You need to read what your church believes and expects you to believe.
13. The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or these denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses.
You need to read all of the documentation instead of stopping when you reach an incorrect conclusion. I have provided you full documentation and exculpatory information at least a half a dozen times. That you continue to ignore that and persist in offering the same falsehoods demonstrates you are not motivated by revealing the truth, but instead denigrating Christ's Church. One can only wonder at your motives and strive not to assign evil intentions.
I am quoting sources here. Just assume it.
This is the second time you’ve tried to use Catholic documents to “prove” a lie, and the second time your lie has been debunked. I don’t know whether it’s just that everything you know about Catholicism is wrong, or whether your hatred for the One True Church is such that you do not care if what you say is true.
It comes out the same either way, and either will lead you down the same broad road.
I’m going to present a little readily available information for the benefit of anyone who might be misled by your remarks.
The document’s obscurity meant it had not had the impact being attributed to it, and in any event, it dealt only with canonical procedures. It did not order anyone not to cooperate with civil or criminal investigations.
The Latin expression crimen sollicitationis refers to a sexual advance made before, during or immediately after administration (even simulated) of the Sacrament of Penance, also known as “confession.”
Crimen sollicitationis (Latin: the crime of soliciting) was a 1962 letter from the Holy Office giving procedures to be followed in cases of priests or bishops of the Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. The lamestream media usually say that the oath of secrecy about the conduct of the trial is intended to silence victims, contrary to what the instruction clearly states.
Except in connection with the sacrament of Penance, canon law imposed no legal obligation - though a moral one might exist - to denounce clerics guilty of engaging in or attempting a homosexual act; but the procedure described in Crimen sollicitationis was to be followed also in dealing with such accusations. And any gravely sinful external obscene act with prepubescent children of either sex or with animals engaged in or attempted by a cleric was to be treated, for its penal effects, as equivalent to an actual or attempted homosexual act.
De delictis gravioribus, published in 2001, brings Crimen sollicitationis in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, replaced the 1917 Code that governed in 1962.
Canon Law when Crimen sollicitationis was issued required anyone whom a priest solicited in confession to denounce him within one month, and ordered that such a priest be subjected to a serious ecclesiastical punishment (Canon 904).
Crimen sollicitationis indicated the procedure to be followed between a denunciation and the possible infliction of a penalty.
The document’s title, “Instructio de modo procedendi in causis sollicitationis” (Instruction on procedure in solicitation cases), indicates that it was composed to indicate how to carry out a canonical investigation into accusations of solicitation. It described the procedures to be followed in each phase: reception of a denunciation; the course of the investigation, summoning the accused, sentencing, and the possibility of appeal.
Section 11 of Crimen sollicitationis outlines the required confidentiality of the investigation into accusations of the crime of solicitation. The document imposed absolute confidentiality on the trial’s proceedings (explicitly excepting “what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect,” meaning public portions of any verdict), both during its conduct and after any concluding verdict had been put into effect: “As, assuredly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called “the secrecy of the Holy Office”) in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary.”
“These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.”
Interviewed for a television program in 2006, canon lawyer Thomas Doyle described the tight secrecy demanded for the procedure as “an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy, to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by churchmen.” However, in the study of the instruction that he revised less than two years later he stated: “According to the document, accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the process. There is no basis to assume that the Holy See envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to secular authorities.”
John L. Allen, Jr. has said the secrecy was aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed, and for free finding of facts.
Get it? The “secrecy” is the same sort of thing civil courts do in not publishing the names of the victims of rape, to protect their privacy. It also protects the reputation of the accused, but if convicted, penalties are levied, up to and including laicization.
One more time: It dealt only with canonical procedures. It did not order anyone not to cooperate with civil or criminal investigations.
Here are some sources:
Allen, John L. (2003-08-15). “Explaining ‘Crimen Sollicitationis,’ ” National Catholic Reporter.
“It allows witnesses to speak freely, accused priests to protect their good name until guilt is established, and victims to come forward who don’t want publicity. Such secrecy is also not unique to sex abuse. It applies, for example, to the appointment of bishops.” http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0815.htm.
“The 1962 instruction Crimen sollicitationis: Caught red-handed or handed a red herring?” by John P. Beal in Studia canonica, 41(2007), pp.199-236 http://www.vatican.va/resources/Beal-article-studia-canonica41-2007-pp.199-236.pdf
1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases: Many bishops unaware obscure missive was in their archives by John L. Allen Jr., 7 August 2003 in National Catholic Reporter. http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm
“The 1922 Instruction and the 1962 Instruction Crimen sollicitationis promulgated by the Vatican” by Thomas Doyle, October 3, 2008. http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/2008/2008-10-03-Commentary%20on%201922%20and%201962%20documents.pdf