Part 2
Given these tea leaves, I imagine what we have here is a gay priest or perhaps a sexually confused priest making a foolish unspecified sexual overture to a young man which was refused and not pressed. There are no reports of any further sexual impropriety with this minor or anyone else. Forty years later the incident is reported to the police and presumably was made public. The police presumably investigated, and did not find any evidence of the sort of persistent sexual abuse with this accuser or any others that is almost always there when we are dealing with sexual abuse of minors.

I sense, Mokantz, that you have been following this case. If so, prior to considering the stupid bishop's actions, are there any good reasons to imagine a different set of underlying facts? If so, then everything then please ignore everything that follows. 

If these are more or less the facts, how ought the bishop to have acted? What would I have done in his position?