I mostly agree with you, Mike, but it also needs to be said that laicization is strictly a canonical matter. It has nothing to do with the law of the land. Even if Shanley had not been laicized, Cardinal O'Malley would  have no legal authority to force him to live in a treatment facility or to submit himself to monitoring.

Also, your statement that "laicization is not intended to protect families or communities" is a bit misleading. The purpose of laicization is to state publicly that a person is no longer to be considered a priest and no longer in an official relationship with the Catholic Church. It's up to the public to make proper use of that information.

God knows the Church -- and especially the Archdiocese of Boston -- made tons of mistakes with priests like Shanley. But once those priests are convicted, the proper role of the Church is to laicize them and have nothing further to do with them. In all fairness, that's exactly what SNAP has been asking for all these years.