[quote="Godfollower, post:7, topic:273732"]
Well, they're still priests, even if laicized. You can't "unordain" a priest; that's like "unbaptizing" a layman. The concept just doesn't make sense. (You can suspend his faculties, of course, and you can laicize him, prohibiting him from acting publicly as a priest; but you can't make him not be a priest).
As for laicizing the priests, why would you want to do that? (I'm assuming, of course, that the criminal authorities are powerless, either because the complaint came too late and the statute of limitations had run, or because the offender has already served his time following conviction).
A laicized priest:
*]Can go where he wants, when he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
*]Can move to another city without telling the Church.
*]Can get close to other children and victimize them.
*]Can claim to be a priest (or other trust-inspiring professional).
*]Can act completely outside the control of the Church, because the Church in fact has no control over him.
A priest who is kept in the Church as a priest:
*]Can be sent to a monastery where he'll never see any kids under any circumstances, ever again.
I just don't see the comparison. To me, there's no contest.
I really never thought of it like that...really good. reminds me of what they say, in a way about "keeping your friends close and your enemies closer"...not that the priests are always wrong, but like you said, if it's past the statute of limitations or a lack of physical proof, then keep them in monestaries like you said. the priests where there is physical proof, then the judicial system will deal with them in the way they deal with any other convicted sex offender.