Bless Me, Father, For I Have...

Fr. D who answers Catholic questions in a syndicated column holds forth on Confession.
The question is typical of a certain kind of (often disaffected) Catholic, hey, we had that great general absolution for a while, we didn't have to think about or actually confess our sins, and we were terrific people, so who took it upon himself to deprive us of the easy way out?
(Okay, I'm paraphrasing...)
Fr. D. gives a kind of namby-pamby answer to the query, and makes it easy to draw some rather odd inferences.
And some of his answer is simply questionable statements.
Form II of the Rite is "most familiar to many Catholics today"? I would guess that the only Catholics to whom it would be "most familiar" are those who don't avail themselves of the sacrament much.
The 2nd form "enjoys NEARLY [emphasis mine] all the spiritual advantages of the third form"? Really? The clear implication being that there is some spiritual advantage to the 3rd form lacking in the 2nd.... and that would be, Fr D?
And he doesn't bother to tell his readers that even in the event that Form 3 is licit for some reason, the penitent is still obligated to make a personal confession as soon as it becomes possible to do so.
So all those 3rd from services we went to in our youth?
Not licit.... and no one ever told us of the obligation, so through no fault of ours, perhaps not even valid?