Caedarai

Most of the people entering European countries and seeking refugee status don’t come from conflict zones, just poor areas. Like Pakistanis, Iraqis, Ghanans, Malians, Indians, Nigerians, etc. They just show up, cross illegally avoiding border guards, and either live as illegal immigrants until caught or immediately request refugee status upon reaching their country of choice, such as Germany or Sweden (and upon denial most just stay anyways). This is an option millions have taken. Same with all the Central and South Americans crossing the US border (and Chinese, Caribbeans, etc. that cross that border despite not having geographic proximity).

But this option isn’t the only option. Loads of legal immigrants just sell all they have and gamble on some different country. Some request a student visa someplace (say Canada or Australia) to get their foot in the door, then take advantage of being in the country to seek a job. Some put all their money into creating a small business to seek a visa via that route (many of the poor Chinese you see in European countries try that approach). Fact of the matter is, anyone with a paid roof over their head in the US is among the wealthiest people of the world in terms of income, so hearing them complain is sorta rich. Say you live with your spouse and each make 15k USD per annum but have no property, saving, or investments. First off, you’d be around the halfway mark for the US anyways, but on the world stage you’d also be the top 15%. Do you have an iPhone, a car, a television and enough food security to be overweight? Congratulations, the large, large majority of the world does not have those. Basically, people living in relative (worldwide) security/comfort complaining about the hardships of leaving their safety if they wanted to change their lives is something most of the rest of the world would scoff at (or more). Despite not living in relative privilege for US standards, the majority of the US does in fact live comfortable lives from an international standpoint.

Lol. You’re getting replies from people so complacent with their lifestyles that they can’t fathom the effort of just walking away from everything and starting up elsewhere. Literally millions of people have walked across continents in the last decade to live in places with better opportunities, but these people’ll find any excuse to say that that’s not possible for whatever reason, but really just because it’s a type of change they are unwilling (not unable) to make and they want to make themselves feel better by saying/believing all that isn’t a real option for them.

If lawyers had to report the worst types of crimes committed by their clients, or ones they suspect them of having committed, don’t you think that would break down the legal system? So too with confession. For it to work, there has to be absolute secrecy. Punishments can apply anywhere else, investigations, reporting, whatever. But there fundamentally must be at least that one avenue for an individual to get legal help that is there for them and only them, or to have a priest hear their sins on behalf of God and offer absolution. Without secrecy, both structures would break down and a fundamental part of the legal system is the right of everyone to defend themselves, and a fundamental part of Catholicism is the availability of God’s forgiveness of sins.

You act like excommunication is only a slight matter. For someone who is not religious, being kicked out of a religion might not sound like a big deal, but compare it with citizenship/nationality. Crimes have punishments, so something like murder might involve decades in prison. In the Catholic Church, a priest who murders (or rapes or whatever) might be defrocked, or alternatively sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prayer and solitude, but part of the essence of Christianity is the belief in forgiveness. Excommunication is more akin to stripping citizenship. The US (despite what some people currently im power might want) doesn’t allow stripping citizenship from people who commit regular crimes, even serious ones like murder or rape. Imagine if every murderer or rapist in the US got their citizenship revoked and not only permanently lost all rights (from voting to housing) but could then be deported. Well, I’m sure the uproar that would be caused by even suggesting that. Well excommunication is like that. It is only permissible in certain very tight circumstances where something that fundamentally goes against the entire Church takes place knowingly and intentionally. It would be akin to something like high treason or whatever if I had to draw a comparison, which many countries do have an exception for the absoluteness of citizenship/nationality. There are few instances of excommunication that I can think of in this day and age, but a few would be breaking the seal of confession, breaking the secrecy of papal conclaves, attempting ordination outside of what of permissible while disobeying local bishops, and heretical schisms attempts I guess and all of these mostly for priests and bishops since they have a higher standard and pastoral/leadership responsibilities.

It would be fine as long as it didn’t apply to confession where the seal of confession applies to all information. Any other time the priest can and should use any information available to him properly, and that could include that sort of reporting. But the seal is absolute. And honestly it’s protected by law, by the constitution and case law, so the Washington law is a hassle but completely toothless as it’ll be struck down the moment any challenges to it get brought to the right courts. The authors had to have known it was unconstitutional, so it was basically just them doing this for show, and to antagonize Catholics.

First off, adapting religion to secular laws is not how that works. There’s the separation of church an state and the state should have no say in any religion. The country was based on religious freedom and escaping what the English kings were trying to do to Christianity in their realms (controlling religion).

But second you shouldn’t take that way since you don’t seem to grasp the role reconciliation has for Catholics and Orthodox (and others). It’s a sacrament (or sacred mystery for Orthodox). That’s dogma and the practice/form is in large part a matter of unchangeable doctrine. That kind of doctrine never gets changed, ever, and never has. It’s an essential part of Catholics’ beliefs. Parts of format are just regular teaching which can get changed, but that’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s a matter of practice (in this case canon law) guided by the foundatinal dogma and unchanging doctrine. The seal of confessing is so fundamental, so sacred that there have been numerous martyrs whose status comes from having been willing to die rather than break it. It’s would be less grave to lie about believing in Christ to save your life than to break the seal (and most martyrs died for refusing to reject their faith when Christianity was prohibited).