http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26
References :

Sexual abuse was not openly confronted in the past by anyone – including all churches, schools, even parents. It’s the way it was. It was wrong, which is why it’s being changed – although it’s still not handled right in many other sectors. For example, most child molesters never have charges brought against them by the District Attorney. The law does not protect children. Where is the outrage there?
References :

In a way, both. The document exists (I’ve read an English translation of it); however, its contents and meaning have been so distorted by the media that their version of it is a hoax.

English translation of the document (someone has even put blue boxes around the parts they deem most scandalous):
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/crimineenglish.htm

Observations by Thomas Doyle (Doyle has been very critical of way sex abuses cases have been handled in the Church, yet even he acknowledges the document has been misunderstood):
http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/doyle-comment-11-1-06.pdf

Important things to keep in mind:

1) It was 1962. These things were simply not discussed in public.

2) Secrecy was/is employed in the Church for the same reason newspapers don’t print the names of rape victims, and some civil court transcripts are sealed.

In 1991, New York governor Mario Cuomo signed legislation "that prohibits public officials in New York from disclosing the names of rape victims", yet no one interpreted this as prohibiting or discouraging rape victims from going to the police.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4061939.html

In 1993, when "a law barring news organizations from publishing the identity of rape victims" was "ruled unconstitutional by a state appeals court", the New York Times noted that "the law’s supporters said the statute encouraged victims to report rape and protected them from retaliation by their attackers."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE6D8153CF935A3575BC0A965958260

Picture it: You’re a 12 year old boy. Your parish priest is molesting you. It is the 1960s. How likely are you to come forward if the Church doesn’t have any privacy protection?

3) "The secrecy that was (and still is) imposed on parties and witnesses in canonical proceedings is intended to assure witnesses that they can speak freely. It is also intended to protect the reputations of the accused and accuser until guilt or innocence is determined. The almost paranoid insistence on secrecy throughout the document is probably related to two issues: the first is the scandal that would arise were the public to hear stories of priests committing such terrible crimes. The second reason is the protection of the inviolability of the sacrament of penance." (Doyle observation 15)

4) "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. It seems to be stretching a bit too far to conclude that this process is a substitute for civil law action or is an attempt to coddle or hide clergy who perpetrate sex crimes. The document was written in 1962 in a style and within an ecclesiastical context common for that pre-conciliar age. It is also a legalcanonical document written in highly technical language. The translation, though basically accurate, is also strained and awkward which can lend itself to misunderstanding." (Doyle observation 16)
References :

This is certainly the case in the United States and especially in the Los Angeles area.

Reporting abuse is for the good of the Church. It should not be seen as disloyalty. Excommunication is not used lightly and is typically only used against very important people like errant priests and bishops and not against ordinary people.
References :