I think something that has gotten virtually no attention - but was very involved with this crisis in particular - is the "Freudianization" of the Church after Vatican II.
One of the open windows seems to have allowed Sigmund Freud to blow in on a passing zeitgeist. I'm not referring, to Freud's actual thought, strictly speaking, but to the sudden tendency to rely on a psychological approach to things that were actually moral issues. Granted, it was a pop-psychology approach, about 99% "Freud said don't stifle yourself, if it feels good, do it, if you're not happy, it's because you're not doing it enough..."
But one thing that is a constant in the sexual abuse crisis is that neither the bishops nor Rome treats it as a moral crisis; the concept of sin is rarely if ever mentioned. The offending priest was sent to a therapist of some sort; he was never told he was going to hell and given a choice between being sent to one of the prison monasteries certain orders used to run (no longer in existence) and being kicked out of the priesthood. It was no longer a grave moral crisis.
But I think you're right and that deep down inside, some of these men still knew it was a moral issue. In some ways, I think some of them were even scandalized by the failure of Church officials to treat it as such.
Closely related to -- or part of -- the modern cult of "niceness." After all, Jesus preached a gospel of "luv", didn't He? (Do I need the /s here?) Anyway, that's lots easier for most people than telling home truths (which approach can be abused too, to be fair -- there are people who are downright cruel, and pointlessly, and pride themselves on their "honesty").
Still no way around it -- what we need is genuine goodness -- not niceness.