To me the use of the phrase “the sexual act” is tied up in the word “the”. As if there is only “the” sexual act. It was, from the formulation used, most likely “a” sexual act, just not “the” sexual act. Quite Clintonian in the parsing of his words.
Apparently this was an ongoing thing, and reportedly with three different women, and in connection with his performance of exorcisms.
I don't see where you arrive at “contrition” when your journey begins and ends with “equivocation”.
I’m not seeing equivocation here. Which isn’t to say I’m letting Fr. E. off the hook — just that we don’t have sufficient information to know if he has now come clean or not.
In his public statement he has every right to be vague: the woman involved is an adult entitled to her own good name, and Fr. E. is not accountable to us.