So... the Bishops are at fault too. What's your point?
As far as the China vs. the Vatican thing goes, even in the Vatican's eyes they're not similar to China. Read early in the posts where the Vatican claimed it is not a state.
EDIT: I pasted something else early about the Vatican's statehood, here's the relevant material I referenced above (which I did not paste earlier)
Moreover, the Holy See itself, while claiming international legal personality, does not claim to be a State. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, former Secretary for Relations with States of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, has underlined that we must avoid the temptation of assimilating the Holy See and its international action with that of a State, with their thirst for power. For him, the Holy See is unquestionably a sovereign subject of international law but of a predominantly religious nature.
And it is not merely that the Vatican has failed to report crimes to the authorities throughout the world, which they have, but also that they actively worked to keep their clergymen from being prosecuted when they deserved such.
Helping a priest accused of child molestation relocate is almost the same as aiding a fugitive. Though I assume you'll just argue that it's no different than political asylum.
Respecting the Vatican's Sovereignty and right to be free of the laws of other countries simply doesn't make sense when you consider the substantial amount of influence they have on other countries through their citizens and parishes. If the Vatican was actually a state in any practical, real capacity beyond artificial designations set aside by international law, do you truly believe countries throughout the world would let them purchase land in their territory and build government facilities?
If they're going to be allowed that sort of intimate reach into other countries, shouldn't additional responsibilities come with that?
They're in a unique position and regularly abuse their power in the form of mobilizing their followers in foreign countries for their own political motives. From threatening to refuse to give communion to people who disagree with the Church's stance on issues to telling Africans that HIV is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems," he travels the world telling people what to do (often based on misleading or dubious facts).
If he was a secular leader only, do you really think he would be tolerated for very long by world leaders? He's basically a monarch chosen to rule the Vatican with absolute authority by an oligarchy.