We just went through this in Ireland with a dumb-gluteous suggestion that confessions of sexual abuse be legally reportable. Common sense, not just cano law and the sacrament would demand that only an idiot would confess if the priest had to reveal it. Then what next, reporting rape, major theft, murder?  It is a waste of carbon print to suggest that any confessor would require a person to go to civil authorities for any topic. Part of the confession is desire for conversion, so if he cheated the IRS, or WAL-MART or saw some innocent found guilty of his crime in conscience and common sense he should confess. No priest could absolve that, he can in John 20 “retain it,” encourage the civil confession, but that CANNOT BE REQUIRED OF THE CONFESSOR. The confessor can anonymously take the money owed to a store or the IRS from a penitent,  and return it ANONYMOUSLY without violating the seal or betraying the penitent. That happens all the time without fanfare.

I apologize for simply repeating what we were taught many decades ago. The priest may not reveal what is told him confession. But he can insist that the doer of a crime confess to the authorities before he can be absolved.

At Penn State, school administrators, including a beloved coach known for his integrity, didn’t notify prosecutors when they learned years ago that former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky had been accused of molesting children. In the Archdiocese of Boston, the case of one predator priest led to revelations that for decades church leaders had moved guilty clergy among parish assignments without alerting parents or police.

For some years we have seen worldwide a mounting persecution against the Catholic Church. We have countries that have penalized the teaching of Catholic Doctrine on homosexual conduct as crime, claiming that such preaching leads to discrimination against those who have a homosexual inclination or practice this type of conduct.

The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality, such as doctor-patient or lawyer-client relationships.. This type of confidentiality can have exceptions in certain special cases, but the secrecy of the seal of confession is absolute and never has exceptions. When a person confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest must maintain absolute and total secrecy about anything that a person confesses. For this reason, confessionals were developed with screens or as cubicles inserted into church walls to protect the anonymity of the penitent, and so that no one can overhear the confession. Due to the absolute nature of the seal of confession a priest cannot break it to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public catastrophe.

Laws that force priests to break the seal of confession may very well also have unintended and negative side effects, as Irish journalist David Quinn, points out, “No child abuser will go to a priest in confession knowing the priest is required to inform the police. But cutting off the avenue of confession to a child abuser makes it less likely that he will talk to someone who can persuade him to take the next step.”

Forcing a priest to disclose what has occurred in the confessional is also a very dangerous step for a free society. It effectively makes every priest an agent of the State, and as a consequence it quickly paves the path towards a totalitarian state in which the government feels entitled to know about any private conversation whatsoever.

When assessing the Catholic Church abuse we ask when did it take place; what was known about pedophilia as a disease; what alternatives were there to moving the cleric; how aware were the Church authorities of the damage done by the disease of pedophilia; what form did the abuse take, boundary violations or serious forms of abbuse? Then we ask how did other professions handle sexual abuse of minors and adults - teachers,  physicians and other health-care personnel, police - male and female, married and single. Were they sued and what were the judgments/ Published or sworn to secrecy. Were private arrangements and agreements and signed confidentiality agreements described as cover-ups?  Double standards and applying late 20th and 21st century data applied retroactively and selectively?

I am convinced he is innocent of all that of which he is accused. What happened to the appeal we all wanted? He is sorely missed and always in our prayers.