AmericanPapist Comments
The Italian version of the Zenit release says nothing about "stopping":
it only says, "about the decision taken by the Holy See on the case of Fr. Marcial Maciel." - "circa la decisione presa dalla Santa Sede sul caso di padre Marcial Maciel". It is the English translation which says something different.
Zenit does both versions. So?
Surely this isn't substantively different from Magister's lead:
"Because of his advanced age – 86 – and his infirm state of health, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided not to subject Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, to a canonical process."
One has to understand the Motu Propio in order to understand why the Vatican acted as it did. There are only TWO ways to stop an investigation (under this edict) and that's total exoneration, or compelling guilt. The restriction of his priestly functions indicate that the finding was not in the former category. Btw, it has to be signed off by Il Papa. All very clear.
Anon - yes it is different because the VERY next line of Magister's article reads "But at the same time the congregation, with the approval of the pope, has imposed upon Maciel “a retired life of prayer and penance, renouncing any form of public ministry."
And actually, Magister's pull quote that precedes your quotation is this "“A reserved life of prayer and penance:” this is the penalty inflicted by Benedict XVI on Marcial Maciel, after “attentive study and investigation.” He and the Legion are obeying.""
Thanks for making my point even clearer by contrast.
AmPap,
But if we're griping about "complete or accurate one-sentence" summaries (which are never going to be terribly satisfactory in cases like this, IMHO), surely Magister is equally simplistic.
And ZENIT's 5-19 article on the decision (as opposed to their 5-21 release of the Mexican episcopate's statement) DOES include the restrictions placed upon Marciel's public ministry. In its FIRST sentence, no less:
"The Holy See won't continue with a canonical investigation into accusations against Father Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, and has invited him to renounce all public ministry."
Both Magister and ZENIT (in its news story) refer to the restrictions in their subheadlines:
M: “A reserved life of prayer and penance:” this is the penalty inflicted by Benedict XVI on Marcial Maciel
Z: Invited to "a Reserved Life," Father Maciel Accepts Ruling "With Faith"
While ZENIT certainly does a have a particular horse in this race, I don't know that they're actual news coverage has been that aggregious.
I'm not an expert in canon law, but this seems to me to be analagous to a grand jury having voted to indict someone. Indictments look very bad, but they aren't a statement of guilt, and it's not unprecedented for a trial to exonerate the accused. In D.C., where I live, the cliché is that any competent prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. So. . .what can the Church do in the case of a person whose case in canon law requires a trial to ajudicate, but no trial is possible? Certainly you can't have a public ministry with a cloud like that perpetually over your head.
I don't see how the Friday statement leaves either defenders or detractors of the Legion on any different ground than they were prior to the communiqué. One either believes or disbelieves the charges. The only substantive change is that we all now know the definitive status of the canonical process --rather than relying on swirling rumors.
The Legion's been accused of lying about the canonical process, but in my reading it was they, not their detractors who turned out to be right. There is no canonical process. They apparently didn't know the rest of the story, but neither did any of the anonymous sources insisting that there would definitely be a canonical process.
RC2 - you should read my previous coverage of this issue, particularly what Diogenes and Ed Peters have to say.
Anon - Magister is not equally simplistic. His article is far more damning against Maciel. The reason I said "one sentence summary" is because it's the ONLY sentence Zenit uses to carecterizes the proceedings.
I thank you for quoting something I already quoted in my posting (Zenit's 5-19), and stand by my claim that there is a real difference in emphasis between them which is only accentuated as you read the full articles appended to each opening sentence.
I would argue that Zenit's coverage is not giving the sanctions the same weight as they are giving the "termination" of the process. And that is unfair to what actually has happened.
I base my comments precisely on Ed Peters. He reads the case in one light, but clearly states that the communique does not state guilt.
Did you read the same posting as I did? Take a look at the conclusion:
"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."
Not explicit guilt - but certainly not explicit innocence. And if we had to come down on one side or the other - I repeat EP's line "Rome is not in the habit of publicly telling successful, high-profile Church leaders to go off and spend their lives in private penance."
I understand you perfectly and agree it's a reasonable conclusion. But it doesn't deter me from the point in my original post: he's been indicted, nothing more or less. Indictment is bad, surely, but it's not in itself proof of guilt. Or innocence either, obviously. To say otherwise, pro or con, is to vastly over-read I think.
Here's the motu proprio Giselle mentions above, and I just don't see the section she mentions.
http://www.bishop-
accountability...rmaeEnglish.htm
"Indictment" is a bad analogy. Indictment only says "There is significant evidence against you." Even if there is considerable evidence on your behalf, you can still be indicted. What CDF did, rightly or wrongly, concludes well beyond what prosecutor has to show for an indictment. If MM is innocent, CDF's actions are reprehensible.
http://www.renewamerica.us/colum.../mershon/
060518
More than 100 corroborating interviews from various accusers.
More than 100...
http://www.ncregister.com/articu...php?
artkod=NDk1
From 15 minutes ago. Would be sad if it wasn't so frightening.
"Even if there is considerable evidence on your behalf, you can still be indicted. What CDF did, rightly or wrongly, concludes well beyond what prosecutor has to show for an indictment. If MM is innocent, CDF's actions are reprehensible." -Edward Peters
Really? Do we (ehem, Dr. Peters) know all the facts surrounding the CDF's decision? There seems to be a great deal of conjecture (dare I say gossip) surrounding the invitation for Fr. Maciel to step down. He has not been found guilty, or even accused, by Rome. He has been asked to step down from public ministry. For all we know, Fr. Maciel may have requested this course of action so as to put an end to the trial proceedings and unceasing rumors.
AmPap seems firmly convinced of the blatant Maciel-favored bias of Zenit.org (which for the life of me I cannot find). Perhaps he considers Fr. Neuhaus (although not owned and run by the Legionaries - atleast not explicitly!!! :-0 ) just as biased:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthe...hesquare/?
p=263
Then again, perhaps AmPap, Peters, and others would do well to presume innocence until proven guilty - especially when it concerns an otherwise remarkable Roman Catholic priest.
I would re-word Peters' statement: If Fr. Marciel is innocent, the propagation of presumed guilt is reprehensible.
http://www.renewamerica.us/colum.../mershon/
060525
Three other canon lawyers and their perspectives on the true meaning of the Vatican statement, aside from the L of C spin on things
So they finally caught the legion with more that just their hand in the cookie jar! Sounds like this Pope is like John the 23rd, not afraid of change. Good for Benedict! Long live the Pope. I hope he will also now look at all the other abuses, physical, mental and otherwise committed within the secretrative walls of the legion. Sounds like the Holy Spirit is alive and well :)
I read the article that Brian referenced above in his exclamation of 100 corroborating interviews.
What it actually says is that an unnamed Vatican source said that 100 people were interviewed--not that 100 accusers all gave damning and corroborating accusations. Who is this source? Why should we believe him?
Even if there were 100 accusers, do you not realize that the devil can stir up 100 people to attack someone the devil hates? In private revelation, St. Joseph was shown to have been maligned and accused of thievery, negligence, and many other evils by malefactors that the devil incited to assault him to try to get at our Blessed Mother and Jesus.
Why isn't Father Maciel in jail due to even just 1 out of the 100 alleged accusers bringing credible charges against him to the local authorities over the decades?
I pray for him and his accusers and leave the truth of the situation--unknown by all but them and God--in Jesus' hands.
Commenting by HaloScan
