specifically if this priest is guilty of all that were written above, it is so repulsive and appalling of him.
But sometimes , we don’t know what to believe again especially when it comes to the catholic priesthood and sexual molestation.

Some people use this medium to enrich themselves. though there has be past facts.
Well it is unfortunate that some people became priest just for the benefits, respect and sometime parents’ demands.And once you are ordained, you are a priest forever till you die.Less I would have suggested they get kicked out or stripped of the sacrament of orders.

No, there was NO underage girl. We atheists are supposed to be able to clearly disinguish between fantasy and reality. You can't "attempt to groom an underage girl" if it's really a policeman – you can only "attempt to groom a policeman posing as an underage girl". This is not an academic distinction. If his crime is being presented as an "attempt to groom an underage girl", then it's a fictitious crime. We shouldn't be charging people with fictitious crimes.

This doesn't mean he shouldn't be charged, but the charge should refer to what really happened and why he's really considered worth arresting. He's coming before the courts because the police regard him as potentially dangerous, and this is something the court needs to assess, without basing this assessment on the mistaken idea that the police are providing evidence that he has actually engaged in child abuse.

And since this man is being charged with a thought crime, not an actual crime against a child, we really should be honest about that. While I believe it's preferable for people to be charged with real crimes, rather than pretend crimes made up by the police, there may well be a strong argument for "thought crime" convictions in the name of public safety. But let's not pretend he was actually "grooming an underage girl" – this misrepresents both the nature of the offence and the police tactics involved, in a needlessly evasive way.

Is it better to arrest him before, or after he fucks a child?

He was attempting. He failed because he wasn't talking to an underage girl, but he was definitely attempting.

"Attempting to groom an imaginary underage girl" is more empirically accurate, and since he posted sexually suggestive material concerning this imaginary girl, he presumably ought to be charged with creating and distributing child porn. But since the police joined in, and indeed, instigated the whole thing, they ought to be charged, too.

When I was that age I could only get a paper-round.