There were victims of Boston archdiocese abusers (during the Bernard Cardinal Law era) who stated that when they were finally allowed to explain to Cardinal Law or others in the archdiocese what had happened and by whom they had been abused, the Cardinal listened to their story with seeming interest, and when they were done, pronounced the blessing given at the end of holy Confession, and told them “I’ve just heard your confession, and everything you’ve told me is now covered by the confessional vow of silence.”
>>>There were victims of Boston archdiocese abusers (during the Bernard Cardinal Law era) who stated that when they were finally allowed to explain to Cardinal Law or others in the archdiocese what had happened and by whom they had been abused, the Cardinal listened to their story with seeming interest, and when they were done, pronounced the blessing given at the end of holy Confession, and told them “I’ve just heard your confession, and everything you’ve told me is now covered by the confessional vow of silence.”<<<
That would be a misunderstanding of the seal of confession. The seal only applies if there is a confession of the penitents sins.
Informing a Bishop and official of crimes being committed, especially if it was not intended to be a confession would therefore not be a confession, and therefore not under any seal. So if the Bishop said that I would have to wonder if He even knew what the sacrament was.
I'm not asking as a challenge to the veracity of the story. I'm just interested in a source or link, because depending on the circumstances it would have resulted in automatic excommunication of Cardinal Law for sacrilegious abuse of a Sacrament.
This is absolutely a canonical delict.