Tolera Iglesia abusos de legionarios, denuncian víctimas de Maciel

MÉXICO, D.F. (apro).- Con motivo del viaje del papa Benedicto XVI a México, un grupo de víctimas de Marcial Maciel, fundador de los Legionarios de Cristo, denunció que la Iglesia ha tolerado los abusos de esta congregación religiosa mexicana.

A través de un manifiesto dado a conocer hoy, las víctimas señalan que "entre el alto clero" siguen existiendo, como Marcial Maciel, "pastores de vida regalada, vergonzosamente tolerada por la Iglesia".

Las víctimas agregan que han sido objeto de ataques y descrédito por parte de la Iglesia, la cual nunca respondió a sus reclamos de justicia.

"Nunca hemos recibido una respuesta a nuestros justificados reclamos, formulados conforme al derecho canónico establecido por la misma Iglesia", dice el manifiesto, firmado por José Barba, una de las víctimas.

Critican también la supuesta reestructuración que actualmente realiza el Vaticano a los Legionarios de Cristo, y que está a cargo del cardenal Velasio de Paolis, ya que esta medida no ha resultado efectiva ni ha castigado a los cómplices de Maciel.

Debido a que solapa los abusos sexuales cometidos por sus clérigos pederastas, dicen las víctimas, la Iglesia en México y en el mundo está perdiendo adeptos, pues "la desilusión ha sido creciente" entre los fieles católicos.

22 de marzo de 2012

Escriba los caracteres en la imagen:  This Is CAPTCHA Image  


zZ4vZUscHC - 2/28/2014 11:04:35 PM

The gray area is entered as soon as QuotesChimp fill out and sign an application for insurance and the agent accepts it. In the appli?cation, you will supply basic facts to the insurance company, such as your name, address, age, and gender. Information per?tinent to the kind of insurance you desire and the extent of the risk you present to the insurance company will also be solicited in the application. For example, you will have to disclose your medical history in an application for health or life insurance. The value of your car and the existence of extras, such as a car phone, will be pertinent to an automobile policy. When an insurance application is taken over the phone, the same principles apply.
EZMb9GkT - 1/20/2014 6:39:15 AM

Hi Clement,You seem to enjoy charging me of coimittmng fallacy of this and that, putting words into my mouth, missed my points, and have a skewed view of history. 1) I don't see it separated.2) I don't know how does my saying that the church's orientation is similar with pro-gay's argument.3) You are free to continue to suspect, but the main point that I made was on the what constitutes ethos.4) You obviously didn't get my point at all. I NEVER charge Roman Catholic being sub-church because of what their priests have done. In fact, I never charge Roman Catholic church as sub-church. As shown in my post, I'm critical to the Roman Catholic as much as I am to non-Roman Catholic. You seem to missed this point again and again even though I have emphasize this a few times already in the post as much as in my comments. My example of using the Methodist church was to emphasize that 1 Cor 3.4 that you quoted applies as much to the Roman Catholic church. The point Paul wrote to the Corinthians with that passage was because the some claimed that followers of Paul were more superior, some claimed that followers of Apollos were more superior. 1 Cor 3.21-23 shed light to this situation.Besides, the very idea of judging each others having sub-doctrines is a question of authority: which authority decides which doctrines are sub? Please bear in your mind that you are conversing with me, not John Chick. And non-Roman Catholic church does not function like Roman Catholic church. Seems that you are not familiar with non-Roman Catholic churches' character; thinking that one official stand of a non-Roman Catholic Christian represents the entire non-Roman Catholic church. Simplistic or not is to the eyes of the beholder. So you are free to think that I am just as I'm free to think that you are.I wrote, "The political ambition of both sides are seen after the post-council argument over canon 28 of the council. Since then there was already a tension between Rome and Constantinople. And such tension bubbled into the great schism in 1054 when both sides excommunicated each other."I know about the filioque controversy but I don't know see how is your invocation of this in any degree affect what I wrote.You wrote, "I took it that your use of "after Constantine's conversion" and "first five centuries" to be equivalent. Anyhow, Constantine made Christianity the state religion before he actually converted to the religion himself. And this "Constantine's political ambition" red-herring smacks of Dan-Brown-style history, which should not be the kind of history a theology student should be giving.First, I am not sure if any informed person who discusses historical topic would equivocate "after Constantine's conversion" with "first five centuries". The only reason that I can think of is that the person confuses over these periods and at the same time think his correspondent share his own confusion.Second, it was NOT Constantine who made Christianity the state religion. It was Theodosius. Constantine only legalized Christianity.Third, you again falsely accused me for things that I didn't say. Not only that, you also accused my personality as a theological student because I seemed to you to be using Dan Brown-style-history, which I am not at all. By your these few sentences alone, I can draw up a list of fallacies, but I'm not into name-calling business which some really enjoy; which I can see that you are into it too.You missed my point entirely on Malaysian churches. Of course I don't have evidents, if I have I don't need to urge churches to investigate. And precisely because we don't have evidents that we need to encourage victims to come out to testify should there be any. (continue..)
cAiib3f0s - 1/19/2014 2:12:53 PM

That's really thinking at an imsirpseve level