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

Rome and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 2

 + JMJ Part 2 Detailed Synopsis and Timeline (ChatGPT) At this point, I took the shortcut of uploading all of my previous links and the latest SSPX and Rome links to ChatGPT. This way we’ll see how ChatGPT interprets the world as presented on the internet. P^3 Briefing Memo Subject: Rome–SSPX Relations and Planned Episcopal Consecrations (July 1, 2026) Prepared for: Ecclesial / Academic / Media Briefing Date: February 2026 Issue Overview The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has announced its intention to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026 , potentially without a papal mandate . The Holy See has acknowledged ongoing talks with the SSPX and stated its desire to avoid rupture, but has not granted approval nor outlined canonical consequences. The situation revives unresolved tensions dating to 1988 and raises questions about schism, authority, and doctrinal continuity. Background Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX seeks to preserve pre-Vat...

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

SSPX / DICI: Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure.

+ JMJ The following is the communiqué of the SSPX regarding the Bishop Williamson's consecration of Fr. Faure. As a follow-up to this article ,  I would like to highlight the rationale for denouncing the consecration. Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure. On March 19, 2015, Bishop Richard Williamson performed the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil. Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre.(1) The Society of St. Pius X regrets sincerely that this spirit of opposition has led to an episcopal consecration. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had c...

Bishop Huonder, SSPX in Schism? - Nope, Consecration of Holy Oils - Update 1

 + JMJ  So Bishop Huonder is in the news for two reasons.  First, his 'Testimony' concerning Pope Francis etc. This was received as a nice reinforcement by Trads (SSPX and others).  Of course, there are those that now are demanding an apostolic investigation.  Yawn, been here before.  This was predictable as other bishops who have followed the same path came to the same conclusions.  It is the way. Second, he celebrated the Chrism Mass and blessed the Holy Oils for use in the SSPX's European chapels and ceremonies.  This caused a stir amongst some Trads who are locked in one or the other statements made by either Archbishop Lefebvre or others. I received two versions of a question regarding this event: Hi Tradical Do you have any comments about doubtful oils in SSPX europe by +Huonder (NO Bishop not conditionally consecrated)? God Bless Hi Tradical Any thoughts on Huonder oil, not conditionally ordained and consecrated by SSPX bishops? God Bless M...