Monsignor Charles Kavanagh: Dismissed from the priesthood.

Due to "Aschenbach Syndrome"?***

It took a very long time for the case against Monsignor Kavanagh to be adjudicated, but the verdict is in - the sentencing complete:
.
A church court empowered by the Vatican has found Charles M. Kavanagh, ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of New York in 1967, guilty of acts of sexual abuse of a minor in the 1970’s, and dismissed him from the priesthood. - STATEMENT CONCERNING CHARLES M. KAVANAGH
.
It is a stunning decision in many ways.  The end of a long, "successful" priestly career amidst protests of innocence, the loss of of a man's reputation and position in the Church, all due to two indiscretions with one teenage boy.  When you read about what went on between the two, one might be surprised there was no genital contact, no penetration, no ejaculation, and so on.  Indiscreet and inappropriate intimacy yes - but no kissing, fondling, or other explicit sexual contact.  At least from what I read.  What was going on was a form of stalking and grooming perhaps, but it never was consummated, if you will.
.
The Monsignor wrote a letter of 'concern' to the family of his accuser (Donohue) in 2006:
.
"A copy of the letter, which was given to The New York Times by Mr. Donohue, highlights the potential shades of gray in cases like these. Monsignor Kavanagh's supporters, after having portions read to them, argued that it proved what he has said all along; that he had an emotionally intimate relationship with Mr. Donohue, but that he never sexually abused him.

.
"He has never denied having a close affectionate relationship with this man," said Ann Mandt, Monsignor Kavanagh's sister. "He has consistently adamantly denied that he sexually abused him and, when it goes into a court, he will be found innocent." - Link to Bishop Accountability and a PDF of the letter.
.
There must be more to it than this.  I'm not saying this type of intimacy is acceptable or normal, just as surely I do not deny it indeed appears to be some form of grooming, or a bizarre long drawn out type of foreplay.  The behavior was  certainly the type one would condemn as inordinate and inappropriate in any friendship - but to dismiss a man from 40 years of priesthood because of this one indiscretion (2 episodes with the same young man) surprises me.  Unless I'm missing something.
.
Prayers for all involved.
.
***Aschenbach Syndrome:  I just made that up - it refers to the main character in Thomas Mann's, Death In Venice who became infatuated with a teenage boy while on holiday in Venice.  Gustav Von Aschenbach never spoke to or touched the boy however.  The character saw the young man as an ideal of beauty and youth, albeit fragile and vulnerable, thus a desire to protect and nurture the youth may have played upon his imagination - perhaps seeing himself as a surrogate father-protector.  Interpreting the narrative freely, such sentiments might be imputed to the aging Aschenbach as soon as the youth first captivated his attention;  though it is not alluded to in the novella, it is not unthinkable that the attraction could have stimulated an emotional response more paternal than predatory.  Unchecked, such admiration turned into passionate affection, infatuation, albeit without lust - and therefore never consummated or realized.   I'm not offering approval or excuses for Fr. Kavanagh - I'm simply offering a different perspective on what might have motivated the man in an apparently isolated case.
.
Going forward, I wonder if dismissal from the priesthood will be the discipline taken with all such cases?  Would, or could a priest be defrocked for any homosexual activity - even a single moral lapse which took place in the early days of his ministry?  Or would exceptions and excuses be made for those same-sex moral failures between consenting adults?  The Kavanagh affair was definitely not pedophilia.  You see where I'm going with this?
.
Link to more facts on the Kavanagh case.