"Crimen sollicitationis" had nothing to do with secular criminal or civil courts. Nothing. The whole thing deals with Canonical courts and a very narrow, particular category of canonical violations.
The whole hubbub about "Crimen sollicitationis" was fomented by the BBC in 2006 when they stupidly made a huge category mistake: they didn't realize that it had no applicability to secular law.
Here is the 1962 document "Crimen Sollicitationis" referenced by the BBC Panorama documentary. It's clear that this refers to the crime of soliciting in the course of a sacramental Confession. Only that. Nothing else. Not sexual abuse in general, not dealing with children in particular. Just what happened DURING a sacramental confession, which would not even necessarily, in every instance, be illegal in civil law. (For instance, soliciting fornication with an adult is a filthy sin, but not a crime in civil law.)
Nothing new here: the Catholic Church maintains the confidentiality of the accuser, the accused, and the Sacrament of Confession itself (which it is has always been canonically obliged to do) when within her own courts.
Far from constituting a cover-up, it actually requires investigation and prosecution.
It looked to me at the time (2006) like BBC was just trying to put a hit on Pope Benedict XVI in the aftermath of the Regensberg controversy when they were mad at the him for his non-PC critique of Islamic violence.
It is important to look at what the letters and texts actually said, as contrasted to what you think they said.
On the contrary, it is unjust --- it is rash judgment --- to interpret texts by imputing the worst possible motivation, and to stick to that despite a sound and knowledgeable refutation.
Both Crimen S and the Ratzinger/CDF letter of 2001 deal with laicization of a priest for using the confessional for any form of criminal solicitation. No canon law requires silence in criminal proceedings; no canon law forbids, or could forbid, legal prosecution in a civil or criminal court. That is is distinction which seems to elude a lot of people.
This line of argument died down within a few years of BBC's "expose" when it became embarrassingly clear that they had bungled the whole thing in a very basic way.
I'm not going to go back through 8 years of papers to document this.
If you actually want to understand this, you need to read accounts by somebody who grasps the basics of canon law. The most accessible stuff, as I remember, --- at least, the place to start --- would be articles by George Weigel, John Allen, and Philip Lawler.
If this had constituted an actual obstruction of justice, international criminal courts would have shut down whole Catholic Church. I remember that Frances Kissling, then heading the fraudulent, pro-abortion "Catholics for Choice," (then called "Catholics for a Free Choice," funded by The Turner Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and -- oh yeah, the Playboy Foundation) demanded that they do so.
But it didn't happen. Gee. Wonder why.
"Crimen sollicitationis" had nothing to do with secular criminal or civil courts. Nothing. The whole thing deals with Canonical courts and a very narrow, particular category of canonical violations.
I never said it does, but when the Vatican tells people to hush us under the thread of ex-communication, that's an abuse of power and authority.
Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection
The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'
Far from constituting a cover-up, it actually requires investigation and prosecution.
So when are we going to hear about the prosecution part of the sex crimes of the Catholic clergy?
All I keep getting told is *Once a priest, always a priest*.