Getting back to the statement: "I think there is good reason to explore the principles of restorative justice, requiring the offender explore the possibility of requiring the offender to work to make the victim whole again.""

What you mention is primarily early financial payments by your local, which I suspect was not the norm, Joe, in the USA or elsewhere. The coverup denials, and movement of priests seem to be widespread, international in scope, if you may. It seems odd that this would have occured so broadly, without some form communication or coordination from the top, or between the bishops.

If you listen to what many victims state, it is frustration that their plight was ignored by the church, which they valued and trusted. Rather than genuinely working with compassion to make them whole again, they were marginalized and vilified by the church organization. I suspect if genuine outreach efforts were made to help these people deal with the crimes, and root out the evil (which is part of the victims healing) *, vastly fewer and lower punitive cases and amounts would have evolved from the great bitterness. However, I note that millions was spent on the criminal priests who broke the trust...in efforts to heal, cure and make them whole again. Where did those millions come from, also the pockets of parishoners, I suspect.

what puzzles me in your early statement (I highlighted above) , which led me to my questions is what I see as a double standard....one for most victims, and another for victims of those acting within the RC church organization.

Can't you see why such actions would be a serious blight on the church, Joe?