From LifeSite we learn that, even though Washington state passed a law requiring priests to violate Seal of Confession, Washington state will not enforce the law.
Uh huh.
They passed it. It is on the books… until it isn’t.
This B as in B, S as in S is tried over and over in various places. Each time it is walked back. Walked back, but not completely. Each time the needle is bumped just a little farther in the direction they want. Put another way, they take 10 steps forward, but only 9 back.
Creeping incrementalism.
Loading ...
Exactly. Will be interesting to see if the DOJ drops the case against them now.
‘Each time it is walked back. Walked back, but not completely. Each time the needle is bumped just a little farther in the direction they want. Put another way, they take 10 steps forward, but only 9 back.’
Thank you Father. Well said. How many other subjects in our society today can we say that our ‘leaders’ are doing this with? They use nice words to describe why they want to do it but in the end it all leads to pure communism. Our euthanasia laws here in Canada are proof of that for example. It’s starts with terms like ‘dying with dignity’ (which is a lie) that will turn into ‘you’re too sick and too expensive for the government to look after….time for you to go and you have no choice!’
A friend who is a corporate lawyer told me that if the response to questioning a clause in a contract is: “Oh, don’t worry, that will never be implemented”, his own response is: “In that case, take it out”. Any hesitation or delay tells him that the other party do indeed intend to implement it when they think fit. If you don’t mean it, why did you say it?
This is like goofy Germany. They want to kill their babies without ruffling their own consciences. Yet it was Hitler who first made abortion legal, and we can’t have that can we?. This cognitive dissonance has forced them to make it illegal but “unstraffbar”, unpunishable.
There is no logic in evil. It’s anti-Logos.
They passed it. It is on the books… until it isn’t… until it is.
If Washington state can pass a law requiring priests to violate the seal of confession, I would not be surprised if down the road the state legislature tries to pass another one that conversations at AA meetings (or similar groups) are not “confidential” anymore. A large success of AA has to do with confidentiality, and a trust that group confessions stay put.
If I were a priest I’d make the confessional as secure as possible. Built of brick if possible, none of that face to face nice chat stuff.
Mischief makers would be put off immediately if their identity was completely hidden from the priest. The nice chat scenario leaves the priest wide open.
If someone requests counselling then the area is secure… or a meeting in a public place might be an option.
Hitler got his abortion and eugenics ideas from Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood). It was less than a century ago that the United States practiced for sterilization and eugenics in some states.
This would need to be challenged on constitutional grounds. The state is a telling a religion how they can practice it. The act in question confession does not harm any person.
This would be no different than the state forcing a defense attorney to tell the prosecution everything the defendant said/admitted so it can be used against them.
If they can force a priest to violate the seal the could force a spouses to testify against each other.
This will need a court to rule it unconstitutional. Remember unconstitutional ruling came about from “legally” passed “laws” by elected representatives who either deliberately tried to push the needle or were just ignorant of the constitution.
After some checking it looks like a federal judge issued an injection barring the state from enforcing that part of the law that requires priests to disclose what is said in confession.
The federal lawsuit was brought by three Catholic bishops. The federal judge based the injunction barring the state from enforcing the mandatory disclosure portion of the law on the 1st amendment to the US constitution. He said the state can not force a priest to violate his religious vows and have to choose between his religion and jail. This violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
The news article tried to spin the outcome as the state choosing to back off when that is the opposite of what happened. They lost in federal court and tried to save the rest of the bill by legally agreeing to not enforce that section. If they had not petitioned the judge this way the whole law could have been tossed as unconstitutional.
The headline should have been “Catholic Bishops win court injunction against new, unconstitutional Washington state law.”
That, of course, doesn’t fit their narrative of trying to paint all priests as abusers.
Father, I agree with you. The state legislature needs to amend the bill to rid it of anti-Catholic elements. As long as it remains on the books, it stands as something they can enforce again; also it stands as an anti-Catholic piece of law. I had lived in the state for many years, and, in my opinion, they only find the most modernist Catholics acceptable. Even run-of-the-mill Catholics are considered dangerous. It was a hard place to be a faithful Catholic.
Pingback: MONDAY EARLY-MORNING EDITION - BIG PVLPIT