The plot thickens

The plot thickens

Catholic News Service ran a story at the end of last week about the alleged Legionaries of Christ/Maciel investigation by the CDF that appeared to contradict the earlier Sandro Magister story that a top Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith official was interviewing alleged victims.

CNS basically reprints a Legionaries of Christ press release denying that there is any “canonical process” investigating its founder, Fr. Marcial Maciel, and then says that Fr. Ciro Benedettini, vice-director of the Vatican press office, confirmed that the Vatican does not plan a canonical process. First, if Msgr. Charles Scicluna traveled to the US and Mexico to interview alleged victims of abuse, does that not mean that a process is underway.

You also have to wonder how both Magister and CNS know so many details about something that is supposed to be confidential. Is this a sign of a power struggle within the Vatican over this investigation, between the CDF and perhaps the Secretariat of State? At least in relation to Maciel, there has been a lot of contradictory information coming out of the Vatican, which probably means that there are at least two contradictory sources speaking to people.

But then the plot thickens…

  • Many of these same pro-abortion Catholic politicians are also against the death penalty and have no problem saying that capital punishment is morally wrong. Why is it acceptable for them to inject those beliefs into the public debate? Many of those politicians use the fact that some Catholic bishops denounced the war in Iraq in the public debate over the war. Why is that acceptable?


    The difficulty is what you have identified. These politicians – hello Mario Cuomo, I am talking to you – really have no problem at all with imposing or introducing their religiously-informed views into the public square.  They’re simply inconsistent – or worse, hypocrites – in the application. 

    Or, of course, deep down they really have no problem with abortion at all.  Not like they do with the death penalty or the war.

    Which is why it’s OK for Cuomo to veto the death penalty in New York state despite the fact that most of his constituents favor it, while at the same time refusing support legislation against abortion notwithstanding his personal “opposition” to it, because that would mean “imposing his faith” on his diverse constituency.

  • Cuomo and Salazar and the rest will deny that they are influenced in any way by religion, even when it comes to the death penalty, for example. 

    If not religion or faith, then what does animate them?  Personal views?  Talk about a castle built on sand…

  • I have to give credit where credit is due. This is the only website I’ve seen that has the complete story. It appears the Legionnaires are spinning this and I’m afraid it is going to come back to haunt them. Unfortunately my experience w/ R.C. and the Legion has not been so positive. A close acquantaince left their control, subsequently had a child out of wedlock and has been under the car of a doctor and on medication for several years. I don’t think this is an anomaly. I know several young men who left the Seminary as teens and after several troubled years are living homosexually active lives. Hopefully there are a just a few “bad apples” as I’m sure there are many fine people involved who will be hurt by these charges, especially if they are true.

  • Entirely reprehensible and irresponsible of the LC’s to use Fr. Ciro Benedettini statement “I don’t know” to confirm “there is no investigation”.

    It’s misleading because Fr. Ciro Benedettini would not be a position to know of an investigation prior to the CDF wishing to make it public, yet that’s the impression given.

    Frankly, for me, tactics like this make me even more suspicious.

  • This disinformation campaign is typical of the L of C tactics. Having been an ex-“recruiter” for them in RC, this is not surprising. They created news. CNS then helped them. The Vatican denies say what is attributed in the CNS headline.

    Doubt this story ends here.

  • Since most of the people who actually vote for them are irreligious, it pays for them to invoke “conscience”, the meaning of which has become so degraded over time that it now means to most people “something that I really really really really really believe, for some reason or another”.  Everyone has something that they really really really really really believe:  farmers really believe in the sacredness of agricultural subsidies, and businessmen really believe in sacredness of a low minimum wage.  Of course, invoking “Catholicism” as some sort of cultural reference is a good thing too, because that will attract the sucker vote, which isn’t getting any smaller these days. 

  • Amy Welborn has a solid thread with numerous links going on this story, for those interested.

  • What a tangled web!

    On Friday, Sandro Magister publishes his article with hitherto unknown details of the CDF interviews with Maciel accusers and asserting that similar charges have been made against ty these entail and enjoin :comment_author_url>
    2005-05-23 08:29:45
    2005-05-23 12:29:45
    There are basically two reasons why liberal and moderate politicians take on this position.

    The first is an accident of nature where they have mysteriously been endowed with reptilian brains that often exhibit what are commonly called crocodile tears.  How this phenomenon struck almost entirely those of liberal and left persuasions is a conundrum that keeps many scientists sleepless at night.

    More importantly however is the spell that was cast upon many of them by the magic of simple pieces of paper.  Many of these politicians were once stalwartly pro-life—until an evil magician waved some small green pieces of paper engraved with US presidential pictures over them.  Quicker than Harry Houdini, they went from pro-life to pro-choice.

    The second piece of paper is a demographic study of their voting blocs—amazingly others with like tendecies:  crocodilians who who weep loudly the plaintive cry, “a woman’s right to choose….”

    Now, I have no doubt that Senator Salazar prays deeply for “strength and clarity.”  In fact, I am certain of it.  But someone needs to tell him that one doesn’t pray before a mirror.

  • There are a number of valid, nonreligious reasons to oppose the death penalty, as a matter of public policy.

    Foremost among these is the death penalty’s ineffectiveness as a deterrent to murder or, for that matter, any violent crime.

    Next is that, as applied, the death penalty is disproportionately applied to poor defendants, whose counsel is often ineffective, inept, or worse, and especially to those of racial minorities.

    Finally, an injustice cannot be repaired once an innocent person is put to death.

  • Indeed your post is missing the point.

    Show me some reasons to oppose abortion that are valid and clearly nonreligious. Remember that many people, including other Christians, Jews, Muslims and those of other religious groups view Catholic natural law philosophy as just a veneer over one specific denomination’s teaching, and thus a threat to the First Amendment’s refusal to allow the establishment of religion in the US.

    The same old arguments, even if presented as you propose in an increasingly authoritarian manner, will get you the same old results: a stalemate with the two extremes calling each other “murderers” (or “accessories to murder”) and “oppressors,” who define the public policy debate (such as it is a debate).

    I can’t believe you really want 30 more years of that. But if you keep doing what you always did, you’ll keep getting what you always got—no progress toward your goal.

  • No, you’re missing the point. I never said that opposing capital punishment is wrong. In fact, I think that capital punishment should not be legal in this country.

    My point is that these same pro-abortion politicians are almost always anti-death penalty and almost always say they are anti-death penalty on the basis of their moral beliefs. It is hypocrisy on their parts to say that they can use their moral beliefs to oppose the death penalty, but others cannot use their moral beliefs to oppose abortion.