Ah, the inerrant NYT. Everyone knows that laicizing a priest means he can no longer have any contact with children. It is the only means possible for making sure he does not have access to a child. Because of course being laicized means he is still under orders from his bishop.
If a priest is laicized he becomes a member of the general public and if not currently in jail that means he has the same freedoms as any other person. Which means absent of conditions put upon his freedom if he is registered sex offender (or however it is termed in GB) he can go get a job where he pleases. Even with those restrictions do you really think he will have less access to children than if he is a still a priest forbidden from any public ministry?
Or don’t you understand that being a priest and being in a public ministy are not necessarily one and the same thing?
If the goal is the protection of children knowing where the guilty party is and making sure he can not have access to them seems to me to offer more protection than setting him loose upon the world.
Why would Rome keep a known and convicted pedophile in priestly robes?
He belongs in jail, not decked out in religious garb.
The truth is that as we have been told by Roman Catholics on this forum, once a Roman Catholic priest, always a Roman Catholic priest. They live and die as an "alter Christus," another Christ no matter what crimes and perversions they have committed.
Why? Because "another Christ" is not like the rest of us. The RCC says the priest is greater than the rest of us, more holy, closer to God, and therefore entitled to whatever pleasurable larks he might feel the need to experience.
Generations of young children have been corrupted by these men. We look around and wonder why there are so many homosexuals these days. Well, we have one reason. Rome breeds them in-house.