September 30, 2026 | Freeport, IL
Presented by Sarah Collins
CRIME & PUNISHMENT | F4F NEWS
On January 12, 2020, Pastor Steve Cassell sat before his congregation at Beloved Church and spoke about something extraordinarily serious: children being molested inside churches. At first, Cassell was speaking hypothetically, describing what he said he would do if someone molested a child at Beloved. He stopped to make clear that he was not describing something that had actually happened there. “This did not happen,” Cassell said.
In his hypothetical, Cassell described restricting the alleged offender's movement inside the church. He said he would personally walk the person through the door, require the individual to sit where he could be watched and closely supervise the person in order to protect children. But then the hypothetical ended, and Cassell began talking about events he presented to his congregation as having actually occurred.
Cassell said people sometimes leave one church, go to another and molest children there. He accused churches of concealing what happened because they did not want the public to know. Then he became remarkably specific: “This has happened in three churches in our region.” Cassell said “kids and youth have been molested,” that things had been “done to them,” and that churches had swept what happened “under the carpet” because they did not want their churches to suffer a “black eye.” He ended that portion of his remarks with a condemnation: “Lord have mercy on those leaders' souls.”
More than six years later, Cassell's words warrant renewed examination. Today, Cassell is no longer merely the pastor describing allegations involving children at other churches. Fighting4Freeport's continuing investigation has now documented allegations involving more than a dozen girls concerning Cassell's conduct toward them as children. The allegations include unwanted or uncomfortable physical contact and other conduct the girls have described involving Cassell. Allegations are not findings of guilt, and Cassell has disputed allegations against him.
The allegations involving Cassell today do not establish that he violated Illinois' mandated-reporter law in 2020, nor does the sermon establish that the abuse he described at other churches was connected in any way to the allegations involving him. But Fighting4Freeport's continuing investigation led us backward through years of Cassell's sermons and public statements. That is where we found the January 2020 recording—and where another investigation begins.
What did Stephen Cassell know about children allegedly being molested at three churches in the region? How did he know it? Were specific children identified to him? When did he learn about the alleged abuse? And, perhaps most importantly, did he report what he knew?
Those questions matter because Cassell was not simply a member of the public discussing child abuse. He was a pastor. Under Illinois law, members of the clergy are mandated reporters.
THE CHILD DOES NOT HAVE TO TELL THE PASTOR PERSONALLY
One of the most important aspects of Illinois' mandated-reporting law is also one of the easiest to misunderstand. A pastor does not necessarily have to personally witness abuse, and a child does not necessarily have to walk into a pastor's office and personally disclose what happened before a reporting obligation can arise.
Under the Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, designated mandated reporters who have reasonable cause to believe that a child known to them in their professional or official capacity may be abused or neglected are required to immediately report or cause a report to be made to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. Illinois specifically includes “any member of the clergy” among the professionals covered by the law.
The statute also explains what it means for a child to be “known” to a mandated reporter in a professional or official capacity. That can include contact through someone's employment or professional practice, through a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, or through affiliation with a church or religious organization directly responsible for the child's care, supervision, guidance or training. Critically, it can also include another person making a specific disclosure to the mandated reporter that an identifiable child is the victim of abuse or neglect while that reporter is acting in the relevant professional or official capacity.
Illinois lawmakers then made the point explicit: the child does not have to personally appear before the mandated reporter for a report to be required.
That distinction substantially changes the legal question surrounding Cassell's 2020 statements. The question is not simply whether Cassell personally spoke with any of the children he referenced from the pulpit. The questions are what information he received, how he received it, whether identifiable children were involved, whether he received that information in the professional or official capacity contemplated by the law, and whether the information gave him reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused. If those statutory requirements were satisfied, Illinois law imposed a duty to report.
ILLINOIS REQUIRES THE REPORT TO BE MADE “IMMEDIATELY”
Illinois law does not establish a seven-day waiting period for mandated reporters. It does not provide time to wait for the next church board meeting, instruct pastors to investigate allegations themselves before contacting the state, or require the reporter to determine whether prosecutors could eventually prove the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. The word lawmakers chose was “immediately.”
The law is particularly clear when addressing people working within institutions and members of the clergy. When someone is required to report in that capacity, the person must make the report immediately to DCFS. A clergy member may also notify the person in charge of the church or religious institution that the report has been made. That distinction is important because internal notification is additional; it is not identified as a substitute for the mandated report.
Illinois law goes even further. A person in charge of a church or religious institution who receives such notification is prohibited from exercising control, restraint, modification or other change over the report or its forwarding to DCFS. In practical terms, the church does not get a veto. Its internal chain of command cannot be allowed to become a barrier between a mandated reporter and the state agency responsible for receiving the report.
WHAT ABOUT ELDERS, DEACONS AND CHURCH BOARDS?
Church leadership structures vary considerably, making precision particularly important when discussing who qualifies as a mandated reporter. Illinois does not appear to make every church board member a mandated reporter simply because that person occupies a seat on a church board. The same caution applies to titles such as elder, trustee and deacon. Different religious organizations assign different responsibilities to those positions, and a title alone does not necessarily establish that someone falls within one of the statutory categories of mandated reporters.
An elder or board member who also qualifies as clergy, however, may independently be a mandated reporter. Another church leader could qualify because of a different profession or official position covered by Illinois law. Determining whether a particular person was legally required to report therefore requires examining that person's actual role rather than simply the title printed beside his or her name.
Whether every person sitting around a church board table is individually a mandated reporter is only part of the issue. A church board cannot become a firewall between someone who is required to report and the authorities. A church may conduct its own administrative investigation, remove someone from ministry, prohibit someone from working with children, restrict access to church property, consult attorneys, review internal policies or take additional steps to protect its congregation. Those actions may be prudent and necessary, but they do not replace a mandated report when Illinois law requires one.
That distinction is worth making plainly. Telling a pastor is not necessarily reporting suspected abuse to the state. Telling the elders is not necessarily reporting it. Telling the church board is not necessarily reporting it. Holding a private meeting, confronting an accused person, moving someone into another position or moving someone from one church to another does not satisfy a mandated reporter's obligation when the law requires a report to DCFS.
REPORTING SUSPECTED ABUSE IS NOT A FINDING OF GUILT
Mandatory reporting does not require a pastor—or any other mandated reporter—to determine whether the accused person is guilty. A report does not convict anyone, eliminate due process or establish that an allegation is true. A mandated reporter occupies a much earlier position in the process. When the legal threshold is satisfied, the reporter provides the information to authorities responsible for determining what happens next.
There is a practical reason the law works that way. Institutions can have competing interests. A church can sincerely want to protect children while simultaneously worrying about its pastor, congregation, finances, reputation and what public disclosure of an allegation might do to the institution. Schools, athletic organizations, businesses and government agencies can encounter similar conflicts. Mandatory reporting removes part of that decision from the institution itself. When the statutory requirements are satisfied, protecting the reputation of the organization is not one of the alternatives the law provides.
That makes one portion of Cassell's 2020 statement particularly striking. According to Cassell, the three churches he referenced had concealed what happened specifically because “they didn't want people to know” and “didn't want their church to have a bad, black eye.” If Cassell's description was accurate, the very institutional conflict mandatory-reporting laws are designed to address was, according to him, already occurring.
FAILURE TO REPORT CAN ITSELF BECOME A CRIME
Illinois does not treat mandatory reporting as a professional suggestion. Under the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, certain knowing and willful failures to comply with the reporting requirements carry criminal penalties. A first qualifying violation can constitute a Class A misdemeanor, while a second or subsequent violation can constitute a Class 4 felony.
Cassell's reference to three churches therefore deserves investigation, but it does not allow Fighting4Freeport to simply count to three and declare that three criminal violations occurred. Each potential incident would have to be evaluated independently. Investigators would need to determine what Cassell actually knew, how he learned it, whether identifiable children were involved, whether he was acting in a capacity covered by the statute, whether the information met the legal threshold for reporting, whether an applicable privilege affected the communication and whether the required report had already been made.
There may also be legal questions concerning how Illinois courts would treat multiple alleged failures for purposes of the “first” and “second or subsequent” penalty provisions. Fighting4Freeport therefore is not asserting that Cassell's reference to three churches automatically translates into one misdemeanor and two felonies.
His own words establish something significant without making that leap: by January 2020, Cassell was publicly claiming knowledge that children had been molested at three churches in the region and that church leaders had concealed what happened. Whether the circumstances behind those statements triggered Cassell's own obligations under Illinois law is a legitimate question that deserves an answer.
WHEN FAILURE TO REPORT BECOMES SOMETHING MORE
Illinois lawmakers also contemplated conduct more serious than a mandated reporter simply failing to make a required report. The law establishes enhanced penalties when someone knowingly and willfully violates its reporting provisions as part of a “plan or scheme” designed to prevent lawful authorities from discovering an abused or neglected child for the purpose of protecting or insulating a person or entity from arrest or prosecution.
Under that provision, a first offense can constitute a Class 4 felony and a second or subsequent offense a Class 3 felony. The distinction is significant because Illinois law recognizes a potential difference between failing to make a required report and participating in an organized effort designed to keep abuse from lawful authorities.
Nothing in Cassell's 2020 sermon, standing alone, establishes that he participated in such a plan or scheme. Evidence would have to establish both the necessary conduct and intent. But Cassell himself claimed from the pulpit that leaders of three churches in the region knew children had been molested and concealed what happened because they did not want their churches to suffer reputational damage.
If Cassell's account was accurate, that raises questions extending beyond him. What exactly did the leaders of those churches know? Who participated in the decisions that followed? Were DCFS or law enforcement ever contacted? If they were not, why not? And what did Cassell himself do after learning enough about those situations to describe them publicly from his pulpit?
SIX YEARS AGO DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN TOO LATE
Cassell made the recorded statements in January 2020, but the passage of more than six years does not necessarily place a potential mandated-reporting violation involving child sexual abuse beyond prosecution. Illinois has established an extended statute of limitations for certain failures by mandated reporters to report suspected sexual offenses against children.
When the victim was younger than 18, Illinois law provides that prosecution for failure to report the alleged or suspected commission of specified offenses—including criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual abuse and felony criminal sexual abuse—may be commenced within 20 years after the child victim turns 18.
That is not a blanket limitations period covering every conceivable violation of Illinois' mandated-reporting law. It applies to the specified sexual offenses identified by the statute. But when those circumstances exist, the practical effect can be substantial. Depending upon the victim's age and the underlying offense, accountability for a failure to report can potentially remain possible decades after the alleged abuse occurred.
That makes the age of Cassell's recording less important than it might initially appear. What someone knew in 2020—or potentially even years earlier—may remain legally relevant today. Determining whether that is true in any particular case would require knowing the identity and age of the alleged victim, the nature and timing of the underlying conduct, when the mandated reporter learned of it and whether the other requirements of the statute were satisfied.
CLERGY PRIVILEGE EXISTS, BUT IT IS NOT A UNIVERSAL SHIELD
Any responsible examination of mandatory reporting involving pastors must also account for clergy privilege. Illinois recognizes legal protection for certain confidential communications made to clergy in their professional character or as spiritual advisers, and the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act specifically preserves the ability of clergy to invoke the applicable statutory privilege.
The existence of that privilege does not mean everything a pastor learns automatically becomes privileged simply because the information reached a member of the clergy. How the information was obtained matters. A confidential spiritual communication can present a substantially different legal question from information received through church administration, something personally observed during a church activity, information concerning a child under a church's supervision or another communication that does not satisfy the requirements of the privilege.
That is another reason Cassell's sermon alone cannot establish whether he violated the law. Before reaching that conclusion, investigators would need to know what information lay behind his statements and how that information reached him.
“LORD HAVE MERCY ON THOSE LEADERS' SOULS”
There is something particularly striking about Cassell's words when heard today. In 2020, he was not defending the churches he accused of concealing child molestation. He was condemning them. According to Cassell, children and youth had been molested at three churches in the region and church leaders had swept what happened under the carpet because they did not want the public to know. “Lord have mercy on those leaders' souls,” he told his congregation.
Six years later, Fighting4Freeport's investigation has documented allegations involving more than a dozen girls concerning Cassell's own conduct toward them as children. Those allegations do not establish his guilt, nor do they establish that he violated Illinois' mandated-reporting law years earlier. But together with his recorded statements, they make the extent of Cassell's knowledge about alleged child abuse inside other churches a matter worthy of renewed scrutiny.
There is a significant difference between knowing generally that child abuse occurs and telling a congregation that children were molested at three churches in the region, that the churches knew about it and that the incidents were concealed from the public. Cassell said he knew enough about what happened to publicly condemn the church leaders involved. The unanswered question is whether what he knew also created a legal obligation to report.
WHAT DID STEPHEN CASSELL KNOW?
Answering that question requires evidence, not speculation. Among the unanswered questions are which three churches Cassell was referring to, when the alleged abuse occurred, how he learned about it and whether specific children were identified to him. It also remains unknown whether parents, pastors, elders, board members or other church leaders discussed those allegations with Cassell and whether those communications occurred while he was acting in his capacity as a pastor.
Most importantly, it remains unknown whether DCFS or law enforcement had already been contacted and whether Cassell himself ever made a mandated report concerning any of the child molestation he described from his pulpit.
Those answers matter not merely because of the allegations surrounding Cassell today, but because of what he told his own congregation six years ago. Cassell said children and youth had been molested. He said it had happened at three churches in the region. He said church leaders knew about it. And he said those churches concealed what happened because they feared what public knowledge of the abuse would do to their reputations.
Illinois law is clear about the basic obligation imposed upon a member of the clergy when the statutory requirements for mandated reporting have been satisfied. The responsibility is not fulfilled by investigating the matter privately, determining whether an accused person deserves another chance, moving that person somewhere else or protecting the reputation of a religious institution. The law requires the mandated report to be made immediately.
Stephen Cassell publicly condemned church leaders whom he said failed children by hiding what happened to them. More than six years later, his own recorded words leave an important question unanswered:
Did he report what he knew?
Investigative Reporting, Editing & Publication
Joshua T. Atkinson
Chairman | Fighting4Freeport