While every bishop nowadays should be scrutinized to make sure they never coverup for nor enable any form of clerical abuse, especially priests molesting children, we must still give each one a basic benefit of the doubt they are taking correct action unless evidence starts to show otherwise. This is fair.
When Pope Leo was a diocesan bishop, and before that the superior of the Augustinian order, there were two cases some have objected to about how he handled priests accused of sexual abuse of minors. As the superior working from Rome, he apparently allowed a pedophile priest to live at the Chicago Augustinian monastery which is near a school. In the case in Peru, as a bishop he was accused by two girls of covering up for a allegedly pedophile priest they accused of abusing them. But we only know limited facts for each case, such that we still must give him the benefit of the doubt. To be fair.
First, regarding the Chicago case, all we know is the priest apparently was allowed to live near a school. As that stands, per se on its own, that at worst would mean Provost made an unwise or imprudent act. There is no evidence of his permission breaking any law, or deliberately intending to neglect the welfare of children. Anything is possible, but in fairness we have no evidence to even suspect that.
Second, regarding the Peru case, there was no evidence including witnesses to any alleged abuse. The priest denied the abuse. And the fact is, as much as we cry out to God about pedophile priests, false allegations against priest are common. Prevost did follow canonical procedure, and investigated in so far as he interviewed the girls, and then the priest, yet otherwise had no evidence to compel him to investigate further.
The settlement the diocese payed the two girls seemingly in part to hide scandal surrounding Provost, being a Pababile, on a short list of potential papal candidates, is not per se evil unless there was actual real sexual abuse being deliberately covered up. But again we must give him the benefit of the doubt, as any of us should do towards one another. We have no reason to believe anything other than the diocese was silencing a scandal in order to avoid public, universal scandal. They would have every right to privatize the complaints through a legal settlement since they could only give the accused priest himself the benefit of the doubt (unless evidence or witnesses were ever in theory to be produced).
God knows exactly what happened in both cases with Prevost, and any potential error or wrongdoing, whether through act, omission, or word. But we have no reason at least to suspect him of any grave wrongdoing.
We should give him, the Holy Father, the benefit of the doubt.