I understand what you are saying. But, I think it would be a stretch to claim that any priest was molesting a child while acting as a priest. True, he had access and trust because he was a priest. But, it seems sacrilegious for anyone to claim that child abuse was in the course of his priestly duties---such conduct is the absolute antithesis of the vows of a priest.
While such an inquiry might make sense from a doctrinal point of view, I think past experience indicates that it is subject to great abuse from bishops whose strong inclination is to keep scandal quiet and who may be subject to blackmail based on their own transgressions.
Better to let the civil authorities deal with the criminal law aspects of such charges while the Bishop can deal with the canon law aspects.
But, I think it would be a stretch to claim that any priest was molesting a child while acting as a priest.Nazi Germany had a great way of dealing with the Church when it interferred with their politics. They frequently arrested priests and charged them with pedophilia. Most of these priests didn't do anything other than act as a priest. The mere fact that a charge has been made does not mean the priest was actually molesting a child, we should not forget that, especially in the histeria that seems to be coming.
You refer to past history indicating abuse by Bishops of their authority to resolve these issues, but past history indicates civil authorities have used these powers illegitimately as well.
patent
That's exactly what I meant, he had access and trust because he was a priest, and didn't just run into the kid in the grocery store while in his street clothes. When I say a priest molests a child while acting as a priest, I mean he most likely first encountered the child, and had continued access to the child, through his vocation, such as the various programs and activities offered by the Church. He was left alone with the child because, after all, if you can't trust a priest alone with your child, who can you trust?
But, it seems sacrilegious for anyone to claim that child abuse was in the course of his priestly duties---such conduct is the absolute antithesis of the vows of a priest.
What's sacrilegious is for a priest to engage in sexual activity with a person entrusted to his care--such conduct is the absolute antithesis of the vows of a priest. It isn't sacrilegious for me to claim it. These priests abused their vocation by abusing the weak and powerless.
If there is any distinction to be made about child molesting, I personally would put a child-molesting priest about on the same level of violation of trust as a child-molesting parent, spiritually, not legally or morally, speaking.
If a student tells a teacher that he is being sexually abused by, say, a relative, isn't the teacher required to notify criminal authorities, even though the abuse didn't take place on school grounds? Why would the church be exempt from such laws, when teachers and doctors and such are required to follow them? Has anybody in the various lawsuits against the church accused them of violating these child abuse laws by not notifying law enforcement officials?