My discussion of the Schmidt case has obvious relevance to clerical sexual abuse. The abusers may have been, in some sense of the word, “sick”; they certainly had distorted personalities. But whatever the source of their desire to have sex with minors, they were guilty when they acted on that desire.
As Joe said, a good verdict would be “sick but guilty.” The general approach of the Church during the past fifty years that abusers were sick, and were therefore not guilty, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them. The fallacy is that any mental illness removes responsibility and guilt.
As the old saying goes, “People can’t help their temptations, but they can help what they do about them.” I’ve always wondered what these guys were telling their confessors, spiritual directors, etc. Probably nothing as they were most likely not making themselves in anyway accountable to anyone. If someone has an inclination to disordered behavior, he’s responsible to admit he’s got a problem, get help, and remove himself from the danger of giving into temptation. Period.
Bishops should have followed canon law (the old code called for “corruptors of youth” to be laicized) and respected the wisdom of councils of the Church and saints like Basil and Damian. All these called for such men to be removed either from the clerical state or at least from ever having access to the young again (Basil recommended life in a monastery with old monks and NO contact with youths). People in the past actually did know something about human nature, unlike the muddle headed schools of psychology in the 70’s (I got my degree in Psych at one of the big universities in that era).