Pilate's moral relativism

My husband is reading Life of Christ by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. The other night he read to me the following, His Excellency's reflections of Pilate's actions after asking Jesus "What is truth?" (John 18:38):

Then he turned his back on truth- better not on it, but on Him Who is Truth. It remained to be seen that tolerance of truth and error in a stroke of broadmindedness leads to intolerance and persecution; "What is truth?" when sneered, is followed up by the second sneer, "What is justice?" Broadmindedness, when it means indifference to right and wrong, eventually ends in a hatred of what is right. He who was so tolerant of error as to deny an Absolute Truth was the one who would crucify Truth. It was the religious judge who challenged Him, "I adjure thee"; but the secular judge asked, "What is truth?" He who was in the robe of the high priest called upon God to repudiate the things that are God's; he who was in the Roman toga just professed a skepticism and doubt.

and

Pilate was one of those who believed that truth was not objective but subjective, that each man determined for himself what was to be true. It is often the fault of practical men, such as Pilate, to regard the search for objective truth as useless theorizing. Skepticism is not an intellectual position; it is a moral position, in the sense that it is determined not so much by reason as by the way one acts and behaves. Pilate's desire to save Jesus was due to a kind of liberalism which combined disbelief in Absolute Truth with a half-benevolent unwillingness to disturb such dreamers and their superstitions. Pilate asked the question, "What is truth?" of the only Person in the world Who could answer it in all its fullness.