As many of us are already aware, the California Senate recently passed SB360 which would make it mandatory for clergy to report allegations of child abuse to the police even if such information was obtained through the Catholic Church’s Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession. Although clergy, along with teachers, law enforcement, etc., are already on the list as mandatory reporters for child abuse in California, priests were allowed an exception for penitential communications in order to preserve the secrecy of the confession in the Catholic Church. California has now passed a bill that would require clergy to report allegations of child abuse to the police even if the information is received through the sacrament of reconciliation. California is the first State to pass such bill.
SB360 was introduced by Senator Jerry Hill and passed by the Senate on May 24 of this year by a vote of 30-4 with four senators abstaining.
This Bill is now going before the California Assembly, where Democrats hold a 61-19 majority. I think, given these numbers, Catholics in California should be very worried. Catholics in every other State should join us in prayer before they, too, find their separation of church and state rights being compromised, too.
Although this Bill would not jeopardize any other Christian faith, once given the power to change a revered part of the Catholic Church, you can be almost certain other faiths could be attacked in some way, too.
Also, please email Assembly member Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. He is the chairman of the Assembly Public Safety Committee that is in charge of this bill.
Also, the Catholic League is working hard to fight this Bill.
One of the main focal points of the upcoming presidential election from the Democratic side of the aisle is reparations to the blacks for the suffering they have endured because of slavery. Aside from the fact that there haven’t been slave owners or slaves in the life times of anyone alive today, exactly how would this reparation fund be parceled out?
There are a lot of wealthy blacks in show business, the music industry, commerce, finance, politics. Would they be eligible for reparation payments and, if so, why? Seems their ‘suffering’ has been over for quite awhile now.
What about Americans that have naturalized into citizenship to this country in the last, say, fifty years. Since they had no part or history of the plantation slavery in America, shouldn’t they be exempt of deductions from their income for something they were never a part of in this country?
What about the people who are biracial? How would that figure out in parceling out reparation?
If you were a black slave owner (and that did exist!), would you get to be a recipient or have to pay into the reparation pot? Would Congress be able to work with fractions in that event?
Remember, there were two sides to the Civil War which is WHY there was a Civil War. Would everyone have to trace back their ancestry to see if they fought on side of the North (which is the ones that wanted to end slavery) or a relation of the South? Doesn’t seem right that a family that has heroes from the North side in their family tree would be liable for making reparation payments. Personally, I have seven ancestors who died fighting for the North in the Civil War.
Right now, any and most everyone who is in dire straits already gets some kind of federal aide through food stamps or welfare. Seems that those in need have already been helped.
I also foresee a lot of other groups coming forth for repayment for having endured suffering by the mere fact of being an American.
College students who ran up outrageous tuition bills for degrees that didn’t lead to productive jobs in the workplace, should they be compensated for this. I knew someone that majored in medieval history and discovered upon gradation that the need for something with that degree wasn’t out there.
Then there are all the gentle souls that have been triggered by MAGA hats. Should they be compensated or should there be a dress code enforced which would protect their sensitivities?
I imagine that there are plenty of other groups of people who feel they need a form of reparation, too. I also foresee many years of taxpayer-founded, political discernment on how to collect and distribute a possible reparation . . . which makes me wonder about the potentially deserving ones that pass away in the decades of deliberation . . . would their families and their family’s families get to have their check as well as their own once a decision is put into law?
Tolerance as defined by the Democrats seems to be a one-way street as in ‘their way or no way’ and no holds barred if you disagree.
*Sarah Huckabee Sanders was kicked out of a restaurant. Seems she may be facing
opposition to her freedom of choice at her own home now.
*Kirstjen Nielsen was harassed in her own home.
*Homeland Security staffers have been warned of “increased threats” from the open borders mob.
*Democrat Maxine Waters is calling for MORE HARASSMENT of the Silent Majority.
*Just Google ‘threats on Trump and Family’ and be amazed at all the horrible plots put out there by famous people and I have yet to hear about them being arrested.
Seemingly, the liberal left thinks that if you don’t agree with everything they say, you bring about harassment and hurt upon yourself and it is YOUR fault if you suffer.
During the 2016 election, it was condoned for Democrats or Bernie supporters to do their best to ruin any Republican event. Known conservators were attacked verbally and, sometimes, physically. The election didn’t end this as Maxine Waters immediately went on the impeachment train even before Trump moved into the White House. Now, she has incited her following to further discord and attacks on anyone that agrees with Trump. Now, the democrats are always quick to defend most anything or anyone in the voice of ‘freedom’ . . . unless YOUR freedom doesn’t come in line with their view of freedom. I once knew someone that warned me with, “You make me angry, you take your chances!” Seems to be the mantra of the liberals, too.
I came across this information this morning and cannot believe that a person’s freedom of choice can be against the law if the choice doesn’t come under what the State wants rather than the individual.
People should have choices and even if one doesn’t always approve of another person’s choices, it should be their choice, right? Not according to a new bill being considered seriously in the State of California. The bill will make it unlawful for a person who is gay to decide to seek counseling because they might want to change their sexual identity. The law would also take away the right to separation of church and state as even a priest, rabbi, or minister would not be allowed to do counseling to that effect.
I’ve been coming across this information for the last week or so and am wondering if NOW, our priests and bishops will stand up and speak against this bill as it does affect the way they can deal with parishioners in conflict legally.
In California, we tend to avoid musing over ‘what next’ as the future ‘what next’ is always worse than the last one. Don’t we have enough serious problems in California to keep our government busy that they seem to feel they have to meddle in everyone’s personal life? It’s truly not constitutional but that hasn’t really stopped many politicians up to now.
And the rest of the country shouldn’t get too complacent because the liberal factions are constantly trying to make the changes they want not the the changes that truly benefit the citizens.