As to the 1962? document clearly prohibiting known homosexuals from being ordained, that thing could have been so obscure that few bishops were aware of it, but I sure don't give them a pass for what they obviously had to be aware of, nor do I give their superiors a pass for not running a tighter ship. Bishops resign in disgrace whereas their superiors remain unaccountable which is not how it is supposed to work in most scenarios. The superiors should have stepped in before it would become necessary for a bishop to resign in some of the cases, especially when it was in the headlines of all the daily papers. What were they cringing because the cat was out of the bag and didn't want any more scandal or do they really want to do the right thing? I can't know that, of course.
Priests involved with women do seem to be treated more harshly than the priests who abused children. With women, it was probably consenting adults more or less, but that won't fly when children are involved which is far more serious to my way of thinking. I'm not sure that it is true that priests who got involved with women were always kicked out either, some were probably transferred to remove them from the temptation until they reflected, etc., nor am I sure they should have been unless they get married, and then there isn't much else that can be done unless the rules are changed which I don't care to get into.