All Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did was prohibit former confederates from holding public office, unless Congress voted otherwise by a 2/3 majority. It "rehabilitated" no one.
Maury was "restored" (pardoned) in 1868 (as were all confederates) but not eligible to hold public office. As it was, he took a position at Virginia Military Institute.
He would then be "off the hook...so to speak," and the ship should then not have been renamed, according to your belief as just expressed.
Before he resigned his commission, and joined the rebellion, his naval accomplishments were respectable and notable. It could be (and has been) argued that the several things named for him (not just this ship) honor those accomplishments. That certainly does leave aside his accomplishment of leaving the Navy and the Union, and of his several accomplishments while in Confederate service.
The post Civil War nation was divided between reconciliation and retribution, and the history shows a mix of both. And this history continues.
...what your question is but since Maury had previously taken an oath, then engaged in rebellion against the country he swore an oath to--sound familiar?--he stuck his own head into the noose.
However, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment also provides for the 'rehabilitation' of such individuals so there was always a congressional mechanism to restore Maury to good graces. I don't know if that was ever done...if so, then he is off the hook, so to speak. And if Maury was so restored, then the ship should not have been renamed.
14th amendment came after,so wouldn't that be ex post facto ICO Maury?