"Maybe I'm not completely understanding what you're saying about a double standard, Ed. (T)."

My observation, Joe is you stated that you feel there is good reason to explore the principles of restorative justice, requiring the offender requiring the offender to work to make the victim whole again.

Would that not be especially important for the RC church organization (the offender) to show (to have shown) leadership in that area, a Christian focused organization?

While you note a few local examples of local initiatives of early financial compensation (not the issue) , there seems to be no evidence that there was any broad based initiative to "work with the victims of RC sex abuse to make them whole again". I believe the testimony of many victims and court and newspaper reports indicate the opposite occured, in many, if not most, cases. However, significant resources were focused on attempts to "hide" the crimes, and make the offenders (aka priests) "whole again".

So, if your statement represents your views related to most offenders, why would it differ forvthe RC church organization? You seem to focus on the financial settlements, many court imposed - IMO, designed to punish the church, to compensate those abused and mostly ignored, and to send a message to all organizations...not to make the victims whole again.