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

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...