AmericanPapist Comments
Dr. Peters,
I applaud your desire to promote technical accuracy in all things Canonical. How would you describe Maciel's status/treatment by the CDF?
He was not suspended, but not 'penalized'?
It seems clear to me in light of the US norms that the CDF thinks the charges of abuse are well grounded and that Maciel was punished for them:
SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS POLICY
(from the Archdiocese of Detroit)
If abuse is admitted or established after an appropriate investigation and canonical process:
1. The processes provided in canon law will be observed (Cf. Canonical Delicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995; cf. Letter from the CDF, May 18, 2001; the Essential Norms and subsequently issued documents).
2. These provisions may include a request that the offending priest or deacon be permanently removed from public ministry or for a dispensation from the obligation of holy orders and the loss of the clerical state; or a request by the Archbishop of Detroit for dismissal from the clerical state without the consent of the priest or deacon.
3. If the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state is not applied after consultation with the CDF, the priest or deacon offender will be required to lead a life of prayer and penance. He will not be permitted to celebrate Mass publicly or exercise any public ministry, wear clerical attire, present himself publicly as a priest or deacon, or to be alone with minors or other possible victims in an unsupervised setting.
4. When an accusation is determined to be unfounded, every possible step will be taken to restore the good name of the accused priest or deacon. Such means may include, without limitation, notices to the media, general public and Catholic community, as well as the communities and institutions where the accused has served. Because of the uniqueness of each allegation, it is not always possible to specify one approach that will fit all situations.
Hi xLC. I limited my remarks on penalties this time to, well, penalties. My thoughts on the wider context of the Maciel sitaution are already in the post i linked to. I saw no reeason to modify, or repeat, them. Kind regards, edp.
ps: do remember, the US policy, for better or for worse, only applies in the US.
Mr. Peters,
I read the linked posts. I've been referring to the Vatican statement as a penalty (or "God's Rottweiler bit Maciel in the butt"); if 'penalty' is incorrect, what would be a better noun? I'm a mom; it looks to me like Holy Mother Church 'grounded him for life'? 'sanctions'?
Hi J. I know this is a compelx area, and I grant the CDF action was unusual, but I explained this carefully in the two posts. I can only say, the answers to your quetions are in them. One only has so much time! Cheers, edp.
Commenting by HaloScan
