Rather than a target its more like a 'beacon' that draws them to a more ancient and truer form of the undivided 'Catholic and Apostolic Church'. All the ex Papal Catholics in my parish came on their own. No one put target in front of them. Most, if not all, had read books and studied up on the church before attending their first Divine Liturgy. One searched eleven years before accepting the OCC.
This has been my situation as well (as a former RC). It is precisely because Roman Catholics (at least the doctrinally concerned ones who are precisely the type which make the switch from RC-ism to Orthodox Christianity) have a sense of "the true Church" that this kind of care is taken in making their decision (where as for a Protestant, the issue is more coming to accept for the first time that there is such a thing as a "true, single Church").
How about those who are ex papal Catholics, tellings us why they made the switch.
For me, the disillussionment with Roman Catholicism and the lovable qualities of Orthodox Christianity have gone hand in hand.
1) Yes, I had become more than a little annoyed at modern RC liturgical decadence. In short, if I would not be so flip in receiving an audience with the Queen, how on earth could I fellowship with those who were so casual and pedestrian in their reception of an audience with God? It had crossed the line to not simple experimentation, but entertainment and satisfaction of man; in short, the service and even worship of man and his interests, and not God.
2) The scandals have not played a big role per se (at least in and of themselves.) What is more bothersome is the role the heirarchy has in the matter, including the Pope. In short, visible organizational unity and apparent harmony still matter to Rome more
than the unity of the Fathers and the Orthodox Church has always struggeled (by the grace of God) to maintain (the authentic unity founded in the bonds of a single faith). In addition, due to my experiences as an RC traditionalist, I came to realize how profoundly unprincipled Rome really is - subjegation is ultimatly what matters, not Orthodox unity.
3) I simply came to realize that the claims of the Papacy (and the claim of RC apologists) that try to convince one of the Church's "need" for the Papacy, are false. While one perhaps could make a good argument for the utility
of a Patriarch who presides as "first amongst equals" and has canonical rights perhaps beyond those of his brothers for receiving appeals and arbitrating in inter-Church matters, this is a far different thing than what Rome has grown to want or demand. It should be quite obvious to any honest person, that the Papacy has not protected the RCC from heterodoxy (even by it's own qualifications), since a great deal of modern Catholicism would have been deemed "heterodox" by Catholicism's immediate ancestors (I can't help but imagining Pius X throwing a fit if he walked in on a typical "New Mass"). IN short, Orthodoxy does not need the snake oil that RC apologists insist is necessary for a "healty Church".
4) On the far more positive (and rewarding) end of the discussion, is what Orthodoxy has which Catholicism utterly lacks, and has lacked even before the recent events of Vatican II (which in a sense only made manifest what was inherently true for centuries). In a sense, errors have compounded upon errors in RC-ism. Thus, you have oddities all over the place in old school RC-ism. Even a great deal of the popular piety in RC-ism (which still survives in more conservative and traditionalist circles) strikes me as supersticious and prone to "trinket-ism" (a scapular for this, a scapular for that, even the big popular "brown scapular" which if worn will keep you from going to hell if you die wearing it). Orthodoxy on the other hand has maintained the proper way; the liturgy never became purely the realm of the clerics, thus leaving the lay people to come up with corporate/private religious celebrations of their own. Orthodox Christianity does much to keep the lay people "Orthodox" via liturgical action.
5) Most importantly, Orthodox Christianity is curative, and produces (at least in my expereince) spiritual health, even where devestation once reigned. In Catholicism (particularly the traditional kind), it's very hard to have a truly positive view of God. As one Orthodox writer wrote, calling Him "the good God" in the Catholic milieu is almost like charming a curse, hoping that flattery will keep one from destruction. Honestly, it was only in seeing things through an Orthodox lense, seeing Scripture through that lense, that I could really have the conviction of St.John the Divine, that "God is love". While He punishes, it is without fail as St.Paul says to the Hebrews - the punishment of a father, Who if He did not punish men, would be showing a total lack of concern for them, as a bad father does towards his illegitimate children. Suddenly, I could believe the loving, warm image of the prodigal son and his father, who years to see his return and who lovingly embraces him the moment his son is willing to let down the pride and approach him with even just a little humility. Roman Catholicism is filled on the other hand, particularly in the popular piety, with what amounts to a savage image of a blood thirsty deity, who lacks the very good qualities that he is seemingly expecting from his followers. There is no forgiveness really, but satisfaction of an offended sense of honour, and this satisfaction is absolutely necessary. In a way, as other Orthodox writers have noted, this is a pagan view, as it implies a force or power even above God which compels Him to act in certain ways (blasphemy, to be sure.)
The above of course could be elaborated on for pages and pages more. But I think it briefly reflects my thinking.
P.S. - if only the priests WERE soliciting conversions to Orthodoxy! Such is not a crime, to be sure.