You wrote:
“But it was known the whole life of that Pope.”
Who said that? No one. What is being claimed is that it is obvious to MODERN observers that the Templars were innocent based on this one document. That doesn’t mean that the pope believed they were innocent.
“The Pope here, appears to have a sin of omission.”
Then, according to your logic, you might be committing a sin of ommission because you are omitting obvious points here. This is what the article actually said:
“The official who found the paper says it exonerates the knights entirely.”
Okay, so the MODERN OFFICIAL believes it exonerates the Templars. What did the pope believe?
“In the hearings before Clement V, the knights reportedly admitted spitting on the cross, denying Jesus and kissing the lower back of the man proposing them during initiation ceremonies.”
What makes you think the pope was hiding something then?
“However, according to Prof Frale, study of the document shows that the knights were not heretics as had been believed for 700 years.
In fact she says “the Pope was obliged to ask for pardons from the knights... the document we have found absolves them”. “
Why would the Pope have asked for the Templars to pardon him?