Skip to main content

FSSPX.news: California Wants to Reject Divine Law...and the First Amendment to the Constitution?

+
JMJ



Well this isn't too surprising is it??? Singling out the Catholics - a little obvious!

I guess what they should do it un-convert the face-to-face confessionals and put in the walls, screen, etc so the priest can't identify the penitent ... or agent.

If someone tells a priest their name in the confessional - - - then hit the eject button.

P^3










Courtesy of FSSPX.news

Catholic World Report: american-anti-catholicism-and-the-confessional/



The State Senate of California recently passed a Project of law (Senate Bill or SB360), authored by Democrat Jerry Hill which attacks the seal of the confessional. It is being held before the Assembly and could be voted in. This bill would be the first case of US legislation meddling with the seal of the confessional.

In US laws, priests among many other counselors would be considered “mandatory reporters” meaning that they have the duty to report knowledge or suspicion of child abuse or neglect. Up to this point “knowledge obtained during a penitential communication” was excepted.
This is no longer the case. Hill's bill focuses only on confessions involving priests and church employees, thus capturing the growing disgust against priests guilty of child abuse relentlessly hammered by the media.

Needless to say, the Senate green light on the bill has received a vehement rebuttal from Church authorities. Los Angeles Archbishop Joseph Gomez explained that SB 360’s sponsor makes a sweeping claim that “the clergy-penitent privilege has been abused on a large scale, resulting in the unreported and systemic abuse of thousands of children across multiple denominations and faiths.” However, not one case was brought as evidence that such crime would have been prevented if a priest had broken the seal of the confessional. This is because predators are known to be secretive about their doings and they will not confess their crimes to priests.

The Archbishop wants answers as to why the bill targets only Catholic priests and, especially, priests hearing confessions. “It is far more likely that journalists and lawyers would hear admissions about such crimes. Yet, this bill does not propose doing away with the attorney-client privilege or the protection of journalists' sources.” Without incriminating these two groups, it is clear that the Archbishop feels that the bill has nothing to do with child protection and everything to do with paralyzing the Church from its most powerful tools of salvation: the Catholic priesthood and the sacrament of confession.

The auxiliary bishop of Archbishop Gomez, Bishop Barron, brings out the awkward position which priests would soon face because “he would be threatened with prosecution and possible imprisonment on the one hand or of formal exclusion from the body of Christ (by excommunication) on the other.” Added to this, it would be child's play for troublemakers to use the legislation in order to track down targeted priests.

And would not SB 360 be the start of a slippery slope? If child abuse needs be reported, why not other terrible crimes like murder, domestic abuse and rape?

It has been a long time since the secular government, both in the federal and the California State level, has endeavored to determine doctrine in Catholic schools (sex education, gender identity…) and practice in Catholic hospitals (abortion, birth control…), which are contrary to divine and Church law.

But with this new bill, it is the sacrament as Our Lord Himself has instituted it which is under attack. Not only is the Catholic Church not influencing the public life of the country, if this law were to pass, we would be witnessing the State adopting a power that belongs only to God. It is the State which is meddling in religious matters, and so, throwing away the 1st amendment of the American Constitution which states: “The Congress may not make any law that has for an object the establishment of a religion or which forbids its free exercise.”


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.