You get the feeling that a lot of gaming the system was going on. I wonder how many priests could have independently verified the behavior of their fellow priests and may have even found it out without the confession. Seems a little like 5th amendment arguments about fruit of the poisonous tree. Is a later discovery still under the seal of confession?

The first is whether absolution should be granted to a priest who has abused a child but who has not received any secular penalty on account of it. The slope is just a bit slippery here; should that rule apply only to child-abusing priests or also to anyone who commits such an offense? Child abuse is a heinous crime no matter who does it; granted, it seems especially awful when committed by someone in a position of trust, like a priest, but shouldn't the same principle apply to a scout leader or a teacher or a coach? If a child-abusing scout leader goes to confession should the priest also tell him he won't get absolution unless and until he turns himself in to the police? There is a general "rule" about confession and absolution which is to the effect that your sins won't be forgiven unless you genuinely repent - so is the necessary evidence of repentance the act of submitting yourself to secular penalties? Should the same apply to other heinous crimes like murder or the rape of an adult? Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn?

The second issue is whether the confessional should always be inviolate; that is, whether the priest-penitent privilege should always be absolute, like the attorney-client privilege. This is a privilege that is recognized in the secular law as well as by the church (and applies to all religions, not just the Catholic church). Should an exception be made for confessions of child abuse? Should clergy be mandated reporters like teachers and therapists? The attorney-client privilege doesn't apply in cases where the attorney is involved in the client's crime or fraud. Should the priest-penitent privilege be inapplicable where a priest tells another priest he abused a child because the priest receiving the confession is effectively participating in a cover-up?

I think the need to protect children outweighs everything except attorney-client privilege. You only get to keep attorney-client privilege because it forms the basis of our legal system which protects every other right.

Do you really want an attorney to defend somebody who's told his laywer, "Gee, Greg, I really did rape those 2 brothers when they were 8. Get me off, okay?"

At least priests believe in a forgiving god and repentance. The courts and their officers, including attorneys, do in limited circumstances.

I'd rather be the priest who issues forgiveness to a supposedly repentant abuser than the attorney who out of professional obligations feels forced to defend and try to get his client declared not guilty when said client is non-repentant.

And I want an attorney who believes that the accused is entitled to that defense. Many do believe that, because it upholds the integrity of the system. And it's how a defense attorney makes money. Attorneys are not dumb. They know many of their clients are guilty whether they admit it or not. So don't assume a defense attorney is just defending a guilty person out of "professional obligation." It's not just his job, it's the role he chose in the bigger scheme of things. And a good one will play that role well, out of conviction, not obligation.

Just like a priest's role is to grant absolution no matter what he personally thinks of the guilty party. To save that person's soul in the hereafter. But it is not his role to shield guilty people from the earthly consequences of their actions. That's the attorney's job.

All should have to submit to the authorities.

The second question is more difficult. Personally, I wish all serious crimes against persons should not be protected by the principle the sanctity of the confessional, but be reportable by priests. That, however is unlikely to happen. So, I guess a principle is involved, whereby the priest who heads such a confession cannot offer absolution without the offender surrendering to authorities. That is a poor compromise, but may not be avoidable.

My opinion, or course. If I could, I'd require mandatory reporter status for priests in such cases. I cant, however.

In Pennsylvania, a lot of the abuse was reported to the police soon after it was reported to the church. The grand jury saw no reason to put in information that didn't buttress their point. The grand jury assembles a prosecution's case, at best; it doesn't aim for objectivity.

There was often a long lag between when the abuse happened and when the church was notified. And often when the police investigated, even soon after the abuse was alleged to have happened, the investigation went nowhere. The abuser denied it--and with no more evidence, that was that. An abuser can always say he wasn't telling the truth to the priest in the confessional--that's a sin that can be forgiven without the court's blessing. But often the victim's parents said "no" to prosecution. After all, the chief witness is the kid.

sky being he wants, but he has to go straight to the police and report the crime.