The problem is that “thought-crimes” are encroaching more and more into our legal system and growing much broader scope.
Scenario: A man comes from a fight in which he injured the other participant. The other man happens to be gay, or of some other hyphenated group. At one instance in the course of confessing he refers to the other party as a “lousy faggot...etc”.
It may be generally agreed by witnesses that the other party began the fight, and that the man acted in self defense. But police or prosecutors may decide to go fishing, and demand that the priest provide his notes on the “session.”
If they find that the man used demeaning language ,prejudice and animosity can be shown. They decide to prosecute and threaten to put the priest under oath. The man will likely be found guilty of a hate crime, or cop to a lesser charge at considerable expense.
Pretty big stretch. I only believe they ought to have to “rat out” those who have committed physical crimes against other human beings - since no man can really know what’s in another man’s heart/thoughts, priests would have an easy out from your scenario. If a man says he raped a 4 year old, the priest shouldn’t hesitate to turn him in on suspicion of having raped a 4 year old - no other info needed - let the cops/detectives put the dots together.