Bishop says "I will go to jail before I will obey," as California proposes law requiring priests to report to police what they heard in confession

[Loud-living-dogma]

This might help:

Non-Violent vs. Violent Crimes

Understand the differences between non-violent and violent crimes, including legal definitions, examples, and potential penalties for each.

www.legalmatch.com

 

[TheLittleLady]

So, Legal Match website is going to make up the list of who has to publicly reveal their sins?

This is simply not part of our teachings.

Could the Church someday change confession and make it public? Yes. The seal is not dogma.

Right now, today, no priest anywhere on the planet will reveal your sins or force you to reveal them. This is a fact. Priests have gone to prison for abiding by the seal. They will do it again if they need to.

 

[tafan2]

A priest can never require a person reveal their sin.

Yes, that is the gist of it. There is no practical difference between a priest revealing the sin himself or making absolution conditional on that. My mind is just not thinking straight today I suppose. Thanks.

 

[regression]

Thank you for your reply @Sbee0. I wasn’t aware of the distinction between belief/opinion and action.

 

[tafan2]

This is not accurate. The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not just the freedom to have any religious beliefs. The standard for the constitutionality of limits on exercising religious beliefs (ie to use you term, actions) is that the government must have a compelling reason to do so. That’s why local laws against the religious sacrifice of animals have been struck down as unconstitutional, and native Americans can use certain illegal drugs in their ceremonies, but polygamy can be outlawed.

 

[Sbee0]

This is not accurate. The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, not just the freedom to have any religious beliefs. The standard for the constitutionality of limits on exercising religious beliefs (ie to use you term, actions) is that the government must have a compelling reason to do so. That’s why local laws against the religious sacrifice of animals have been struck down as unconstitutional, and native Americans can use certain illegal drugs in their ceremonies, but polygamy can be outlawed.

The courts in the polygamy case specifically ruled that the law against polygamy didn’t meet the standard of prohibiting free exercise of religion as it was not required to be polygamous to be a mormon. The court did agree with the “slippery slope” that you pointed out and they made reference to the famous “separation” letter from Thomas Jefferson - Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

 

[tafan2]

Those polygamy cases were decided quite sometime ago. Since 1963, the courts have adopted the “compelling reason” test, which itself has evolved somewhat. But it is no longer decided based on action vs belief, it is decided upon compelling interest.

Logically, the proposed law should certainly be a violation of the first amendment. I do not expect the first amendment to protect the Church for ling with regards to these proposed laws.

 

[Sbee0]

Those polygamy cases were decided quite sometime ago. Since 1963, the courts have adopted the “compelling reason” test, which itself has evolved somewhat. But it is no longer decided based on action vs belief, it is decided upon compelling interest.

Logically, the proposed law should certainly be a violation of the first amendment. I do not expect the first amendment to protect the Church for ling with regards to these proposed laws.

Yes the argument will be whether there’s a compelling government interest to eliminate the first amendment right of 10 or so million Catholics in CA to practice their faith. Which is what this law will absolutely do.

I can’t see even the most liberal court in this country agreeing that such a law would meet that standard and even if they did, SCOTUS won’t.

 

[13pollitos]

I can’t see even the most liberal court in this country agreeing that such a law would meet that standard and even if they did, SCOTUS won’t.

I pray you are right.

Several months ago I would have never imagined a situation like this occurring. And even if it did I would have no doubt it would be struck down as you say. After this past year, I don’t trust anyone to do the right thing anymore.

 

[tafan2]

The current Supreme Court, at this point in time, would not. But give it 10 or 15 years, it very well might. DOMA became law in 1996 (with Bill Clinton’s signature). No one thought it would be overturned, indeed it was upheld Everytime it was challenged for 13 years. In 2008, Obama ran for president opposed to gay marraige. In 2013, gay marraige became the law of the land.

You place too much trust in our government institutions. They act on public opinion, the courts and the Congress.

 

[tafan2]

It took the past year?

 

[13pollitos]

I still had some trust in some people yes. Not anymore. Jesus, Mary and Joseph alone at this point. And of course The Father and Holy Spirit. Aside from them, no trust at all.

 

[tafan2]

I am not that cynical, at least as regards most people I know. And I trust people in general. But not our government, or either of our two main political parties.

 

[13pollitos]

I am glad to hear that. I hope you will continue with that and remember to pray for us that are struggling. There are many of us and we need prayers.

 

[Zaccheus]

I am flabbergasted that Catholics think that it’s not a sin to cover up murder and child abuse. No wonder our Church has a little problem with crime and cover-ups…

The seal of the confessional is not a ‘cover-up’. Further you seem to confuse the penitent not going to the police with the priest not going to the police.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Loud-living-dogma:

I am flabbergasted that Catholics think that it’s not a sin to cover up murder and child abuse. No wonder our Church has a little problem with crime and cover-ups…

The seal of the confessional is not a ‘cover-up’. Further you seem to confuse the penitent not going to the police with the priest not going to the police.

I am just not making myself clear. I agree that priests cannot and should not break the seal of the confessional. It seems to me, that when someone commits a serious sin that significantly harms another person, that often the sinner then commits a second sin, that of lying or covering up the first sin. It seems to me that it would not be unreasonable for the priest to ask, suggest, or even delay absolution until the person has a plan or intention to make restitution, which most probably would include going to law enforcement. Or simply to stop the second son, the sin of lying or covering up the first sin. After all, it’s in the catechism that the penitent should make restitution. That’s all.

 

[Zaccheus]

After all, it’s in the catechism that the penitent should make restitution. That’s all.

I think it’s more complex than that, and I dislike the idea of telling the priest that he must make demands on the penitent before he will grant absolution.
I think also it’s time I bow out of this discussion. God’s blessing upon you.

 

[Sbee0]

Hmmm. That doesn’t say that the priest MUST absolve the the penitent, if he is involved in covering up, say, murder. The priest could withhold absolution, yes? Can’t a priest ask questions for further information about sins, to understand the circumstances? Wouldn’t it come out that the penitent is actively covering up child abuse, murder, etc?

The seal can’t be broken regardless of whether absolution is given or not.

 

[Gorgias]

I just don’t like the idea of “just showing up shows penitence” because especially for sex abuse crimes that is false.

I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it. Apparently, you seem to have a particular insight into the minds of sex abusers and other sinners that gives you knowledge that borders on divine.

 

[13pollitos]

I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it. Apparently, you seem to have a particular insight into the minds of sex abusers and other sinners that gives you knowledge that borders on divine.

Wow. That’s uncalled for.

It has nothing to do with “knowledge that borders on divine”. It’s called having lived through cases that dealt with child sex abuse and being told by the investigators that it is very common for the abuse to be caught in the exact same way as it was in our family’s case. And currently having a near miss for lack of a better term that we are dealing with now. And once again, how was it caught? Pictures. Lots and lots of pictures found by a spouse. There is even a current case in the news that is completely unrelated to my family (thank God but may He heal them) that once again it is a spouse that found a video of the abuse.

Murderers are well known for going to funerals and visiting graves of their victims. Look it up.

I don’t know why you had to answer so rudely. Nothing I said was in anyway not well known or easily learned information.