Issy, your question is a simple one to answer, the word is OPPORTUNITY. Nuns, all women, tended to "look after" the girls. Just beat them senseless and nothing sexual, that all happened when they got back to the convent. However the boys were a different story, they were in the "care" of the Priests and Brothers, all men, and those guys were attracted mostly to pubescent boys aged about 12. Some behavioural experts believe these predictors do not distinguish or identify pubescent boys any differently than they would a female at around the same age. These men also felt in control of the situation with a young child, something they would not necessarily feel with an older person, male or female. These paedophiles could be described as bisexual, rather than homosexual or heterosexual.

One measure the Catholic Church can take to elevate the problem of paedophiles in the ranks, and stick to their "chastity" rule, is they could make it official church policy to pay for professional providers, male or female, of sexual favours for their clergy. They don't have to call it sex, they don't even have to call it prostitution, they could call it a fringe benefit of the job if they want. I would have no problem with that.

Yuyutsu, you are probably sincere in your beliefs, but to say //he should have instructed the offending priest(s) to wear at all times a special robe with a clear warning sign, front and back: "I am a sinner who is dangerous to children".// That nonsense is simply mitigating the crime, it does nothing for anyone. The perpetrators need to be punished severally, the victims need to be helped compassionately, and the system needs to change.

Belly, the problem of paedophilia in the Catholic third world is immense. I go on about Australia, and rightly so, but what goes on in poor Catholic countries makes Australia's problems seem rather small. In those places very little has been done by the Church, or the secular authorities to control church pedophiles. The problems there go on infinitum.

Dear Paul,

Saying "nonsense" without explanation is not an answer.

If an offending priest is a sincere Christian who just had a slip, then he will obey the order to wear this robe and then everyone will know and the children will be protected - otherwise he would have to leave the church, so again he would have no access to children.

The desire to protect children is Christian, but the desire to punish is not. All offenders will be punished anyway, that's the law of nature which will take its course regardless, but you should not want it done by your own hands lest you join this chain of violence yourself and be punished for it in turn. Besides, imprisonment, cruel and senseless in itself, also punishes the tax-payer: what wrong have you and I done that we need to pay for other people's crimes?

Have compassion for victims and protect them, that's enough.

Yuyutsu. I gave you an explanation why it's nonsense, mitigating the crime, it does nothing for anyone. The perpetrators need to be punished severally, the victims need to be helped compassionately, and the system needs to change. Wearing some silly robe does not achieve any of what I have said is need. Where is the severe punishment, how are the victims helped, where is the systemic change to the system.

Would you apply the same to bank robbers and others? Or is this some special treatment for the religious.

Religion is not above the law in a secular society. The law provides punishments for paedophiles. It's called prison. The boys in there will exact some justice. Oh, and paedophile priests should be defrocked, expelled, and prohibited from contact with children. Anyone in the cult aiding, abetting, or covering up, should be charged with the same crimes. These criminals deserve the worst punishments - strutting around holier than thou claiming to be gods rep on earth while raping the most innocent among us, denying it, blaming and threatening victims, shaming them, promising punishment if they ever breathe a word. Evil.

Dear Paul,

According to the law of karma, no one can escape punishment, religious or otherwise. Nevertheless, no intelligent person would want to be the one through which this law works thus be chained by it themselves - unless they are a kshatriya (by nature, not merely by birth, which is where India deteriorated with its notorious caste system).

Policemen and judges are normally kshatriyas (since others would not make good policemen or be able to last long in that roll). Kshatriyas should perform their duty regardless of the severe consequences, for if you cause another to suffer, say by incarceration, then you too will suffer similarly - if not in this lifetime then in a future one, yet for a kshatriya, duty is above personal convenience. Also, kshatriyas would go by their nature and do what they do regardless of any warnings, including what me or you write over these pages.

What is so wrong, being the topic of this discussion, is the demand for people who are not kshatriyas to behave like kshatriyas and perform such duties that are against their nature and ethics.

Religious people have weaknesses like everyone else: a type of lust in the case of paedophiles and greed in the case of bank robbers. Besides the priority of preventing the suffering of victims, religion also aspires to heal the weaknesses of potential perpetrators and healthy religions have the tools to do so. Revenge has no place in religion.

Among the faithful, there's a better chance for softer measures to work and if they can, then they should be tried first. Wearing a robe that tells everyone "I'm a sinner who finds it hard to control my sexual urges towards children" or "I'm a sinner who finds it hard to control my greed and not take by force what is not mine", should usually be sufficient to warn in advance parents, children or banks, thus prevent suffering. The genuinely faithful will willingly wear that robe - those who wouldn't, aren't genuine so they should be kicked out of their churches, then face the kshatriyas outside.