Proposed Bill Would Force Priests to Break Seal of Confession

[Rationalist]

The assault on religious freedom continues in plain sight. A bill in the works in California would create a state law the forces Catholic priests to violate the seal of the confessional, which is the church's version of "physician-patient privilege."Senate Bill 360 was amended to require the sacramental seal be violated in instances where a presit learns of or suspects abuse while hearing the confession of a fellow priest or colleague. The bill was originally drafted to require priests to violate the seal if they came to suspect abuse following the confession of any penitent whatsoever.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/no-priest-may-obey-proposed-law-california-bishop-says-20657


Attachment 26157

To me, the weirdest thing about this is that California is also a state where it's illegal to film or otherwise record someone covertly. You would think a state that cares enough about privacy in that respect would apply the same to the confessional, but then again, California is known for its complete lack of consistency in just about everything other than political correctness.

[Standing Wolf]

Helping a sick child is not breaking the Seal of Confession.

No one said it was. It is, however, if it's being done by the State, a violation - according to what some would have us believe - of a citizen's right to freely exercise their religion, by observing an important tenant of that religion. That was my point, Cap. If the State is going to defer, in its efforts to protect innocent lives, to the doctrines and practices of one Faith, doesn't it have to defer to all?

Muslims have no Seal of Confession.

A Muslim clergyman or spiritual adviser has, under the law, exactly the same privilege of confidentiality as a Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, or any other member of the clergy. It's entirely possible that whatever ecclesial authority that imam recognizes does not, as a matter of doctrine, require him to remain silent; nevertheless he cannot be forced by secular authorities to divulge, nor can he be prosecuted for refusing to do so.

I will defend the Seal of the Confessional absolutely. It is what it is.

I've noted other instances where the law is forced to disregard an important doctrinal belief of some church or denomination, if the innocent are to be protected and the guilty brought to justice. Is a doctrine of the Catholic Church somehow innately different? If so, why?

[Standing Wolf]

Utter nonsense. I have known very few obsessed Christians.

I wrote nothing about "obsessed Christians" - and for the record, I've only known a few myself. I wrote that (paraphrasing) some religionists attribute obsessions to their god. For example, the Catholic belief that God really cares whether or not chewing your nails constitutes breaking the fast required before receiving the Eucharist. (Answer: Not if they are very finely chewed and mixed with sufficient amounts of saliva.) Or the Jewish belief that their God looks with disfavor on someone eating a sandwich or prepared dish that contains both meat and cheese. (A belief that originated in a misunderstanding from the Torah regarding a passage that concerned a "heathen" sect that boiled a calf in its mother's milk as part of a religious ceremony.) My point is that if you honestly believe that the all powerful, all wise and knowing God of the Universe cares about picayune, trivial matters like that, to quote J.B. Phillips, your God is too small.

[Chris]

To me, the weirdest thing about this is that California is also a state where it's illegal to film or otherwise record someone covertly. You would think a state that cares enough about privacy in that respect would apply the same to the confessional, but then again, California is known for its complete lack of consistency in just about everything other than political correctness.

Privacy is an odd penumbral, unprincipled right useful for things like abortion but not to protect the privacy of the confessional.

[Chris]

I wrote nothing about "obsessed Christians" - and for the record, I've only known a few myself. I wrote that (paraphrasing) some religionists attribute obsessions to their god. For example, the Catholic belief that God really cares whether or not chewing your nails constitutes breaking the fast required before receiving the Eucharist. (Answer: Not if they are very finely chewed and mixed with sufficient amounts of saliva.) Or the Jewish belief that their God looks with disfavor on someone eating a sandwich or prepared dish that contains both meat and cheese. (A belief that originated in a misunderstanding from the Torah regarding a passage that concerned a "heathen" sect that boiled a calf in its mother's milk as part of a religious ceremony.) My point is that if you honestly believe that the all powerful, all wise and knowing God of the Universe cares about picayune, trivial matters like that, to quote J.B. Phillips, your God is too small.

Denies writing about obsessed Christians. Writes about obsessed Christians.