Then you surely agree that the way this Church has handled their particular problem is pathetic. How could you not? :D
Overall? Sure.
Much of it could have been avoided if bishops would have made more of an effort to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood (in obedience to, e.g., the 1962 Vatican directive).
Instead, there was a period when some seminaries in the US (with the tacit -- if not overt -- approval of the bishops who continued to send their seminarians there) made what amounted to an effort to keep anyone except homosexuals out of the priesthood. (See the book "Goodbye, Good Men" for the gruesome details.)
In the specific instances talked about in the press today?
You can ding the Pope for letting Hullerman be appointed to a parish when Hullerman was being treated for being a molester in 1980. That's fair.
Hullerman was re-appointed in 1986, after he was convicted in court, but then-Abp. Ratzinger had been in Rome for 5 years at that point and wasn't involved.
As for the Wisconsin case, he did nothing wrong at all.
His deputy suggested at one point that the canonical process be stopped because the molester would be dead before it could be completed. It was only a suggestion, and was rejected. His office took 8 months to reply to the initial letter about the case, but Milwaukee didn't need his permission to begin the canonical process anyway.
Milwaukee, on the other hand, sat on the case and did nothing, not for 8 months, but for 19 years. But because the (now thankfully retired!) prelate involved is a liberal and a homosexual, you won't read any complaints about that in the MSM.
When will you have the fortitude to come back and deal with your spam?
Never is my guess.
Punks hide under rocks. We know.