Generally speaking, I try to aim penance as a "putting right" of what was done wrong. So if, for example, the penitent had stolen, penance might include the return of the stolen goods. Of course it is seldom that straightforward. But it is about demonstrating a willingness to do differently than whatever it was that one came to confess.
I expect an Orthodox priest would deal with shoplifting in a similiar way, although they might not require it be done in the precise way you outlined because what you’re asking the penitent to do is incriminate themselves. In the US, a shoplifting conviction can have extremely adverse consequences for employability; people convicted of shoplifting generally can’t work in retail.
For other things of a more subtle nature, they probably wouldn’t.
All I can add to this is the observation of a Catholic colleague of mine, that there were not enough hours in the week to hear the confessions of all the folk who received communion from him. There simply is not the clergy manpower (so to speak) to sustain that level of confessional practice.
The confessions people make at All Night Vigils and during the Third and Sixth hours before the Divine Liturgy in the Slavonic churches, and similiar practices in the Romanian church (except Romanians like to do just Vespers at night, and Matins in the morning), tend to be extremely brief compared to Roman Catholic confessions. Also, high frequency confession means there is less to confess. A ROCOR Archimandrite, whose command of English was passable but not good enough to hear confessions, had people who could not speak Russian (or I suppose Church Slavonic) read a laminated sheet of paper in which they accused themselves of basically all sins. This may seem baffling at first, but when we consider the words of our Lord, that all sins are equal before God, and that merely fantasizing about a sin such as adultery amounts to committing it, and when we consider the hamartiological concept that slamder is a form of murder, this makes sense.
Orthodox Christians, including the bishops and the priests confess a pre communion prayer in which they state they are the worst of sinners. Bishops and priests go a step beyond that by begging the forgiveness of the congregation.
The only case I know of where resources did not exist in the Russian Orthodox Church for everyone to confess and then receive communion was the parish of St. John of Kronstadt, where the attendees at each liturgy were usually dominated by a mix of pilgrims and sailors in the Imperial Navy, although there were regular parishioners; St. John was trying to break the habit of people taking communion and confessing once a year, which he correctly saw as unorthodox and an import from some of the problematic aspects of the Western Church (both parts of the church likewise had a sacramental problem in the first millennium involving baptism delayed in extremis and excessively severe penances, and rigorists like Tertulliam who believed post-baptismal sin was inherently damnatory). So St. John had the people about their sins at the top of their lungs before the liturgy, maintaining privacy through high volume unintelligibility.
The average Slavonic Orthodox Church tends to want monthly confession unless something comes up that the parishioner feels requires a special confession. In addition to hearing confessions at All Night Vigils and at the Hours before the Divine Liturgy, priests will also hear them by appointment, and I believe that an unwritten rule derived from common courtesy of not holding up the line or delaying the service is that someone with an extended confession should make an appointment.
I think also the lack of penances in most cases reduces the time, since the priest just absolves the penitent without having to determine an appropriate penance.
You may be right that we are the only place, I am not well enough informed on international canon law to comment.
I do not believe that it defeats the purpose of the sacrament, personally. Where the problem comes in is not so much when the penitent is the perpetrator, where, as you rightly note, reporting can be mandated before receiving absolution. The more difficult problem is when the penitent discloses that they have been the victim of abuse. This is more common than you might think, since many victims carry heavy burdens of (misplaced) guilt. What I am observing in my pastoral practice is that victims are now avoiding disclosing, because they know that mandatory reporting means they will not be able to make decisions about the speed and circumstances of official processes in response, and they wish to avoid the trauma of legal investigations etc. This has denied those victims appropriate pastoral care which could help them approach reporting over time. But that is a problem with mandatory reporting in general and not simply in the context of confession.
My own sense is that this change in canon law will make not one iota of difference in the actual practice of reconciliation. But what it has done is said to the wider community, "We will not cover up child sexual abuse. There is no dark corner, no cloak of confidentiality, no carpet under which we will sweep this. We will do all that we can to keep children safe." And in the social context in which we are operating - where the general public, in many cases, see us as an institutionalised paedophile ring in archaic drag - that is a very important stance to take.
I am not familiar with Anglican canon law. The only work of canon law I have studied other than boring UCC related texts is the Rudder, an English translation of the Eastern Orthodox canon law compiled around 1745 by St. Nicodemus the Athonite, who was also one of the two compilers of the brilliant anthology on hesychasm, the Philokalia. This is useful as it contains most of the ancient canon laws of the early church, including the Apostolic Canons, the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils and various regional synods, and the canons of Patristic figures. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East, never changed their canon law in the sense of repealing older canons, although newer canons were added, but mostly, the canon law is static. And if you read the canon law, it is remarkable how relevant it is, especially if you understand the cultural context behind some of the canons which otherwise seem odious from a modern perspective.
I would say it is likely that paedophiles will confess where the sacramental seal is still intact. I understand the PR motivation for the Anglican church doing what it did, but I disagree with it.
I did that once. Told them they were in no fit place to come to the table. To their credit, they rose to the challenge and attempted to reconcile.
Indeed, it has always been the prerogative of Anglican priests to repel notorious evil livers from the sacrament. I have heard that Roman Catholic priests are no longer allowed to do this.
I myself would repel from the sacrament anyone who performs non-medically necessary abortions, profits from strip clubs, inappropriate contentography or prostitution (e.g. pimps and website owners, who exploit and sexually traffic women), unrepentant adulterers, homosexuals and womanizers, government officials whose actions are detrimental to religious freedom or the traditional Judeo-Christian values of the United States and the Congregational Church in the period 1770-1920, and people who spread false rumors about other members in the church. But we project a conservative image so I expect the only likely case of someone being refused communion would be spreading false rumors about other members of the church.
