Suddenly, "Defrocking" Is Important? Nope.

Here we have another story put out by another slip-and-fall attorney, who whines and bitches that "defrocking" took too long, and that it's all Ratzinger's fault.

People, these stories are foofoodust. Mis-direction plays. Smoke and mirrors.

Why?

"Defrocking" is not what's essential to stopping a predator.

Life in prison stops a predator, whether the perp is wearing a collar or not.

Laicizing a homosexual child-rapist does not change the inclinations of the homosexual child-rapist. Nor does prison, for that matter. But prison limits the opportunities, no?

There are lots of Bishops in this country (some who 'retired' in disgrace) who covered for their perp-priests, and they are perfectly happy to have Benedict XVI taking fire for their transgressions. Frankly, most of those cover-artists despise Benedict XVI; among other things, he made it perfectly clear that Bishops should NOT ordain homosexuals, nor even admit them to seminaries.

Don't take the bait. Don't let the shiny object on the sidewalk distract you from the 800-pound gorilla.

Defrocking is not the issue, nor is Canon Law. Stopping the predators--which Cousins, Weakland, Sklba, Atkielski, (and others) did NOT do--is the real issue.

More on the AZ story (linked above) from FrZed:

• the abuse took place decades ago.
• He was suspended.
• There was a canonical trial.It was referred to Rome, the CDF, because it concerned a case of the confessional.
• It was determined that he should be dismissed from the clerical state.
• The priest appealed.
• The appeal process was drawn out for several years because the laws and canonical process of these clerical cases was being overhauled.
• Card. Ratzinger was the one who led the charge for the changes to streamline the process.
• When the new procedures went into effect, the Holy See moved swiftly to dismiss him from the clerical.

Got it?