When the scandal first broke concerning Fr. Maciel, I believed the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi would survive because I felt an apology to victims would be forthcoming, followed by deep reforms. Eight months, ExLC sums up the situation in the following blog entry. In particular, he notes:
Now on to the statements: from two territories in the United States, one in Germany, and now Spain.And one glaring omission: no one has owned up to a single mistake.
Until the Legion fesses up to their part in this scandal, orthodox Catholics will find it imprudent to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not unlike the sacrament of confession that requires the penitent to confess his sins and show a firm purpose of amendment before the priest can offer valid absolution.
[Jane, who has had difficulties posting today, has asked me to post this for her - Pete]
Pete, in my opinion, the Legion can’t admit to any mistakes or apologize, because they have too much to lose. An apology will open up new avenues of inquiry that they probably wish to keep hidden.
After I read the Spanish letter, with it’s omission of any reference to sexual abuse victims, I wondered, who would be threatened if the accusations of sexual abuse are revisited? Something I considered is not the eight men who stand by their story, but the other two alleged victims we often forget about.
Miguel Diaz Riviera was one of the original molestation victims mentioned in the 1997 Hartford Courant article. Shortly before the story went to print, he retracted his accusation against Maciel. Now either he lied when he accused Maciel, or he lied when he retracted his accusation, and alleged he had been coerced into accusing Maciel. Diaz’s retraction and claim of coercion was all the doubt needed to neutralize the other accusations.
What happens if the Legion apologizes now? It would be an admission that the accusation of abuse by the first eight victims is true. And if the first eight accusations are true, it makes Diaz’s retraction look very fishy. It doesn’t make sense for legitimate victims to ask a non-victim to lie; what could they gain by adding one more victim to their numbers?
What motivated Diaz to retract his accusation? We could argue that he simply could not face the humiliation of going public with lurid details. But why take the retraction one step further and claim he was coerced into making the accusation in the first place? Was the retraction the result of pressure or threats? By whom? What would Diaz have to say today? Does he stand by his claim that he was coerced by the other victims? An apology would bring all these questions forward.
The other forgotten victim was Juan Manuel Fernandez Amenabar, who made a deathbed statement in 1995 to his doctor, Dr. Gabriela Quintera Calleja, accusing Maciel of sexual abuse. Later, another doctor came forward claiming Fernandez could not have made such a statement because he was too incapacitated. The doctor discrediting the statement was not on Fernandez’s medical team, but a psychotherapist with alleged ties to the Legion.
If the Legion apologizes to abuse victims, who is at risk of exposure if there was a plot to discredit the deathbed statement? If asked today, what would the psychotherapist say?
Perhaps these two examples explain why the Legion finds it so difficult to move beyond vague reference to “all this suffering”, or why their expressions of regret are confined to internal letters to RCs and LCs. They can’t own up to anything; the need to cover for the past stands in the way of justice and reform today.
Jane