Two points:
One: We are confusing the situation by conflating people who fantasize and act out with children-like the guy who murdered the little girl in San Diego-and the very common phenomenon among gay men about attraction to and seduction of teenage boys. I don't think they're the same thing, except that they are both crimes.
If you mean that the priesthood should screen out those with a sexual interest in five-year olds, I'm sure they already do that. If you mean that they should screen out those who like 14-year old boys, then I think they (and we) will have to be much more realistic about gay men. Perhaps this is what Fr. Navarro-Walls means.
Two: "What should be done with such priests". This is, IMHO, the root of why the Church is in such trouble over this. It's not a matter of "making sure they never work with children". What they have done is a grave sin, against the Church and against mankind. They need to face an ecclesiastical punishment at least as grave as what the Church metes out to the divorced: refusal of the eucharist.
The justification for the condemnation of the divorced and remarried is that Jesus said they are committing adultery. Fine.
Jesus also said that those who cause little ones to sin should have a millstone tied around their necks and be thrown into the sea. If the bishops were seen to be crafting metaphorical millstones for these priests, they would not have such a problem, again IMHO.
Its pretty sad to think that the divorced are refused the Eucharist---but that the Church thinks this is too severe a punishment to give to child molesting priests. Please tell me this is not true.
According to Greeley, what happened is many openly gay men were ordained, including some who were attracted to younger boys. And like many churches, the gays infiltrated the church bureaucracy, where they protected their buddies.
Finally, lest we forget, in the 1980's, there was a movement against punishing pedophiles. They shouldn't be "jailed " they should be treated. This of course was wrong, but now the bishops are being stoned for taking the best psychological advise at the time. See Father Groeschel's article in the National Review on this (I have to get to work, if someone will kindly find it and put up a link. If not, I'll link it tonite)
The justification for the condemnation of the divorced and remarried is that Jesus said they are committing adultery.
Let's be clear about this. The Eucharist is not denied to anyone solely because they are divorced, but only if they re-marry while their spouse is still alive (and thus commit the mortal sin of adultery). A person can be divorced and be in a state of grace. In fact, many are.
this is UNTRUE.
The divorced are NOT refused the Eucharist.
If you divorce AND remarry outside the Church and
without an annulment you can't receive the Eucharist.
You are misrepresenting Catholicism rather seriously here.
Fact: "divorced" people are not refused the Eucharist.
Fact: someone who is divorced and remarried, without an ecclesiastical finding that their first marriage was not a real marriage (an "annulment") is refused the Eucharist. They are considered to be living in a state of adultery, and the presumption is that they cannot repent of that state because that would mean undertaking to live as brother and sister.
Fact: someone who has had sexual contact with a child is guilty of an objectively mortal sin and may not approach the Eucharist until he or she has repented and confessed the sin. A provisional exception is made for a priest who has to say Mass for the sake of his flock and cannot locate a confessor in time, but that's all.
You are gravely misrepresenting the Church to imply that she considers divorce and remarriage to be a more serious sin than molesting a child. However, a child molester is at least objectively able to repent of his act. (Psychological considerations aside.) Someone who is illicitly remarried is not, because the relationship necessarily continues.