lol. Good grief. Do Roman Catholic apologists ever read any of these links to their own church's documents?
Read CRIMEN SOLLICITATIONIS, paying particular attention to paragraphs 11, 13 and 42a.
And try to ease up on the name-calling.
"An oath of secrecy was to be taken by all members of the tribunal; violation incurred a penalty of automatic excommunication. The ecclesiastical penalty for violation of secrecy by the accused priest was automatic suspension a divinis, although he was free to discuss with his defence counsel (Section 13). Unless violation of secrecy occurred after an explicit procedural warning given in the course of their examination (Section 13; and cf. Section 23 concerning the person denouncing solicitation: '… before the person is dismissed, there should be presented to the person, as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening the person, if there is a need, with an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary or to the Holy See"), no ecclesiastical penalties were to be imposed on the accuser(s) and witnesses. '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.'[7]" [emphasis mine]
In other words, only the members of the tribunal who adjudicated the case of priest accused of sexual misconduct were sworn to secrecy because the proceedings of the canonical trial were supposed to be secret to protect the all of the parties involved. However, witnesses and victims were not bound by any seal of secrecy and had every right to bring these matters to the attention of civil authorities. Moreover, this document was issued in 1962, not 2001 as you claimed. It looks like you got all of your facts wrong.