April 2009 Archives

Is this what you would call the ecclesiastical pile-on?

Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde has become the 46th Catholic bishop in the U.S. to publicly castigate the University of Notre Dame for inviting President Obama to give this year's commencement speech and grant to him an honorary doctorate.

The invitation, which was announced March 20, has roiled America's Catholics: apart from the unprecedented episcopal criticism, more than 330,000 people have signed an online petition asking the historic Catholic institution to rescind the invitation that would give a pro-choice president a coveted platform in a Catholic setting.

"If Notre Dame were hosting the president as a participant in a dialogue that included a full presentation of the Church's position regarding the primacy of life, then the university's action would be more understandable," Bishop Loverde said in a statement made public Thursday.

"However, given the unique national prominence of Notre Dame among Catholic universities, the decision by a few administrators to give him a platform and honor on commencement day will be damaging to the Church, to the pro-life cause and, ultimately, to the university itself." >full article

How's your German, folks?

Have you seen any of the fuss about Freiburg archbishop Robert Zollitsch, the chairman of the German bishops' conference? A bunch of trad blogs have been accusing him of heresy since an interview he gave Holy Saturday. They say he denies the atonement, but it's a bum rap.

First kreuz.net posted the video of his interview.

In his response to the reporter -- who had good questions -- he was giving more or less the Eastern-church angle on the atonement vs. the Western (Anselmian?) substitutionary view.

[Christ] did not die for the sins of men because God needed a victim, that is, a scapegoat, for sin. He entered into solidarity with us men, with our suffering, even unto the end; and showed that in the suffering of man, every pain and even death is taken up by God and transfigured by God in His Son Jesus Christ.

The bishop's point was to reject an image of the atonement that portrays God the Father as vengeful while the God the Son is merciful.

But the kreuz.net writer, not knowing much about theology, didn't recognize what the bishop was getting at, and accused him of denying the atonement altogether.

Then CathCon presented this mistranslation and made his words into a denial:

For the Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference who has fallen away from the Catholic Faith, the crucifixion of Christ is just a psychological support in suffering. On Holy Saturday, the Archbishop of Freiburg and head of the German Bishops Conference, Msgr. Robert Zollitsch, denied the Expiatory Death of Christ.

Archbishop Zollitsch said this in an interview with Meinhard Schmidt-Degenhard on the program "Horizente" of the German TV station 'Hessischer Rundfunk',

Christ was "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat" - said the archbishop.

LifeSite picked it up (shame on them).

Now the hotheads at Rorate Caeli are piling on:

I posted a comment at Rorate, but it may never pass moderation. I've posted comments there several times to throw cold water on their outrage-talk, and they never let the correction see the light of day.

I think a bunch of people are, in their ignorance, committing libel.

Remember, folks, do not put too much stock in any translation you read in the press or on the Internet, until you can check the original language yourself.

Update: Credit where it's due: Rorate accepted my posted comment.

Note: In an earlier version of this post, I blamed the "CathCon" blog for the mistranslation, but I shouldn't assume whether he made the mistake himself or merely copied the bad translation from another source.

This looks like the sort of conversion story that St. Francis would bring about. Actually, it looks like he did.

A blessed Triduum to you all!

A friend of mine belongs to a ecclesiastical movement going through a rough patch at the moment. Like many laity affiliated with this movement, he is troubled by the information that has come to light about the founder's secret life, how it may have affected the movement's methodology and practices, and the response of the movement's superiors thus far. Mostly, though, he is horrified for the victims of the founder. (Okay, I'm sure most of you can guess which movement he belongs to.)

While expressing his disappointment in what has happened, coupled with hope the movement will accept reform from the Holy See, he said: "At least we don't have to worry about schism. That's the one thing this movement has always prided itself on: obedience to the Holy Father. They would lose all credibility with rank-and-file if they went into schism."

I'm not so sure. I pray schism doesn't become an option, that the movement accepts and cooperates with the Holy See's apostolic visitation, but the Church has seen stranger throughout its 2000-year history. Many of these smaller schisms began as movements that prided themselves on fidelity and obedience to the Rome. And many opted for schism when Rome eventually stepped in to suppress the movement, or fundamentally reform it.

Here, in a nutshell, is how the process often plays out. Please note that a movement may skip a step or two on its way to schism, or a couple steps may vary:

1 - A charismatic churchman begins a new movement that pledges complete obedience to the Holy Father.

2 - In pursuing its so-called complete obedience to the Holy Father, the leader and/or the movement downplays the role of the diocesan bishop.

3 - The movement begins to quietly work around the authority of the local bishop.

4 - Bishops who raise concerns or criticism of the movement are portrayed by the movement's leadership, either openly or quietly, as not supportive of the Holy Father and Catholic orthodoxy.

5 - Criticism from bishops and Church experts is dismissed by the movement's leadership, which to the movement's follows will trump up photo ops with the Pope or a papal blessing as proof the movement enjoys the Holy Father's support.

6 - After numerous complaints from bishops, Church experts and other Catholic faithful, the Roman Curia gets involved.

7 - The movement is initially supportive of curial intervention and investigation, sure that the curia will vindicate the movement and/or founder.

8 - The curial dicastery or apostolic visitator, more or less, finds that the complaints of bishops, experts and concerned laity have merit.

9 - In pursuing its so-called complete obedience to the Holy Father, the leader and/or movement begins to downplay the role of the curia or churchmen appointed by the Holy See to look into the issue.

10 - The movement begins to quietly work around the authority of the Roman curia or curial delegates.

11 - Concerns expressed by curial officials or apostolic visitators or apostolic delegates are portrayed by the movement's leadership, either openly or quietly, as not supportive of the Holy Father and Catholic orthodoxy.

12 - The standard papal blessings and photo ops come out for a second round as the movement says to its followers: "We have the support of the Pope. But he's under a lot of pressure from enemies in the Curia. Please pray for him."

13 - The Holy Father intervenes, either directly or indirectly, to disband the movement, pronounce it schismatic, etc.

14 - The movement refuses to abide by the action, claiming the Pope has been misled or fed false information or otherwise had his hand forced by the movement's enemies in the Church, many who live in Rome and work at the highest levels of the Church.

15 - Talk about how many saints have been persecuted by high-ranking Churchmen throughout the Church's history, how this is only a temporary misunderstanding, distinctions between the papal office and the person holding it, and how a future Pope will vindicate the movement.

What you will notice is that nowhere throughout the pattern is the movement prepared to admit its substantial faults, as identified by those outside of the movement. Additionally, when serious criticism pops up against the movement, they will often quibble the minor points while missing the deeper the issue (i.e. "Fr. Founder didn't fly to Venice every year and vacation for six weeks on the community dime. Rather he made an annual trip to NAPLES, for FIVE WEEKS AND FOURC DAYS, to rest his delicate health so that he could carry out apostolate the rest of the year, which is the only reason he stayed in four-star hotels and ate at expensive restaurants. Get your facts straight!)

I pray this won't happen in my friend's case. However, I shared with him this pattern, so that he will at least be aware of some of the signs of potential schism.

In his first interview since the Legion announced its apostolic visitation , Archbishop O'Brien of Baltimore speaks the truth in charity. Basically, this visitation is a chance for the Legion to gets its act together, but they need to cooperate fully with the Holy See.

Are you confident the Legionaries are ready to cooperate?

I hope so. I'll put it that way: I really do hope so. It depends on so many individuals being open, because it just takes a few to try to block it and to mislead. I hope that the Legionaries will realize that in the long run, this is going to help them.

You're recently had talks in Rome with Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, the superior of the Legionaries. Are you confident he's ready to cooperate?

I can't say. I'm quite sure he would want to see this thing cleared up, and I hope he'll realize that the best way is to encourage everyone to cooperate.

What are the issues that the visitation should consider?

In the first place, they have to look at Maciel himself. What are the facts, who knew them, when did they know them, and why did it take so long for them to become public? They should look at the financial dimension. They also need to examine who the victims are, and what's being done to meet the needs of those victims.

Then, they need to look at the structure that Maciel created. There was a good deal of secrecy in his own life, and there's secrecy in the structures he created. It would be helpful to know why there is such secrecy. For example, why is there such an effort with their seminarians to limit their exposure to the real world out there? What are their recruiting strategies for vocations to the priesthood? How above board are they? What are the numbers involved, how many priests have been ordained and how many are still active in the priesthood with the Legionaries?

The whole interview is worth reading by clicking here.

[UPDATE: I have updated part 6 below for a second time. My initial understanding of the time-frame for RC promises now appears to have been incorrect. There may also be other updates as I am now receiving more information from LC sources. - Pete]

With the Holy See having announced an apostolic visitation of the Legion of Christ, a modest discussion is taking place in the canon law world over a number of canonical and pastoral issues relating to the Legion and its lay affiliate Regnum Christi (LC/RC). I've formed my own reflections, some of which I share below.

Before I begin, there are three things I feel the LC must do to restore credibility and regain the trust of orthodox Catholics outside the movement (and many on the inside) who are both angered and hurt by this crisis. That is, besides accept and implement what reforms the apostolic visitors may reccomend.

The first is a clear and sincere apology to Fr. Maciel's alleged victims. The second is to speak the truth plainly about the current situation. And the third is to stop playing hardball with its critics.

In the recent past the LC/RC has sued ReGAIN, as well as that involving the Sellors, who founded the Familia programme before falling out with RC (click here). Now there are reports, from the same sources that helped convince the CDF to reopen the investigation against Fr. Maciel that led to his 2006 invitation to retire, of a Legion priest mentioning a lawsuit against a parent of a Legion seminarian who showed up at a Legion apostolate and persuaded his son to come home with him.

While I haven't heard the Legion's side of the story - I've been unable to get a contact number for Legion spokesman Jim Fair [Update: a reader emailed me his number late Monday evening] - my communication with sources close to the family tell me the son came voluntarily, albeit somewhat grudgingly. So I haven't seen any evidence of kidnapping.

You can read more about the incident here. If one believes the father acted criminally, then call the police and press criminal charges. Otherwise, if what was allegedly said by the LC priest is true, then parents may think twice before allowing their sons to go off to Legion seminaries in the future.

Besides, with the Legion currently asking everyone's patience and understanding, the alleged content of the priest's phone call reminds me an awful lot of what Christ warned against in Matthew 18:28-34. Specifically, "I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to. Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?"

On to my other points:

1 - How does a diocese find out what LC/RC apostolates are taking place within their diocesan boundaries?

I'm far from being an expert on this point, but my understanding is that many RC apostolates in North America are incorporated under the Mission Network. A list of their apostolates can be found by clicking here.

Personally, I see a lot of good ideas there being implemented by a lot of good laity who are simply trying to carry out lay apostolate in fidelity to the Church. No matter what happens, I hope the RC can be salvaged, especially since most RC with whom I have corresponded are very open to reform. What I think would be helpful is if bishops and pastors provided stronger oversight over RC, or at least closer collaboration. In fact, this crisis has really taught me to respect the role of the diocesan bishop in the life of Church ministry, as both a successor to the Apostles and as the legitimate hierarchical authority within his diocese.

2 - Additionally, Archbishop O'Brien in Baltimore has been a model for demanding transparency from the LC/RC in the Archdiocese of Baltimore. He has also prohibited LC/RC from giving spiritual direction to minors in the Archdiocese. I believe this to be a wise and prudent decision on his part, and think that other dioceses should take a good look at the Archbishop's reasons for doing so.

3 - Along the same lines (and this comes more from being a pro-family journalist than a canon lawyer) the LC operates minor seminary-type boarding schools for boys as young as twelve. Some of my friends attended these schools during their teens. I hardly saw my them after they went off to these schools.

Several parents have told me the boys are limited to approximately two weeks during the summer, and a short Christmas and Easter break. The rest of the time is spent at the minor seminary, where contact with parents is extremely limited, and reportedly monitored.

I really question how healthy it is in today's society and culture to separate young people from their families, especially in light of Pope John Paul the Great's Familiaris Consortio. I know many older churchmen who I admire, including the current pope, attended minor seminaries of youth. But today is a different age. And besides, as far as we know, Our Lord received his religious education from the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph.

In today's society, where our greatest ministerial need is to the family and family structure. So shouldn't we be encouraging as much formation in the family as possible?

As a pro-family journalist, God has blessed me with the opportunity to interview many great bishops, priests and religious about their vocation. With one exception, all have stressed how essential their family was to fostering their vocation, as well as how their experience with family life while growing up greatly aided them in pastoral ministry within today's context.

Additionally, this raises another pastoral concern that I keep hearing about from many RC parents. They discern the need to take some time away from the movement while the Holy See sorts things out, but are not sure how to pull their sons (who they seldom see anymore) from the Legion's minor seminary-type schools. This further complicates the pastoral process of spiritual healing, in my opinion.

4 - There has been a lot of speculation and debate - among canonists, pastors and laypeople - about the content of LC/RC constitutions. I cannot comment authoritatively because I have been unable to obtain a copy from LC/RC sources, despite multiple requests in the past. However, the following on wiki-leaks purports to be sections of their contents.

To the best of my recollection they match those that were previously available from the ReGAIN Network (a loose association of concerned former LC/RC members) prior to the 2007 or 2008 legal settlement that forced ReGAIN to remove LC constitutions from their website. (ReGAIN ran out of money and could no longer afford the legal fees).

As an interesting side note, my understanding is that the LC did not contest their content, but rather the Legion reportedly argued theft of intellectual property. (See WaPo write-up here).

5 - As far as leaving Regnum Christi, I understand that RC members make private promises (or vows, depending upon who you talk to in the movement) when they join. These can be dispensed by the local ordinary (diocesan Bishop, vicar general, or episcopal vicar) in accordance with canon 1196. The process in most dioceses is pretty simple. Simply approach your parish priest or bishop, explain the situation, and request a dispensation from the promises or vows. Many bishops and priests are concerned with what's happening, and will gladly assist you. It's a pretty simple process in most dioceses.

A - For purely pastoral reasons, I suggest you meet with your pastor (or if possible the local ordinary) after the dispensation is granted, should you decide God is calling you to pursue one. I feel that pastoral followup is important because several former LC allege (and have told me, both publicly and personally) that the expression "Lost vocation, sure damnation" was repeated to them in the past.

Many who leave the movement purport to continue struggling with this thought after their departure, some for years. I'm not sure how credible this claim is - except to say the individuals who told me this also proved credible in other allegations they made against the Legion - nor am I sure whether it carried over to the RC. However, if this was shared with you or you personally struggle with this issue, bring it to your pastor or local Ordinary.

B - Whether one discerns God is calling him/her to stay and reform the movement from within, or to leave, I have strongly suggested to every RC member seeking my advice that he or she write the diocesan bishop, expressing both the positives and negatives. This goes back to what I believe to be one of the fundamental problems of the movement, namely, that in many dioceses the LC/RC appear to have limited contact with diocesan authorities.

6 - Along these lines I hope the Apostolic Visitors won't be limited to the LC, but that they will also be given the mandate to visit and make recommendations about the LC. My biggest concern is the apparent lack of stability of Third Degree members. If I understand correctly, they make a commitment to the movement that are renewable every two years. (Again, making their constitutions available would help clarify discrepancies that have arisen over this point.) This strikes me as the ecclesiastical equivalent of living together without the benefit of marriage (minus the sin of fornication, of course!).

[Update 2: I have deleted a section here that noted contradictory claims over whether the commitment to RC Third Degree was one or two years, vows or promises, after coming across the following article on the RC website. As of April 7, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. Eastern, it appears to be promises renewable every two years. That being said, the problem here, in my opinion, is not whether they are vows or promises, for one year or two, but whether RC Third Degree receive adequate health care coverage and other benefits while dedicating themselves to full-time RC apostolate.]

With all the caveats that come when one hears from former members who don't recall the most positive of experiences, several former Third Degree RC members allege that they were without health insurance and other basic benefits during their time as Third Degree, having been told to trust God. Some also claim to have been suddenly sent home when they developed medical issues.

Again, I haven't heard the LC/RC side of the story, but there are enough former members making this claim publicly that it's being added to the allegations swirling about the Legion. Thus bishops and parents of potential Third Degree members may want to ask questions, and the RC may want to take a proactive approach, to ensure that the LC/RC is meeting the Church's social justice obligations.

7 - I have heard similar complaints (again without getting the LC/RC side of the story) from former LC about LC seminarians, also called brothers. Additionally, I have heard - both from LC and former LC sources - that their seminarians are not given a specific time frame for ordination, but that it just kinda happens when the LC feel a brother is ready. If true, I am reminded of Fr. Frank Morrisey's classes on religious law. Fr. Morrisey is one of the Church's foremost experts in this area and he always stressed the importance of having a specific time-frame (albeit with some flexibility) toward ordination or permanent incorporation into an institute of consecrated life. This is another area that I hope the apostolic visitors will look at.

8 - For some reason, more than any other institute, comparisons to Jesuits or Opus Dei keep popping up when discussing the LC/RC. Other people who interact with the movement report the same phenomena.

With apologies to Jesuit and Opus Dei readers, I tend to hear variations of: "I thought RC was just like Opus Dei, but more active and connected to a priestly apostolate," or "I thought the Legion was the new Jesuits, practicing obedience the way the Jesuits use to."

On the surface, there appears to be some similarities. This in itself is not problematical in that an institute's charism belongs to the Church, and so institutes throughout the Church's history have borrowed from institutes that came before. Thus as a Catholic journalist much wiser than me noted, the problem does not appear to be what LC/RC borrowed from the Jesuits and Opus Dei, but rather what they may have forgotten to borrow.

With regards to the Opus Dei comparison, I believe the spiritualities are quite different. For RC members who are curious why, I recommend reading St. Josemarie Escriva's The Way and/or Frances Fernadez's In Conversations with God to gain a better understanding in Opus Dei spirituality. I assume RC individuals raising these questions are already familiar with RC spirituality.

As far as the Jesuit comparison, Nathan O'Halloran, a Jesuit scholastic and Franciscan University of Steubenville alumni, who prior to entering the Jesuits was encouraged to consider the Legion as an alternative, has blogged an excellent reflection. In it he contrasts the Jesuit understanding of obedience with what he believes to be the Legion practice of obedience. Although I found a few of his comments to be a tad polemical, he offers some excellent insights on how Jesuit obedience is sensitive to a person's conscience when asking for religious obedience. You can read the article here.

9 - All of us, both inside and outside the RC/LC, need to take refuge in St. Joseph, patriarch and protector of the universal Church.

Catholic Leaders Will Keep No Communion Instruction for Pro-Abortion Sebelius

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Should pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius become President Barack Obama's health secretary, she will likely be asked to continue refraining from receiving communion at Washington-area Catholic churches. In May 2008, her own archbishop told her to not present herself for communion.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City called on Sebelius to take the "necessary steps for amendment of her life" because of her strongly pro-abortion position.

He said Sebelius needs to refrain from receiving communion until she changes her position supporting abortion.

Now, two Washington area bishops, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Virginia, both said they would enforce the communion request Naumann put in place if Sebelius lives within their jurisdictions.

I'm convinced that here in the United States, we have no "sensus fidelium" - no "sense of the faithful."

Or perhaps - we have the sense of the marginal. The sense of the ill-informed. The sense of the folks who will darken a church door this Easter, and not return until Dec 24th out of some sort of misguided semi-annual obligation.

Because this Gallup poll wasn't of active, faithful, prayerful Catholics who frequent the sacraments.

I hate to say this, but if you are a marginal, sometimes-go-to-Mass "catholic" - what's the first thing you would like to a pollster over the telephone about. That's right: your regular Mass attendance.

Hey Gallup - why don't you find a sample of Catholics who go to Eucharist Adoration at least once per month? Call my wife sometime- she's there right now!

Benedict prays for John Paul's beatification.

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI marked the fourth anniversary of the death of Pope John Paul II with a memorial Mass on Thursday and new prayers for the Polish pontiff's beatification.

Later, Benedict descended to the grottos underneath St. Peter's and knelt for a few minutes of silent prayer before his predecessor's simple, marble tomb, decorated with a red rose. The pope sprinkled holy water in blessing before returning to the basilica upstairs and greeting some of the pilgrims.

The pope told Polish pilgrims on Wednesday he was praying for John Paul's beatification, the first step to possible sainthood.

At first you might be thinking - what? Can't Pope Benedict just declare Pope John Paul II a saint? What happened to Santo Subito?

And the answer is: that's not how it works, even for Pope John Paul II, The Great.

His cause for canonization is proceeding like any other. So keep up the prayers!

This article shows the depths of the assisted suicide obsession.

The Swiss "clinic," serving mostly "patients" from Britain, now plans the assisted suicide of a perfectly healthy woman. Why? Because her partner is terminally ill - and if he goes, she wants to go at the same time.

It seems like the stuff of romance novels and epic stories - the suicide pact. I'm sure there are people who are so without hope that they feel their life is already over, or could end at any time.

Still the "clinic" operators return to the same point when explaining their reason for being.

...anyone who has "mental capacity" should be allowed to have an assisted suicide, claiming that it would save money for the National Health Service.
...Mr Minelli said that failed suicide attempts caused problems and extra costs for the British health service.
..."For 50 suicide attempts you have one suicide and the odds of failing with heavy costs for the National Health Service," he said."In many, many cases they are terribly hurt afterwards, sometimes you have to put them into institutions for 50 years, very costly."

Let's look on the bright side, they tell us:

"We should have a nicer attitude to suicide, saying suicide is a very good possibility to escape."

So there you have it. The "patient" has no hope. The clinic has the secular reason for making it happen: cut costs.

As we approach Holy Week, we are about to relive the story of hopelessness turned to hope through the death and resurrection of Jesus. May those who are contemplating their escape find hope in Jesus' sacrifice.