Is the seal of the confession worth protecting?

The seal of the confessional forbids sins told to a priest in the sacrament of confession from being revealed. Yet, in February of this year, California Senator Jerry Hill introduced a bill to the state legislature there that would require Catholic priests to report child sex abuse learned about in the confessional. This move has caused some to question whether this might start a trend to do away with the seal in other states and across the nation.
                
While clergy and more than 40 other professions are mandatory reporters of abuse instances, crimes disclosed during confession have been exempt.
 
A similar law passed in South Australia in 2018, but bishops and priests there have publicly vowed never to break the seal of the confessional. Quoting Canon Law, the Catholic Catechism states: “...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason. A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity,” (CCC 2490). Automatic excommunication is incurred on any priest breaking that seal.
 
Complicating the matter further, Father James E. Connell of the Milwaukee Archdiocese, a canon lawyer and advocate for victims/survivors of sexual abuse, said in an article that it is time to modify the Church’s seal of the confessional for abuse of minors. He acknowledged that the law against a priest revealing sins told in confession can be found at least by the 12th century but said that public penances were once imposed for grave sins. According to him, that proves that the seal of the confessional was not always Church law.
 
Below, a few of the priests in the Bismarck Diocese explained their reaction to such a law that would not solve any problems and only lead to others.
 
Fr. Greg Luger, St. Joseph, Williston
 
The priest is a minister of God's mercy and spreading the sins of the penitent isn't his business. Without the seal, droves of people would refuse to go to confession at all, and hence a vital part of priestly ministry (one that's essential to the salvation of souls) is lost.
How many people in dire need of this sacrament would refuse to receive it if they knew that the priest would turn around and testify against them in court? Also, the seal protects the priest. If this exemption is gone, then anybody could levy a false accusation and have him jailed. This could also result in a sting operation wherein a priest ends up in prison for simply doing his priestly duty.
Regarding Father Connell who says the time has come to revoke the seal in cases of sexual abuse: Public penance should not be confused with public confession. The latter was explicitly condemned by Pope Leo the Great. It also needs to be said that Father Connell espouses the same intellectual laziness, or disingenuousness, often found in dissident theologians. They like to cherry-pick quotes and twist them to fit their own narratives. Although the Catechism does say that public penances were imposed, it doesn't say that the priest went around telling everyone the precise sins of the penitent.
 
If an abuser knows that his confessor will report him to the police, then guess what the abuser won't do?  Go to Confession. Hence, a person in desperate need of this sacrament will not seek it and all we have done is deter a would-be penitent from going to Confession. At the same time, the abuser remains hidden from authorities, hence this "solution" will have accomplished nothing. Also consider that Confession implies sorrow for sin and firm purpose of amendment.
 
It would cause people to lose trust in this sacrament. Effectively, then, people will refuse the means of the forgiveness of their sins and souls will be lost for all eternity.
 
Fr. Chris Kadrmas, Diocesan J udicial Vicar
 
My reaction to the bill is that it is foolhardy, but this development is not surprising in the current post-Christian culture in the West.  It is foolhardy in two ways:  first, this is a no-brainer for priests.  We will not break the seal of confession.  It is drummed into us throughout seminary formation that maintaining the seal of confession will be one of the most important things Mother Church will expect of us as priests. (See canon 1388, 1: Code of Canon Law.)  Second, how will any infractions be discovered, enforced, and successfully prosecuted?
 
The danger is that priests could be exposed to being charged under the law, although I would think most priests would be prepared for this persecution.  It also may discourage the public from accessing the Sacrament of Confession, which the Church is obliged to offer to the public as a grace from God, freely offered.  Finally, the interest of the state to expand this intervention is also a danger. What other things will the state of the future find that is in the “public interest” to be reported?  Child discipline?  Hate Crimes?  Transphobia?
 
Fr. Jason Signalness, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, Stanley
 
We all agree that we need to do as much as we can to protect individuals from abuse and to hold abusers accountable for their crimes.  This bill, however, would do nothing to protect people from their abusers and it would not bring criminals to justice. 
I doubt many abusers, who desperately need God's mercy, would go to confession if they knew the priest was required by law to turn them in.  

I also doubt there are very many priests who would comply with such a law.  Church law would punish such priests with excommunication.  As St. Peter and the Apostles once said, "We must obey God rather than men." I, for one, do not desire to meet Jesus on judgment day having chosen to obey a state law rather than that of the Church to whom he has given authority to decide such matters.