Posted on 01/13/2021 6:44:53 PM PST by marshmallow
This Protestant finds the proposed breach of the priest to parishioner relationship abhorrent. This is violative of the First Amendment protection for religion. I am surprised such legislation would be proposed in deep red North Dakota, but it appears even Republicans are willing to breach the sanctity of the confessional.
Thank you. Some have such a vitriolic hate for Catholicism that they will rally around this bill, totally oblivious to the fact that this is not about striking out at Catholicism, but at religion in general and Christianity in specific.
I have an uncle who is a priest, and was training for the priesthood when I was a teen. I asked him the, "What ifs..." if somebody came into the confessional and admitted to a heinous murder. He said that he would direct a penance which included surrendering to the authorities, and I suspect most priests would direct similarly.
This law sounds like a set up for stings, just like state liquor boards that will send a teen into a bar or liquor store to see if they will be sold alcohol. This law is simply a set up to send people into confessionals to admit to bogus crimes to see if the priest will comply with the law.
As others here have indicated, there are spousal privileges and attorney-client privileges. Violation of the priest and penitent privilege under force of authority is a slippery slope that is very, very dangerous.
They aren't even supposed to look carefully at the people waiting in line to confess. If you stand in a confessional line at a Catholic church before the priest arrives, you will probably notice that he makes no eye contact with anyone in the line and doesn't speak to them either.
If you confessed to Jesus, do you think that Jesus would go around telling (possibly malevolent) third parties what you had confessed? Of course not.
Oh, and incidentally, the same thing applies to any other Catholic who inadvertently hears another person’s sacramental confession.
That would be a waste of everyone's time, of course. The priest would refuse absolution and tell them to get themselves right with God before they come back.
The only reason to pass a law like this is because the state hates anybody having a shield against them in any situation.
It's not about helping children, it's about increasing the power of the state.
Bullseye!
Whenever the state wants to increase their power or tie up loose areas where there is some barrier to their ultimate authority, they gin up some scenario where a child is in danger and show the old ladies to make them cry.
Generally, the priest doesn't even know who the confessor is but you're going to give more state control over religion "for the children"!
Buck up, we're in for a long haul and you can't start backing the state every time they come up with some emotional argument to get you in line.
But after they're done with us, they'll come for you. Absolutely, positively, guaranteed.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist."
"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist."
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew."
"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." -- Martin Niemöller
“If you confessed to Jesus, do you think that Jesus would go around telling (possibly malevolent) third parties what you had confessed? Of course not.”
Bad analog - I confess directly to Jesus because He is the one who counts - He doesn’t require I say X-number of Our Fathers or Hail Mary’s, He just wants me to admit my sinfulness and express true regret, while asking Him to be my Lord and Savior.
If I were to be guilty of any crime or sin and opted to confide in another human being, I may wish for them to keep the confidence but could not demand it.
I’ve been a receptacle for some to lay out the wreckage of their pasts and always told them up front that if they ever molested a child, committed forcible rape, or killed someone, they better not tell me because I might very well turn them in.
Even convicted murderers who are in jail and/or being put to death can be saved by Jesus if they go to Him, but His forgiveness does not absolve them of earthly laws - and that’s also Biblical.
Of course it does - all Catholics are priests, ain’t they?
The Church sees itself as a law unto itself and thinks it should be insulated from the very laws that God told us would apply to us in our human experience - quite convenient for protecting criminals who wish to be above the law - often the same law they themselves would/do/have turn(ed) to, if others wronged them, if you know what I mean.
How would the priest determine if they were confessing out of a real sense of repentance or if they were secretly doing it for the pleasure of being able to tell someone else and enjoy it with impunity?
How can a priest actually absolve another person of their sins or refuse absolution? Jesus knows our hearts - do you think Jesus would go along with a priest’s decision if the priest were mistaken? Do you think a priest can be mistaken?
A priest can do many things, even deny someone the ‘rite of communion’ within the church, but the rub is that if someone wants to commune with God, he doesn’t need a priest’s permission to do it - Jesus walked as Man and God to allow us a personal relationship with Him and He also told us He was the Path to God the Father.
Believe what you will, but when I pray, it’s to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and not dead mortals that some mortals in some church has declared a saint.
Holy crap, Batshit Crazy One!
If a priest doesn’t want to be compelled to follow an earthly law, then let the pries make that decision himself - don’t claim there’s something Holy about shielding a child molester from the law. In fact, if the priest believes that the confessor was honest and repentant, then by his own religious beliefs, the laws of man cannot harm him because he already has a place in Heaven.
Kind of like a class I had in a Catholic school way back when - a scenario had a driver in a situation where he had the option of killing a young child or an adult - the conditions would allow him to miss them both. per the instruction, it was better to kill the child who hadn’t time to do much sinning and save the adult in case that person wasn’t saved yet but might have a chance. Tell me that isn’t part of Catholic Theology.
I dare say it is you running on emotion instead of rational thinking because many of your beliefs are not in accordance with the Bible and therefore even the canons of your religion need to be taken on faith - only where God can stand up to any scrutiny, many religious teachings/belief cannot unless one has already had it ingrained to not seriously question his religion..
IK have no doubt of your scenario - but it is a earthly scenario and Jesus told us it would happen - we would be persecuted because we love Him...and God also decreed where we’re heading...it will get a LOT worse before Jesus returns to set things right and it cannot be stopped - if you believe what the Bible tells us about His return. God has spoken and they will come for all of us - it’s just the timing that is in question.
Completely irrelevant. The priest acts in persona Christi in administering the sacraments. If the priest acts any differently than Jesus would, that's a bad thing.
As dead points out, the priest is well within his rights to assign "go to the authorities and turn yourself in" as a penance, without which the sacrament is invalid.
That's his job.
How can a priest actually absolve another person of their sins or refuse absolution? Jesus knows our hearts - do you think Jesus would go along with a priest’s decision if the priest were mistaken?
John 20:23. I'm just the messenger; Jesus said what he said.
Because the Coliseum is soon going to be open for business again, lions and all.
You want to increase the power of the state and give it dominion over religious sacraments. I think you're on the wrong site.
Try bootlickers.org.
Believe or not, lot of criminals care about the eternal life and how not to get to hell. But, instead in North Dakota, they can just drove to South Dakota and confess there.
I remember a criminal case from Europe - in very Catholic country.
The prosecutors actually presented evidence that the murderers went on pilgrimage to some famous sanctuary where they could get absolution. Just going there (they could not interview the priests) was actually part of the prosecution packet. (There was more evidence of course.)
“He said that he would direct a penance which included surrendering to the authorities, and I suspect most priests would direct similarly.”
I have heard this as well. But I’ve never seen anything official about a priest requiring a penitent to divulge details of a confession for absolution. Thinking about it now, it seems to me like this would be requiring someone to break the seal of their own confession.
Freegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.