Not related to. Only within. Solicitation refers exclusively to the behavior of a priest within the confessional. It doesn't cover any behavior which results from that solicitation. However such external behavior is covered by lots of other statutes within canon law, and any guilty priest would have to answer for those crimes in addition to the crime of solicitation.
I'm not sure, but you seem to be under the belief that a priest accused of solicitation would not be charged with the crimes which resulted from it. That's simply not true. Much like a bank robber who kills someone during his robbery is charged with both robbery and murder, an abusing priest who solicited illegal sexual encounters from his confessional would have to answer for the crime of solicitation as well as any sexual crimes which followed.
The problem with the current scandal is that bishops shielded their priests from all charges. They didn't charge them with solicitation and protect them from the rest.
...it would be logical to assume that it applies to minors as well as adults.
Regardless of what the Vatican thought was the most likely victim at the time, the document applies to the behavior of the priest alone. The identity of the victim does not change the seriousness or consequence to a priest for committing the crime of solicitation. It is always a grave matter.
OK, I see where you are coming from.
I'm not sure, but you seem to be under the belief that a priest accused of solicitation would not be charged with the crimes which resulted from it.
That is because few of those priests were ever charged with anything because most of the cases were handled with what appears to be no intention to hand them over for civil prosecution where crime was involved.
The problem with the current scandal is that bishops shielded their priests from all charges. They didn't charge them with solicitation and protect them from the rest
In most cases, yes. They couldn't charge them with solicitation if the victim was persuaded in a way that didn't relate to confession except perhaps where the abuser happened to also be the regular confessor. The solicitation/seduction happened in the rectory, on a weekend outing, in the victim's home, etc., and wouldn't necessarily all fall under the canonical definition of solicitation.
Regardless of what the Vatican thought was the most likely victim at the time, the document applies to the behavior of the priest alone. The identity of the victim does not change the seriousness or consequence to a priest for committing the crime of solicitation. It is always a grave matter.
The consequences apply to the priest, but it was the victim who was threatened with the excommunication. No priest was threatened with excommunication if he came to know what had happened nor was the perpetrator threatened with excommunication.
In any case, it appears the document came to light and was handed over to the US attorney by Shea, and not for a civil suit, who is quoted as saying, among other things, "It's an instruction manual for a rigged trial for a priest accused of sexual crimes, including crimes against children". That's where I got the notion that the document applied to children as well as adults, but I don't go along with the rigged part necessarily and this is the Boston Herald doing the quoting.
My take on all this started here and that was how I connected it to the article on the CBS site.
I may dig through it again and I may not, because, if you want to know the truth, I do not believe that that document is the reason these things were covered up. There may have been a general consensus among the bishops to cover things up, and it seemed standard operating procedure and fell into a pattern with some exceptions, but I doubt it had much to do with that particular instruction, unless other similar secret documents set that tone. It remains to be seen and probably won't be seen because it is guarded information.
It was probably just covered up to prevent an embarassment for the church or scandal however you may choose to define it.