In any case, all this concerns only the knowledge of the investigation, not of the crime. Those involved with a criminal grand jury are under the same requirement for secrecy. Thus, there too, a witness could not reveal what he said to the grand jury but this does not stop him from making a public complaint about what the crime he witness. The secrecy only applies to his testimony.
“Thus, there too, a witness could not reveal what he said to the grand jury but this does not stop him from making a public complaint about what the crime he witness. The secrecy only applies to his testimony”
I’m sorry but that just doesn’t make sense. If one testifies about the facts of the commission of a crime before a Grand Jury they can’t then publically state the same facts to any one else until released from his oath.
It would seem that if the accuser in the “Crimen Passimum”, situation first goes before the church with the complaint he would be bound by the oath of the “secret of the Holy Office” not to divulge the facts of the complaint to any one else under penalty of excommunication since he has first divulged the facts to the church. The exception in the code is they are not under censure “unless they were expressly warned of this in the proceedings of accusation......”.
But it stands to reason that the penalty would be read when the oath is administered.
If the accuser first goes through criminal justice system, then the confidentiality of the oath in the church’s investigation is meaningless since the accusation is public knowledge.