That is an incorrect interpretation of the document. The section of Crimen Sollicitationis that is being quoted is an incomplete quote. What follows is the canon number for the 1917 Code of Canon law that is being referenced. It is canon 1744.
If we look at the commentaries on canon 1744 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law we see that the canon is being taken out of context. In the canon law system, once an oath has been taken to tell the truth then the individual must answer any and all questions put to him by the judge (canon 1743). In the canon law system, to refuse to answer a question or to give an unsatisfactory answer the point of the question is then considered to be true. Silence after an oath to tell the truth has been taken is understood as agreement or concession of the point.
The code’s allowance of an accused not to take the oath means that the Code is giving the defendant a right to remain silent similar to the US Constitution’s 5th Amendment. Canon 1744 is saying that the defendant’s refusal to answer a question that is potentially self-incriminating cannot be used against him in coming to a judgment.
Crimen Sollicitationis was simply reminding judges (and bishops) that the accused had a canonical right to remain silent on questions that could be self-incriminating. If the accused takes an oath then he must answer all questions posed by the judge and his silence is taken as admission.
Canon law is a real legal system with its own traditions and principles. It is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) legal systems still in use in the world. In centuries past, in Catholic countries, defendants had the option of having their case heard in either a civil or canonical court. Its terms, phrases, and legal precedents are unique to its system and need to be understood within that system.
The atheist critic can only deem this canon unfair if he or she also deems the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution unfair since they are similar legal principles…
