The Bishops clearly failed these children. The bishops' decisions should be understood in the context of the era when these crimes occurred. This problem was clearly not as well understood and often the bishops were following the advice of psychiatrists. I'm sure when they heard they could do what the experts said AND avoid a scandal they were overjoyed.
The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about some of the alleged crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood. In defense of this practice, some have pointed out that public school administrators engaged in a similar manner when dealing with accused teachers, as did the Boy Scouts of America.Wikipedia "John Jay Report"In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church's actions have suggested that in re-assigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the U.S. public school system when dealing with accused teachers.
Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned. Critics have questioned whether bishops are necessarily able to form accurate judgments on a priest's recovery. The priests were allowed to resume their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties.
It is still far too much. It shows that this was tolerated by authorities in the church.
Of course, isn’t that what leftists always wanted, tolerance for deviancy?