"We should have the attitude if one lamb is compromised we are all compromised until the offender is with the Police."
---
Yes, certainly you have that attitude because you are liberals.
I have the Catholic attitude, the attitude of St. Thomas Becket which, due to the universal brainwashing, today is almost unthinkable, but was normal and lawful throughout centuries. That to ensure the Church freedom, no matter what, regardless of venial and very grave indeed sins of the priests the Church should be exempt from jurisdiction of the State, in particular the modern, Behemoth-like State.

Let's move back to the beginning of the 1st of 20th century (only 100 y ago) and read the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Church could not permit her clergy to be judged by laymen... The clergy, therefore, were exempt from civil jurisdiction, and this ancient rule was sanctioned by custom and confirmed by written laws. On this point the Church has always taken a firm stand; concessions have been wrung from her only where greater evils were to be avoided. Thus, in Christian antiquity, a Council of Aquileia condemned the bishop, Palladius, for demanding a civil trial, and a Council of Mileve decreed that clerics who strive to bring their lawsuits or disputes before secular judges should be deprived of their clerical dignity and removed from their offices. Innocent III reprehended the Archbishop of Pisa [c. 12, De foro competenti, X. (II, 2)] for maintaining that at least in temporal matters a cleric could renounce his right of exemption and appear before a secular court. Such action, said Innocent, was unlawful even when the conflicting parties agreed to submit the matter to civil magistrates. The ecclesiastical exemption was not a personal privilege; it belonged to the entire ecclesiastical body and could not be renounced by individuals."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ecclesiastical Courts

@Scapular
"We have had at the bequest of the Vatican separation of Church and State"
----

Definitely not. The separation of the Church and State is a masonic concept introduced long time ago in systems of States that incorporated masonic principles.
In the 1960's it was enforced on the Vatican by the Jewish and American pressure under the brand name of religious liberty plus pseudo-ecumenism.
Now, it seems you want the omnipresent, Behemoth-like State that intoxicated even weak people in Eternal Rome to guard justice with respect to priests. Are you kidding?

" If a cleric chooses to break civil law (that also happens to be a Commandment) then he must be tried by the same."
---
It is your liberal illusion. He does not have to and it worked in history of Christianitas (do not mistake it for your "Masonitas") well throughout the centuries.

There needs to be some whistleblowers outing Christine Niles as to the long-time coverup of Michael Voris' behavior at Church Militant: "What did she know and when did she know it?" Her story of ignorance until just before she resigned from Church Militant just doesn't add up. She's getting a free pass - and undeservedly so. I suspect the problem is that his behavior was commonly known and everyone was silent in order to keep Church Militant from going under and they losing their jobs - as it and they eventually did.

Which makes it curious that his name does not appear anywhere on the official SSPX public statement, and which, so far as I am aware, has not been released anywhere in English (even though he spent several years here as District Superior). It’s almost as though it were some kind of legal damage control strategy to avoid emboldening any potential American (and Canadian) victims/litigants from coming forward and filing suit. If such were the case, would it not evince the SSPX openly sheltering a predator, even as it acknowledges his guilt?

Also outrageous that the French prosecutor is only seeking a 4-year SUSPENDED sentence. Is that country so far gone that one can be a serial child molester without fear of spending a single day behind bars?

Final question: How much of the SSPX ralliement to modernist Rome (and all the compromises, changes, and contradiction with previous positions which comprise it) is the result of corrupt superiors being blackmailed? If it is true, as former US District Superior, Fr. Jurgen Wegner is reported by Nikes to have said, that there are hundreds of abuse cases in the Society (and that’s only the ones he knows of), it suggests a widespread corruption among leadership, and that unfortunate circumstance would certainly make Society superiors vulnerable to blackmail (and therefore control). In the secular sphere, we had the Epstein Island blackmail operation, to ensure only politicians guilty of abominable crimes were electable candidates, who would therefore be subject to external coercion and control.

Has something similar gained control of the SSPX, to lead it into subservience to the deep church/ conciliar church, for the destruction of Tradition, under the specious pretext of legal recognition (which Lefebvre had rejected after 1988 for so long as Rome did not return to Tradition)?

Perhaps this is all way off base, but how can one help wondering, if the corruption is as widespread as Fr. Wegner says?

Name is public
"Je suis là pour être puni": l'abbé de Rostand, jugé pour agressions sexuelles sur mineurs, face à ses victimes

Hautes-Alpes. « Vous faites face à la justice des hommes, pas à celle de Dieu » : un prêtre jugé pour atteintes sexuelles sur mineurs

@rhemes1582 Yes, it is. On every continent, practically in every nation, almost in every diocese, and virtually in every Order and Society regardless of how historically conservative or deeply traditional. And THIS very sad, sick, unspeakably unfortunate incident is a minuscule example of the horrific depth and degree to which monstrous filth and abominable perversion has utterly contaminated the Priesthood throughout the whole Church and around the entire world. And if you can’t SEE that, then you are diabolically blind as a bat and in a chronic state of darkness, denial and delusion, having been deceived by the devil himself, and should therefore, “go to confession.”