The problem is multifold, and your logic is flawed.
In many cases, the perpetrators are dead. We, the faithful, are the ones paying, not the priest-offenders, via the Chancery’s coffers.
Even when still alive, the vast majority of these men convicted are indigent aside from their pittance of a retirement. Again, the church pays in their stead.
The bishops who did most of the provable coverups are dead. I suspect they wish they’d had an anchor-induced dive instead of a bishopric… but the mortal courts have no sway over them.
In some cases, the church settles to get it out of the press, despite prosecutors breaking the law and/or suborning perjury. (An Anchorage retired Monsignor was sued under the recovered memory exception, but the suit was not dropped when it was revealed that the “victim” had in fact filed criminal complaint at the time of the supposed molestation, and been found to have been non-credible, and no evidence was available at the time; the recovered memory statute does not allow for refiling 20 years later when the complaint was unprosecutable at the time for lack of evidence. Now, while said monsignor DID provide alcohol to underage individuals, myself included, I’ve never seen any evidence that he molested anyone. Oh, and the original claim? Made after Monsignor dismissed him from serving; apparent sour grapes.) The press treated Monsignor as if guilty from the accusation.
Further, the press avoids the even more prolific protestant sexual abuse issue… the very same sources treated a police officer as “alleged” and sowed doubt whilst he was being tried for rape by abuse of authority… following his dismissal for cause for same… but had implied that Monsignor had been a sexual predator before a trial judge had even been scheduled! “The priest who abused him was not available for comment.”
Now, Gurney, the press is pursuing an anti-catholic agenda openly, and you are praising them for it?
