I know this is what is how it works within the Church - Canon Law jurisdiction.  But, no priest can "practice" in a diocese without the bishop's permission.  I have some concern that bishops may have learned of abuse by religious order clergy and did the nothing they did when it was a diocesan priest.  But, if someone had experienced abuse in a setting under the supervision of the bishop, I think the bishop should have responsibility under the civil law because he is the one who allows that person to work in the parish.  More, if there were complaints about the behavior of the clergyman or religious person, that would probably have gone up to the same people within the diocese whether the person was a diocesan priest or a person in a religious order.  

Why should what is recognized and permissible under U.S. law have to conform to Catholic Canon Law?  So far, I think U.S. law has recognized the distinction.  But I think it is disingenuous of bishops to make that claim.