It's to bad that discipline isn't tied to that confession. We learn that offenders are sent back to the same church, or to different churches. I haven't heard of any confessions that were contingent on going to the authorities and admitting guilt.
However, if the confessing priest says that not only did he molest Larry last week, but he intends to molest Larry next week as well (a fact already known to the superior), then a duty may well attach. But of course we never see confessions like that! These priests are monsters, but they're not stupid monsters.
I believe the question in Germany is when did their Pope learn about abusers being put back into churches. The Washington Post had an article this weekend that a memo was cc'd to him stating that a pervert was being sent back to his church. If it's in a memo wouldn't that be proof the information was not the result of a confession and the leadership was not only putting members at risk, but aiding and abetting?
If information given in a confession can't be used publicly I imagine it can't be used internally.
Yes, somehow that never seems to be a part of the penance. Actually, in confession I'm not sure whether restitution (or even apology) is ever required of the one confessing to the one who has been hurt. If that is true then how odd it is that asking forgiveness of one's aggrieved brother plays no part in Catholic penance. Or, maybe it just never plays a part of Catholic penance if it would open up the Church to liability. I wonder if the early Catholics had this in mind when they invented this Holy Sacrament.
I believe the question in Germany is when did their Pope learn about abusers being put back into churches. The Washington Post had an article this weekend that a memo was cc'd to him stating that a pervert was being sent back to his church. If it's in a memo wouldn't that be proof the information was not the result of a confession and the leadership was not only putting members at risk, but aiding and abetting?
It could depend on the original source of the information that led to a chain of events resulting in the memo. If that was a confession, then that might go to who is the holder of the privilege. If it's the confessor, then is it in an individual capacity, or on behalf of the whole Church, etc.? (I don't know.) I could envision the shield extending to the confessor's superiors (ultimately the Pope) in a similar way that the legal shield would apply if one lawyer discussed a case he was handling with his law firm superiors. The client would still be protected. Theoretically, public policy would say that if a priest faced a tough issue in confession he should be allowed to seek advice from a superior without breaking the privilege, etc.
To get to the Vatican this would also involve international criminal law, and my guess is that there isn't any that really covers this. There would have to be some international criminal jurisdiction covering the Vatican that codifies a duty on a covered person (the Pope) to report to foreign authorities, etc. While civil liability is certainly on the table, I doubt he can be touched criminally for simply knowing of the actions of others under him. Now, if long ago he had his hands personally all over such a transfer, with knowledge, then there may or may not be a German law covering this. By our standards, the huge problem would be showing that the Pope somehow should have known that all of his underlings were wrong in saying that such and such a priest was now fit for duty. That is very tough in a criminal setting.
So while this could indeed be of value in a civil case, "aiding and abetting" is a criminal matter and the Pope may indeed have enough insulation to skate, unfortunately.