PS. Which is why it is so inexcusable that the 1981 report of abuse was not given to authorities. I do not doubt that the archdiocese mishandled the second reporting of the abuse. I imagine it must have been very traumatic for the victim to have to relive (in a sense) what happened to him all those years ago and to be told it could not be substantiated. What I don’t know is how the board could have substantiated a 20 year old claim and what the Grand Jury uses as criteria to determine a claim is credible.
Why not read the Grand Jury's report and find out?