Shouldn’t some level of evidence be necessary to pronounce guilt? Should an allegation be all the proof needed?
Pedophiles need to be taken out of circulation, of course. But false allegations are just as evil, and nowadays Priests are awfully easy targets. Any allegation is presumed by the public to be true.
It certainly appears that deals have been struck between the RCC and the police -- we'll get this pederast priest away from children but you won't prosecute him.
Therefore the only recourse is for victims to hire a lawyer and sue the priest in civil court, which is what happens everywhere.
And the fact that most of these priests are declared guilty in civil court (just like O.J. was) speaks to the guilt of the priest and the ball-dropping by the police, intentional or not.
If there was no evidence of guilt - why not leave him there?