Harley-D, as far as I know the only documents by the name of Crimen Sollictationis are the original rescript of 1962 and the instruction on the rescript of 2001.
As regards to why the Pope waited until 2001 to revoke some of the terms of the original, the simple answer is that the objectionable terms were rendered obsolete by the new Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983.
The promulgation specifically states that any preexisting canon law documents that contradict the new Code are null and void.
The 2001 instruction was meant to specifically rule out attempts by predators and their attorneys to shoehorn the 1962 rescript into post-1983 legal proceedings.
And, by the way, I think it is absolutely sound practice to not publicize the name of someone accused of abuse until it has been ascertained that the accusation has merit. Quite often on FR we see stories about men who are falsely accused and convicted of rape and even when they are finally vindicated, their good name is still forever ruined. False claims should be shredded.
And it is also clear in retrospect that discipline and rehabilitation - which were thought of in such a hopeful light in the 1960s - are not very useful in the context of predators like this.
Keeping these matters private in light of what was known about such criminals in 1962 may have seemed prudent at the time. Knowing what we know now about the nature of this inclination and the crimes that inevitably result from it, it is clear that once a claim of abuse has been substantiated the only person whose privacy should be a concern is the privacy of the victim.
BTW, DE your claim about "so many homosexuals being raised Roman Catholic" is, you have to admit after the first moment's reflection, just silly.
One out of every four Americans is Roman Catholic - there are quite a few homosexuals who were raised Pentecostal and Baptist. Here in the NYC area it's pretty much a running joke that everyone living in Manhattan who has a Southern accent is a flamboyant homosexual - and they've all got a "horror story" about being raised Baptist. In other words - they're upset about growing up in a normal Christian home.
And, the_conscience, the Archdiocese of Munich is enormous. It covers half of Bavaria, which has 13 million people, of whom almost 8 million are Catholic. Joseph Ratzinger was the Archbishop of almost 5 million Catholics, almost 1,000 parishes, over 5,000 clergy, 20,000 other employees as well as numerous hospitals and several universities and colleges.
No one dealing with a entity that size can get anything accomplished without delegating.
If you want to make the argument that the Archdiocese should be broken up into smaller and more manageable dioceses, I'm right there with you. I can't even imagine keeping tabs on 25,000 individually.
That's not the question. The question is when did he know it? Nor is the size of his jurisdiction all that impressive when if you consider whether a police commissioner of New York City would be unaware if one of his captains was engaging in such behavior and disciplined for it would the police commissioner be ignorant of it or would that have reached his desk? It's not plausible that Ratzinger did not know of the report at the time and the cover-up just makes it look worse. As the great Marshak said:
When the truth is found to be lies
and all the hope within you dies
Then what?
Did you read the actual letter in the link I posted? It said exactly that.
One out of every four Americans is Roman Catholic
That's a fairly wobbly statistic, given that the RCC keeps count through original baptisms and therefore doesn't subtract those who, like my husband, were baptized Roman Catholic and now are Protestant and have been for three decades.