Vatican sanctions founder of Legionaries

seattlepi ^ | 5/19/06 | ap

[Pyro7480]

Who said I wasn't outraged? If he doesn't repent, he's going into the lowest reaches of hell.

At the same time, I have to say I'm outraged by many of your posts. Not on this specific subject, since you're right about this guy (though I can't find the 30 number, save for your link), but with others. I know you're trying to prove Catholicism is a false religion, blah, blah, blah.

[Full Court]

If he doesn't repent, he's going into the lowest reaches of hell.

Why is it ok that the current Pope knew all of this information and never acted to stop the man?

And you are more worried about my posts, which you can't disprove, than you are things of this nature occurring in the RCC?

[Pyro7480]

And you are more worried about my posts, which you can't disprove, than you are things of this nature occurring in the RCC?

Again, you assume. It's in your nature it seems. It's way past my bedtime, and I have to go to Mass in the morning, so guten nacht.

[dsc]

"Why is it ok that the current Pope knew all of this information and never acted to stop the man?"

Why do you assume that the abuse was still continuing at the time then-Cardinal Ratzinger learned of it?

[Full Court]

Ratzinger became visibly upset and actually slapped this reporter's hand.

Eight Men's Allegations Went Unanswered

Vaca is not alone. He is one of eight former students, now all in their 60s, who have signed sworn affidavits submitted to the Vatican that they were abused by Maciel.

When they were members of the Legion, the accusers were devout followers of Marciel. But for the last eight years, they have been trying to get the Vatican to listen or even acknowledge their detailed allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of Father Maciel. They say they have not heard a response from the Vatican.

In 1997, they went public, telling their story to The Hartford Courant, a newspaper in Connecticut.

Courant reporters Jerry Renner and Jason Berry, who wrote the story, repeated the allegations to the Vatican, yet received no response from the Vatican. However, later that year, the pope took a step that surprised them.

Maciel was appointed to represent the pope at a meeting of Latin American bishops, which Renner and Berry took as a clear signal the Vatican had ignored the allegations.

'He's Untouchable'

"I would say he has the pope eating out of his hand. Who is going to touch him no matter what he does?" said J. Paul Lennon, a member of the Legion of Christ for 23 years, who has since left and has been helping those claiming to be victims. "He's untouchable."

Lennon said Macial is a master of Vatican politics: "He's worked with several popes, knows the inner workings, knows monsignors, knows cardinals, knows maybe the men who are really in power, knows that so well, so well."

Then, four years ago, some of the men tried a last ditch effort, taking the unusual step of filing a lawsuit in the Vatican's secretive court, seeking Macial's excommunication.

Once again they laid out their evidence, but it was another futile effort — an effort the men say was blocked by one of the most powerful cardinals in the Vatican.

The accusers say Vatican-based Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Vatican office to safeguard the faith and the morals of the church, quietly made the lawsuit go away and shelved it. There was no investigation and the accusers weren't asked a single question or asked for a statement.

He was appointed by the pope to investigate the entire sex abuse scandal in the church in recent days. But when approached by ABCNEWS in Rome last week with questions of allegations against Maciel, Ratzinger became visibly upset and actually slapped this reporter's hand.

"Come to me when the moment is given," Ratzinger told ABCNEWS, "not yet."

"Cardinal Ratzinger is sheltering Maciel, protecting him," said Berry, who expressed concerns that no response was being given to the allegations against the man charged with sex abuse. "These men knelt and kissed the ring of Cardinal Ratzinger when they filed the case in Rome. And a year-and-a-half later, he takes those accusations and aborts them, just stuffs them."

[dsc]

None of that even implies that the abuse was still continuing when then-Cardinal Ratzinger learned of it.

[Full Court]

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'. . .

Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric.' The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice. Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'

Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:FySBpQLIbsQJ:prorev.com/2005/05/pope-wants-exemption-from-us-criminal.htm+ratzinger+sex+abuse+marcel&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&lr=lang_en

[Full Court]

PETER POPHAM, INDEPENDENT - Pope Benedict XVI has been accused of ignoring for seven years charges that Fr Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, had sexually abused nine teenagers in his organization - because Fr Maciel was a close friend of Pope John Paul II. In 1997 the then Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican body which has the power to excommunicate priests guilty of sexual abuse, when Bishop John R McCann of New York forwarded him detailed charges of sexual abuse made by Fr Juan Vaca, a priest in Bishop McCann's diocese. The charges were in the form of a 12-page letter to Fr Marcial Maciel Degollado, who founded the Legionaries of Christ, a conservative Catholic evangelical order, in Mexico in 1941.

"Everything you did contradicts the beliefs of the Church and the order," Fr Vaca wrote in his open letter. "How many innumerable times did you wake me in the middle of the night and had me with you, abusing my innocence. Nights of fear, so many nights of absolute fear: so many nights of lost sleep, that on more than one occasion placed my own psychological health in jeopardy."

Fr Vaca was one of nine former members of Legionaries of Christ who charged Fr Maciel with having sexually abused them when they were teenage seminarians in the order in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. . . Another priest and former member of the Legionaries, Juan Manuel Fernandez Armenabar, made a deathbed declaration denouncing Fr Maciel's sexual abuse. But despite the gravity of the charges, Cardinal Ratzinger took no action. The Vatican confirmed that it had received Fr Vaca's letter, but nothing more was said.

[gbcdoj]

You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18?

This is an amazingly stupid thing for a lawyer to say. In this country, the civil laws of at least several states regarding the reporting of sexual abuse work the same way. The statue of limitations doesn't begin to run out until the victim reaches his majority, because that way each is given an equal period of adulthood in which to come forward and report the abuse to the authorities.

As regards this letter, it's a tightening up of canonical procedures allowing clerics who commit sexual abuse to be dealt with quickly and in a centralized manner. Note that the process takes this crime out of the hands of the local bishops, like the ones who screwed things up so badly in the U.S.A. The pontifical secret here regards the details of the case as handled by the ecclesiastical mechanisms, not the crime itself. For instance, here's an example of another case, not regarding sexual abuse, which was being handled by the CDF under the same norms ("vetita eucharistici Sacrificii concelebratio una cum ministris communitatum ecclesialium, qui successionem apostolicam non habent nec agnoscunt ordinationis sacerdotalis sacramentalem dignitatem;"). You can see that Bishop Olmsted obviously didn't believe there was any need to observe secrecy about the reason that Fr. Cunningham was being suspended.

[dsc]

None of that even implies that the abuse was still continuing when then-Cardinal Ratzinger learned of it.

I believe I'm correct in saying that the 1990s postdate the 1960s.

[Lurker]

It seems that many of the Catholic Churches hierarchy feel that the Church is somehow above the law.

If the Officers of General Motors or Standard Oil had engaged in this kind of long term conspiracy involving pedophiles the RICO Statutes would have been brought to bear, the offending organization bankrupted, and its officers jailed.

L

[Full Court]

None of that even implies that the abuse was still continuing when then-Cardinal Ratzinger learned of it.

Is there any indication that he acted at any point in time to bring justice? Even now?

No.

[Full Court]

Amen.

[dsc]

"Is there any indication that he acted at any point in time to bring justice? Even now? "

Before we change the subject, let's take a second to note that your accusation that the Holy Father failed to "stop" the abuse was unwarranted. As far as is known, he never had any opportunity to "stop" that abuse.

[fortunecookie]

If a Dentist raped a 21 year old woman while she was under anethesia (eg under his control) and the judge stripped him of his license to practice Dentistry, wouldn't you be appalled?

Well, of course I'd be appalled. You've missed my point entirely. In your example, as in mine, this person clearly violated his position of authority (no puns intended) and raped her and drugged her. His license should be revoked. He should be jailed.

To apply my point to your analogy, the dentist and the 21 yr old woman would willingly enter into a liaison in his office, whether he seduced her or she seduced him, and then proceed to have at it right there in the office, disregarding his oath and any legal or moral issues preventing him from hooking up, willingly, with every adult patient that comes through his door. Just as in my point about certain Priests, or others, engaging in inappropriate behavior with other willing adults, as in the case of one known to me who had a longtime affair with a married woman, often hooking up right in the school that employed both.

Would your sense of moral indignation be placated if his attorney said "Well, it could have been worse. At least she wasn't 12"

That couldn't be further from my point or reaction. It goes without saying, or so I thought, that his attorney would be a giant jackass if he said such a thing regarding the rape (not willing liaison) of an anesthetized (not even conscious, let alone willing) patient, regardless of age and 'my sense' of 'moral indignation' would be appropriate, not placated by such a remark.