they did a far better job of it than did their Protestant counterparts who have done NOTHING
The part that puzzles me about this priest is, after supposedly hearing what he heard in confession, what was he hoping could be gained by re-telling this alleged anonymous sexual abuse to other priests––or anyone for that matter? Quite frankly I have a difficult time believing any part of this story.
Catholics who go to confession know that the seal of confession protects them from anything that is revealed, so why not name the priest and parish? Why cover it up? It wasn’t like he was testifying in a court of law. But even if he failed to mention the name of the priest and parish when he confessed whatever the sin that gave rise to the existence of some sexual contact with another priest, what was the confessors purpose of pressing the penitent for the names of the parish and priest who was the alleged abuser? The confessor wouldn’t be able to do anything with the information anyhow. I suppose the penitent could have volunteered that it all happened and then, after doing so, exclaim that he wasn’t going to divulge any critical information. That’s possible, I suppose, but very unlikely.
The reaction of his fellow priests also seems implausible. No doubt they reasoned, as I have, that the priest was making it all up. But why he would want to go to so much effort to make all this up and then publicize these events, is a conundrum. Perhaps he heard footsteps about an ongoing investigation and decided this might serve as a defense, of sorts, but that is mere speculation on my part, not knowing any of the timelines. Nevertheless, knowing only, what I’ve read in this very sympathetic article about the events surrounding this priest, I’m sure I’d be at least cautious in hiring him for anything.