At least the Church isn't on TV 24/7 begging for cash.
Posted on 05/19/2006 10:37:28 AM PDT by catholicfreeper
Vatican City, May. 19, 2006 (CNA) - In response to the Communiqué from the Holy See Press Office regarding the conclusion of the investigation of the accusations made against Fr. Marcial Maciel, the Legionaries say they fully accept the decision and renew their commitment to serve the Church.
Following is the statement from the Legionaries:
1. Fr. Marcial Maciel has received during his life a great number of accusations. In the last few years, some of these were presented to the Holy See so that a canonical process would be opened.
2. Facing the accusations made against him, he declared his innocence and, following the example of Jesus Christ, decided not to defend himself in any way.
3. Considering his advanced age and his frail health, the Holy See has decided not to begin a canonical process but to "invite him to a reserved life of prayer and penance, renouncing to any public ministry".
4. Fr. Maciel, with the spirit of obedience to the Church that has always characterized him, he has accepted this communiqué with faith, complete serenity and tranquility of conscience, knowing that it is a new cross that God, the Father of Mercy, has allowed him to suffer and that will obtain many graces for the Legion of Christ and the Regnum Christi Movement.
5. The Legionaries of Christ and the members of the Regnum Christi, following the example of Fr. Maciel and united to him, accept and will accept always the directives of the Holy See with profound spirit of obedience and faith. We renew our commitment to work with great intensity to live our charism of charity and extend the Kingdom of Christ serving the Church.
For those interested go to this link to review the follow commentaries and MSM reactions at AmericanPapistblog
http://www.americanpapist.com/blog.html
St. Blogs commentary and reactions:
In Light of the Law looks at the canonical implications of this decision, as well as to what degree one can conclude Maciel's guilt from it: "... I think that the CDF directive that Maciel undertake prayerful "penance" might have greater canonical significance than meets the eye."
Amy Welborn's posting is ground zero (per usual) for the comment wars.
Jimmy Akin: "That the Congregation found that at least some substance to the allegations is indicated by the fact that the Congregation invited him to give up public ministry and lead a life of prayer and penance. You don't do that to people against whom baseless charges have been made, particularly at the ends of their lives. One does not lightly ask the enormity of asking a priest to have to give up public ministry, particularly if he is aged and infirm and has spent his career building an organization with a reputation for faithfulness." [More...]
The mainstream commentary and reactions:
New York Times: "The announcement marked the first public action by Pope Benedict XVI on the sensitive issue of sexual abuse in the church. And it came against a priest with a particularly high profile: the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, 86, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, one of the fastest growing Catholic communities, praised often by Pope John Paul II." [More...]
Associated Press: "Benedict's approval of the sanctions showed that he is not beholden to John Paul's legacy when it comes to dealing with what he once called the "filth" in the Catholic Church _ a widely understood criticism of clerical sex abuse ... Nine former seminarians first accused Maciel in 1996 of having abused them when they were boys or teenagers during the 1940s to 1960s. Later, other alleged victims came forward.
More from the AP: "But such a serious sanction against as prominent a churchman as Maciel _ which would prohibit him from celebrating Mass and other sacraments in public _ is a clear indication the Vatican found at least some validity to the charges, experts said...The Vatican investigated Maciel in the 1950s for alleged drug use, trafficking and misuse of funds but not for sexual misconduct. He was suspended from his duties as head of the order then reinstated after being cleared of all allegations."[More...]
Reuters: "The sanctions against Maciel made him one of the most prominent persons to be disciplined for alleged sexual abuse and could be devastating for the order and its lay branch Regnum Christi, which claims tens of thousands of members." [More...]
I'll repeat my previously-related personal story: "When I had the opportunity of meeting Cardinal Levada last summer, a friend of mine who was with me had the gumption to ask him if he would be pursuing the Maciel case when he took up his duties at CDF. Needless to say, Levada declined to respond... well, now we know."
ping
I have decided to post the thoughts of a blog listed above in full since I expect many of us will have to explain and defend the Church in the matter. There is a controversal line at the end but I think the rest is pretty straightforward.
at the In Light of the Law blog:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/05/fr-maciels-penance_19.html
Fr. Maciel's penance
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has invited Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, to spend his remaining days in "prayer and penance, refraining from all public ministry". Given the enormity of the sexual abuse accusations made against Maciel and the apparent credibility of many of his accusers, this directive (an "invitation" from CDF being essentially indistinguishable from an order), stopping short of a trial and well short of a conviction (or, for that matter, exoneration), will strike some as an inadequate resolution of this case.
Several obstacles stand in the way of a formal canonical trial in Maciel's case. First, such accusations, by their very nature, are difficult to prove (that being one of the most enraging aspects of this scandal); second, the long period of time since the alleged acts raises serious questions (usually under the rubric of statutes of limitations) about the prudence of attempting to adjudicate such cases at all; third, the juridic problems associated with the excessively long list of "affirmative defenses" that defendants can use to resist canonical penalties (chiefly in 1983 CIC 1323-1324) are very difficult to address during a trial; finally, in every prosecution of the elderly (Maciel is 86), prosecutors ask cui bono?
Nevertheless, I think that the CDF directive that Maciel undertake prayerful "penance" might have greater canonical significance than meets the eye.
Under common law, one is either found guilty of a crime in a trial, or not; thus, the possibility of, and significance of, canon law's alternative to a formal guilty verdict and sentence is easy to miss, especially since it (penance) sounds like something all the faithful are called to anyway (1983 CIC 1249).
Canon 1312 § 3, setting out the basic categories of ecclesiastical sanctions, states "Penal remedies and penances are also used; the former especially to prevent delicts, the latter to substitute for or to increase a penalty." In other words, the same kinds of acts or omissions that could result in a canonical penalty can, for various reasons, result instead in what is called a "penance". The possibility that CDF's call here for penance is its response to canonical crime(s) increases when one notes that 1983 CIC 1339-1340 authorize penances for those "upon whom, after investigation, grave suspicion of having committed a delict has fallen."
Nothing here proves the accusations against Maciel, which he has repeatedly denied; nor does it force the conclusion that CDF believes the accusations; in fact, we do not even know whether CDF is using the word "penance" with a sanctions-connotation. As American lawyers would say, there is wiggle-room in the statement, and it is possible that today we see Maciel joining the sad list of holy men and women who, over the centuries, have been vilified by the world and mistreated by ecclesiastical authority.
On the other hand, Rome is not in the habit of publicly telling successful, high-profile Church leaders to go off and spend their lives in private penance. It is possible that CDF examined the Maciel case, found within it evidence of grave misconduct yet, like the farmer who discovered weeds growing amid the wheat (Matt XIII), decided that uprooting the evil now would harm the innocent; if so, it seems, CDF has directed Maciel to especially prepare, trusting in the infinite mercy of Christ, for the day when every deed, and every aspect of every deed, will be made plain to all
What would happen if he confessed his guilt? What do you think should be the Church's action against him? And would you concur with the Church's decision?
Well of course I would concur with whatever the Church said as to this matter. To be honest I am not sure what the consequences of his "confessing guilt" would be Outside the confesional. At that point, what would happen to the order Congregation would be a big issue. In fact it still is. At this point unless this a Padre Pio situation, where this was all found to be false, the congregation is in a tough spot. Think of a situation where Ignatius of Loyala might have had been in a similar situation. I very much doubt the Jesuits could have continued because of the importance of the founder and holiness of life that person must have for it members. The question will be how long the Legionaries will continue their current stance. They do pride themselves on loyalty to the Pope. So his statements and other signs from the Vatican will be watched closely the next few weeks.
As far as I'm concerned the Catholic Church should be investigated under RICO laws as a organized criminal enterprise.
Well thank God your not or I am hoping your not in a position of authority with the justice department.
Bring it on Ace, the Catholic Church has always been persecuted, but it will outlast every nation, every political party, and every ignorant biggot who makes decisions without knowledge or investigation.
Questions:
1. If, as you claim on your homepage, you are a libertarian, how would you define an authoritarian using government to persecute those who disagree with him?
2. It is possible but not always likely that a libertarian might believe in God. Do you? Why? Why not?
3. What is your personal beef with the Roman Catholic Church?
4. Was that beef enough to have you feel that John Paul the Great's participation in dismantling the Iron Curtain should have kept the US from cooperating?
5. Is anti-Catholic bigotry your profession or just your hobby?
I meant to ping you all to #10. Sorry!
As far as I'm concerned, the Catholic Church was ancient long before these United States were even dreamt of, and will be around long after these United States have gone the way of the Ming Dynasty or the Roman Empire.
2. Yes I believe in God. No I am not a 'Christian' as most people would define that term.
3. My personal beef with the Roman Catholic Church is that Jesus was very poor, yet the Church is very wealthy. I don't think Jesus would approve of the Pope living in the Vatican. Further, I think there is evidence in the priest molestation cases recently that the Church as an organization was complicit in the crimes, moving priests around and covering up. That is where my RICO comment came from. If this was ANY other organization, you'd agree.
4. No, I think that the Pope did a lot of good things too, its not all black and white.
5. Just a hobby.
At least the Church isn't on TV 24/7 begging for cash.
...which in Vaticanese means what I think it means...
"Shut up and die, already."?
First, let me note that you, unlike many, have the courage of your convictions and actually answer questions posed and with candor. That is rare around here lately and I honestly congratulate you for it.
As to your answers #2, 4 and 5, fair enough. We may disagree but it is an honest disagreement.
As to your answer #1: The RICO statute does not attack "racketeering" in generic terms but rather requires specific so-called "predicate acts" that are violations of specified federal statutes. None of those are present as to the Roman Catholic Church and RICO is inapplicable. For further explanation, you might want to study SCOTUS decisions in pro-life "RICO" cases such as NOW vs. Scheidler in which even Justice Stephen Breyer derided the idea that courts had RICO jurisdiction except as provided by statute and based upon the required "predicate acts" such as extortion.
As to your answer #3: I adopt Sittnick's analysis in #14. As noted above, RICO would not apply in such circumstances whether it were raised against the Roman Catholic Church, against the Asseblies of God, against IBM or against a modern day Al Capone who moved gangsters around if they became child molestors. Actually the modern day Al Capone would probably have a more permanent solution to any gangster with the nickname "Kiddie Raper" and even that .45 calibre automated solution would not qualify under RICO.
When I ask questions like that, usually all I am looking for is honesty and the courage to express it. In you, I actually found both. Again, congrats.
May you be blessed by G-d.
Thanks. Yeah, I guess I was overreacting as to the RICO stuff. It wouldn't apply as you pointed out. Thanks
"Shut up, and drink your cocoa." ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.