"California Lawmakers Threaten To Break Confidentiality Of Confession To Find Abusers"

[Skwim]

.

"Breaking with a long tradition of clerical privilege, California is edging toward requiring priests and other church employees to inform authorities if they learn of a case of child sex abuse during the sacrament of confession.

On Thursday (May 31), the California State Senate passed a bill that would require priests to report child abuse if they learn about it while hearing the confession of a fellow priest or colleague. The bill — which passed overwhelmingly with a 30-4 vote, with 4 not voting at all — was amended from its original version, which would have required a priest to report abuse they learn about in any confession they hear, not just those of their fellow clerics and coworkers.

But even the altered version of the bill is sparking outrage among Catholic leaders who see it as forcing priests and other clergy either to comply with the law and violate the sacramental seal of confession or defy authorities and risk arrest.

The California Catholic Conference decried the bill in a statement, describing it as an “attack on the sanctity of the confessional” and noting that under church law, any priest who violates the seal of confession is automatically excommunicated.

In a separate interview with Religion News Service, a spokesperson for the conference argued that the narrowing of the bill only sharpens opponents’ argument that it violates religious freedom provisions and is discriminatory.

“The more you narrow it down, the more unconstitutional it gets,” the spokesperson said."
source
​

Gee, the Catholic clergy in California is upset because it looks like it will no longer be able to safely sexually abuse children and then be forgiven by the Big Guy by going to confession. BOO HOO! And they feel this little sexual perk they operate under is protected by the First Amendment. If this is what the "sanctity of the confessional" was designed to do for the Catholic clergy then it's no wonder so many of its priests. bishops, and whatever are now mired in its child sex abuse scandal. And with its Get out Of Jail Free card about to be taken away it looks even bleaker for Catholic pedophiles and such, at least those in California.

Of course, if you feel priests should be able continue to sexually abuse children under the protection of the sacramental seal of confession I'd be happy to hear your argument.

.

 

[Terry Sampson]

"Breaking with a long tradition of clerical privilege, ..."

Who says "bottom feeders" don't have a purpose? I don't. You are the last guardian of truth in the world. Keep up the good work!

BTW, Skwim, you appear to have inadvertently stuttered. This post is remarkably similar to another Post #1 in a thread you started just before Jonathan Bailey's last heretical post. If there isn't an RF rule against that, there should be.

 

[Stevicus]

.

"Breaking with a long tradition of clerical privilege, California is edging toward requiring priests and other church employees to inform authorities if they learn of a case of child sex abuse during the sacrament of confession.

On Thursday (May 31), the California State Senate passed a bill that would require priests to report child abuse if they learn about it while hearing the confession of a fellow priest or colleague. The bill — which passed overwhelmingly with a 30-4 vote, with 4 not voting at all — was amended from its original version, which would have required a priest to report abuse they learn about in any confession they hear, not just those of their fellow clerics and coworkers.

But even the altered version of the bill is sparking outrage among Catholic leaders who see it as forcing priests and other clergy either to comply with the law and violate the sacramental seal of confession or defy authorities and risk arrest.

The California Catholic Conference decried the bill in a statement, describing it as an “attack on the sanctity of the confessional” and noting that under church law, any priest who violates the seal of confession is automatically excommunicated.

In a separate interview with Religion News Service, a spokesperson for the conference argued that the narrowing of the bill only sharpens opponents’ argument that it violates religious freedom provisions and is discriminatory.

“The more you narrow it down, the more unconstitutional it gets,” the spokesperson said."
source
​

Gee, the Catholic clergy in California is upset because it looks like it will no longer be able to safely sexually abuse children and then be forgiven by the Big Guy by going to confession. BOO HOO! And they feel this little sexual perk they operate under is protected by the First Amendment. If this is what the "sanctity of the confessional" was designed to do for the Catholic clergy then it's no wonder so many of its priests. bishops, and whatever are now mired in its child sex abuse scandal. And with its Get out Of Jail Free card about to be taken away it looks even bleaker for Catholic pedophiles and such, at least those in California.

Of course, if you feel priests should be able continue to sexually abuse children under the protection of the sacramental seal of confession I'd be happy to hear your argument.

.

There are loopholes around confession.

 

[pearl]

The flaw in this proposal is the fact that it is only by the choice of penitent that his/her identity is known to the confessor.

 

[columbus]

The flaw in this proposal is the fact that it is only by the choice of penitent that his/her identity is known to the confessor.

This is part of what makes this a difficult issue for me.
On the one hand, there is an important reason for the Seal of the Confessional. Clergy are not law enforcement. They aren't supposed to be, they aren't trained for it. They're intended the be spiritual and ethical guidance counselors. They cannot perform that role without absolute trust by the penitent.
On the other hand, child abuse is such a nasty crime with such a tendency towards repeating the offense, that failing to intervene is a horrible failing. It's a terrible tragedy, both for the victims and also for the priest who has to bear the burden of such knowledge with their hands tied.

I don't know what is best to do, and I'm sure glad that I don't have to decide. But if the state goes forward with breaking the Seal, I would put it down as a result of massive ethical failures on the part of The Church. Both the priestly abuse itself, but more importantly, the bishops that covered it up and enabled the nasty behavior to go unchecked so widely and for so long. The Seal of the Confessional will be just another victim of the cowardly bishops, putting their own interests ahead of vulnerable children.
Tom

 

[David1967]

.

"Breaking with a long tradition of clerical privilege, California is edging toward requiring priests and other church employees to inform authorities if they learn of a case of child sex abuse during the sacrament of confession.

On Thursday (May 31), the California State Senate passed a bill that would require priests to report child abuse if they learn about it while hearing the confession of a fellow priest or colleague. The bill — which passed overwhelmingly with a 30-4 vote, with 4 not voting at all — was amended from its original version, which would have required a priest to report abuse they learn about in any confession they hear, not just those of their fellow clerics and coworkers.

But even the altered version of the bill is sparking outrage among Catholic leaders who see it as forcing priests and other clergy either to comply with the law and violate the sacramental seal of confession or defy authorities and risk arrest.

The California Catholic Conference decried the bill in a statement, describing it as an “attack on the sanctity of the confessional” and noting that under church law, any priest who violates the seal of confession is automatically excommunicated.

In a separate interview with Religion News Service, a spokesperson for the conference argued that the narrowing of the bill only sharpens opponents’ argument that it violates religious freedom provisions and is discriminatory.

“The more you narrow it down, the more unconstitutional it gets,” the spokesperson said."
source
​

Gee, the Catholic clergy in California is upset because it looks like it will no longer be able to safely sexually abuse children and then be forgiven by the Big Guy by going to confession. BOO HOO! And they feel this little sexual perk they operate under is protected by the First Amendment. If this is what the "sanctity of the confessional" was designed to do for the Catholic clergy then it's no wonder so many of its priests. bishops, and whatever are now mired in its child sex abuse scandal. And with its Get out Of Jail Free card about to be taken away it looks even bleaker for Catholic pedophiles and such, at least those in California.

Of course, if you feel priests should be able continue to sexually abuse children under the protection of the sacramental seal of confession I'd be happy to hear your argument.

.

It's about damn time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is part of what makes this a difficult issue for me.
On the one hand, there is an important reason for the Seal of the Confessional. Clergy are not law enforcement. They aren't supposed to be, they aren't trained for it. They're intended the be spiritual and ethical guidance counselors. They cannot perform that role without absolute trust by the penitent.
On the other hand, child abuse is such a nasty crime with such a tendency towards repeating the offense, that failing to intervene is a horrible failing. It's a terrible tragedy, both for the victims and also for the priest who has to bear the burden of such knowledge with their hands tied.

I don't know what is best to do, and I'm sure glad that I don't have to decide. But if the state goes forward with breaking the Seal, I would put it down as a result of massive ethical failures on the part of The Church. Both the priestly abuse itself, but more importantly, the bishops that covered it up and enabled the nasty behavior to go unchecked so widely and for so long. The Seal of the Confessional will be just another victim of the cowardly bishops, putting their own interests ahead of vulnerable children.
Tom

I figure if they are not allowed to have blood sacrifices performed, then they shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice the well being and stability of children.

 

[David T]

This is part of what makes this a difficult issue for me.
On the one hand, there is an important reason for the Seal of the Confessional. Clergy are not law enforcement. They aren't supposed to be, they aren't trained for it. They're intended the be spiritual and ethical guidance counselors. They cannot perform that role without absolute trust by the penitent.
On the other hand, child abuse is such a nasty crime with such a tendency towards repeating the offense, that failing to intervene is a horrible failing. It's a terrible tragedy, both for the victims and also for the priest who has to bear the burden of such knowledge with their hands tied.

I don't know what is best to do, and I'm sure glad that I don't have to decide. But if the state goes forward with breaking the Seal, I would put it down as a result of massive ethical failures on the part of The Church. Both the priestly abuse itself, but more importantly, the bishops that covered it up and enabled the nasty behavior to go unchecked so widely and for so long. The Seal of the Confessional will be just another victim of the cowardly bishops, putting their own interests ahead of vulnerable children.
Tom

Isn't part of the confession having to do something about what is confessed. So say a serial killer confesses, the community is being terrorized does the priest simply remain silent on that regardless? And if the killer then kills and the priest knows who it is aren't they automatically implicated in the crime?

I understand confession, but confession without repentence is nonsense. Somewhere in all this what may have started as sensible has turned into nonsense .Church is not a sanctuary for criminals and they have violated the community and the church if Justice is not served. Situational ethics can be difficult.

 

[David T]

I figure if they are not allowed to have blood sacrifices performed, then they shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice the well being and stability of children.

It's an internal confusion about confession in the church itself. The fact it's arrived to the point of lawmakers having to insist on it is rather absurd.

 

[allright]

Any real repentance would include turning ones self into the authorities and if they dont they should be turned in by the priest

 

[columbus]

I understand confession,

Obviously you don't.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I figure if they are not allowed to have blood sacrifices performed, then they shouldn't be allowed to sacrifice the well being and stability of children.

What makes you think that "blood sacrifices" have anything that do with Catholicism?
Tom

 

[David T]

Obviously you don't.
Tom

Obviously the church does because the church is never incorrect in it's understanding of everything. Magical thinking isn't Christian regardless of how many people believe it is and call themselves Christian. Nonsense.
.

 

[columbus]

Obviously the church does because the church is never incorrect in it's understanding of everything. Magical thinking isn't Christian regardless of how many people believe it is and call themselves Christian. Nonsense.
.

I am not a Christian, but I do understand Catholicism.
You don't understand Confession. And I am not in the mood to explain it.
Tom

 

[David T]

I am not a Christian, but I do understand Catholicism.
You don't understand Confession. And I am not in the mood to explain it.
Tom

If they don't understand it you magically understand it? When its on the wrong side of Justice a screw is loose regardless and I might say the screw is loose in the brain explaining it in the church itself. So telling me they somehow magically understand it makes sense magically I suppose. But there is no literal magic just nature. You know you are talking about a collective that formed around a heretic in his own time only to begin executing people for being heretics. Right? The church has a long history of goofy confusion. It's founder is a female explained by men.... it's normal!

 

[columbus]

If they don't understand it you magically understand it?

We understand it.
It's you who doesn't

Tom

 

[Skwim]

BTW, Skwim, you appear to have inadvertently stuttered. This post is remarkably similar to another Post #1 in a thread you started just before Jonathan Bailey's last heretical post. If there isn't an RF rule against that, there should be.

Not keeping track of Jonathan Bailey and his post, but the article I quoted came out May 31, 2019, four days ago, and I don't recall posting any of the same information since then.

.

 

[Terry Sampson]

... the article I quoted came out May 31, 2019, four days ago, and I don't recall posting any of the same information since then..

Okey-dokey ....

1. I am now responding to your post #613,158
2. At 12:30 A.M. this morning, you posted Post #6133230, to wit:
   
   1. 
3. When I quote that message, this is what I get when I insert it here:

QUOTE="Skwim, post: 6133230, member: 23688".

"Breaking with a long tradition of clerical privilege, California is edging toward requiring priests and other church employees to inform authorities if they learn of a case of child sex abuse during the sacrament of confession.

On Thursday (May 31), the California State Senate passed a bill that would require priests to report child abuse if they learn about it while hearing the confession of a fellow priest or colleague. The bill — which passed overwhelmingly with a 30-4 vote, with 4 not voting at all — was amended from its original version, which would have required a priest to report abuse they learn about in any confession they hear, not just those of their fellow clerics and coworkers.

But even the altered version of the bill is sparking outrage among Catholic leaders who see it as forcing priests and other clergy either to comply with the law and violate the sacramental seal of confession or defy authorities and risk arrest.

The California Catholic Conference decried the bill in a statement, describing it as an “attack on the sanctity of the confessional” and noting that under church law, any priest who violates the seal of confession is automatically excommunicated.

In a separate interview with Religion News Service, a spokesperson for the conference argued that the narrowing of the bill only sharpens opponents’ argument that it violates religious freedom provisions and is discriminatory.

“The more you narrow it down, the more unconstitutional it gets,” the spokesperson said.
source

Gee, the Catholic clergy in California is upset because it looks like it will no longer be able to safely sexually abuse children and then be forgiven by the Big Guy by going to confession. BOO HOO! And they feel this little sexual perk they operate under is protected by the First Amendment. If this is what the "sanctity of the confessional" was designed to do for the Catholic clergy then it's no wonder so many of its priests. bishops, and whatever are now mired in its child sex abuse scandal. And with its Get out Of Jail Free card about to be taken away it looks even bleaker for Catholic pedophiles and such, at least those in California.

Of course, if you feel priests should be able continue to sexually abuse children under the protection of sacramental seal of confession I'd be happy to hear your argument. -- /QUOTE

 

[Terry Sampson]

Now, @Skwim I am not replying to any of your messages. Instead, I am directing this message to your attention
In this message I am going to insert a quote of your redundant post:

• .
  

  
  
  "Breaking with a long tradition of clerical privilege, California is edging toward requiring priests and other church employees to inform authorities if they learn of a case of child sex abuse during the sacrament of confession.
  
  On Thursday (May 31), the California State Senate passed a bill that would require priests to report child abuse if they learn about it while hearing the confession of a fellow priest or colleague. The bill — which passed overwhelmingly with a 30-4 vote, with 4 not voting at all — was amended from its original version, which would have required a priest to report abuse they learn about in any confession they hear, not just those of their fellow clerics and coworkers.
  But even the altered version of the bill is sparking outrage among Catholic leaders who see it as forcing priests and other clergy either to comply with the law and violate the sacramental seal of confession or defy authorities and risk arrest.
  
  The California Catholic Conference decried the bill in a statement, describing it as an “attack on the sanctity of the confessional” and noting that under church law, any priest who violates the seal of confession is automatically excommunicated.
  
  In a separate interview with Religion News Service, a spokesperson for the conference argued that the narrowing of the bill only sharpens opponents’ argument that it violates religious freedom provisions and is discriminatory.
  
  “The more you narrow it down, the more unconstitutional it gets,” the spokesperson said."
  source
  ​

  
  Gee, the Catholic clergy in California is upset because it looks like it will no longer be able to safely sexually abuse children and then be forgiven by the Big Guy by going to confession. BOO HOO! And they feel this little sexual perk they operate under is protected by the First Amendment. If this is what the "sanctity of the confessional" was designed to do for the Catholic clergy then it's no wonder so many of its priests. bishops, and whatever are now mired in its child sex abuse scandal. And with its Get out Of Jail Free card about to be taken away it looks even bleaker for Catholic pedophiles and such, at least those in California.
  
  Of course, if you feel priests should be able continue to sexually abuse children under the protection of the sacramental seal of confession I'd be happy to hear your argument.
  
  .

When I quote that message and insert it into this message, this is what appears in my response box:

• QUOTE="Skwim, post: 6133237, member: 23688"
  
  
  
  "Breaking with a long tradition of clerical privilege, California is edging toward requiring priests and other church employees to inform authorities if they learn of a case of child sex abuse during the sacrament of confession.
  
  On Thursday (May 31), the California State Senate passed a bill that would require priests to report child abuse if they learn about it while hearing the confession of a fellow priest or colleague. The bill — which passed overwhelmingly with a 30-4 vote, with 4 not voting at all — was amended from its original version, which would have required a priest to report abuse they learn about in any confession they hear, not just those of their fellow clerics and coworkers.
  
  But even the altered version of the bill is sparking outrage among Catholic leaders who see it as forcing priests and other clergy either to comply with the law and violate the sacramental seal of confession or defy authorities and risk arrest.
  
  The California Catholic Conference decried the bill in a statement, describing it as an “attack on the sanctity of the confessional” and noting that under church law, any priest who violates the seal of confession is automatically excommunicated.
  
  In a separate interview with Religion News Service, a spokesperson for the conference argued that the narrowing of the bill only sharpens opponents’ argument that it violates religious freedom provisions and is discriminatory.
  
  “The more you narrow it down, the more unconstitutional it gets,” the spokesperson said."
  source
  ​
  
  Gee, the Catholic clergy in California is upset because it looks like it will no longer be able to safely sexually abuse children and then be forgiven by the Big Guy by going to confession. BOO HOO! And they feel this little sexual perk they operate under is protected by the First Amendment. If this is what the "sanctity of the confessional" was designed to do for the Catholic clergy then it's no wonder so many of its priests. bishops, and whatever are now mired in its child sex abuse scandal. And with its Get out Of Jail Free card about to be taken away it looks even bleaker for Catholic pedophiles and such, at least those in California.
  
  Of course, if you feel priests should be able continue to sexually abuse children under the protection of the sacramental seal of confession I'd be happy to hear your argument.-- /QUOTE

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Skwim

Once more, for the road:

• QUOTE="Skwim, post: 6133230, member: 23688" was posted at 12:30 A.M.
• QUOTE="Skwim, post: 6133237, member: 23688" was posted at 12:35 A.M.
• 
• QED.