The cottaging clause

All historians know that if you want to know what the common people are up to, you find out what governments pass laws against. Read in this light, the Roman Catholic code of canon law contains a startling illumination. The other day I found my way to the rules for absolving whomsoever the priest may have screwed.
This is a big no no, as the commentary explains:

The absolution of a partner in sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death; apart from that danger, any priest who knowingly attempts to absolve an accomplice in such a sin commits a very serious offence.

The sixth commandment, by the way, is the one that prohibits adultery, at least the way the Catholics and Lutherans count them: other protestants make that the seventh commandment.

So far this is entirely straightforward and reasonable. If a priest is given the power to absolve sins that he has himself committed, this stops them being important sins at all. Giving the priest the right to absolve his mistress or concubine must be strictly forbidden because it would eviscerate the requirement of celibacy.

But there is fascinating pendant in my commentary (which has been officially approved by the Bishops' conference of England and Wales). This says "the canon must be interpreted strictly, so no offence is committed … if the priest absolves the accomplice without in any way realising that he or she was in fact his accomplice [or] if the priest does not specifically recognise the accomplice or has doubts concerning his or her identity."

I think this deserves to be generally known as the cottaging clause, though obviously it also covers participation in masked orgies.

PS – I shouldn't have to add this, but comments which attempt to portray the whole church as enabling paedophilia will be removed. Deal.