Conroy has said in interviews that something which blocks illegal content shouldn't be opt-in, since accessing illegal content is...well...illegal.
However, I think the likely reason that it isn't opt-in is that the last internet filter provided by the government that was opt-in was a miserable failure.

Well, I've been over this with all the other posters already, but I guess I've no chance of you reading my other replies...
Yes, some of the local bishops covered these crimes up. There are many things about America, and Ireland that I do not understand - and how this cover up was allowed to happened is one of them. It's honestly disgusting to me.
But your assertion that you'd leave an organisation that covered these things up seems a tad lip service. You are aware that cover ups of this kind have happened in schools, armies, orphanages, jouvinial detention centres, day care centres, aid organisations etc. etc? Everywhere adults are put in a place of trust over children, paedophiles will gravitate - and everywhere these crimes occur there is a chance that friendship, money, avoidance of backlash or some other thing will lead to a cover up.
The moment these services or organisations are disbanded, that's the moment I take your post seriously. Otherwise, lets face it - if you really think an organisation is a force for good things in the world, you wont let criminals and their buddies ruin it for the rest of it.

Your assertion that the Catholic church is an organisation that routinely rapes children is gross misinterpretation of facts.
In this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096 the numbers show close to (but below) an equivalence in the number of men in secuar society. Are you going to leave society? It's not even a religion.
But that said, any number above 0 in *any* organisation is too many. We all need to focus on stamping out this horrible outrage.

Yes, there are so many people like that. On the whole I'm glad you are introducing the concept to them.

That is interesting. I'm curious to wonder why you think believers of one type or another have never questioned their beliefs before though?
Just thought I'd ask that. I've spent my entire life questioning my beliefs, it wouldn't be right to believe in something that didn't make sense.
If you want to question the sense of my beliefs, feel free, but I have a number of very good athiest friends, so I might have heard them all before :)

Please take a moment to look at the other replies to this topic, you're not the first to have mentioned these things.
I certainly don't think compaines get fixed by changing CEOs, nor do I think governments get better by scapegoating specific politicians, but what I think doesn't change the fact that it's called for an aweful lot...
Oh, and you need to come down off your high horse and consider for a moment that there are people who might possibly be comparatively intelligent to you who yet still disagree with you, perhaps even have a bigger world view than you. Just a suggestion.

Ok, we've got a misunderstanding here. I wouldn't be nitpicking the terms, if it wasn't important.
The point I'm trying to make is, the link you provided (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_pope_church_abuse) is based on a letter that has absolutely nothing to do with taking the priest away from children. That's the point I'm trying to make.
The reason it doesn't address that, is because the then Cardinal did not have the power to remove the priest specifically from being around children.

Perhaps something I've failed to make clear is that there are priests all over the world who - for one reason or another - can no longer be a priest in the "works directly with other people" kind of way. I think from your perspective, they would be priests only in name.

So, applying this to the quote you produced from the Cardinal:
the arguments for removing Kiesle are of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible"
"removing" doesn't mean "removing from the presence of children". It means "removing from the Church's responsibility".

Does that make sense?

You shouldn't have any need to argue, you're attacking a straw man. But if you can't see that, there is no point in me continuing to try and point that out either.

You misunderstand what both "defrocking" and "papal infallibility" entail. I'll let you look the latter up on wikipedia, but for the former, just because you are still "frocked" it doesn't mean you are therefore still a practising priest active in public life. This distinction is important. Said priest had already been convicted, and had the local bishops done their job properly, he would not have been practising.

It is wrong or evil, but it's not actually the case. As I said in my original post, it's the local bishop's role to remove a priest from public office (once he's served his time obviously). All these documents that people wave around are in regard to what to do with the already removed from public office priest - do you keep him on a pension, or remove him from the Church entirely (probably then to become homeless in many countries).
Please read my posts, rather than making assumptions on my or the Churches position. I might possibly be naive, but I'm not an idiot.

I answered that point in this post: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1632142&cid=31994600

Thankyou for this post.

I understand exactly what you are saying, and I dare say a full discussion of your entire post would extend to pages. I sadly don't have the time, so I'll have to be brief in my response
Numerous priests have been engaged in a string of sexual assaults against children. It's absolutely terrible, horrific, and had they been perpetrated against my own children I'd probably have trouble sticking to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". I refuse to defend them, they are indefensible.
However, the letter that's been touted as the proof that the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was covering up, was actually talking about the laicising an already convicted priest. This means to remove his title as priest, his pension, and to essentially throw him out onto the street. How is that a cover up?
Instead it seems the American bishops are to blame for not removing this criminal from public office, and it is them that need to be held accountable for this. Why the hell aren't these bishops being focused on? What excuse do they have for not retiring this priest and keeping him away from children? Perhaps it's not so much fun to target an American?
Most of the rest of your post is so broad reaching I'm leaving it alone. Except to say that it's the chair of Peter, not Paul - and it's not a throne either.

If there is some evidence of his covering up abuse scandals in his diocese during his time as bishop, I'd really like to see it (honestly! reply with a link).
Otherwise, why do you say he's directly linked to the scandal?

1-in many places, not just the Catholic church. Thankfully that's changing.
2-I've seen nothing demonstrating this point in the main-stream media (and I've been following it closely). Again, if you have a link or two I'd appreciate it. I'm not blind to facts, I just haven't seen any.
3-Well it hasn't worked on me, I'm listening to you ;)