The problem with the sentence is the way courts work. This could be used as a precedent for future cases, no? In the overall picture, a couple of years per count/instance for this abuse of position and influence over children (and disguised under the cloud of a charity) needed to be addressed with a more substantial punishment. At 30 years, while unlikely, he could get out. He'd be 98.
The sentence just doesn't seem fair to the victims, and that's what it should be about, not whether or not he will die in prison. He's likely to die sooner rather than later anyway. I would like to see a better administration of justice in this case, and set the stage to zap any future case of a similar nature.