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,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

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.