Originally Posted by La literatura
Like de-frocking? Because after it was reported several times, and therapy didn't help, de-frocking the priest was the next step attempted by bishops. You saw in the movie how that failed, right?
Yeah, the intent is actually quite relevant when determining moral culpability. That's pretty basic common sense stuff. Also, "known child molester" is different from "accused child molester." Your assumptions are blinding you in this discussion. You're not imagining how a real scenario is played out in 1974.
Again, known evil is different from accused evil. If you watch the movie more closely, you may get a hint of how these accusations played out.
I have not seen the movie, so I will not address how the movie portrays anything.
As to defrocking, it appears Benedict was not a big fan of the practice, since he personally stepped in on behalf of a priest who molested 200 deaf children:
Sure looks like he let Father Murphy slide by with narry a slap on the wrist.
The Bishops/Cardinals intent of protecting the church should have taken a back seat to protecting children, plain and simple.