While I sympathise with the motives of the proposal, there are two major flaws in implementing this "policy"

1 If a confession is no longer secret, criminals of any stripe will clearly no longer confess anything that could put them in jail,

2 If a priest does not come forward, who the hell will know, and the only witness will be the offender.

In short this entire exercise is futile.

A true repentant goes to God direct and confesses and repents [means abandons the sin as abhorrent]. The Roman Catholic Confessional should have a recording device if it is to take action against Criminals. However this means the confession is invalid, as the sin is not forgiven but held to account at a future date. Hence private confession and repentance is the only valid forgiveness.

The sin might be forgiven but the crime had been made known to a trusted member of the community;
And the person needs to also answer to the people they've wronged, not just to God.
They can be absolved by God, (or someone who claims to speak for him) but they enjoy no such freedom within the community.

The alternative is that so called 'trusted' religious authority figures who hear people confess to crimes and offer a path for the criminal to be removed from guilt, are probably people that should NOT be trusted by the community.

Is what they're doing in the communities best interest?
Is it in the criminals best interest?
Or is it in the religions best interests?
Or is it in their own interests?

Steele, well said as usual, your assessment of runner is spot on. Pell the innocent victim, is pathetic. runner reminds me of the "Good Nazi" the bloke who agreed with the good stuff but disageed with all the bad stuff, until a little digging shows what he really was. CATHOLIC CHURCH, runner's mob, all tared with the same brush.

Paul,

Perhaps you'd know how to collect the evidence?

So are defence lawyers going to be required to 'out' their client if he/she admits to the crime?