This case got kicked out in the contraceptive scandal. I think the orthodox view is that the Bishop was dilatory in handling two scandals: a sick priest who should have been moved out of ministry to protect children, and an arrogant priest who should have been moved out of ministry to protect the faithful. The Washington Post viewed this as the Bishop being more concerned with the Church than with the children, but I think the faithful view is that previous Bishops were remiss in both cases and the current one moved slowly to rectify it in both cases. They never point out he has to worry about blow-back: conceding anything to an agressive lawyer in an abuse case could lead to serious financial harm, and sacking a feel-good disobedient priest will get you, oh, nasty comments in the Washington Post.

The Post story is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/karen-handel-and-the-other-side-of-the-catholic-coin/2012/02/07/gIQA39NBxQ_blog.html

And a one-sided local story: http://tristate-media.com/drr/news/local_news/article_a4af95b6-4e8d-11e1-9211-001871e3ce6c.html

I must say the Archdiocese of Washington had very little scandal because we had four cardinals in a row who told priests that if they violated the law, they were on their own. And the most famous case of a priest who went after teenagers ended up with his leaving and proclaiming it was because the Church was racist--so the Cardinal just opened the personnel file to the press. End of story. This moving from parish to parish thing makes no sense at all.