House Judiciary Chair Quang Nguyen said he will continue to block any bill that would force clergy to report crimes revealed in confession, even after a unanimous Arizona Supreme Court ruling last week clarified the scope of the clergy privilege. According to Capitol Media Services reporting, Nguyen said he will not support legislation requiring disclosure of information obtained through confession, regardless of what is revealed.

The practical consequence is straightforward. As long as Republicans hold the House majority and Nguyen controls the Judiciary Committee calendar, Rep. Stacey Travers’ proposal to carve out an exception for ongoing child abuse will not receive a hearing. Nguyen told Capitol Media Services that if Travers finds the issue so important, she will have to wait until 2029 when he is no longer a legislator for any chance of a hearing. Travers, a Phoenix Democrat, countered that flipping the chamber this year would put a different chair in charge and change the calculus.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, as described in the Capitol Media Services account, held that religious organizations may determine what constitutes a confession or other protected confidential communication. The justices sided with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in litigation connected to Bisbee resident Paul Adams. Church bishops learned in 2011 that Adams was sexually abusing his 7-year-old daughter. The court concluded those communications fell within the church’s confidential religious process and were protected under Arizona’s clergy privilege. As a result, Adams continued abusing his daughter for another seven years. During that time, authorities say he also began sexually abusing her infant sister and posted videos of the abuse online. He was arrested in 2017 after Interpol tipped off the Department of Homeland Security, and he later died by suicide in prison while awaiting trial.

Nguyen, a Prescott Valley Republican, framed his position in terms of religious practice and existing statute. “As a Catholic, confession is one of the very important sacraments of the church,” he said. “I will not break that sacrament. I will not be the guy to do that.” He also noted, per the report, that Arizona law already requires clergy to report ongoing abuse or other crimes they learn about outside the confessional.

Travers says her bill would preserve clergy confidentiality in most circumstances while creating an exception when someone confesses to ongoing child abuse or abuse that is likely to continue. She has characterized the scenario she seeks to address as a conditional confession, where a congregant admits ongoing abuse with the assurance that no one will file a report. As quoted, she argued that absolution should not become a shield for future harm.

This is not a new fight. Former Sen. Victoria Steele ran similar legislation three times and could not get it to the Senate floor. Then Senate Judiciary Chair Eddie Farnsworth blocked the changes, arguing that privilege has long been necessary for people to engage in their religious beliefs. In his view, if a bishop were obligated to go to the police, “would they come in and confess? Probably not.” Steele, who has spoken publicly as a survivor of extreme abuse, backed the changes and has pointed to the Adams case and the criminal sentence for his wife, Leizza, who knew of the abuse and served two and a half years in prison.

Even if the Legislature changes the statute, the ruling flagged additional constitutional hurdles. Justice John Lopez wrote that the First Amendment provides religious organizations “an independence from secular control or manipulation,” adding that the Religion Clauses give religious institutions the power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine. That logic could fuel new challenges if lawmakers try to narrow the privilege. Travers, for her part, questioned the level of deference, noting that secret confession as practiced in the Catholic Church dates to the 12th century and saying, “This isn’t Divine Law.”

For voters, the line of responsibility is clear. Committee chairs decide what gets a hearing, and majorities decide who chairs. If this issue is a priority, the path runs through elections, not slogans. Nguyen has made his gatekeeping posture explicit. Travers has promised to return with a bill in January. The court has set a legal floor that any new policy must clear.

On the same day this legislative fight resurfaced, an unrelated media error illustrated how easily Arizona’s campaign conversation can get scrambled. Arizona’s Family, the 3TV and CBS 5 operation in Phoenix, revised a widely viewed Facebook post after wording led readers to believe Arizona Republican gubernatorial nominee Andy Biggs had proposed banning mosques and non-Christian religions. Arizona Globe reported the original post said, “A Republican candidate for governor in this state plans to ban mosques and non-Christian religions if elected,” which readers took to mean Arizona. The underlying story was about Tennessee state Rep. Monty Fritts, a gubernatorial candidate there, who recently said he would seek to prohibit mosques and religions he described as pagan and argued that First Amendment restrictions on establishment of religion do not apply to states.

According to the Arizona Globe report, the post drew more than 7,000 reactions and thousands of comments before the station updated the wording to specify Tennessee. The station did not append a correction notice or explanation acknowledging the earlier wording. Some users criticized the silent revision, and the outlet did not provide an on-the-record comment when asked to explain the decision.

In a cycle where religion and law are already colliding at the Capitol and in the courts, precision and transparency are not academic niceties. They are how voters figure out who is responsible for what, what the law actually says, and what changes are realistically on the table. On clergy privilege, the next real move belongs to voters choosing a majority and, with it, a committee chair. On the media side, clear and disclosed corrections would do more to keep Arizona’s race focused on Arizona’s facts.

Source file

Documents and reporting used

See an error? Email corrections@saguarosignal.com. We append material corrections to the article.