Pope censures Mexican priest after abuse probe

by Mark5019 May 19, 2006 10:41AM PDT

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) -- The Vatican said Friday it had disciplined the Mexican founder of an influential Catholic religious order who has been accused of sexual abuse, instructing him to retire to a life of "prayer and penitence."

The censure of the Rev. Marcial Maciel, 86-year-old founder of the Legionaries of Christ, is significant because he and his conservative order had found favor under the late Pope John Paul II, making the decision by Pope Benedict XVI even bolder.

The instruction was the new pope's first major decision involving sexual abuse charges since his election last year

censure? no prison
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/05/19/pope.legionaires.reut/index.html

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

86 years old

by Evie May 19, 2006 11:04AM PDT

Accused, not convicted.

Decades old charges.

Retired, censured, disgraced.

New Pope put an end to his career.

Seems to be a logical outcome to me.

Evie

- Collapse -

Few will understand or realize this but

by Steven Haninger May 19, 2006 1:14PM PDT

the pope and catholic church are not about secular justice and does not need to recognize and utilize the law enforcement and penal system created by man. As a matter of fact, in some way the infamous inquisitions of the past were about doing just that. The ''inquisitors'' became an instruments of secular authorities and were used to ''out'' offenders so they could be punished...again, under secular law. This was in a time when kings wove church law into their general policies. The most severe punishment of the church was, and is, excommunication..the purpose of which was not abandonment but is hoped to produce a time of healing and penance which could allow a reinstatement into the sacremental body of the church. The catholic church has been, and rightfully so IMO, strongly criticized for it's role during the time of the inquisitions...but it's role has been largely misunderstood. For it to now hand over it's own members to local authorities would be tantamount to returning to that dark time in history. That would be contrary to the lessons of it's teacher.

- Collapse -

I disagree, Steve (unless you were being sarcastic)

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] May 20, 2006 2:10AM PDT

The Church still believes its laws are sup[erior to civil laws, and that preists in particular shoud not be subject to civil justice. That said, the symbolism here is important -- it looks like Benedict (of whom I was not a fan as Cardinal or papabile) may be more open to dealing with the Church's problems than was his predecessor, who mainly tried to pretend they'd disappear on their own.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -

What's with the zinger?

by Evie May 20, 2006 3:02AM PDT

I don't think I've ever seen a sarcastic post by Steve Hanninger where religion/Catholicism is concerned. There's no reason for your "unless you were being sarcastic" comment.

Let's put it another way. The Church is not in charge of putting people in prison. Pope Benedict exacted the strongest punishment available to him. If the authorities from Mexico want to pursue this criminally, that is for them to do.

- Collapse -

Wasn't a zinger at all, Evie.

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] May 20, 2006 4:09AM PDT

I've just never seen a previous attempt to minimize how wrong the Church was during the Inquisition. Heck, John Paul II even apologized for it, though unfortunately he didn't accept the underlying principle that the Church should not try to enforce belief or practice on those who don't belong to it. So I was hoping that part of Seteve's message was tongue-in-cheek.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -

You are right and thank you

by Steven Haninger May 20, 2006 5:23AM PDT

I hesistated to make such comments. It's a very sensitive subject to many of us and it's difficult to understand that we are dealing with two sets of laws each of which has different interests, authorities and enforcement abilities. In a real sense, the Catholic church is not about casting "sinners" into the flames. It's about finding a way to "redeem"....regardless of the nature of and number of sins (crimes against God and church) committed. This tends to be a difficult concept for humans to grasp. It's easy for many to think the church is just being lenient or is acting to cover up crimes by it's priest and other officials. Well, time to hide under the bed for a while.

- Collapse -

No sarcasm at all

by Steven Haninger May 20, 2006 5:07AM PDT

I did not seek in any manner to excuse the Catholic church for it's ''sins'' of the past but merely to clarify what they really were and and draw a parallel to what would be the case if the church sought to bring secular forms of punishment to it's members who broke it's laws. A molestation by a priest is both against church and secular law. The church's responsibility to uphold it's law includes only it's own forms of penance. To also call the cops to press civil charges would be similar (though not exactly) how the inquisitions were handled.
As for superiority, and as you stated ''The Church still believes its laws are sup[erior to civil laws'', I will address that this way. The church's interest is in adhering to laws that affect a person through eternity. Secular laws can only affect a person for his/her earthly existance. For those who believe in God and an afterlife, which rule of law should be considered is superior to the other?

Pope censures Mexican priest after abuse probe

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info