The story provides a generally accurate account of the events surrounding Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani's presence at Pope Francis's lying-in-state. The details about Cipriani's attire and the sanctions imposed on him by the Vatican are corroborated by multiple sources. The article accurately reports that Cipriani wore cardinal's vestments, which was against the sanctions forbidding him from doing so. It also correctly notes the Vatican's confirmation of these sanctions. However, the article could improve accuracy by clarifying that Cipriani's age now makes him ineligible to vote in the conclave, irrespective of the sanctions. The claim that Cipriani was allowed to resume pastoral duties in 2020 is presented without sufficient corroboration, as the sanctions were reportedly still in place.

The article presents a predominantly critical view of Cardinal Cipriani's actions, emphasizing the negative reactions from survivors' groups and other commentators. It includes perspectives from Gareth Gore and Anne Barrett Doyle, both of whom criticize Cipriani's presence and actions. While this critical viewpoint is important, the article could benefit from more balance by including additional perspectives, such as those from Cipriani's supporters or neutral observers, to provide a fuller picture of the situation. The article does mention Cipriani's denial of the allegations and his public letter, which adds some balance, but these are not as prominently featured as the criticisms.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the events and their implications. The language is straightforward, making the complex issues of church politics and clerical abuse accessible to a general audience. The article effectively uses quotes and expert commentary to support its narrative, enhancing clarity. However, some sections could benefit from clearer explanations, such as the details of the sanctions and their implications for Cipriani's role within the Church.

The article relies on credible sources, including statements from the Vatican and commentary from recognized experts on clerical abuse and church politics. It cites Gareth Gore, an author knowledgeable about Opus Dei, and Anne Barrett Doyle from BishopAccountability.org, both of whom provide informed perspectives on the situation. The use of these sources adds to the article's credibility. However, the story could be strengthened by directly citing primary sources, such as official Vatican statements or Cipriani's public letters, to enhance the reliability of the reported facts.

The article lacks some transparency in terms of sourcing and methodology. While it mentions the Vatican's confirmation of sanctions and includes quotes from experts, it does not provide direct links to these primary sources or explain how the information was verified. The basis for some claims, such as Cipriani's alleged resumption of pastoral duties, is not clearly explained, leaving readers without a full understanding of how these conclusions were reached. Greater transparency in sourcing and methodology would improve the article's credibility.