Gaw617 said:

---

A Protestant preacher will inform authorities. They believe only the blood of Jesus Christ saves you from sin.

---

It is a stark difference.

An apt comparison would be for a protestant to say "I asked Jesus for to forgive my sins and he said okay and so that means I am no longer responsible for my crimes because I sorted it with a higher being."

Literally what Catholics think of this.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Gaw617 said:

---

A Protestant preacher will inform authorities. They believe only the blood of Jesus Christ saves you from sin.

---

It is a stark difference.

An apt comparison would be for a protestant to say "I asked Jesus for to forgive my sins and he said okay and so that means I am no longer responsible for my crimes because I sorted it with a higher being."

Literally what Catholics think of this.

---

"Catholics don't believe in temporal punishment". Lol.

That is absolutely NOT what the Catholic church teaches. The priests are trained to hear confessions, especially if the confession involves some kind of serious crime. The priest will not give absolution until they have confessed their crimes to lawful authorities.

I have spoken to a priest on this who was in a similar situation. It wasn't about child molestation. It was a woman lying about being raped and getting police to arrest an innocent man. He did not give absolution, but instead spoke with her for almost an hour to convince her that if she really regretted her actions and was seeking redemption, then she needed to go confess to the police. She ended up doing so in the end, and then when she was awaiting trial, he heard confession again and gave absolution.

Roger, but that was not the sentiment earlier in the thread. And if the priest will not give absolution without them confessing to lawful authorities, then what is their dilemma in reporting it themselves?

Seems inconsistent or being to beholden to a technicality.

I don't have an issue at all with Catholicism. I take issue with any Christian religion that has a technical requirement that is against moral decency or passes judgment on someone as if the earthly clergy possessed such powers.

I appreciate your response and insight.

If it was a Muslim confessing to an Imam about abusing children I wonder if this thread would read the same.

ChemAg15 said:

---

If it was a Muslim confessing to an Imam about abusing children I wonder if this thread would read the same.

---

For those people that care about the constitution, yes.

In practice, it's unenforceable. Reconciliation is often anonymous. No way to prove what any particular priest heard without having recordings.

Does nothing but show anti-Catholicism.

Im Gipper said:

---

ChemAg15 said:

---

If it was a Muslim confessing to an Imam about abusing children I wonder if this thread would read the same.

---

For those people that care about the constitution, yes.

---

Has nothing to do with the Constitution. The freedom of religion was about the government not establishing a national religion. It was not a free for all you can do anything you want in the name of religion.

Attending mass or flying a Christian flag or praying in public is "freedom of expression thereof".

Imans not reporting terrorist plans and priests not reporting diddlers was NOT the intent of freedom of religion.

How is it unenforceable? Mandatory reporters get in trouble all the time. It's a crime, whether there is a recording or not.

Quote:

---

Has nothing to do with the Constitution.

---

Thankfully, our Dept of Justice disagrees.

Also, no offense intended, but given your take that the second amendment is a "collective right," you'll excuse me if I don't put much stock into what you think the constitution says.

flown-the-coop said:

---

How is it unenforceable? Mandatory reporters get in trouble all the time. It's a crime, whether there is a recording or not.

---

There is no way to prove what any particular priest heard in a confessional.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

How is it unenforceable? Mandatory reporters get in trouble all the time. It's a crime, whether there is a recording or not.

---

There is no way to prove what any particular priest heard in a confessional.

---

Okay, I understand your premise.

But mandatory reporters get in trouble. It does not require an audio recording to prove. Much like you can be convicted of a murder without a body, without a weapon, without a confession, without a recording.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Has nothing to do with the Constitution.

---

Thankfully, our Dept of Justice disagrees.

Also, no offense intended, but given your take that the second amendment is a "collective right," you'll excuse me if I don't put much stock into what you think the constitution says.

---

The DOJ has to abide by the Constitution last I checked.

Also, being right on presidential immunity, the PRA and others proves maybe I am a bit more in tune to the US Constitution than you have ever been. So there's that Gipper.

You rely way too much on textbook law taught by liberal lawyers with little regard for the Constitution. Not as bad as others, but pretty bad. It's okay, your particular line of work requires it.

But we are talking a bit higher level here.

Here, I have asked twice if you today on this and no answer… why no response? I assume you eschew theoretical or uncharted realms. That's fine, just don't knock those are are less afraid.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3548558/replies/70543185

Quote:

---

The DOJ has to abide by the Constitution last I checked.

---

Which is why they supported the church here.


Please tell me any constitutional issue. I have been wrong on. I always take the conservative side, so your answer will be interesting.


(I did not see your question, but I will go onto another thread.)

Believe we had plenty of exchanges on topics. Believe presidential immunity was a big one.

I am an ardent supporter of a very powerful Executive. And that the only mechanism of holding POTUS accountable for their actions whilst in office is impeachment, conviction then it can go through the standard DOJ.

I don't recall your comment on "collective" regarding the 2A, but know I do not believe any citizen can own any weapon. Though the Dems actions the last 4 years makes me reconsider if it is necessary to allow for anyone, any weapon. I don't think that was what was intended, but not sure they planned for a single party to completely ignore the law, the Constitution, and any decency of morals. Since the Dems went this route, then maybe a more "liberal" concept of the 2A then I thought appropriate.

I have no doubt you are a good, probably great lawyer. But I don't think you allow yourself enough room to really consider whether SCOTUS and current case law has it right. Thankfully, we live under a system that allows for debate and discourse and to even correct previous errors regarding interpretation of our Constitution.

My position on immunity was that the president has immunity for his actions. I was correct. So you will need another example.


SCOTUS gets plenty of cases wrong IMO. The difference between you and I is that I think they are wrong in the left direction, you don't.
I certainly do not profess to be an expert in constitutional law.! I am an old prosecutor, so I am pretty narrow in what I know! Lol
Hence you agreeing with the liberals in the Heller case and the liberals on how they will rule on this case should it reach the Supreme Court.

Pretty narrow ruling by SCOTUS in regards to specifically self defense. Can prisoners own guns for self defense? According to you, it would seem so. Let's see how that works out.

And trying to label me a liberal sympathizer is ducking any debate. I think you are much better and more intelligent than that.

We may need to revisit receipts on immunity. I don't recall you holding that the president enjoys immunity outside of impeachment.

Impeachment is the ONLY mechanism to determine if POTUSs action were in official capacity or not.

I don't recall that being your take.

I stopped reading at this hilariously bad argument

Quote:

---

Can prisoners own guns for self defense? According to you, it would seem so.

---

You were obviously getting desperate because you are resorting to such foolishness. You can have the last word, buddy.

Typical.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

How is it unenforceable? Mandatory reporters get in trouble all the time. It's a crime, whether there is a recording or not.

---

There is no way to prove what any particular priest heard in a confessional.

---

Okay, I understand your premise.

But mandatory reporters get in trouble. It does not require an audio recording to prove. Much like you can be convicted of a murder without a body, without a weapon, without a confession, without a recording.

---

I believe Catholic Priests are considered mandatory reporters already, although there is a religious exception for the confessional. If they find out something in any other way, they must report it.

It is effectively unenforceable because:

1) The Priest will not violate the secrecy of the confessional, regardless of any secular law.
2) Without a recording, there is no way to prove what was said in a confessional, who said it, and who heard it.

Often the priest has no idea who the penitent is and the penitent may not know who the Priest is.

There is no exception in Texas

c) The requirement to report under this section applies without exception to an individual whose personal communications may otherwise be privileged, including an attorney, a member of the clergy, a medical practitioner, a social worker, a mental health professional, an employee or member of a board that licenses or certifies a professional, and an employee of a clinic or health care facility that provides reproductive services.



As discussed in May, I agree it's essentially unenforceable

Great ruling from the court. Pretty surprised it wasn"t tossed on ripeness or standing by this court given it's a Biden judge.

When the consequence of following the law of the state is excommunication from the Church, that clearly " affirmatively compels them, under threat of criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs."


Thus, it violates the free exercise clause.

"The Catholic Church is Divine,"



annnnnnnnnnd you lost me after that.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Great ruling from the court. Pretty surprised it wasn"t tossed on ripeness or standing by this court given it's a Biden judge.

When the consequence of following the law of the state is excommunication from the Church, that clearly " affirmatively compels them, under threat of criminal sanction, to perform acts undeniably at odds with fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs."


Thus, it violates the free exercise clause.

---

Yea, that doesn't work at all. Where is the line drawn? Can a priest sacrifice a parishioner or marry a 10 year old if not doing so means excommunication from their church? Compelling them to not perform certain acts is the SAME as compelling to perform certain acts.

The priest NOT reporting is a VIOLATION of the LAW. If Catholics do not like it, get the law changed. The answer is NOT for a court to draw arbitrary lines about what divine requirements are valid and what must be not held sacred and can be breached.

Your free exercise of religion cannot violate other duly passed laws, as long as that law is not specific to a particular religion. Which, if I recall, this law may have done.

So the WA law may not be held up, but the Texas law seems perfectly fine.

Makes zero sense to me that anyone is not a mandatory reporter. However… I think there needs to be drastic changes to made to how reports are handled and investigated, but a different topic for a different thread.

txagB2 said:

---

The priest, when acting in the confessional during the sacrament of confession, is in persona Cristo… you are not confessing to the priest you are confessing to God. He cannot break the seal because the sin confessed is between the sinner and God.

You think this is the first time in the 2,000 years of the church some authoritarian government has tried to do this? It won't be successful this time either.

---

Maybe to you, but not to me. I don't give a **** what you believe based on the happenstance of your birth location. I care about the kid living in this reality. The one being molested.


Edit: i mean.. I'm in here starring flown-the-coop for s's sake! We never agree lol

No need to be ashamed. I sometimes make sense to some folk.

Quote:

---

Your free exercise of religion cannot violate other duly passed laws, as long as that law is not specific to a particular religion. Which, if I recall, this law may have done.

---

The Washington law is not specific to one religion. It applies to all clergy.


The test is whether analogous secular activity is treated differently. Here, it is. Unlike Texas which as no exemptions and everyone is a mandatory reporter, in Washington some people are carved out as not having to. Like law professors for example.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Aggie Joe 93 said:

---

After the first priest abides by this law, confessions will stop. Congrats unconstitutional law lovers! You've done nothing.

---

I care more about stopping sexual abuse of an innocent child than some child molestor getting "absolution".

---

So they just stop going to confession and then this bill accomplishes nothing and that's a win?

AustinAg2K said:

---

I only know what I've seen in movies, but aren't confessionals designed so the Priest can't see who is confessing?

---

No, many are done face to face.

Washington will not require priests to report child abuse disclosed in confession
by Jerry Cornfield - Washington State Standard

Quote:

---

Clergy must still tell authorities of potential mistreatment, but will not have to divulge information they hear in confession, under a settlement of lawsuits challenging the requirement

---

Quote:

---

Washington has abandoned its effort to force Catholic priests and other religious leaders to divulge information on child abuse and neglect they learn of in confession.

With a pair of legal filings, the state agreed not to enforce the controversial provision of a new state law that adds clergy to a list of professions that must report to law enforcement when they have "reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect."

Stipulations filed in federal court on Friday will largely preserve the law, while casting aside the controversial component related to confessions. Catholic bishops and Orthodox churches sued over that element, arguing it was unconstitutional.

The agreements the state reached in those cases reflect the preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge that has prevented the state and counties from enforcing the confessional reporting provision since the law took effect July 27.


<snip>

In the case brought by three Catholic bishops, U.S. District Court Chief Judge David G. Estudillo ruled that requiring disclosures on information learned in confession infringed on their First Amendment right to practice religion and would force priests to violate their sacred vows or face punishment by the state.

State attorneys concluded that, given the judge's reasoning, settling the legal fights now was the best possible outcome.

"It keeps crucial portions of Washington's mandatory reporting law in place, while also preserving the Legislature's authority to address issues with the law identified by the court," Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement.

---

How come it's only priests that get to claim this? I think if someone has confessed to murder or such they should be able to tell.

Im Gipper said:

---

ChemAg15 said:

---

If it was a Muslim confessing to an Imam about abusing children I wonder if this thread would read the same.

---

For those people that care about the constitution, yes.

---

What does a priest and confession have to do with the constitution?

annie88 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

ChemAg15 said:

---

If it was a Muslim confessing to an Imam about abusing children I wonder if this thread would read the same.

---

For those people that care about the constitution, yes.

---

What does a priest and confession have to do with the constitution?

---

Here you go, you may have missed it linked above:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.348728/gov.uscourts.wawd.348728.227.0.pdf

And here is the brief filed by Trump Administration Civil Rights Head Harmeet Dillon fighting to protect religous liberty!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.348728/gov.uscourts.wawd.348728.138.0.pdf

Reason 452,281 we are lucky Harris lost!