What doees that double-speak even mean?
It means the same thing that it does in the Federal Jury Manual that I referenced above. The secrecy only applies to the testimony given in the investigation before a church tribunal. There no, I repeat no, restrictions on reporting the crime to civil authorities. Why is this so hard to understand? Again, take the example of grand jury. Someone witnesses Dillinger robbing a bank and is called to a grand jury to give testimony. Upon leaving the grand jury he can tell the whole world that "I saw Dillinger rob a bank." What he cannot say is "I told the grand jury that I saw Dillinger rob a bank." The same rule applies to the the accuser or witness in the proceedings described in Crimen sollicitationis. The oath applies to testimony in the case; it would prevent him from saying "I told the tribunal that Father X did such and such." But this does not prevent him from telling the police "Father X did such and such."
Read Crimen Sollicitationis. It's all there. And it's a document that convicts Rome of its ugly, criminal, decades-long cover-up.
Yes, it is all there. Perhaps you should read all of it. If you did you would find the following:
2. Bringing this unspeakable crime to trial in first instance pertains to the local Ordinaries in whose territory the Defendant has residence…Do you not understand that the actions covered are described as "unspeakable crimes"? These are actions that the Church holds in contempt, not actions to be pardoned lightly. Do you not understand that the procedures are for a "TRIAL"? A trial is to determine guilt or innocence, not to cover something up.
You would also find the following:
[I]t is enjoined upon [the bishop], by an obligation gravely binding in conscience, to ensure that causes of this sort henceforth be introduced, treated and concluded as quickly as possible before their own tribunal.These trials are to be concluded "as quickly as possible." Again, not the action of a cover up. In no. 7 you would find an official with the title of "Promoter of Justice." In other words, there is a PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.
It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses.
Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church...
You keep returning to this but you always ignore no. 13:
The oath to maintain confidentiality must always be taken in these causes, also by the accusers or complainants and the witnesses. These persons, however, are subject to no censure, unless they were expressly warned of this in the proceedings of accusation, deposition or questioning.Thus normally they would be exempt from all penalties. As I have repeatedly pointed out, all this only applies to their testimony. They are still free to report the crime to the police. Again, no cover up.
Further reading would reveal the following:
29. When, as a result of denunciations, notice of the crime of solicitation is had, a special investigation is to be carried out, “so that it may be determined whether the accusation has any basis and what that may be”…So again, the whole process is one to determine the truth of the accusation, not to cover it up.
In no. 42 we find the following:
[I]f certain or at least probable arguments exist for bringing the accusation to trial, he should order the Defendant to be cited and formally charged.A trial, not a cover up.
Further reading would reveal TITLE THREE: PENALTIES. Yes, penalties. The whole purpose of the procedure is to determine guilt and apply penalties if the defendant is found guilty. Thus you would find the following:
61. “One who has committed the crime of solicitation... is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from the hearing of sacramental confessions and even, in view of the gravity of the crime, declared incapable from hearing them. He is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and is to be declared incapable for all these, and in more grievous cases he is even to be subjected to reduction to the lay state [degradatio]”. Thus states Canon 2368, §1 of the Code [of Canon Law]."Reduction from to the lay state" is what in the popular press is called "defrocked" or "removed from the priesthood." These are the harshest penalties that the Church can impose. Again, the purpose of the Instruction is to determine guilt and apply penalties, not to cover up.
All this being said, if you want to say that there were bishops who did cover up these crimes I would agree with you. But in doing so it was not that they were following some sort of Vatican led conspiracy contained in Crimen sollicitationis but because they were not following it by subjecting the accused priest to trails and punishing the guilty. If Crimen sollicitationis had actually been followed this rot would have been cleaned out years ago.
yadayadayada. The reality is your church destroys its victims as children then muzzles them for decades.
Talk to a young man who was molested and why he kept quiet after being raped by a priest when he was eight years old.
Your church is riddled with pedophiles who are given free license to take what they want when they want it, destroying the next generation in the process, all because they believe themselves to be “another Christ.”
Criminal and demonic.
Thanks for your post and clear refutation of the accusation.
“Yada, yada, yada… I’m sticking my fingers in my ears so I can’t here you” notwithstanding.