I thought the rule was that priesthood was an ontological state that could not be revoked. You appealed to this rule when defending the Church's position to allow its child molesting priests to remain members of the clergy. You said its hands were tied in the matter. Once a priest, always a priest, you said.
You also said that the Church had a permanent obligation to financially care for its child-molesting clergy. You appealed to this in defending the Church's decision to bless Cardinal Law with a chaffeur and several housemaids, in addition to his large salary, as a consequence of his participation in the child molesting scandal.
This article indicates otherwise on both points. It indicates that some priests can in fact be declared to have lost their clerical state. It also indicates that some can have their financial lines severed.
Is this article mistaken?