"....the church has taken consciousness about these crimes in a delayed manner."
Regardless of the translation of this comment it really seems disingenuous. The church was "conscious"; it was vitally aware of these crimes. It/they knew, tolerated, facilitated profound harm to children, evil. It fought a vicious, unrelenting, uncivil (let alone un-Christian) battle to deny that vivid awareness that included lies, demeaning of victims and supporters.
The single microscopic bit of validity is his confession of a learning curve - and I am sure some others fell into this category - in the notion of repentance and reform by perpetrators, rather than acknowledging a sick addiction, a disfunction that renders them forever a danger to re-offend, to harm another child. Regardless, knowing of a serious criminal act, protecting a criminal who has acknowledged culpability is, I believe, also a crime.
Acknowledging, his response now must be proportionate.