CathInfo.com

Except... when the minister directly goes against that intention.

And like I already explained the SSPX especially in 1982 was a credible source to AT LEAST SUSPECT something, which needs investigation. .

You clearly do not work in any area of law, or law enforcement, because if you did, you would understand this

A detective who strongly suspects something and yet fails to investigate it, is GRAVELY NEGLIGENT in his duty.

Of course.

No, in this instance The Angelus cannot be said to be a "credible source". The Angelus did not provide the date of the alleged letter, the title of the alleged letter, who the alleged letter was addressed to, where the alleged letter was published, or a single word quoted from the alleged letter. That is an abject, abysmal failure in journalism. It is gratuitous, and is gratuitously rejected
So we have gone from "at least suspect" because of The Angelus piece (it's quality described above) to "strongly suspect", why exactly?

Let’s present the matter in a different light using the same principles that Tom is using.

If you heard that a man in the neighbourhood had a reputation for being a pedophile from a reasonable source, but could not verify it completely for whatever reason, would you send your child to play at his house?