From the article...
The Vatican has previously said that diocese officials and civil authorities knew about the allegations some 20 years before the Vatican was ever notified. Because of that, Lena said, it cannot be held liable for Murphy's abuse.
So says the Vatican. No one else says "civil authorities knew about the allegations."
You have more faith in the Vatican's flimsy excuses than most people do.
It was a recap of the facts, not the article, facts that can easily be verified.
So says the Vatican. No one else says "civil authorities knew about the allegations."
Even the attack article of the New York Times, "Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys", does not question the report that the civil authorities were notified and declined to prosecute. But of course we know how pro-Catholic the NYT is.
You need to do a bit more reading on this event. This is not just what the Vatican says it is what news reports say and it is what researching the facts will reveal.
And in 1995 CDF had no standing in abuse cases unless their was any abuse of the sacrament of confession. The Vatican curia that had responsibility for abuse cases which were forwarded to Rome (not all were.) was the Congregation for Clergy.
And you must have missed the statement of the Vicar General in the case which item by item lambasted the mistaken reporting of this incident and the corrections he offered.
You also manage to ignore the fact that the Bishop of the Diocese had authority over this priest and could have at any time suspended any minsterial activity (which he did) without waiting for Vatican input.
But as usual your Anti-Catholic bigotry does not permit inteference by any facts.