We're both right and we're both wrong. I should've checked the text of the law more carefully before commenting.

Emphasis mine:

(b) When any person, in his or her official supervisory capacity with a nonprofit or for-profit organization, has reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect caused by a person over whom he or she regularly exercises supervisory authority, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to be made, to the proper law enforcement agency, provided that the person alleged to have caused the abuse or neglect is employed by, contracted by, or volunteers with the organization and coaches, trains, educates, or counsels a child or children or regularly has unsupervised access to a child or children as part of the employment, contract, or voluntary service. ((No)) Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication as provided in RCW 5.60.060.14

The law specifically says that clergy are the only ones who aren't exempted from the duty when they specifically learn about abuse from privileged communication. So, yes, the law adds them to the same responsibility that other public officials have. That's great. But then it specifically carves out a responsibility for them that is a different standard than what other authorities get.

Obviously, if you have a principled anti-religious materialist position you probably don't mind that too much, but there's still an aspect of the state going after clergy on the basis of them being clergy that raises some uneasiness. And yeah, obviously there's only so much CSA a church can get away with before blowback starts to hit.