A thug bishop retires

What is one to make of this picture?

La Jornada

Onésimo Cepeda Silva, from his 5,000+-invitees farewell dinner. A former boxer-turned priest, hardcore PRI backer, and a declared opponent of Mexico's secular state, retires after 17 extremely controversial years as  Bishop of Ecatepe in Mexico State.

Good riddance.

Source:
Tras su última misa como obispo, Onésimo Cepeda ofrece comida para 5 mil personas. La Jornada, May 19, 2012
Obispo Cepeda anuncia retiro. El Universal, May 8, 2012.

Calderón rails against narco-criminal-backing bishops, "brood of vipers"

In Calderón's meeting with Javier Sicilia - which I cannot see was anything but a very positive event - the Mexican president, from the centre-right quite christian-democrat PAN party, notably railed against unnamed Mexican bishops of the catholic high clergy who expressed their support for the criminal thug Jorge Hank Rhon, rightly referring to them as "vipers."

He didn't mention any names, but it was an obvious allusion to e.g. the bishop of Mexicali, José Isidro Guerrero Macías, and Mexico State's bishop Onésimo Cepeda, who both expressed support for the briefly incarcerated Hank, whose values should go against anything the church claim to stand for - e.g. 19 children, multiple divorces, likely ties to drug trafficking, etc, yet whom several bishops have said they are praying for - literally.

Calderón, a quite fervent catholic, said there are "certain characters who serve as models of holiness" yet are a "brood of vipers."

I am with Felipe on this one.

On a related note: I wonder what columnist-journalist Carlos Marín, who has ridiculed critics of Onésimo Cepeda, thinks of his embrace of Hank, who lost his US visa and is accused of involvement in the drug trade. Not problematic in the slightest?

Bishop Onésimo Cepeda, with his 130+ million loan, off the hook for now

Onésimo Cepeda, one of the absolute most dubious members of the Mexican clergy and bishop of Ecatepec, got an amparo or injunction that puts an end to a long investigation where Cepade was accused of defrauding an old woman for a collection of highly valuable paintings. The investigation is now officially closed, following a 2-1 decision by the 8th Appellate Court.

To recall, Cepeda was accused of snatching the collection of paintings by faking a 130 million dollars(!) loan to Olga Azcárraga Madero, now deceased. Cepeda claimed he lent the money; his opponents, that it was all a simulation. Nor does Cepeda have to prove where the hell he got the 130 million dollars that he claimed to have lent Azcárraga, the aunt of Televisa president Emilio Azcárraga Jean.

Xavier Olea Peláez, lawyer of the company accusing Cepeda of fraud, claimed trafficking of influences, as two of the judges of the 8th Appellate Court as well as Supreme Court Minister Sergio Valls recently attended Cepeda's birthday party. Cepeda, to be sure, is a very powerful man, and very close to the PRI.

Yet even if no fraud took place, what is there to say of a bishop that is apparently capable of producing 130 million dollars in cash, and refuses to state where the money come from?

(in on of his most truly pathetic columns to date, Carlos Marìn ridicules the charges, yet does not find it worthwhile to even take note of the bishop´s immense wealth)

I am convinced that it is indeed easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than it is for Bishop Cepeda to enter the paradise he claims to believe in.

Quote of the day: Onésimo Cepeda, of superman strength

Onésimo Cepeda, the discredited bishop of Ecapec who supposedly suffered a cardiac arrest or heart attack or whatever recently, in front of 3000 members of his congregation yesterday, holding mass:
(this is nothing for a man of Cepeda's caliber - a few days ago he was partying at a restaurant)

"Know that your bishop really was sick, that he had a heart attack, that God saved me from it and still will not let me fall into the hands of injustice from it and still do not fall into the hands of injustice, but I hope to fall into the hands of justice and that you will still have a bishop for some time.

The fact that the bishop has to reiterate and insist, during mass, to his congregation that he really, really had a heart attack... makes further comment unnecessary.

Bishop Onésimo Cepeda's convenient heart attack may save him from jail

After spending a few days in the hospital, Onésimo Cepeda, bishop of Ecatepec in Mexico State and a very close ally of Gover Enrique Peña Nieto, was released. He is facing charges of involvement in a huge fraud of valuable paintings worth an estimated $130 million - dollars, that is.

Yet given a reform to the article 55 of penal code in Mexico City in 2004, which stipulates that those over 70 with health problems may be placed in "house arrest" rather than in the dock, the bishop's heartattack - if there ever was one - may have saved him from prison. His own sister, Lily Cepeda, angrily denounced her bishop brother, claiming he faked it as a ploy to avoid prison or evoke sympathy.

When it comes to the more wacky and sinister members of the Mexican clergy such as Onésimo Cepeda, this would be less than shocking.

The Vatican's dangerous hypocrisy: Defending hate speech as "free speech"

It defies belief in its brazen distortion of reality, and I truly wonder if the Mexican clergy truly believes its own  nonsense. According to Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, part of a delegation of visiting Mexican clergy to the Vatian, the lawsuit of Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, and other criticism of the church, "constitute an attack on religious freedom." In the Vatican meeting, the cardinal said,

"one complained that the bishops can not speak out against the homosexuality laws, the adoption of children by homosexuals and gay marriage because one says that they are against the government."

To recall: Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez, the most active of clergy "speaking out," has directly accused Ebrard of bribing the Supreme Court, and has viciously denounced gays, including calling them "faggots" in a press conference. To make this an issue of "free speech" is utter nonsense, and the church knows this.

Yes, it is true that the Mexican Constitution explicitly state that clergy can not interfere directly in politics such as calling for people to vote for a party - or against it. This has not, of course, prevented them from doing this - in 2000, bishop Onésimo Cepeda actively favored the PRI, and others, such as Hugo Valdemar, has called on catholics not to vote on a "fascist party" such as the PRD.

Even so: Exactly why is it that the Mexican Constitution is so seemingly curbing of "free speech"? Because the Catholic Church as an institution up until recent years fought against every initiative to change the status quo toward a more free, democratic and just society: From the Independence wars two hundred years ago and onward, in every major events of the 19th and 20th century, the church has stood on the wrong side of history.

Speaking of events the Church opposed tooth and nail, hundred years ago, to this day:
VIVA MÉXICO, CABRONES! TIERRA Y LIBERTAD!

Money-laundering investigation of Bishop Onésimo Cépeda Silva of Ecatepec reopened

Irony of ironies. I can think of no institution that is capable of beating the Catholic Church in hypocrisy, and the discrepancy between church doctrine and its actions is for political observers a gift that just keeps on giving. The most recent case is that of the Bishop of Ecatepec, Onésimo Cépeda Silva.


Just a few days ago, the Archdiocese of Mexico condemned, though it didn't name, governors, police forces, military officers, business sectors, and even "some religious environments" for having ties to the narcos and organized crime.


It is well known that Cardenal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez of Guadalajara has been under federal investigation for money laundering for the narcos and illicit enrichment, though he was exonerated; Jorge Carpizo, former attorney general of Mexico, bitterly complained that the case was blocked for political reasons - and Carpizo even took the case directly to the Vatican, so far with no luck. 


Now, a federal judge has reopened the case against Bishop Onésimo Cépeda, one of the church's most sinister and reactionary characters, and businessman Jaime Matute for a $130-million dollar (!) fraud, where Batute in collusion with Cépeda allegedly falsely acquired ownership titles of a range of highly valuable paintings, many of which in addition may be considered part of Mexico's national patrimony.  


Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone, as the verse goes. This case may not be related directly to the narcos, but the charges of engaging in organized crime are very grave. 
Should Cépeda be convicted - unlikely given his connections to powers-that-be, including Mexico State Governor Enrique Peña Nieto - the church may think twice before it starts hurling stones in a glass house. Though given the story of the Mexican Church in Mexico, I don't find that too likely either. 

Broad condemnation of Onésimo Cepeda's attack on the state

While so far only the PRD, represented most visibly by Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard's lawsuit, has taken on the responsibility of defending the Mexican constitution and democracy itself from vicious attacks by a highly reactionary church, more legislators from PAN and PRI finally step in the ring to answer bishop Onésimo Cepeda's outright rejection of the secular state.

PRI national deputy Rubén Moreira, head of the Human Rights Commission in the lower house, accuses the bishop of undermining the secular through his actions and declarations. Senator María de los Ángeles Moreno, also of the PRI, found the need to remind the bishop of the supremacy of the Mexican state over the church, while Gustavo Madero, PAN Senator and possibly its next party president, reminds the bishop of the separation of church and state.
As if he ever forgot it.

Juventino Castro y Castro, former Supreme Court minister (judge) and now president of the Commission of Constitutional Affairs, calls on the government to "put [Cepeda] in his place". One shouldn't hold one's breath: Shamelessly, Interior Minister José Francisco Blake Mora still refuses to do his job and defend the constitution and the institutions of the Mexican state by not uttering one word of criticism against the church.

Moreira gets the final word on Cepeda:  "This little father is not going to heaven for being so vulgar"

From the horse's mouth: Bishop Onésimo Cepeda rejects the secular state

Onésimo Cepeda, bishop of Ecatepec in Mexico state and very close to Governor Enrique Peña Nieta, declared that he finds the secular state "a load of crap" (thanks to Gancho for etymological assistance).

In His Own Words:

I believe that the secular state does not exist. I am a lawyer. The State is composed of people, territory and power. The people are secular? No. The cornfields, that is, its territory, is it secular?, No. Is the government secular?, Yes. So, we are a state ruled by a secular government. This is the legal definition. The secular state, God forgive me, is a a load of crap."

Can the catholic clergy make it any more clearer how little it respects the Mexican constitution, or the citizens of the Mexican state?

And lest we forget: Bishop Onésimo Cepeda is under investigation for money laundering and procedural fraud.

Onésimo Cepeda makes one declaration that makes sense, and one that does not

Onésimo Cepeda, bishop of Ecatepec and a very important clergyman in Mexico State - he is very close to current governor Enrique Peña Nieto - is hardly known for any intelligent declarations. He is also of highly dubious morals, whether one uses the bible or not as reference point: He has long been under investigation for transgressions such  money laundering and fraud, and may well face federal charges soon.

Be that as it may, Onésimo Cepeda declared yesterday that drug kingpins should be excommunicated from the church. If nothing else, I gather it would end some of the highly ambivalent attitude of the church toward the narcos, which have given the church substantial amounts of donations over the years, and attach at least a minimum of further stigma. 

Yet it is what follows that seems rash to me: Cepeda suggests that priests should also turn into informers. While he didn't mention the practice of Confession specifically, he said:

"One must denounce those that are behind the drug violence, and many times we know where they are." It seems to me that is turning every priest as well into a direct target for assassination by the drug gangs. We know very well how the drug gangs deal with informers, perceived or real, and if a priest may be perceived as having given information that led to the apprehension or gunning down of a gang member, I fear this opens up for revenge killings of perceived - or real, given Cepeda's comments - priest informers, and that Cepeda's comments may end up endangering the clergy.