Fr. Maciel removed from ministry: Day Two

Some insightful reads in the wake of CDF's Fr. Maciel statement:

• Mirror of Justice posts the text of an NCR article looking at the situation.
• Matt Abbott posts the statement of a book author on clergy sex-abuse cover-up.
• Sandro Magister gives his take: "End of the Story":

End of the Story for the Founder of the Legionaries of Christ
“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."

ROMA, May 19, 2006 – 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.

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.”

This is the epilogue of the investigation carried out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith into the accusations of sexual abuse and the violation of the sacrament of confession brought against the founder of the Legionaries, which he has always denied. [More...]

• Diogenes does as well (excellent analysis in my opinion - highly recommended read):

"Equally frustrating to a just assessment of the situation is the LC requirement "never to make outward verbal criticism, written or otherwise, of any act of governance or of the person of any rector or superior of the Congregation, and to inform forthwith the immediate superior of the member who has made such a criticism." Many religious communities have rules that discountenance grumbling; the LC's stricture is not simply another rule, but is undertaken as a vow: that means the member risks damnation if he acts against it, and it binds his conscience in a uniquely comprehensive and final way. Ironically, this vow makes the LC's support of Maciel epistemically valueless -- I'm not saying it's morally valueless, simply making the obvious point that testimony in favor of a man is shonky when offered by a witness who has vowed a priori, and under pain of mortal sin, never to speak ill of him."

...

"Several people have reacted to the decision by positing the following syllogism: If Maciel were innocent, it would be a gross injustice for the CDF and Pope Benedict to impose restrictions on his ministry that invite us (even if they don't require us) to believe that he is guilty. But we have no grounds for thinking the Pope and the CDF have the motive, still less the character, to visit such an injustice upon Maciel. Therefore, he's not innocent. I find this reasoning persuasive. But it leaves a lot of questions hanging." [More...]