Just curious

I haven't seen the film and am curious about its approach. My understanding (just from newspapers and magazines) of the priest scandal is that:

i) over the past half-century, 4% of priests have been accused of sexual contact with someone;

ii) of the credible charges made (in a first gush of reports some fifteen years ago and then again beginning about five years ago), virtually all have been made by boys - and virtually none have been against the will of the lay person (e.g., none involved physical force). Thus any criminality involved in the action is statutory only and depends wholly on the age of the boy - if 15 or older, most states find nothing criminal in such sexual conduct, but if 14 or below, the action may constitute rape or a lesser criminal charge depending on the actions - regardless of the boy's consent;

iii) of the credible charges, over 90% have involved males between tbe ages of 13 and 21 - and that almost all of the males had previously had sexual experience - though seldom of a homosexual nature;

iv) for some reason, few of the allegations stated to Church authorities (pastors, bishops, cardinals) were ever reported by the victims or their families to the police for arrest and trial until the last ten years; and

v) due to the representatios of psychiatrists, bishops believed that those who might be culpable of this conduct could be rehabilitated with psychiatric counseling and/or a change of circumstances - but that sadly psychiatry failed the Church and many of the priests credibly charged - continued their behavior.

To my mind, if the matters are not crimes (and relatively few did involve someone 14 or younger) but merely the expression of the homosexual fancy of a few priests for a male teenager, and psychiatry cannot rehabilitate such longing, then it's best that such persons are NOT let go by the Church because they would then presumably seek positions in society that permit them yet greater opportunity to engage in sex iwth teenagers (e.g., out of the church, the person finds a job driving an ice cream truck, working as a janitor at a school, working as a tutor, working as a gym coach, working as a cook at a summer camp, etc. ). This is particularly true since once the charges are made, it is the Church that knows of them - if they are let go, they will be among strangers, move to other states where they are unknown and seek ways to again engage in such sexual encounters.

If on the other hand, they are crimes (i.e., the other person engaged is 14 or younger), then it is and has always been up to the victim, as in all crimes, to report the matter to the police and let due process take place with arrest, etc.

The oddest thing would be to say that the Church should dismiss those against whom credible charges were made - or those coming out of prison - which would allow these people to go elsewhere in an anonymous world and continue their behavior in occupations even better suited to meeting male teens. The Church should certainly continue to employ them - it kows what the charges have been - as future employers would not - and should seek to place them in positions where their contact with young men is slight.

However, so long as the Church does continue to employ these people - rather than turn them loose on society - the Church should be credited.

So I'm just curious if the film took this approach.