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?
= new reply since forum marked as read