http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-19/canberra-john-chute-marist-court-abuse-accused/10917800
Here again,evidence SOME PROTECTED offenders because they had faith the Church was better than it was/is still

Dear Paul,

I disagree with this whole concept as if anyone has a right to punish others. Human knowledge and understanding is limited, so we are not to play God. Justice will be carried out anyway eventually, but woe unto him who makes themselves the instrument.

But let us suppose that, right or wrong, you are still intent on punishing someone:

The cells in our body, including our brain, all change within 7 years.

So if a criminal was their BODY, then whom will you punish 7 years later? A different body! Further, some of the molecules that were part of the criminal's body during the crime, might even since, through the food-chain, became part of your own body!

You may then say, "no, it's not the body, it's that MIND which is the criminal".
Fine, unlike the body, minds and personalities do not change in a fixed time. Minds do eventually change, but it could take 7 minutes or it could take 70 years: can you see through and tell when?

So assuming a criminal is their mind, suppose they since repented, changed their mind and no longer have a criminal mind, then you would be punishing an innocent pure mind!

Still you could claim, "Actually I punish the SOUL". But can you see another's soul? can you tell for sure that it has not since left that body and been replaced by a different soul?

So as a judge (even though I disagree that you have a right to judge) you should ask: "Is the person in front of me still the one who did the crime? If I punish this person, will the criminal actually be punished?".

Now suppose the mind has not changed and remains criminal and suppose the body under its command is still capable of crime, then the question of punishment is redundant anyway: that mind being on the loose is dangerous to the public, so you may take the necessary steps to confine it in order to protect the public from harm. This is not punishment, this is self-defence and as such, legitimate.

Over to your last paragraph:

I fully believe you that you did not bugger choirboys in your life, or in the least that you do not remember ever committing any serious crime. Yet the possibilities of being accused of a serious crime (including actions/omissions that are not actually crimes, but the state considers them to be) are far wider and innumerable to list or anticipate. Suffice for example that you made an enemy any time in your life: you could even have forgotten about it, but they didn't and one day they frame you with some criminal allegation. Who hasn't ever had an enemy, or someone jealous at them? Even saints have.

I have never buggered any choirboys either, yet my anxiety of being arrested and thrown in prison, including over something that is unknown to me or for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, is real and has increased following Pell's case.

Regarding Pell not taking a stand, no priest (nor also a doctor/therapist for that matter who has confidential information about their patients) should agree to undergo cross-examination under oath because they might be asked about things they heard in confession.

Pope may be a kiddy fiddler, he refused to defrock a cardinal
Maybe those who told me as a child the Church was evil got it right