Actually I believe priest/follower, lawyer/client and doctor/patient confidentiality privileges do have limits. For example: If a doctor/nurse observes injuries to an under-age patient that are consistant with abuse/rape they are legally required to report their findings to police and/or Child Protective Services. If a client admits to his lawyer that he is guilty of the offense with which he is charged the lawyer can no longer argue for his client's innocence in a court of law. Kind of like "The Freedom of Speech" in our constitution does not give one the right to yell "fire" and create panic in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.

I also have a question for you. Are you a former priest? Or maybe a former alter-boy who did not get enough love and attention at home and therefore found the sexual advances your local priests made toward you something you enjoyed? I only ask because instead of addressing the warped sense of priorities displayed by the leaders of the church in their choice of properties to liquidate (which is what the article was about) you rail against the idea that some priests engaged in sexual activities with under-age people. No matter the cause of the church needing to raise cash, throwing three nuns out of where they live before exhausting most every other option to raise the cash is deplorable. Not surprising but deplorable none the less.