Look if this church rule (seal of confession) exists to protect the penitent, then why not allow the penitent to decide if what they disclosed can be revealed?

In the case noted here it’s not about a crime the penitent confessed but about what she disclosed was done to her…NO exemption should be provided in such a case as the perpetrator had no expectation of protection, and was NOT the actor or confessor, it was the VICTIM who reported. How the court could not see this is beyond me.

That said, I do believe that clergymen who learn of a serious crime should never be exempted from the need to report. For the safety of others must be paramount.

If a penitent is truly sorry “he or she will still confess, regardless of pending consequences. If they are NOT willing to do so, because of possible consequences, then they are not really repentant to begin with. Let’s stop protecting predators, there is nothing stopping them from repenting in prison if they did the crime. The absolute fact is this, current exemptions to report for clergy protects serious criminals and has little to do with religious liberty or freedoms..it’s about a civic duty to protect ALL peoples. Not just those who want to “clear thier conscious” and go on to abuse again. I fear this rule came about largely to PROTECT CLERGY who abused.