Bullcrap, that's exactly what the whole "it's the work of evil" and "he'll need our help and prayers" crap means. It's their way of saying partially or fully absolving him of responsibility, especially spiritually, but sadly he is, and the problem with shit like this is they frequently make excuses. It always goes on far too long because "temptation", "the devil", or whatever the fuck people have in their heads that excuse people they want to defend because of their beliefs.
Any absolving him of responsibility is entirely what you are reading into it. In fact, it conflicts with the rest of what they are saying because it makes no sense to ask for prayer for the "difficult days ahead for him" if they have absolved him of responsibility. Rather, in spite of what he has done, they genuinely care for him as a person, and hope that will be able to come to realize what he did was wrong and and find the strength to make amends.
I can say for me 40 hail Marys ain't gonna cut it for this asshole, FUCK THAT SHIT.
You, me, and pretty much everyone else agree that that ain't gonna cut it, so I'm not sure why you insist that others think differently.
Yeah, because there isn't a truckload of precedent of the Catholic Church sweeping this sort of shit under the rug.
We don't have crystal balls, nor are we in the jury box where we need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The dude probably did all of it and finally got caught for some of it.
As rational beings, we don't ever believe something is true unless we have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is ever reasonable doubt, then it is rational to withhold judgement on something until you are given evidence that you consider to be good enough to establish it beyond it. Being in the jury box is just a formalized version of this.
The difference here is that you apparently think the existence of related accusations are enough to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while I think the fact that there have been been many cases where priests have been falsely accused is enough to establish reasonable doubt. We simply do not have enough information to conclude one way or the other.
However, regardless of whether he is guilty of this, we are not told what the Diocese's response was. We are just given that he was accused of something and led to believe that the Diocese did nothing. That may have been the case, but we don't have enough information to know. Also, considering that he was convicted for things he did after he left the priesthood and that the Diocese might never have been informed at that, I'm not even sure why you think it is something the Catholic Church needs to "sweep under the rug" in the first place.