Priests aren’t beholden to government regulations at all, unlike lawyers, and even lawyers must be paid for their service. Meanwhile a pervert can walk into a church and “absolve” themselves for free. The balance isn’t there.
While the individual who did the heinous act may feel religious absolution, that doesn’t immunize them from the legal repercussions of the crime though, so that absolution is legally meaningless, so there is no offset of balance in a legal standpoint.
It also doesn’t allow the clergy member to intimidate or otherwise attack the victim or destroy evidence in the service of a coverup. It just says that one specific kind of communication can’t be compelled as evidence.
Priests aren’t beholden to government regulations at all, unlike lawyers, and even lawyers must be paid for their service. Meanwhile a pervert can walk into a church and “absolve” themselves for free. The balance isn’t there.
While the individual who did the heinous act may feel religious absolution, that doesn’t immunize them from the legal repercussions of the crime though, so that absolution is legally meaningless, so there is no offset of balance in a legal standpoint.
It also doesn’t allow the clergy member to intimidate or otherwise attack the victim or destroy evidence in the service of a coverup. It just says that one specific kind of communication can’t be compelled as evidence.