But that's the point: NOW we know they cannot be cured. At least not through psychiatric treatment. Then, however, when they were being shuffled from parish to parish, the prevailing theory was that with the proper treatment, they could be cured.
This fact puts a whole new light on the popular notion of a "conspiracy" in the Church to "protect pedophiles".
Believe and/or disagree all you wish, but it's simply uncharitable to ascribe evil intentions to the bishops involved. It would be like saying, 20 years from now, if we ever discovered that playing card games somehow encouraged anti-social behavior, that all the bishops who reassigned priests who were obsessive card players, were involved in a massive "conspiracy to protect priests".
Which is more reasonable to believe: ( assuming one does not have an agenda against the Church in the first place) That the Church leadership was involved in an active conspiracy to protect their own at the expense of the laity, or that at the time, in a misguided and misinformed desire to help the priests, they referred them for psychiatric care, because AT THE TIME they thought such treatment would be effective?
I submit any reasonable person with no axe to grind against the Church would, and should, answer the latter.
You know, if it were just a few guys, just a few times, I could almost buy into this. But we know now that it was widespread, and there were many who recommitted and recommitted.
I'm sorry, but that is the lamest analogy I have ever heard.
The Archdiocese of Boston secretly settled child sexual abuse claims against at least 70 priests from 1992 to 2002.
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/013102_priests.htm
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504
In November 2009, the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse reported its findings in which it concluded that:
“the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State”.