After reading a little about this case, it's pretty clear that this priest was a homosexual with the common attraction thereof to pubescent boys, and that the boy who was participating in sex acts with this priest was likely a willing participant who saw the opportunity for a payday in his adulthood wherein he could rely on repressed memory (he was apparently "raped" on many occasions) as his reason for not reporting it when it was happening.

The priest is not a pedophile in the clinical sense; he is a man with sexual attraction to pubescent males transitioning from boyhood to manhood.  Indeed, that is how he describes himself.  If you're going to track him, you have lots of other homosexual men to track who engage in sodomy with willing adolescent young men.