I recently attended a dinner (December 2007) where a priest slammed his fist on the dinner table and became very angry stating that the church had changed and he was sick and tired of people still blaming the Catholic Church for the child molestations. In the same conversation he stated that if someone told him during confession that they were presently molesting children, he was bound by Canon Law to be silent.

After some research on The Confessionals, Morals, and Ethics my conclusion is:

The sole purpose of the Confessional to any criminal is to be granted absolution for the sin committed which is no more than self-serving to the individual. Ultimately it is a win-win situation because in all likelihood the penitent will receive not just absolution but protection from being revealed as a criminal.
Our Courts recognizes the priest-penitent privilege as a protection afforded under the First Amendment, that is, the penitent’s right to practice religion, is violated if the veil of the secrecy of the Confessional is removed. Nearly every State recognizes this privilege, so not only does a Priest not have to reveal that a crime has been committed but the privilege is extended to the criminal.
Only the Church can lift the ban and order the Clergy to report that a crime has been committed, but, despite the fact that Priests are not bound to grant absolution there is no ground swell of interest in the church to change existing Canon Law.
Cardinal McCarrick of Maryland opposed a 2003 proposed Maryland bill that would require priests to report crimes admitted in the Confessional. He went on to say that he would instruct his priests to disobey the law and abide by Canon Law. The obvious argument is that a penitent would be reluctant to seek absolution if his crime were to be revealed to law enforcement, thereby denying him his right to practice his religion.
Where are the morals and ethics in this scenario? It is just a continuation of protecting the right of the criminal with no intent to seek justice for the victim. Increasingly, in the last few decades, we have seen our Constitution used to protect the criminal. Morally and ethically, society should focus its aid and attention on the victim who has been injured and whose right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been denied and not on protecting the rights of criminals.

I can only conclude that I would become an atheist before I allowed a child to be harmed in any way.

What Say You?

----------
Jane LeMond-Alvarez
Author, "Where's Mario" and "Blinders"
Read the Books, Write to Law Makers
Stop Child Cruelty- Be Heard!