I believe if it is information learned in confession they are limited in what they can do. However, they aren't totally helpless. I've yet to learn why the priest hearing the confession can't tell the confessor as part of their absolution they must go to the police and tell them what they did. Also, there is no reason the criminal can't be removed from contact with any young boys and girls.
If you know of a paedophile, you can be in legal trouble for not informing the authorities. This is what I’m aware of.
I believe the only argument is about the privacy of the confession. If someone was seeing a psychiatrist, or their attorney I believe the Dr. or lawyer would be required to be quiet. Even then if they knew additional crimes would be committed I believe they have to tell the police.
Other than this, the moral hypocrisy makes such cases stand out, as it has, with the RCC.
It's all about the cover up!
Maybe unfairly, but we do hold religious leaders to higher standards.
Yes, and it is for reasons such as these that man-made religious institutions enjoy such advantages as lesser scrutiny and more tax benefits. Of course, exposure of their darker sides is beginning to change all that, now.
The seal of the Confessional requires that the priest hearing the confession not say/do anything that divulges what was confessed. Thus the priest may not (for example):
- speak if the sin outright (obviously)
- treat the penitent any differently because of what was confessed
- give a penance that requires the penitent to divulge his/her sin outside of the confessional (that doesn't mean that the priest can't say for example that something stolen should be returned or that the criminal should turn himself in as a matter of justice - only that it cannot be compelled as a condition for absolution)
(p.s. the proper term for the priest hearing the confession is 'confessor', a more accurate term for the person confessing is 'penitent')