At two points in the Melkite Akathist service, the priest incenses the congregation and the icon of the Theotokos, while the congregation sing the Kontakion of the Annunciation (Tone 8):
Triumphant Leader, to you belongs our prize of victory!
And since you saved us from adversity, we offer you our thanks: we are your people, O Mother of God!
So, as you have that invincible power, continue to deliver us from danger, that we may cry out to you: Hail, O Virgin and Bride ever pure!
Scranton's bishop Joseph Martino has been doing a great job lately of communicating the Catholic faith in public in spite of opposition, instructing Catholic institutions and public officials, and through them, the faithful at large. He's shown a commitment to prevent Church events from being used to honor reprehensible politicians. He's reminded a Catholic college to show its commitment to Catholic moral teaching and distance itself from any endorsement of immorality. He's taught politicians publicly about such as the injustice of government tolerance for abortion, let alone subsidy of it, and
When I read the Bishop's letter to the misguided Senator Bob Casey Jr., whose voting record is not worthy of the Casey name, I noticed that Bp. Martino is the holder of an earned doctorate in Church history. Now that's not a common accomplishment among bishops. The most prominent bishop I know of with a similar background is the estimable George Cardinal Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, who made his studies at Oxford.
We certainly need more such bishops like these: able to stand against the fashions of the moment and teach Christian doctrine. Perhaps we can start looking for bishops among other priests with a background in Church history, and with reason: men with enough interest in Church history to study it in depth are likely to have particular qualities of temperament that the Church needs, such as an admiration for sacred tradition. That is an important quality in this time, when Pope Benedict wants to promote a correct understanding of the Second Vatican Council as a development in continuity with the preceding 1962 years of Church life, and not a breach from it.
Furthermore, bishops with a knowledge of past relations between society, the state, and the teaching Church can have a realistic understanding about what is possible and what is not: that pleasing everyone and leaving problems unattended is not the pathway to peace.
After several weeks of bad publicity surrounding the Vatican, it's good to see that Pope Benedict dealt with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Gomorrah) in just the right way. As America's most powerful pro-abortion bad-Catholic politician, she went to Italy to get an award from some secular group and a photo op with His Holiness.
Pelosi particularly needed some instruction after she misrepresented Catholic teaching on abortion in a Meet the Fawning Press interview last year.
With the help of some advance briefing by American pro-lifers, the Vatican let her come, meet the Pope, get some instruction on her duty to defend life, and leave with no photo.
Perfect.
VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday told U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life "at all stages of its development."
Pelosi is the first top Democrat to meet with Benedict since the election of Barack Obama, who won a majority of the American Catholic vote despite differences with the Vatican on abortion.
The Vatican released the pope's remarks to Pelosi, saying Benedict spoke of the church's teaching "on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death." That is an expression often used by the pope when expressing opposition to abortion.
Benedict said all Catholics -- especially legislators, jurists and political leaders -- should work to create "a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."
In an e-mail issued by her office, Pelosi did not mention the allusion to abortion.
She said it was with "great joy" that she and her husband, Paul, met with Benedict.
"In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel," she said.
The 15-minute meeting was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room off a Vatican auditorium after the pope's weekly public audience.
The Vatican said it was not issuing a photo of the meeting -- as it usually does when the pope meets world leaders -- saying the encounter was private. The statement said the pope "briefly greeted" Pelosi and did not mention any other subject they may have discussed.
A number of the bishops in the United States have questioned Pelosi's stance on abortion, particularly her theological defense of her support for abortion rights.
I've removed my earlier post 'Canon Law, Ed Peters and me'.
There were a number of problems which, when brought to my attention, I agree were problematical on my part, and I apologize to Dr. Peters:
- I don't know what previous experiences Dr. Peters has had with the LC/RC, therefore I have no business speculating on whether he was surprised by revelations about Fr. Maciel.
- It referred to a private conversation that I initiated. This was unprofessional on my part, and I offer no excuses. Especially when I reported that he did not seem to concerned about our differences, which I had no business reporting or speculating upon.
- In so doing I suggested more familiarity between us than is the case, as we have never met in real life or worked on any canon law project together.
- Dr. Peters was not calling for the suppression and reconstitution of the LC/RC, but is suggesting it as a possibility.
Additionally, while I believe I reported accurately when I said Dr. Peters' response tended to focus more on the structural problems these revelations suggest, whereas I was asking more the question what do we do with current LC/RC members, I in no way was implying or intended to imply that Dr. Peters is not equally concerned about what to do with these people.
Therefore I apologize again to Dr. Peters. There is no excuse for this lapse in professional judgment, and I pray I have not tarnished Dr. Peters' reputation in any way.
Ed Peters has put together another response to the Legionaries of Christ / Regnum Christi (LC/RC) crisis, which is well worth reading. You can check it out here. Since I'm likely to be asked for a response, here's a line-by-line:
I think that Fr. Alvaro Corcuera's apparent claim that he knows nothing about Maciel's behavior, except that Maciel sired a daughter, is utterly unbelievable. I have nothing else to say about this kind of stone-walling. I will simply re-endorse Dr. Germain Grisez's and Mr. George Weigel's proposals for direct intervention by the Holy See.
Out of Christian charity I will assume Fr. Alvaro is telling the truth. The Holy See should intervene anyway. Directly.
The situation is so muddled that I cannot see how the LC/RC can fix it without outside help and expertise. Of course I'm just one canonist out of thousands in the Church. But given how the LC/RC have maintained Fr. Maciel's innocence for years, the severity of the allegations against him - both proven and unproven, and other structural problems within the movement, how the initial response has been bungled, it will be difficult for the LC/RC to regain the trust of orthodox Catholics without assurances that Rome has performed a thorough housecleaning of the movement.
Apologists for the LC/RC are already stating that Fr. Alvaro and the LC/RC are following Rome's instructions. And Rome has stated it has no immediate plans to step in, but would do so if requested by the Legion. So it might be best is the Legion simply go through the official step of asking Rome to step in directly.
Moving on Peters's rebuttal of the "reform-from-within" assertion and the "carry-on-the-charism" assertion:
Assertion 1. Because the Legion and Regnum Christi have within their ranks many obviously good and faithful Catholics, they should be allowed to try a reform from within. Response: the presence of good and faithful Catholics within an organization, particularly when the organization (in terms of Church history, if nothing else) is so young, says almost nothing about whether the organization itself is sound and/or salvageable.
Here is where I think Peters needs to make a distinction. Those making the "reform from within" suggestion (like myself) are not a unified camp. Some maintain the LC/RC should be permitted to reform from within, without any direct outside intervention. Very unlikely to work, as proven by the fact Fr. Maciel got away with his misdeeds for so long. And even if it were possible, there's still the problem of restoring the RC/LC's credibility.
Like Peters, I believe the LC/RC's current structure is deeply flawed, and have for some time, according to criteria developed with Fr. Frank Morrisey - one of the Church's foremost canonical experts on religious law and structures of institutes of consecrated life - and cult expert Michael Langone. You can read a summary of the criteria here. (Please note: I am not claiming that all of these criteria apply to the LC/RC, but those that do need to be rooted out if the LC/RC is to reform.)
Having said that, given that the majority of LC/RC members are orthodox Catholics faithful to Rome, I believe a "reform from within" is possible if the Holy See intervenes directly and appoints someone credible from outside the LC/RC to do a thorough investigation of LC/RC practices, and oversee their reform. It needs to be someone known for prayer and orthodoxy, experienced in religious life, and highly respected within the Church. For example, Cardinal Francis George from Chicago or Archbishop Seán O'Malley from Boston. Of course this assumes LC/RC members cooperate - not only in letter, but in spirit - with the reform.
Such a reform must begin with a sincere apology to Fr. Maciel's victims, followed by restitution. Also, no more excuses suggesting Fr. Maciel's innocence, or trying to dampen the severity of his sins. Of course the structural weaknesses that allowed Fr. Maciel to get away with his double-life for so long must also be fixed. Good faith only gets one so far. Peters identifies the question many canonists are asking, namely whether there are structural problems to the Legion, expressing them as only he can, when he states in response to the second assertion:
There is, I think, at least as much reason to wonder whether Maciel set up an institute in order to assure himself of ample access to sexual targets and unaccountable funds, or whether he suffered from some warped psycho-emotional condition that enabled him to compartmentalize pious devotional practices and sexual predation for decades on end...
Here is where I take a somewhat harder line than Peters. I don't wonder. In fact, I'm pretty sure Fr. Maciel set up the LC/RC to, as I put it in the following interview, acquire, maintain and protect his access to victims.
I won't comment on funds, except to say well-placed sources within and outside the LC/RC told me that Fr. Maciel was frequently given thousands of dollars in cash without any questions being asked. I haven't looked into the issue deeply enough to give it much thought; it's entirely possible the financial irregularities came after, as a by-product of the sexual irregularities. Of course, none of the above excludes the possibility Fr. Maciel also had a serious psychological condition.
But I've skipped ahead a bit. Here's how Peters begins his response to the second assertion:
Assertion 2. Maciel's canonical crime spree was a grave personal failing, but it does not negate the L/RC 'charism', and they should be allowed to continue their work. Response: This argument misses the key question, namely, whether in fact Maciel ever bequeathed an authentic charism to the L/RC...
This, then, is what separates our positions at the moment. If one believes the LC/RC lack a true charism, then Peters is right in suggesting Rome may have to shut down the movement completely and reconstitute it. (Without a true charism, there is nothing to reform.)
On the other hand, if one believes the LC/RC possess a true charism from Christ, but that it has become seriously clouded by Fr. Maciel's sexual vice, then it may still be possible to rescue the charism. Of course it will still require delicate surgery on Rome's part. It's possible the movement is so far gone that the necessary reform is no longer possible. The LC/RC will have to show they are capable of true reform.
Peters then says (skipping over the part I had quoted earlier, out-of-sequence):
I do not know whether the L/RC can (following a complete leadership replacement!) reform itself from within, although I am almost certain that they cannot;
A complete leadership change may be the only thing that can save the LC/RC at this point. Certainly this is how I feel, humanly speaking, although the Holy Spirit could intervene in a way that canonists haven't imagined. But, assuming most of the current leadership was honestly in dark about Fr. Maciel's double-life, this speaks to a weakness in LC/RC formation that so many clergy suspected so little for so long. This is not to say they were bad people or terrible priests - only that they appear to lack a certain skill-set needed to exercise prudent governance over a large religious institute.
This is not uncommon among young institutes of consecrated life where one is dealing with leadership known for its holiness (let alone living a double-life). I've experienced this at least twice in my career as a canon lawyer. A young institute and its young superior come up with some grandiose ideas, or overlook the obvious. An older priest, with several years of priestly experience before joining the institute, jumps in points out what's being overlooked, or otherwise brings some common sense to the discussion. Older priests can help guide a young superior of a young institute through sensitive pastoral issues, temper and focus the zeal of younger newly-ordained priests, and put bishops as ease knowing there is someone with experience keeping an eye on the new institute.
The problem with the current LC/RC superiors is that none of them kept an eye on Fr. Maciel. This is not surprising. Abusers cannot bear close scrutiny, which would threaten their access to victims. Fr. Maciel reportedly handpicked his superiors. Not surprisingly, he often named young priests who lacked practical pastoral experience. Which is why most Catholics would feel more confident about a reform of the LC/RC if Rome stepped in directly.
and I do not know whether Maciel developed an authentic charism for clerical, religious, and lay life, but I have serious doubts that he did.
And now the question of charism. The reason orthodox Catholics have struggled so deeply with the crisis, in fact the reason there are such strong feelings of anger and betrayal, is that the LC/RC's good works have been visible to us for so long. But looking back in retrospect, so too have the institutional signs of Fr. Maciel's double-life. How does one reconcile such a stark contrast?
Normally, an institute's charism is tied to its founder and its good works. However, the two don't match in this case. Some argue that the LC/RC's founding charism was fraudulent from the start. Others argue that God used Fr. Maciel as His imperfect human instrument. In reflecting upon this dilemma, attempting to reconcile these questions in my own mind, I stumbled across the biography of Saint Rafael Guízar Valencia.
Saint Rafael was Fr. Maciel's uncle and the bishop who oversaw most of Fr. Maciel's seminary formation prior to dismissing his nephew from the seminary. Saint Rafael exemplified many of the Christian virtues LC/RC attempt to emulate as members of their movement. In fact, his life story reads like a blueprint for the LC/RC's good works, and LC/RC members in past have recognized his influence in the founding of their movement.
Perhaps - and this is highly speculative on my part - Saint Rafael is the true spiritual founder of the LC/RC movement, and the instrument used by God to transmit its charism. It's something for LC/RC members to pray about.
It's a steel cage canon-law death match! It's Vere versus the Peters team! Well, maybe not.
Since a new set of Maciel revelations emerged this week, several thoughtful proposals have appeared on how the priests of the Legion of Christ can purify their community and recover.
Canon law professor Ed Peters calls for an investigation, an "apostolic visitation" -- imposed by Rome if the Legion doesn't ask for it -- and suggests that the community could dissolve itself and make a new founding.
Our Pete Vere, JCL, said in a CNA interview and in an interview with the Legion-affiliated Zenit news service that good priests in the Legion can reform it, acknowledge the truth about Fr. Maciel, and "return to being a vibrant part of the Catholic Church."
The distinguished philosopher Germain Grisez offers advice to his friends in the Legion: the present institute and its current leadership cannot salvage the community, restore trust, and preserve the good that this community has built. The Church knows that membership in a religious institute is not an absolute, Grisez argues, and a misplaced loyalty to the Legion organization or to its current superiors may be a failure to do one's duty for the Church.
So far, I think that the argument is with those who urge a clean refounding. The reputation of the Legion is utterly ruined; the revelations of a repressive "corporate culture" make it look like a cult -- formation manuals, some of which have been leaked to the Internet, regulated behavior, even down to the details of how members are to butter their rolls -- and yet there are so many good men in LC and good men and women in Regnum Christi who love our Lord Jesus Christ and want to serve Him in His Church, and who deserve to do so without the burden of shame that their founder's corruption currently places on them.
Our prayers tonight are with Amy Welborn, who shares some sad news about her husband, Michael Dubruiel, who passed away this morning at the gym. Michael was a good man, who I had the honor of working with on some OSV projects. May his soul, and the souls of all the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.
