The priest will
hear confession then let the criminal back out to do whatever it was he was doing previously.
Not exact matches
If so,
then the priest who
heard the
confession can not, and I repeat, can not tell another person.
But
then I remember the feeling following
confession and think how many
confessions has a priest
heard and the chances of him being shocked by my
confession is not exactly high.
Then the text moved on to a formidable list of reformanda: inadequate procedures for selection and training of priests, pastoral responsibilities allotted to those living elsewhere (Campeggio as Bishop of Salisbury would be an example — but Rome was full of such men who used a part of their salary to pay a vicar to look after their diocese while they did other more congenial work in Rome); the bequeathing of benefices in wills especially to the children of priests, pluralism, failure to correct those who make money by
hearing confessions.
Then there was some training for preaching, and later for
hearing confessions.
I think the power (of
confession, of owning our humanness) lies in the honesty, the acceptance of «being
heard», and
then hearing similar stories.
Then they make two
confessions: he wants Kubica to win and she, on first
hearing the cars today, burst into tears.