A bishop of my personal acquaintance was called to testify in a law-suit because he had heard the confession of a priest who was sexually molesting young boys. The diocese was being sued. He said he could not violate the seal. The judge said that was contemptuous and would cost him $1k per day until he yielded -- but the clock wouldn't start running for a few days. Now the penitent had given his permission, but the rubric is "morally absolute", a wiggle-room-free turn of phrase.
The cleric called 815 and said,"HALP!" They said,"Break the seal." So he did. This was in the eighties - less than 2 decades after the new BCP was official and the rubric on private confession had passed two votes of both houses.
The bishop himself, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, pleaded that the young man in question had threatened suicide if the case was not resolved and things of that kind. I said in response,"morally absolute." I should have saved my breath.
I wrote 815 and got no answer. I called 815 and a priest (coincidentally of the female persuasion) said, "That's how we make theology in the Episcopal Church."
I spoke to my bishop, Peter Lee. He tried, bizarrely, to argue that since RC canons discourage an ordinary from hearing a confession of one of his clergy, therefore the confession was invalid. I pointed out that the canons go on to say that if the ordinary does hear such a confession he is still bound by confidentiality. Bp Lee in a subsequent conversation referred to the confession as "irregular". (When they want it to RC canon law holds sway over TEC. When they don't want it to, it doesn't. I have searched and failed ot find anything like that in explicit law or in precedent, but what do I know?) This is exactly why I am so bitter about Schori (is that the right spelling?) and Lee appealing to the DDW. For them the DDW is something to pull out only when it cuts their way.
I hope I am responsive to your question.
