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.
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?
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.