Something that always concerned me about Legionary priests I encountered is how serious they came across when socializing with other Catholics. I never saw them laugh at themselves or their order. In fact, they would become quite serious and defensive if you joked about their similar haircuts or about certain practices associated with the order.
In contrast, I've been blessed with the opportunity to meet and socialize with superiors and founders of many other new movements - FSSP, Companions of the Cross, Madonna House, Opus Dei, Franciscans of the Renewal, HLI, Oratorians, Le Barroux (traditionalist) monastery - and high-profile orthodox members of older congregations and movements (Dominicans, Trappists, Studites, Knights of Columbus, Order of Alhambra) not to mention Fr. Mitch Pacwa and other orthodox Jesuits. They ALL had a sense of humor about themselves and their movement. I forget whether it was St. Josemaria Escriva or Ven. Catherine de Huek (or possibly both) who referred to themselves often as "God's donkey," discussing how their personal foibles and mistakes always got in the way of the work the Holy Spirit had founded through them.
And then there is Fr. Bob Bedard, founder of the Companions of the Cross (Canada's fastest growing clerical institute of consecrated life) who so vigorously opposed to God's call to found a new order that he tried to enlist his Archbishop in his resistance effort. Much to Fr. Bedard's shock, his Archbishop sided with God. Only then did Fr. Bedard accept that he needed to get out of the way and allow the Holy Spirit to impart a new charism.
These are far from the sorrowful saints St. Therese warned us about.
Which is why I think we have to give Monk credit for laughing at himself. Which is what I assume is his intention in re-writing my re-write of his parable. You can read his re-write here.
We're all aware of how ugly the situation is with the LC, especially as more victims surface with the truth. I know Monk sometimes presents himself in a manner that makes the rest of us cringe, and one is right to call him on it. But his ability to laugh at himself is a positive sign in my estimation. I would give him a good blast if I felt he was laughing at the victims or laughing in a way dismissive of the serious allegations against his former order and Maciel. But I don't feel this is the case here. I think he recognizes the problems with Maciel and I sense he is becoming more aware of the anger and disappointment many feel towards the current LC/RC leadership.
One thing to keep in mind - something I've come to recognize after spending the last 10 years working with former LC and RC who were victims of Maciel - is that clergy and laity are ontologically different. A priest does not stop being a priest ontologically just because he's been dispensed from the clerical state or stopped practicing his priesthood. So former LC clergy will, in my experience, process things differently than former RC, who are mainly laity. This is why, among former ReGAIN folk behind the scenes, I'm occasionally called to mediate between former LC and former RC.
What follows has been my experience: Former LC tend to look at Maciel's actions and those who covered up for him in terms of abuse of the priesthood and religious life. On the other hand, former RC (with the exception of former 3gf) tend to look at the controversy in terms of betrayal of their family and how children and young people were victimized. Finally, former 3gf look at the issue in terms of betrayal of their enthusiasm for the Catholic faith.
So for some coming from Monk's perspective - that is as a priest who had given up everything for the Legion - the monk who stole the cow analogy makes sense. Monk had everything taken from him, and then managed to survive and overcome the hardship. However, from the perspective of former RC, those who now see themselves as having sacrificed their families and their children's well-being to perpetuate a pious fraud, I cannot think of a more horrific analogy. Hence the visceral reaction to Monk and his story among many lay commentators formerly associated with Maciel and his movement.
Regardless, all of us are called to pray for and demand justice for the victims. Yet in making sense of what happened, we cannot allow Maciel and the LC to deprive us of the ability to laugh at ourselves. There is already too much tragedy in terms of how people felt compelled to suppress human emotions "for the sake of the Kingdom". To laugh at oneself amidst this tragedy is to re-awaken one's humanity.
That being said, a reader has sent me this video of Fr. Alvaro and the latest lay reaction he encountered in his continuing quest for the Holy Charism:
I have wanted to respond to this post for a few days now. However, my country needed me in these final days of the Olympics – to sit before the TV, praying “Hail Marys”, willing the puck into the net, or the curling rock into the button, and so on. It was exhausting and distracting, but now I’m ready to comment.
I have an enormous amount of respect for Fr Thomas Berg, who left the Legion nearly a year ago. In an interview with Sandro Magister last year (http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1339296?eng=y) he commented on the Legion’s “corporate inability to engage in healthy self-critique”. This was probably one of the most astute observations ever made.
As a former RC, I'd go one step further and say Regnum Christi has also inherited this inability to self-criticize. This helps to explain the way both LCs and RCs responded when I left RC. To their way of thinking, the problem was not their actions. The problem was my reaction. “Ah, Jane, yes, I heard you were 'taking it hard'”. The problem was not the deplorable response of leadership to the revelations of Maciel’s double life; it was my reaction to it!
This is LC/RC 101, passive-aggressiveness manipulation, to say in the most reasonable tone “the problem is not us; the problem is your response to us”. This applies to criticism in the public square – “the problem is not our actions for which we are being criticized. The problem is your reaction which lacks charity and therefore we will dismiss it completely”.
When I commented critically to the Monk’s response to Pete’s excellent parody of the Monk legend, Monk responded like a legionary – the problem was not him ill-advised attempt at humor, it was me, lacking a sense of humor!
Elsewhere, on Life after RC, he stated “….let's hold our fire until ALL the facts and circumstances are in.” How should one respond to that? “No, I want to fire without facts?” or “But wait! I have facts!” The intended effect is to set critics back on their heels, into a defensive position. Now I feel an overwhelming urge to ask Monk if he still beats his wife.
Perhaps Pete has offered a valid explanation for Monk’s behavior. According to Pete, “…clergy and laity are ontologically different. A priest does not stop being a priest ontologically just because he's been dispensed from the clerical state or stopped practicing his priesthood.” If I understand Pete correctly, the Monk retains many elements of his Legionary priesthood, for better or worse.
Thus, when Pete wrote “the Monk, the Cow, and the Apology” (http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/2010/02/the-monk-the-co.html), Monk’s inner LC could not bear to face the harsh truths couched in Pete’s send-up of the original Monk legend. The inability to engage in self-criticism and the inability to laugh at oneself, this is why Monk could not simply say “good one, Pete”, and leave it at that. How could he?
We need to keep our eye on the facts, and not be distracted by the little red herrings tossed out along the way. Whether we need a sense of humor, or we need to relax, is irrelevant. The facts of the scandal to the Church and the suffering souls are undeniable. These are my motivations to continue following these discussions, along with my hope and prayers for justice and healing for all.
When people are too serious, they are too close to life's events. Distancing yourself allows you to see the true proportion of things. When people laugh freely and often, they accept their imperfections and see place the world around them in perspective. A more carefree life begins with the ability to laugh at your own imperfect self.
I have to say I begin to worry about people who parse, analyze and critique ad nauseum the original fable of the monk who killed the cow. They take themselves far too seriously and are totally missing the woods for the trees...
"As a former RC, I'd go one step further and say Regnum Christi has also inherited this inability to self-criticize. This helps to explain the way both LCs and RCs responded when I left RC. To their way of thinking, the problem was not their actions. The problem was my reaction. “Ah, Jane, yes, I heard you were 'taking it hard'”. The problem was not the deplorable response of leadership to the revelations of Maciel’s double life; it was my reaction to it!"
## That quotation deserves to be framed - for how can there be repentance & conversion, where there has been no criticism of self and recognition of evil as evil ? There have been some words of sorrow from the Vatican, but none of repentance. If - as - the Vatican lays all the blame on others, who are to blame for the scandal, what need of repentance could there be, except from those others ? But that sets up the Vatican & the Church for more of the same in a generation or so; the Titanic remains on course for the iceberg. So we can look forward to more denials, more broken lives, more ruined faith, more desperate attempts to dodge responsibility. Not a pretty sight.
Might not the sort of thinking described in the quotation be relevant to the scandalous (one does not use the word lightly, but deliberately & with its NT background in mind) slowness of the Vatican leadership to realise what a shock the paedophile scandal (that word again) has caused to so many ?
Regnum Christi is "only" a body within the CC; it is not the CC, & if the bottom drops out of the world for a member of RC, it may still be possible to pick oneself up & continue life in the CC. Even so, that is no reason whatever to underestimate what many members of RC have suffered. But the scandals now erupting in the CC are a shock to something more fundamental; to people's very identity. And what is so bizarre & astonishing & horrendous is, that the leadership in the Vatican seems not to have the slightest appreciation of this. They cannot see what is so obvious to so many others, Catholic & non-Catholic - they are truly blind. And with leaders like that, how can the CC not fall into the ditch ?