I honestly have no idea what is in a priest's contract. A molestation would certainly be a violation of his vows, at a minimum, and a clear violation of multiple teachings of the Church...and he should be removed from his position. Most were. Some weren't. Because some weren't, you don't want the Church to remove anyone else from their position who does wrong according to Church teaching? I assume that is not really what you are arguing for.
Obviously, the failure of the Church to act correctly in past cases should not prevent them from acting correctly in future cases.
You said: "You cannot pick and choose the church's actions to defend or champion." Depends on what you mean by "the church's actions." The Church's teachings are not in question in this discussion, and are easily and consistently defendable. The acts of individuals leading the Church can be questioned, and in some cases condemned. You yourself admit in your post that some of those actions are good, and some are bad. We both defend the good actions, and neither of us are defending the bad actions, so why do you attack me in this highly emotional way?
Complying with Church Doctrine (e.g., by firing the teacher for public scandal) is not the same as violating Church Doctrine (e.g., by defending molesters). Those two things are not equal, so any conclusion you draw from making them equal is fallacious. Sure, in both cases, the object of the discipline (the teacher, the molesting priest) violated teaching, and should be removed. That is the consistency that we should all seek. You should not argue that one violation justifies another violation.