us.

It shows how easily the simple, sacred duty to protect a child can be twisted into a complex legal debate where the abuser’s secrets are given more weight than the victim’s suffering. It tells us that the fight to protect our children from those who hide behind sacred rites and legal loopholes is a fight we all share.

The safety of a child in Washington is as sacred as the safety of a child here in an Indian sacred town, and no institution, no matter how powerful or revered, should ever be allowed to stand above that simple truth.

On the other hand, what should a truly religious–spiritual institution have done?

Instead of fighting legal battles to preserve secrecy, a truly spiritual organisation should lead this reform, setting an example even for secular institutions to follow. This could have been done by declaring that any of a religion's sacred rites will not be used as a shield for those who commit heinous crimes. In the context of confessions, it could voluntarily decide that the seal of confession does not apply to the horrific abuse of a child.

As of now, the supporters of the Clergy–Penitent Privilege claim that their pastoral practice can already involve encouraging an abuser to self-report to civil authorities. The term 'encouraging' is a mild term. It is not even 'requiring' but 'encouraging'.

So the clergy should take the next logical step in the line which would be that when the abuser does not go to the authorities, then the clergy concerned should do. Such a move would demonstrate a commitment to protecting the believers far more profoundly than any court victory aimed at preserving silence.

The court case in the U.S. and the way the Trump administration has behaved is a reminder to Indians of two important things:

In India, the Church wields considerable power, commanding an institutional network comparable in scale to national infrastructures. Although legal frameworks to protect child victims are evolving, their consistent application has often been impeded by political expediencies.

The influence that powerful institutions can exert on political parties, particularly through organised vote banks, has compromised outcomes in past cases involving accusations of child abuse and even murder.

Compounding this challenge are credible reports that some priests, previously penalised for child abuse in other countries, have been relocated to positions within India. Consequently, there is an urgent need for India to enact robust legislation to prevent the institutional abuse of children, not only within religious organisations but across all ideological institutions.

The guiding principle must be that a secular, humanist ethic—prioritising the well-being of the individual and his or her right to justice in the face of abuse—holds primacy over the perceived sacredness of any religious belief, the dogma of any political ideology, or the sanctity of any institution.

While faith and ideology are undeniably among the most powerful motivators for selfless, altruistic action, this creates a profound paradox. The very organisations most inspired to perform acts of charity and service are often run by individuals whose deep conviction can create a critical blind spot. This unwavering commitment can, in turn, obscure or enable the abuse of society's most vulnerable members, especially children.

Developments in the United States thus offer a sobering cautionary tale for conscientious citizens around the world. For us in India, analysing the institutional strategies employed by the Church, particularly when enabled by the complicity of sympathetic governments, provides critical foresight. This awareness is essential for the proactive legislation required to shield children from the devastating impact of institutional abuse.