“Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment?
@xHenjin_NDK@BanAllBooks They already were. In California they were never actually going to be executed, this just gives them a chance to be released when they inevitably gut the concept of “life without parole”.
@WalmartThomist In the second case, would saying an intentionally high number (say I probably did X around 6-8 times, but I say 10 “to be safe”) compromise the integrity of the confession, since the penitent is now accusing himself of sins he probably did not commit?
What about persons who are aware of the obligation to include the number of sins, but due to nervousness or some other cause, omit it, and the priest does not correct them?
Also, if a sin was only committed once, is simply naming the species sufficient or is it necessary to say “once”?
@hunterb73@IsthmusPol@Axerixing@omgTrex22 People are comparing the gubernatorial election to presidential or House races, not to prior gubernatorial races.
5/7 Kansas gubernatorial races this century have gone blue.
@IsthmusPol@Axerixing@omgTrex22 But President and Governor are also always different. I wouldn’t say Phil Scott flipped Vermont or that Josh Shapiro flipped Pennsylvania.
@IsthmusPol@Axerixing@omgTrex22 Not in gubernatorial races. Brownback is the only Republican to win a Kansas gubernatorial election in the 21st century.
@LinkofSunshine Reynolds v. Sims (a decision widely celebrated by liberals) is why this happens, by the way. Drawing natural district boundaries is illegal.
@melodymlyons@_AmyGrey_@WalmartThomist Your original comment encompasses both. "Hear the confession and be silent" as well as "[a]nd never in spiritual direction".
Any reasonable reader would take that as you saying a priest should never ask questions about anything.
@melodymlyons@_AmyGrey_@WalmartThomist The commenter said: “Priest are to ask the relevant questions to penitents whether male of female. The type of sin and the number.”
Your response: “Never with a woman. Period. If she's married, it's wildly inappropriate. If she's single, also wildly inappropriate.”
@_AmyGrey_@WalmartThomist@melodymlyons She clarified in other comments that she thinks priests should never ask clarifying questions, even if they think the sin was not adequately expressed.
I’ve had a priest, after I finished confessing, ask me “what am I absolving you for? What’s the sin?”
That’s not asking for explicit details, but even that simple question can make the penitent say to himself, “oh, I didn’t actually tell him what I did. I was tiptoeing around the truth.”
God bless prudent priests that aren’t lazy with matters that concern the fate of souls.
A priest should never discuss the details of sexual sin with a woman. Hear the confession and be silent. And never in spiritual direction. If she asks for counsel, refer her to a female. More emphatic NO for minor girls.
@ArseWombat@realPrestonHill Every poll I’ve seen from close to the election said it was either a tossup or Lean R. He was expected to lose in the summer, but things quickly changed.
@freedombunkr Why wouldn’t they “need” them every cycle? If they have the ability to manufacture fake votes like Big Macs, why would they only do it occasionally? Wouldn’t it be more hidden if they did it every cycle so that the standard deviation would be much lower?