March 2010 Archives

Another report alleging nude LC with medical condition, and young boys boarding in (North American) Legion apostolic school (click here).

UPDATE: Aaron, a reported sex-abuse victim of the Legion's apostolic schools, responds by sharing his own experience with Fr. Garza (click here).

************
So begins the Legion's Night of Long Knives.

Of all the parties named (or implied) in this latest controversy, I consider Magister the most trustworthy. I appreciate that Fr. Berg left a year ago after trying to effect legitimate reform within the movement. I'm a little more uncertain about Fr. Gill, but generally I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And yes, Fr. Garza appears to have been quite candid in his talk to the 3gf last fall. However, in an order of blind men, the one-eyed priest is pope.

Sandro Magister is generally accurate about these things. He offers an experienced set of eyes from the outside. He often recognizes threads missed by folks still attached to the inside. Additionally, Magister's only discernible motive is to provide readers with accurate information and analysis. This is how he earned the esteem he enjoys as a Vatican watcher. Thus it makes no sense for Magister to risk his reputation by inflating a story, especially if in so doing he misses another story (Garza vs. other Legion superiors) that is equally intriguing.

Of all the unholy revelations that have surfaced about Fr. Maciel over the past year, the one that surprises me the least is that he stopped praying in his final years. This is consistent with most cases of serial abuse among clergy that I have encountered as a canonist. Long before these men began preying, they had ceased praying.

In fact, I think this is why Maciel's writing always turned me off. I could only read his writing in bits and pieces before headache-inducing foggy confusion came over me. One cannot give what one has not received. It is now clear that Maciel's writing (at least that which was not ghost-written or plagiarized) was not based upon prayer. Nor does prayer appear to come naturally for many of my LC/RC acquaintances. They come across as too focused on activity, with prayer scheduled in between (and heavily scripted) like one would schedule the reading of a business file during coffee break.

Which is why, come Good Friday, I invite you to join me in praying the Divine Mercy Novena for Aaron, Jose Barba, Juan Vaca and all other victims of Maciel and his movement. As Catholics let us pray for those who were preyed upon in the name of the Catholic faith. To find out more about this special Novena, please click here.

In a similar spirit I invite readers with LC/RC background to check out the following Jesuit blogs, of which two focus heavily on prayer:

- Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit
- The Spiritual Exercises Blog
- Father Brian Van Hove's Blog

UPDATE (4/6): Please note the correction to this story added below.

It just wouldn't be Holy Week without a media attack on the Church, would it?

First, a recap for those who haven't seen much of the story yet: a March 25 NY Times article accused Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) of shielding a pervert priest from punishment under Church law in 1998.

As John Schultz cited below, a piece for National Review Online by Canadian priest and writer Fr. Raymond de Souza compared the Times' shoddy article with the documentation it offered as evidence, and showed that the paperwork contradicts the Times' claims. Moreover, the primary source for Laurie Goodstein's so-called reporting, the disgraced former Archbishop of Milwaukee Rembert Weakland, has more axes to grind than the crew on American Loggers.

Now an authoritative eyewitness to the case has joined the controversy directly.

Canon-law judge Fr. Thomas Brundage, JCL, who conducted the trial against Fr. Lawrence Murphy, states that neither the Times nor any other media outlet has bothered to contact him to verify any of the facts, or even the statements which the Times presented as quotations from Brundage.

He says that the basic premise of the Times story is wrong: Murphy's trial was never actually stopped, even up to the day of his death. Without that, the whole trumped-up accusation against Cdl. Ratzinger collapses.

Since the website of the Catholic Anchor newspaper has been swamped with readers today and is currently unable to function, here's a link to Brundage's article, reproduced in full in Damien Thompson's weblog at the Daily Telegraph.

CORRECTION (4/6): Fr. Thomas Brundage has issued a correction about a statement he made in the article cited above. Based on documents, he acknowledges that the trial was indeed stopped by Abp. Weakland, shortly before Fr. Murphy's death. The point that CDF did not stop the case remains valid.

Basta! and other Spanish-speaking bloggers are asking for prayers for LC resistance/philosophers. In questioning the movement's methodology from the inside, these brave souls are reportedly feeling increasingly watched and insecure. Some have posted to Trastevere's blog over the weekend.

I just finished reading the two letters/communiques put out by the Legion of Christ/ Regnum Christi (LC/RC) over the weekend. I did so line-by-line. Here is my initial impressions, in point form, for those who are interested:

- The letter from Fr. Alvaro seems to be written for the inside, that is current members and close supporters of Regnum Christi and the Legion of Christ. Whereas the communique signed by Fr. Alvaro and various Legion superiors seems to be written for the broader Church community and perhaps society at large. Until LC/RC clarify otherwise, this is my assumption in reading and interpreting each piece of correspondence

- The LC/RC appears to have read the ecclesiastical tea leaves from Pope Benedict's apology to the Irish, and the recent interview with Msgr. Scicluna. Whether this is good or bad will depend upon how the movement conducts itself in the future.

I will respond to the two Legion communiques in a separate post, but first a few updates:

- Back after a busy weekend. A nasty cold prevented me from indulging in beer, but Bonum and I met at the local Timmies for coffee and tea. (I'm the tea drinker, in case anyone is wondering). It was great meeting him, his lovely wife and his adorable children (including their newborn) - even if it was from a distance due to the cold. We're hoping to meet up again this summer.

- Speaking of tea, Erin Manning (aka Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea) has brewed the latest monk and cow cautionary tale, which I'm hope readers will enjoy as much as I did. It's called The Monk, the Cow and the Peddler. Each of the previous installments are posted here.

- For those who haven't heard, Vows of Silence author Jason Berry, who along with Gerald Renner broke the original Hartford Courrant story exposing Maciel's sexual molestation of minor seminarians, is due to publish a new piece in the National Catholic Reporter this week exposing the Legion's alleged money trail.

- Sandro Magister responds to the Legion's communiques.

From Father Raymond J. de Souza, a response to the New York Times.

The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.

Read the whole thing.

On a mailing list I follow, tempers got hot this week over discussions of liturgical abuses.

Some people were appalled about erroneous practices; some people, who don't see those abuses locally, wondered what the fuss was about.

So I urged everybody to be more understanding:

Dear fellow list-members,

Please try to keep some perspective about liturgical faults that happen in various churches.

First, it's reasonable to feel offended by abuses that happen now, and abuses that we witness personally. On the other hand, let's not give undue importance to one-time aberrations that are not widespread and are not repeated. Let's not be outraged for years over some abuse that we saw on the Internet. Constant outrage is not good for our spiritual life.

Second, let's acknowledge that right now there is good news: there is a strong movement underway among priests, bishops, and laity to recover reverence and beauty in the celebration of Mass. The writings of Pope Benedict are contributing to this.

You can follow this development through websites like
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/
http://adoremus.org/

Third, the clergy are changing, but correcting problems takes time. The 1960s generation of ultra-liberal priests that introduced many abuses is going to retirement; they are passing from the scene, and younger priests are not interested in keeping their erroneous attitudes or erroneous practices.

Many people have learned wrong practices, and in some parishes, they are so habitual that correcting the problems is going to require some patience. Sad to say, it's going to take decades to turn attitudes around.

This week the press reported about the Archbishop of Ottawa who is trying to get people all over his diocese to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer. In some parishes up there, people hadn't been kneeling at all:
http://www.cathnewsusa.com/article.aspx?aeid=20148

This movement for reform is a good thing, but the press is happy to report complaints from people who don't like it.

(Be aware that the rules for kneeling are not the same in every country, so don't be surprised if the Archbishop's rules are not the same as the American rules.)

Bishops and priests who want to make the celebration of Mass more correct and more reverent often have to choose their battles carefully, letting some smaller failings go on, while trying to educate the people about what the Church wants.

So if some minor deviation happens, don't jump to conclusions about the priest or the parish. Be merciful.

Fourth, keep in mind that your local experience in your diocese -- whether your experience is good or not so good -- can't be projected out to the whole country or the whole world. Other readers who have different experiences from yours are not crazy: conditions really are not the same everywhere.

Thanks for thinking about these things. Thanks for being merciful.

Reader Susan's cry for help is one that many readers can identify with:

Help!! I am scheduled to attend a mother daughter retreat with my teenage daughters sponsored by Regnum Christi. I have only recently become familiar with this LC/RC situation and I must say that I am thoroughly disgusted and confused. Do the RC members continue to quote/recognize/acknowledge Maciel at the retreat centers? If so, I will not attend. I have left a message at Mt. Kisco but not sure if it will be returned in time. Between this and the situation in Europe, I am feeling very disheartened about the Church overall and not much in the mood for a retreat, but I don't want my feelings to affect my children. My daughters are excited about attending this and we are going with good friends. Any advice??

Susan, as a fellow parent I both understand and appreciate your concern. In fact, your situation is similar to one that came up in discussion last year over enrolling one's daughters in RC-sponsored Pure Fashion. I would invite you to check out the post, which identifies some problems and offers a practical alternative for Catholic moms and daughters to grow together spiritually. Please click here.

Additionally, many monasteries and some convents, take retreatants. Some have special guest houses for women. As a teen I attended several youth retreats - via both the Catholic Church and the PAOC (Canada's equivalent to Assemblies of God) that were "teen orientated" - retreats like Antioch, Youth Encounter, etc. I even attended spiritual exercises with the SSPX.

However, the most memorable retreats for me were the times my dad took me to the Trappist monastery in Oka or Orangeville, or my visit to the Benedictine Monastery in St. Benoit du Lac. Ironically, it was after a retreat with these old, tried and contemplative orders that I discerned God calling me back to the Catholic Church - the first time home from evangelical protestantism, and the second time home from radical traditionalism. In retrospect, I feel there is something about praying in a relaxed and simple surrounding, in the middle of nature, that draws the soul back to God.

The other nice thing is that one's schedule is open. So one can join the monks for prayer and mass followed by a breakfast of fresh bread and fruits. Then take a walk around the monastery grounds, while praying the Rosary, before joining the monks for more prayer and lunch. Then drive into town for a little mother-daughter shopping in small town boutiques, take in the local sights and grab supper - using it as an opportunity to really converse with your girls. Then return to the monastery for evening prayer followed by recollection and night prayer.

As many of us have discovered as parents doing our best to raise our kids Catholic, what speaks most to our children is our time. We don't need fancy retreats, programs, marketing, etc... What we need to do is take the time to introduce them to simple Catholicism, to old charisms like that of the Benedictine which is both tested and true.

For instance, like we try and do every summer, our family will probably mix our summer vacation at Mackinac Island and Jellystone Park with a day at this national Franciscan shrine. So it's Yogi Bear in the morning; Mass with the Franciscans and the National Nun Doll Museum in the afternoon; followed by an evening shopping along the boardwalk at St. Ignace. Then back to the trailer to pray the rosary while roasting marshmallows by campfire. Sometimes we arrange to meet up with other Catholic families, sometimes we just happen to run into them and plans merge for the afternoon or evening.

In fact, if any of you live in Michigan and enjoy camping, you're welcome to join us this summer. Perhaps we could all get together for the Canada Day - Independence Day long weekend. There are several KOAs and a couple of Jellystone Parks between St. Ignace and Higgins Lake. It's just a matter of picking one; putting together a loose schedule that combines prayer time, historical time, fun time and family time; and meeting up.

I've been called away for the weekend and won't have regular Internet access. However, as Giselle and I have been saying for the last few months, we're getting a little long in the tooth. So we're quite happy to see newer, fresher blog voices arise to help Catholics make sense of the Legion of Christ/ Regnum Christi crises. Among some of these voices who have posted good commentary over the past few days:

- Deirdre Mundy (aka Mouse at American Papist), a devoted Catholic mother, launches an appeal To the Mothers of Regnum Christi.

- Tea-drinker Erin Manning (aka Red Cardigan), a devoted Catholic mom herself, asks whether one in good conscience should support LC/RC-sponsored apostolates directed toward families (click here).

- Nat at May Contain Gnats has systematized several Changobeer posts from over the years to show that LC/RC methodology (what is known in more traditional religious orders as the charism) is intrinsically linked to the person of Maciel (click here).

- And the plot sickens over at ExLC blog, where Landon Cody (okay, he's not new) has posted a group photo of Maciel, the two Normas, and some 3gf (click here). Anyone else notice that the younger Norma's dress, while lovely, does not appear to meet the Pure Fashion modesty guidelines?

- Sam, a non-RC husband who feels abandoned by his RC wife, has posted a brilliant piece of sarcasm (At least I hope it's sarcasm! Please pray for Sam and other spouses in his situation.)

- Meanwhile, my fellow Canuck Bonum, Verum, Pulchrum (who I'm hoping to catch up with for a beer this weekend) has been distracted from the LC/RC-related blogging by Ann Coulter's riotous (literally!) speaking tour in Canada. Check out his blog for the video of Ann on the Michael Coren show.

Let me introduce you to Mr. Mark Waterinckx, a Belgian who has become known as a critic of the alleged Medjugorje apparitions.

He started out as a great supporter of them, and he was close to the people involved. From 1984 to 1989, his confessor was Fr. Jozo Zovko, who was at times pastor of St. James Church and a spiritual advisor to the visionaries. Mark wrote for Medjugorje magazines, and went to the place 24 times. But things changed.

The other day, Mark summed up the state of the case from his point of view. His article describes the non-believers, the believers, and the fanatics. He tells some history about how the bishops tried to restrain Medjugorje, but were prevented from doing so by the war. He also places the new wave of criticism toward Medjugorje in the context of Pope Benedict's efforts to clean up cases of corruption.

[NB: The headers within the article were added by me for the sake of clarity.]

Now, after that little survey, written with Mark's characteristic bluntness, it's not surprising that he drew fire from some supporters, just as this hit piece.

Such a reaction may be understandable: if some guy took a tough stand against your favorite apparition, why wouldn't you be puzzled at his anger?

Well, there's a reason for it.

Mark Waterinckx was the first man from Belgium to make contact with Medjugorje and has made 24 pilgrimages there since 1984. He has raised thousands and thousands of dollars for Medjugorje. In the summer of 1989 he had become friends with [Fr.] Jozo Zovko [OFM] in Tihalijna when an American woman came to him and told him that Zovko had sexually assaulted her. Waterinckx went to Zovko the next day, and Zovko denied everything but was pale and in a terrible state. The incident precipitated a crisis of faith for Waterinckx, who had a conversion experience at San Damiano, which he now doubts. After praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament, Waterinckx decided to walk barefoot to Tihalijna to try to get to the bottom of the matter. When he arrived in Tihalijna, Zovko had regained his composure; he laughed at Waterinckx in spite of the fact that he had severe burns on his feet. Since that time, Zovko has pretended that he doesn't know Waterinckx.

Waterinckx now claims to know 12 women who Zovko has molested including a woman whose father still conducts pilgrimages to Medjugorje, One or two months after his first encounter with the American woman, Waterinckx, seeing that nothing was being done, went to see Leonardo Orec, then curate at Medjugorje. Orec seemed unconcerned about the whole thing. "If you don't do something," Waterinckx told Orec, "I'll go to the provincial in Mostar." Eventually Waterinckx had to write to Herman Schalueck, the Franciscan general, and it was he who finally brought about Zovko's suspension a few months later on August 23, 1989. Rene Laurentin mentioned the suspension in one of his books in '89 adding that the severity of the actions must have indicated that it happened for a good reason. In spite of being suspended, Zovko continued living at Tihalijna. Zrinko Cuvalo, one [of] the Franciscans who was in Medjugorje on day one of the apparitions, was sent to keep an eye on him, but since Cuvalo had a drinking problem the eye was probably not all that observant. Zovko was disciplined a second time in 1994, this time under Bishop Peric for pertinacious disobedience.

Waterinckx had had a number of negative experiences which shook his faith beginning in 1986, but the events of 1989, particularly those associated with Jozo Zovko's behavior were so devastating that Waterinckx decided that he had to warn people. However, when he tried to warn people in articles he had written, he suddenly found that his access to the Medjugorje publications which were previously so eager to print what he wrote had been cut off. It was a pattern which would repeat itself over and over again. Only "positive" articles got published. As a result, people were kept in the dark until the truth suddenly overwhelmed their defenses, at which point they became alienated from the Church and disillusioned. Vain credulity was quickly replaced by a general skepticism on the part of people who were having difficulty coping with changes they didn't understand in the first place.

The evidence against Zovko was particularly damning, not only because he had, in effect, created the apparitions by bringing them into the church and thereby conferring on them what seemed to be Church approval, but also because the Blessed Mother herself, at least according to the testimony of Marija Pavlovic on October 21, 1981, had said, "Jozo Zovko is a saint." By March of 1994, Marija had had enough experience with the Franciscans to convince her that Franciscans like Zovko and Vlasic were no saints, but apparently not enough to get her to admit that she wasn't seeing the Gospa. "We must not like only persons like Father Jozo," Marija said in March 1994, "or the seers themselves, since they can become a disillusion [sic] to you. They are not saints." Marija had by then forgotten that she, speaking for the Blessed Mother, had said the exact opposite 13 years before. By the time her caveat of 1994 was made public, Marija Pavlovic had been caught twice in lies involving the two Franciscans who had taken control of the apparitions over the summer of 1981, but by then the Herzegovina Franciscans had shown that they were not interested in the truth -- Father Barbaric had no difficulty inviting the twice-suspended Zovko to attend the International Youth Festival in August of 1997 -- and the pilgrims were too befuddled to know the difference.

(source: E.M. Jones, "The Medjugorje Deception", South Bend, IN, 1998, pp. 164-166. I have corrected a few typographical errors.)

That's reason enough, I'd say.

The kids and I are out with a bad cold, which thankfully, has spared my wife who is looking after us. So your homework assignment for today - particularly those who are new to the debate - is to read and reflect on the following:

1 - Former Legionary priest Jack Keogh (aka Monk)'s response to Pope Benedict's letter to the Irish, Is it time to convene the Third Vatican Council. Although it would be a gross exaggeration to proclaim Monk as an unofficial blog spokesman for the Legion, I have found that his missives around the net often line up with what appears to be current Legion thinking concerning the crisis. So it's worth a read, even if I disagree with much of what he wrote. (For some clear thinking on Pope Benedict's leadership in addressing the sex abuse crisis, read John Allen's following reflection on the topic.)

2 - Thus I'm curious to see whether in the coming month or two the Legion hierarchy attempts to throw Pope Benedict under the bus - not by full out accusations of complicity, mind you, but rather by indirect suggestion. That being said, I'm not Irish. My Catholic ancestors were Italian and Polish, and I was schooled in the French Catholic school system. All this meaning that stories about monks and cows and sayings like "God draws strait with crooked lines" were not part of our Catholic curriculum growing up. Rather, we were taught the expression 'Qui mange du pape, meurt.' This loosely translated into English as "Whoever eats of the pope will choke to death." So to my Regnum Christi readers - as well as Legionary resisters and philosophers - beware if the Legion tries to throw Benedict under the bus. Historically the bus has a funny way of missing the pope and crushing the crowd. Re-read my posting from a year ago - How schism becomes an option.

3 - Speaking of French-Canadian Catholicism and schism becoming an option, throughout this controversy I have often drawn comparisons between the Legion and the Fils de Marie. At one time - I am told both by former Legionaries and former Fils - the two orders were extremely close allies in Rome among new ecclesiastical movements. Their seminarians were allowed to mingle freely and unchaperoned, I am told, a privilege neither order afforded to any other outside order. In fact, the Fils de Marie are probably the reason the Legion was unable to garner much of a following in French-speaking Canada until recently. Thus I recommend reading Rick Ross's dossier on the Armee de Marie/ Fils de Marie, which you can visit by clicking here.

4 - By now, several Regnum Christi readers are saying "Schism? That could never happen to us, we are totally obedient to the Pope." Here's a cautionary tale. Cutting through canonical jargon, I've seen several movements suddenly go into schism after years of claiming total obedience to the Pope. In the vast majority of cases, members never thought the movement would become schismatic or disobedient to the Holy See. Yes, it happened to other groups that claimed Catholic orthodoxy and total submission to Rome, but folks believed their particular groups was different. "Just look at the fruits," is a common argument. What happens is that the claim of total obedience to the Pope is often a facade for avoiding criticism or oversight by local Church authorities (like diocesan bishops). The movement portrays local Church authorities as liberal dissenters who hate the movement for its orthodoxy. When the Pope sides with the wider Church, members feel betrayed and come to believe the Pope is part of the conspiracy, although they will usually argue at first that the Pope is an unwilling part. Think of the "Maciel took a hit for the Church because the Pope was under pressure by the Church's enemies" argument put forward after the 2006 communique.

Benedictine priest and former Human Life International president (and I believe founder) Fr. Paul Marx has passed away over the weekend. Fr. Marx was truly a great man of God. Let us pray for the repose of his soul, so that he may continue to intercede with Our Lord for children in the womb. Paul Zalonski has posted the details here.

As Jack keeps reminding us, it's only a story...

Surfing the net before heading off to Mass this morning, I came across several blogs written by Catholics re-discovering their Catholicism after involvement with the LC or RC. Like Betty Duffy's story about The Dorito Eaters. In particular, I enjoyed these two paragraphs explaining why she adopted the name Dorito Eaters for her and three friends who she had met through Regnum Christi:

It's sort of funny to consider that the four of us met through Regnum Christi. Our girls' getaway used to be a weekend retreat or convention. Since the scandal with Father Maciel, we have continued to do Gospel Reflections on our own, though not as a part of RC. We still woke up each morning in Florida and said our morning prayers together. We still went to Mass and said our Rosaries. But it was sort of fun not to spend the weekend sitting in a hotel convention room listening to lay testimonies. It felt very rebellious.

I remember a cousin of mine, once explaining to me why she didn't want to join Regnum Christi with me: "Sometimes I just want to sit on the couch and eat Doritos," she said. In light of Father Maciel's writings on Time and Eternity, I often feel guilty about doing anything that's not an apostolic activity. So I have devolved into a Dorito-eater. Hopefully, there will still be room in Eternity for me. My entire adult life as a Catholic has been tied up with Regnum Christi, and one of these days I'm going to write a post about how life has changed since I'm not really involved.

Catholic Teacher Man Adam Thompson has also blogged an excellent reflection re-interpreting his previous experience with the Legion, in which some Legionaries reportedly tried to convince him to drop out of college. What I found most interesting was how his mother and his Jesuit confirmation sponsor reacted to the situation:

The young Legionaries had such an awestruck reverence for the [Maciel]. It was really quite moving. We imagined ourselves in the presence of a truly holy man, a veritable Ignatius of Loyola or Francis of Assisi. I remember thinking there was a spiritual aura about the man. Consequently, I returned home from Europe full of zeal and fervor for the faith, not to mention an unshakable confidence in the Legion. When my Confirmation sponsor, a Jesuit priest, and my mother voiced concern about the Legion, I brushed aside their criticism as being simply misinformed or excessively protective, and advocated for the Legion as a priestly order akin to what the Jesuits used to be. This was hurtful to the priest, as I intended, and I greatly regret those words to this day. That should have been the first sign that something was amiss with the Legion, or at least its founder.

You can read Adam's full story here.

The other day I offered some fairly conventional thoughts about the possible outcomes of the new international study commission on the Medjugorje phenomenon.

In that piece I suggested that the study could lead to possible verdicts of "constat de non supernaturalitate", or "non constat de supernaturalitate", or merely a decision to wait and let things go on with no verdict. But I may have been wrong about the possibilities. One of those may no longer be an option.

I learned earlier today about a 2008 interview with Abp. Angelo Amato, then secretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, about the discernment of alleged apparitions. In addition to his past responsibility, Abp. Amato is reportedly now a member of the study commission on Medjugorje.

In the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire of July 9, 2008 (reproduced here and here), he answered some questions about a 1978 document from CDF on this subject.

I've translated most of the interview (below), but here is the part that draws my attention:

Q.: At the end of these proceedings, what positions can authority take?

A.: There can be approval, the constat de supernaturalitate, as was recently done by the bishop of Gap [France] for the apparitions of Laus. Or disapproval, the non constat de supernaturalitate, as for example quite a few pseudo-mystical manifestations.

Q.: But can the "non constat de supernaturalitate" be considered a wait-and-see decision, compared to the negative, which would be the "constat de non supernaturalitate"?

A.: In the Norms we are talking about there is only mention of constat de and non constat de. There is no sign of constat de non.

Well, I get to learn something new every day.

So, if CDF does follow the 1978 norms exactly, then the old distinction between non constat de supernaturalitate and constat de non supernaturalitate may have been dropped.

One has to wonder: what motivated this change from past practice? Was the omission intended to limit what options authorities should consider in future cases? Would Pope Benedict keep this change, or act to make it clear that the more clearly negative formulation remains an option?

If this reduction of options is real, it would imply that the Yugoslav bishops already gave the Medjugorje phenomenon the most negative verdict possible (non constat) in 1991. Perhaps a clarification from Rome about these norms would be helpful.

Perhaps this explains the statement of Cardinal Puljić in 2009: "The doctrinal issue of the Medjugorje phenomenon is resolved, but its pastoral significance must still be taken into account."

The Avvenire interview follows. Thanks to Diane K. of the Te Deum Laudamus blog, who tipped me off about it.

[UPDATE (10/2011): Welcome, Jimmy Akin readers!

Since writing this, I've become more reserved about the speculations I made above. Some months ago I asked Mariologist Fr. Manfred Hauke whether the 1978 document means that constat de non would be excluded in the future, and he replied that it would be best to apply the "hermeneutic of continuity" to the document. The three constat options are long established in Catholic practice, so it's best not to assume from SCDF's omission that there was any intent to change the possible options. If SCDF had wanted to take on that issue, they could have done so directly. Moreover, I suppose, such a change would need to be addressed in a published document, not one issued sub secreto to the bishops. A published document would have a more thorough process of preparation and review. --RC]

Pope Benedict has just released his letter to Irish Catholics concerning sexual abuse against children. Although we knew His Holiness would take a tough stand - he's become less tolerant than his predecessor in punishing priestly abusers - this letter is nevertheless a bombshell for canonists.

One of the most important principles when applying canon law to a situation is that one interpret the law according to the mind of the legislator. Pope Benedict is the Supreme Legislator within the Church. This letter reveals Pope Benedict's mind on this horrific topic in a manner that leaves little room for ambiguity in its interpretation. Although addressed to Irish Catholics, the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi would do well to pay attention. After all, any attempt from the Holy See to impose reform on Maciel's movement will follow the mind of Pope Benedict. So you - and I'm speaking directly now to LC/RC canonists - would be foolish to dismiss this letter as addressed only to Catholics in Ireland, and not to your movement.

I urge everyone to read the entire letter here. Here are some key paragraphs that stand out in light of LC/RC handling of the Maciel scandal:

I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them.

Notice the apparent absence of Romanita and Bella Figura in His Holiness's words. Popes in modern times don't talk like this. He considers the sexual abuse of children sinful, criminal and treachery. He will publicly shame an entire Church hierarchy to make his point.

It is true, as many in your country have pointed out, that the problem of child abuse is peculiar neither to Ireland nor to the Church. Nevertheless, the task you now face is to address the problem of abuse that has occurred within the Irish Catholic community, and to do so with courage and determination.

The fact that children are sexually abused outside of the Church, or in other parts of the Church, is no excuse for inaction. Focus on the problem in your own background. You have a duty to confront this problem and to fix it.

At the same time, I must also express my conviction that, in order to recover from this grievous wound, the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children. Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future.

There is no recovery without first acknowledging the wrong done, the serious of the wrong done, and the vulnerability and innocence of the victims. This must be followed by sincere sorrow for the wrong done, and a pro-active approach to preventing similar harm to children in the future.

The pope then shares good advice on praying for God's grace and turning to saints for their Christian example. This is fairly strait-forward.

That being said, the following statements reveal that His Holiness sees bad methodology as a contributing cause to this crisis:

Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. [...]

Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person. Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing.

Finally, he makes it clear whose side he is taking in this scandal:

On several occasions since my election to the See of Peter, I have met with victims of sexual abuse, as indeed I am ready to do in the future. I have sat with them, I have listened to their stories, I have acknowledged their suffering, and I have prayed with them and for them.

Not only has Pope Benedict met with the victims personally and listened to their stories, but he has acknowledged their suffering and prayed for them. This is the response one would expect from good and holy priests. And since Christ calls the Pope as head shepherd to lead by example, this is the response the Pope himself expects.

Notice what is absent from the Pope's letter: No blaming the victims for their (supposed) lack of charity; no passing the entire responsibility to the abuser alone, no silly cliches like "God writes straight with crooked lines," no chastising the faithful for their outrage or for not also recognizing the good that abusers had accomplished. No use of euphemism to describe painful sind. No denying the effects of abuse upon the victims. No covering up for the sake of avoiding scandal in the Church.

What's even more interesting, in re-reading His Holiness's letter a second time, from the beginning, is that he calls the Irish hierarchy to account for their handling of the situation. Yes, the Pope is intervening to help fix the situation. However, it is only because the Irish hierarchy failed in their responsibility to do so. This should be a sobering reminder to current LC/RC supporters. Just as "I was only following orders" has been rejected as an argument for moral justification, so too does Pope Benedict appear to reject "I was only waiting for orders to follow."

Which is why LC and RC should ask themselves what they (not Maciel) have done to correct the situation, and whether it lives up to the Pope's expectations. This is the question he asked of the Irish bishops. And this is the question he will ask of you.

Or to quote the Holy Father in a part of the letter addressed specifically to bishops (after saying religious superiors should follow the advice he gives bishops):

Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal. The Irish people rightly expect you to be men of God, to be holy, to live simply, to pursue personal conversion daily.

The Holy Father concludes the letter with several excellent recommendations for prayer, fasting and reform.

I would have assumed that the author of this recent comment proclaiming Maciel's innocence was either a troll or someone being sarcastic. However, in the last couple days I have come across a former-LC-brother-turned-RC-organizer with an Anglophone name who actually expressed similar thoughts.

Regardless of whether the individual is trolling, being sarcastic or expressing sincere thoughts, his/her following words hit me: "Finally, it is Catholic teaching that good comes out of evil. Jesus was from the lineage of David, and David had an adulterous relationship with Uriah's wife and then had him killed."

Okay, we've all heard LC/RC apologists use the King David analogy before. And we've all responded: "King David repented publicly. Maciel claimed innocence until death." Fair enough.

But what about King David before he repented? Before Nathan confronted him with the story of the two shepherds? Let's take a good look at 2 Samuel 12.

First, God deprived King David of his first child with Uriah's wife. In short, God permitted the death of the fruit conceived from David's and Bathsheba's adultery. Moreover, God did so on the seventh day, which is the day a baby boy would normally have been circumcised under the Old Covenant - signifying his covenant with God. Since David was asleep when the child died during the night, I'm guessing the child died before receiving circumcision. But I will leave the Biblical experts to figure this out.

Second, God forgave David, but David's adultery and murder continue to curse his descendants long after David had repented. As the prophet Nathan tells David in confronting him: "Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised God, and have taken the wife of Uri'ah the Hittite to be your wife," and "Thus says the LORD, `Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.
For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.'"

Forgiveness is possible. God will forgive a repentant heart as He forgave King David. But forgiveness does not remove the temporal consequences of sin. Nor does God's forgiveness insure the survival of the fruit of one's sin.

I'm hoping readers can help. I was told by a member of a new ecclesiastical movement that I should not watch pop videos as they contain hidden meanings. Here is one of my favorite videos by Newfoundland folk-rock band Great Big Sea. Please help me figure out the hidden meaning of this video?

UPDATE:

- Mouse from AmP (Deirdre Mundi) is blogging again this afternoon and she deconstructs two myths of Legion/RC supporters: 1) God writes strait with crooked lines; 2) God brings good out of evil.

- A saint yells at a pederast? (and nobody notices?)

*********************
Very busy today with other projects. However, there's a lot going on for readers looking to make sense of the Legion of Christ/ Regnum Christi scandal:

- If found out late last night that the Jason Berry interview with Anderson Cooper had been postponed again due to the health-care debate. As soon as I find out what the new date is, I will let you know.

- Possible Changobeer sighting in the comments section of Eric Sammons's blog. (Hat tip to Jane for mentioning this in yesterday's post indexing of Changobeer's blog).

- John Allen is back! He's mounted a vigorous defense of Pope Benedict's handling of the sex abuse crisis involving Europe and the Legion. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the National Catholic Reporter leading Pope Benedict's defense against his secular critics.

- Aaron whacks a troll over at Erin's blog, explaining his attempt to report to local police the abuse he [allegedly] suffered as a minor in the Legion.

- Let us join Giselle in praying to St. Joseph, Protector of the Universal Church, as the next stage of the apostolic visitation begins. (Click here).

- Nat has put together an interesting blog attempting to untangle the Holy See's request to untangle the Legion from Maciel. (Click here).

- Bonum posts a letter from a grateful mother to her bishop, for helping her and her husband rescue their son from a Legion apostolic school. The mother lists several serious allegations against Maciel and the methology her son was subjected to. (Click here).

Developing over at Erin's blog:

Monk wrote: "Recently, I quoted John Paul 11 as saying: 'you resemble the company you keep.' [...] RC seems new to these environs - and has managed to raise more than a few hackles. However, the substance of his remarks is bang on. He is well worth listening to - especially now before he ends up resembling the company he keeps!"

Red Cardigan wrote: "RC, you keep missing the forest for the trees. I'm not sure, given what you wrote about the 'Gaia-worship' example, that you even understand what an analogy is. I'm also not sure if you aren't just a really annoying troll--you're beginning to seem like one."

Troll, formerly known as RC said: "Trolls ask inconvenient questions and point out flaws in thinking, especially those of analogies that don't work."

Lauretta said: "Would you like to tell Aaron Loughery from Ireland that there is no proof of Legion sex abuse? He is the one the stated that he was sexually abused, the man who abused him was sexually abused by a Legion priest, that man was abused by a Legion priest, who was in turn abused by a Legion priest who was abused by Maciel." [To read Aaron's allegations, click here and here].

TROLL said:

Aaron Loughery is a coward.

If he had any integrity, he would press charges, and let whoever was accused mount a defense in a proper court of law that would determine his guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, he mounts a whispering campaign, and you gossipers willingly participate. Where is that angel with the flaming coal to purify all your mouths?

The Vatican's new study commission is conducting its research behind the scenes, but an open theological debate continues, mostly in Europe, regarding the alleged apparitions and supernatural messages of Medjugorje.  Here at Catholic Light, I've been covering some of the discussion from the German Catholic press.

In his latest contribution, Fr. Manfred Hauke, a professor in the Catholic theology faculty in Lugano (Switzerland), has followed up on arguments by Medjugorje defenders Dcn. Thomas Müller and Dr. Christian Stelzer, who disputed some of Hauke's historical points.  He offers a response with information from two experts:

• Medical expert Dr. Thilo Buchmüller explained that the reported healing of three-year-old Daniel Setka in 1981 was not proof of a miracle.
  
  
• Anthropologist Mart Bax responded to complaints about name discrepancies in his writings about ethnic violence near Medjugorje.
  

A third Medjugorje supporter, Fr. Ivan Dugandzic, OFM, a member of one of the previous commissions, offered his own defense which appeals to the theories of Karl Rahner.   Professor Hauke responds to Dugandzic's argument as well.   The article follows.

To readers just tuning in to the LC/RC scandal surrounding Maciel and the movement he founded, catching up on the blog conversation can seem rather daunting. One of the best sources for "tuning in" to the discussion is Changobeer - the blog of the pseudonymous Fr. Damian Karras (the priest in the movie Exorcist) written by a 30-year veteran of the Legion (commonly believed to be Fr. Frances Snell, LC). Although eight months have passed since Changobeer's last entry, the blog still offers insight into several facets of the scandal and Legion thinking throughout out.

Fr. Changobeer was close to Maciel. He believed in Maciel's innocence, and defended the founder up until news became public of Maciel's daughter. The same with regards to a charism within the Legion. But Fr. Changobeer also believed strongly in obedience and submission to the Holy See - not only in word, but in spirit. He often expresses discomfort with the Legion's response to words or instructions from the Holy See. He also recognized that some self-critique of the order was necessary for the movement to purify itself. Thus many of his blog entries concern questions that arose in an honest attempt to reconcile his belief in Maciel's sanctity and the Legion's charism with obedience to the Holy Father.

Here's a chronological index of Changobeer's posts as he wrestles with several issues concerning the scandal. Please let me know if I have missed any:

- May 05 - He points to the Vatican Secretariat of State letter as proof of Maciel's innocence.

- Jun 05 - He dismisses Maciel's critics and the allegations, but admits the Legion needs to engage in self-criticism, to stop being so secretive and to stop alleging conspiracy theories.

- Jul 05 - He disagrees with Sandro Magister's prediction Pope Benedict's action against Fr. Gino was a foreshadowing of what was in store for Maciel. Says the outcome with Maciel will be different.

- May 06 - He states that something confusing has just hit and he is still struggling to understand it, will post his best explanation but he is not satisfied with it. His next post states that the issue is the Holy See's communique inviting Maciel to retire to a life of prayer and penance, and the separation the Holy See draws between Maciel and LC/RC. He identifies and struggles with many questions.

- Oct 07 - Although normally quite critical of ReGAIN, he expresses disagreement with the Legion hiring high-powered lawyers to sue the organization. Compares it to Scientology.

- Jan 08 - Discusses Roman-mandated changes within the Legion, including suppression of the extra two vows. Optimistic for the changes, but concerned about the "serene" facade and interpretation of Legion superiors.

- Jan 08 - Tribute to Maciel upon his death.

- Feb 08 to Apr 08 - Writes five-part series attempting to explain and clarify the Legion's charism. (Part one, part two, part three, part four, part five).

- June 08 - He wrestles with Archbishop O'Brien's criticism of the Legion, and how closely the Archbishop came to banning the Legion in Baltimore. Renews call for transparency and self-examination in the Legion.

- Sept 08 - Strongly questions the credibility of Jason Berry and Maciel's other victims. Says he believes Maciel based upon working side-by-side with Maciel for several years.

- Sept 08 - Criticizes Legion, Church officials and the wider Catholic community for ignoring Maciel's death and funeral, and the cloud of suspicion this left concerning the founder.

- Nov 08 - Attends Cistercian retreat, describes how relaxing and rejuvenating it was compared to the frantic pace of past (presumably Legion) retreats.

- Jan 09 - News of Maciel's daughter breaks. Fr. Changobeer becomes first LC-affiliated priest in English blogophere to admit the significance of the news vis-a-vis Maciel and LC/RC. He is also the first to publicly call for full disclosure, for LC leadership to resign (if needed), and for an apostolic visitation from Rome.

- Mar 09 - Suggests that Legion leadership lacks credibility, and that the seeds of the Legion's methodology were rooted in Maciel's sins.

- June 09 - He argues that the only way forward for the Legion is to tell the truth.

- June 09 - Points out the difference between Maciel being flawed, and Maciel being a liar.

- June 09 - Explains why the Legion must purge itself completely of Maciel.

- Jul 09 - Refutes the "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" analogy being argued by the Legion and its supporters. Explains why any good accomplished by Maciel is irrelevant to this scandal.

- Jul 09 - Criticizes the movement for trying to downplay Maciel's sins and attempting to move forward, business as usual.

- Aug 09 - (Last post) - He reveals that LC superiors are trying to preserve Maciel's writings for future generations, while avoiding direct mention of Maciel and his actions.

From the Vatican Information Service:

VATICAN CITY, 17 MAR 2010 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office today published the following communique:

"An international investigative commission on Medjugorje has been constituted, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini and dependent upon the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Said commission - made up of cardinals, bishops, specialists and experts - will work privately, submitting the results of its work to the authority of the dicastery".

I assume that this is good news for Bishop Perić of Mostar, as he has wanted an intervention from the level of the Holy See for a long time. It has been twenty years since the last official investigation, held at the level of national bishops' conference in the former Yugoslavia. While the facts of the case's early years have not changed, the intervening years have allowed us to examine the historical record, and they have confirmed the wisdom of the bishops' decision to deny approval.

After the commission presents its report to CDF, there may eventually be a declaration on the case, containing a doctrinal judgment and pastoral directives.

The doctrinal judgment could be:

• "constat de non supernaturalitate": the phenomenon is confirmed to be not of supernatural origin
• "non constat de supernaturalitate": the phenomenon is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin
• no judgment, but cautious encouragement: "nihil obstat"

Because the phenomenon is ongoing, it cannot be given a fully favorable evaluation ("constat de supernaturalitate"), so the most favorable result theoretically available is to give cautious encouragement on the grounds that "nothing stands in the way". 

I mention that last option as a theoretical possibility, but the many objective reasons against approval, and the relatively few and subjective reasons for approval make me expect that the doctrinal judgment will be negative.  Readers unfamiliar with the case against the apparition  can see the archives of this blog.  Under the category of "Apparitions and Mystical Phenomena", there are translations of commentaries from experts and reports by Bishop Perić, which point out questionable aspects of the "messages".

[UPDATE (3/21): I have some further discussion of possible verdicts here.]

In addition to a doctrinal evaluation, CDF can also issue pastoral directives.  Possibly it might leave them up to a lower authority, either the local bishop or the Bosnia-Herzegovina bishops' conference. 

In the case of a negative doctrinal evaluation, the current vague limitations could be left as is, or there might be new restrictions.  

What cannot be forbidden totally is travel to Medjugorje and visits to the parish church: after all, it is a lawful parish, and Catholics are free to attend Mass there.  Also, the long-standing devotional traditions of the country, such as the saying of seven Our Fathers, etc., are perfectly acceptable, and their spread to other places is unobjectionable.

What can be regulated or prohibited?  Devotions based on the alleged apparition; the use of titles such as "Our Lady of Medjugorje"; the publishing of promotional material (in literature, through the mass media, on the internet); the use of Church facilities to promote the claims of supernatural revelations; the participation of the clergy in promotional events; perhaps even the participation by the laity in promotional events. 

Promotional events which could be regulated or restricted may include prayer services, speeches, journeys to Medjugorje: perhaps any event based on a belief in the claimed supernatural origin of the phenomenon.   If the Church wishes, She can regulate or forbid the formation of associations to promote belief in the apparitions: that is, She can forbid the various "Medjugorje centers" or "Marian centers" from promoting the claims of supernatural apparitions.

At present, foreign priests can celebrate Mass or hear confessions in Medjugorje without the local bishop's permission, merely by presenting proof (a celebret) to the pastor, attesting that they are in good standing with their own diocese or religious order.   It is conceivable that this freedom could be restricted in some way.

Of course, these are only possibilities that indicate the range of actions that could be taken, depending on how permissive or restrictive an approach the authorities of the Church decide to take. 

Is it possible that the Church might issue a split decision: say no to the apparition, impose some restrictions, and yet allow or encourage visitors to keep going to Medjugorje as a "place of prayer" or of "retreat"? Such a mixed verdict would be intended to smooth over difficulties among those faithful who are very attached to the alleged apparitions; it would seek to spare the poor country a loss of tourist revenue; it might seek to keep the reported "good fruits" going.  But it seems there would be a fundamental inconsistency about it, and it opens Church authorities to an accusation of consequentialist decision-making.  

Some voices, pro- and con-, are saying that the goal of the commission should be to render a decision before the 30th anniversary of the start of the affair: that is, before mid-June, or before this summer's planned youth festival in early August.   I'm not holding my breath for that: if a commission with twenty members (so says papal spokesman Fr. Lombardi) reaches conclusions and writes a report that quickly, that may be the first real miracle to happen in connection with Medjugorje.

Just received from Landon Cody at ExLCblog:

Jason Berry will be on Anderson Cooper 360 [now Thursday] on CNN, 10 pm EST to talk about the Legion of Christ case.

Weighing in on the controversy over Fr. Tom Doyle's unfortunate comments vis-a-vis Pope Benedict that got picked up by Christopher Hitchens, I understand where Fr. Zuhlsdorf and Giselle are coming from. I too cringed when I read Fr. Doyle's comments. It's no secret that I'm a fan of Pope Benedict, and I also believe he has handled the Maciel/Legion scandal well. Keep in mind that he took on Maciel, behind Pope John Paul II's back, when other powerful curial cardinals were squarely in the Legion's corner.

That being said, we ought not throw stones at Fr. Tom. He too is a major victim in all this. At one time he was on the fast-track to the pointy hat as a rising star in the canon law world. However, he gave it all up to help victims of clerical sexual misconduct when the bulk of the Church hierarchy was playing hardball with victims and covering up. Because of his moral courage in backing victims, testifying against fellow priests in civil courts when needed, Fr. Tom became a pariah among Catholic churchmen. The abuse and character assassination he suffered was on par with Barba, Vaca and the first group of Maciel's victims to come forward.

I remember when his name was a curse word in the Church. I remember when people use to laugh at him for predicting an impending major sexual abuse crisis that would severely tarnish the Church. I remember making the mistake, around the time I earned my licentiate in canon law, of saying: "I think Fr. Tom Doyle is right." Two years later, nobody was laughing at Fr. Tom and his wild predictions. However, the damage had been done to his name and to his career.

...so I'll be searching for pots o' charism at the end of the rainbows. Here's some of my favorite Celtic music (which has helped keep me sane over the last year) to entertain you during my absence. Eat, drink and be merry - for tomorrow we pray and fast for the victims:

Loreena McKennitt

The Chieftains & Sinead O'Connor

Máiréad Nesbitt /Celtic Women - [WARNING: Not approved by Pure Fashion police]

Great Big Sea

The Irish Rovers

Then success to bold Saint Patrick's fist,
He was a saint so clever,
He gave the snakes and toads a twist,
and banished them forever!

...you may find the following resources helpful in helping to make sense of everything:

- St. Ignatius of Loyola's rules for discerning spirits.

- Nathan O'Halloran's essay Jesuit Obedience and the Legionaries of Christ. Nathan is a young orthodox Catholic and a graduate of Franciscan University in Steubenville. He briefly considered a vocation with the Legionaries before discerning God's call to become part of the current Jesuit revival in orthodoxy.

- St. Bruno's famous Letter to Raoul de Verde.

Many speculate about the future of the Legion of Christ and what the AV will hold, but few do so with the accuracy and credibility of Vatican correspondent Sandro Magister. Has he published even one prediction concerning the Legion that has not come to fruition? So his observations are always taken seriously by Vatican watchers - both inside and outside the Holy See.

This observation, from a piece Magister published today, scares me:

Priests and seminarians who until very recently were steeped in the writings attributed to Maciel will have difficulty finding new sources of inspiration, not generic but specific to their order. The current leaders of the congregation aren't helping, either. On the contrary. One of Maciel's former personal secretaries, Fr. Felipe Castro, together with other priests of the Legion, has worked in recent months to select from among the founder's many letters a group of letters to be "saved" for the future, to keep a positive image of Maciel alive.

The dependence of the Legionaries on Maciel was - and for many still is - absolute. There wasn't a shred of daily life that escaped the rules he dictated. Absurdly exacting rules. Which prescribed, for example, how to sit at the table, how to use a napkin, how to swallow, how to eat chicken without using one's hands, how to debone a fish.

But this was nothing compared to the control exercised over consciences. The handbook for the examination of conscience at the end of the day was 332 pages long, with thousands of questions.

The whole piece is well worth reading. You can do so by clicking here.

As I was taking out the trash this morning, I was struck by reader Patrice Becker's observation in the combox yesterday: "The 'unique methodology' supposedly developed by Father Maciel was almost an carbon copy of the Latter Days Saints community methodology. Having lived amongst Mormons for over nine years, I recommend every RC member read Judy Robinson's book Out of Mormonism to discover Fr. Maciel's methodology is not unique at all."

Okay, I don't know Patrice personally, so I cannot vouch for the reader's alleged experiences with Legion priests or Mormon bishops. However, I have read Robinson's Out of Mormonism in addition to Andrea Moore-Emmett's God's Brothel. I definitely see some striking similarities in methodology between Maciel and Mormonism. From the focus on programming and recruitment, to the sometimes blurry lines between church and business, to the way the head of the Mormon structure is practically worshiped. This is making sense. Way too much sense. Thanks Patrice.

Many Catholics now tuning into the Maciel scandal, as well as many who have followed the scandal over the past few years, keep hearing references to Jason Berry, Gerald Renner and their investigative journalism for the Hartford Courant that first broke Maciel's "double life" to English-speaking audiences. While doing some research this morning, I came across an online reprint of the story - including some images of the original publication.

The article was published 13 years ago under the title Breaking the Silence: Head of Worldwide Catholic Order Accused of History of Abuse. Most of you are aware already of the controversy it would spark. Many have read the Legion's subsequent responses to the story, as well as Renner and Berry's responses to the responses. But have you read the original story?

This is your opportunity to do so. Please click here.

UPDATE: A reader points out that I missed the obvious: In trying to minimize Maciel's relationship to the Legion, Monk argues that Maciel accuser Juan Vaca was the true founder of the Legion (at least in Spain).

****************
Red Cardigan vs. Monk's sacred cowl: It's pure fashion!

Erin Manning (aka the blogger Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea) has a knack for applying common sense to LC/RC sacred cows, which is why I always appreciate the clarity she brings to this debate. Thus I was not surprised when she smothered Monk's latest cow (or is it 'cowl' given that Monk's wrapping himself in it?), namely, that members of Maciel's movement were attracted to Christ and not to Maciel.

To which Erin replies:

Monk, did you, or did you not, use a prayerbook composed of Maciel's prayers?

Did you (collectively) receive his letters and have them read to you?

Did you celebrate his birthday and his mother's birthday as major feasts?

There are many additional questions Erin asks of Monk, which you can read in the comments' section of this post. At the same time, Erin is also providing another LC-supportive critic with some common sense answers. The fact she ably defends the truth despite being outnumbered is testament to the grace of the Holy Spirit in her life.

Loyal reader Anon out of RC said something in her following comment that really disturbed my conscience:

I was a leader in RC and for years I said the same story that I was told, especially after 2006 - the sexual abuse victims and any of those associated with their cause were "enemies of the church" and wanted to bring down the LC, Maciel, Pope JPII and the Church. I did it innocently, although after 2006 I was so proud of my charity to Maciel and obedience to my superiors by not reading anything except what the LC told me - that he was innocent and suffering like Jesus on the cross. That was pride on my part (and also a learned feeling of guilt for checking out other sources) and not good discernment but the Lord allowed it.

After Feb 2009, I read, prayed and made my own discernments instead of just what I was told by LC. I have since apologized online at American Papist and in my heart and soul to Maciel's original sexual abuse victims for my part in spreading the lie that they were not telling the truth and they were "enemies of the church". It was freeing.

It finally came together after Mass today. Our pastor had touched upon the need to apologize for one's sins - both of commission and of omission - during the homily. For the past year I have been urging LC and RC to come clean and apologize to Maciel's victims. Yet I have never apologized for my own sins toward them.

It's time to correct this injustice. Maciel's victims truly remind me of how Christ suffered during His passion. Their reputations were murdered. They were accused of spreading falsehood and being enemies of God when what they had spoken was truth. Their persecution was initiated by the religious authorities of the day, to preserve a system already in place, and the persecution spread to the masses. And the victims' suffering was multiplied by the religious persecutors turning to civil authorities to enlist the sword of the state in the silencing of truth.

Yet where Maciel's victims most remind me of Christ is in their treatment shown to former persecutors who have apologized sincerely for helping to spread the lie, and who have asked for forgiveness from the victims. Not one of Maciel's victims has refused forgiveness in situations that I am aware of. All have treated their former persecutors with mercy and tenderness, reassuring their former persecutors that they too were once on the inside. So they too understand.

But back to my own sin toward the victims. Unlike Anon out of RC and so many others reading this blog, I cannot claim to have acted in good faith. Mine are sins of omission. Mine are the sins of the Apostles who fled when the angry mob came for Christ, despite knowing that the victims were innocent.

From the moment I first heard of the allegations against Maciel, I knew they were true. A close relative is a civil attorney who in the Canadian legal system is considered an expert in cases alleging clerical sexual misconduct. While studying canon law I had been taught by one of the Church's most respected canonical experts on this topic - a former consultor to the Holy See. The Church's sexual misconduct crisis was all over the North American media, and I had represented accused priests. With the canon law community I had also voiced strong support for Fr. Tom Doyle (not a popular figure at the time) and strong criticism for the failure of Churchmen to put children first. So I had the professional knowledge and experience to know better.

Yet there is one circumstance that aggravates my sin even more than any of the above. It is that I first heard the allegations FROM SOME OF THE VICTIMS THEMSELVES. Personally, not through Jason Berry or Tom Doyle. In person, not over the phone or by email. At a hotel in Atlanta, shortly after delivering the following paper (scroll down a page) to an international conference on cults, on the topic (ironically!) of what the Church considers signs of cultic behavior in new religious movements. Over supper with Giselle who introduced me to the victims. I sat with Aaron, Jose Barba or Juan Vaca (I cannot recall who) [UPDATE: Giselle has confirmed both were present at the meal.] and some of the other victims. They looked me in the eye and described the sexual abuse they had suffered. Their faces were the faces of every other legitimate victim of clergy sexual misconduct I had met in person. The modus operandi they described was that of many priestly abusers whose cases I had worked on. I knew these victims spoke truth.

And if I had any doubts about their veracity - I didn't - several of my colleagues in the canon law world confirmed the horror I experienced, sharing experiences with former LC that corroborated my own, but warning me as a young canonist to tread carefully since the LC and Maciel were at the height of their power within the Church. "Everything you heard is true," said one respected canonist familiar with the situation through previous work in Rome. "But I'm convinced that nothing can be done about it until the next Pope." And that is what pains me still about the situation, given the love and admiration I feel for Pope John Paul II.

So I fled. I refused to take a public stand on the issue, or communicate directly with the victims (Giselle knew how to get hold of me - discretely - if they needed canonical advice), or put my name to anything that could be traced back to ReGAIN or Maciel's victims. I guarded my words carefully and spoke in ambiguities when a high-profile North American representative of the Legion confronted me afterward about my meeting with Maciel's victims. I resorted to the same verbal gymnastics when approached by people I knew to be LC, RC, friends or family of members, or movement supporters.

I continued to critique LC/RC quietly on other issues of concern to canonists, using the general consensus in my profession as cover, but I avoided mention of the victims. I kept quiet about the allegations, and hurriedly changed the topic whenever they came up.

It took me until 2006 to steel my courage and speak up publicly in support of the victims. Only when the Holy See released its 2006 communique "inviting" Maciel to retire to a life of prayer and penance. But by then I knew the gig was up. It might take LC/RC years or even decades to come around to the truth about Maciel. Some likely will never come around. But as Msgr. Scicluna noted in his recent interview, for any semi-competent canonist there was no sugar-coating what the Holy See meant by its 'invitation'. Speaking out at this point required little moral courage.

In light of all this, I wish to apologize:

- To Maciel's victims and other victims of alleged abuse within the movement for not speaking up sooner in your defence, despite knowing that you were speaking the truth.

- For the not returning your phone calls or emails, for insisting that I be contacted anonymously and quietly through Giselle.

- To Giselle for making you take time away from your family, and for the inconvenience I caused by putting you in the role of mediator.

- For not defending you when your reputation was sullied in public by supporters of Maciel and his movement, despite knowing that you were innocent of the accusations against you and that the persecution was unjust.

- For contributing to the delay of justice in your case, which also means that justice was denied to you.

- For putting my professional career as a canonist and Catholic journalist before your pain and the correction of injustices against you.

- For re-victimizing you through my silences and other sins of omission.

And to members of LC, RC, friends and family of people on the inside, fellow parents and other Catholics, I apologize:

- For my use of ambiguous language whenever you approached me with concerns, whether you shared them or had simply heard rumors.

- For allowing you to continue believing in good conscience that Maciel was innocent and his victims were liars.

- For not speaking up sooner and warning you, when I knew the truth, that Maciel was an abuser and that his accusers were victims.

- For any harm to you, your family or your friends that may have come through my silence, use of ambiguous language, or other sins of omission.

Please forgive me. Please pray for me. Please join me in apologizing to victims of Maciel and the movement whose reputations were unjustly tarnished for coming forward with the truth.

And please note that there are no hard feelings toward you from my end. As noted by Anon out of RC, there is nothing more freeing than the truth of an apology.

I've just finished translating the late Fr. Jean Galot, SJ's article on the role of private apparitions in the life of the Church and in salvation history. It has a good section with principles of discernment and an explanation of why Church approval of an apparition is never an infallible judgment. An excerpt:

Often apparitions have been received with a passionate enthusiasm, and have made crowds of faithful rush to the place where they have occurred. In effect, many expect to find a confirmation of their faith in those who "see". This favorable prejudice could easily encourage a credulity that does not really seek to test the signs of authenticity of the phenomenon.

Others, in contrast, assume in regard to apparitions an attitude of scepticism that closes them to any judicious examination of the facts stated. Sometimes this scepticism touches their faith itself, because it is from a lack of faith that some reject all sensible manifestations of the supernatural. In other cases scepticism is simply that of the believer who wants to hold to the faith as given and feels repugnance in the face of something that seems to introduce elements of vision.

Several readers have asked my opinion about a new LC/RC prayer book, which reportedly continues to source Maciel. Giselle has aptly summarized the situation here. Likewise, Changobeer (the pseudonymous priest who spent 30 years with the Legion, and who was until last year one of Maciel's most vocal defenders) warned about this impending controversy in a blog last August:

At the same time, a book recently distributed internally, 'Cristo al Centro', offers an anthology of Fr. Maciel's writings and sayings - unindexed and sometimes slightly retouched - mixed with quotations from other, less dubious sources as a thinly disguised attempt to revindicate the Founder's contribution to LC spirituality. Now we can quote the Founder without mentioning his name, read some of the things he said and wrote without that direct and oh-so-uncomfortable reference to his person. They're already talking about revisiting the writings of Fr. Maciel some years down the road when all this 'persecution' has blown over...

This ties into Changobeer's earlier critique of the "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" argument (click here). Since Changobeer and Giselle have exposed the Legion's attempt to hide Maciel in the rear ranks, I prefer to address this controversy from a personal angle:

Quite simply, I never could get into Maciel's writing. I tried reading material recommended to me by LC friends. But gave up after a couple of pages. What little I read was tedious, boring and inconsequential to my life as a Catholic. Which is kinda weird given that I was excited by the Code of Canon Law, not to mention arcane legal texts. I'm not saying others didn't get anything out of Maciel's writing, I simply could not, and was not going to pretend.

At the time, I chalked it up to being a canon law student. Many in my profession had serious doubts and reservations about Maciel and the Legion even before the original accusations became widely known. The reservations included the rumored Vow of Charity, superiors acting as confessor, the alleged raiding of other movements' seminarians, not being able to identify a clear charism, not knowing how the Legion contributed to the wider Church community.

Maciel's writings never clarified any of these concerns; his writings simply obfuscated them. So I walked away conflicted between my non-canonist friends in the Catholic apologetics movement who swore by the Legion as the new ecclesiastical movement most loyal to John Paul II and Catholic orthodoxy, and my friends and trusted mentors in the canon law world who were waiving red flags from their experience with other new ecclesiastical movements that had gone astray. Two things held me back from critiquing the Legion sooner: Pope John Paul II's support for Maciel, and the many pious lay Catholics I met through Regnum Christi.

That being said, I had the opposite reaction to the writings of St. Bruno - founder of the Carthusian order. I find his writings inspiring, accessible, and clear. They are as easy on the eyes and the spirit as blueberry pie and chilled Chimay beer on the tongue. At the same time they are deeply rooted in Christian prayer and intellectual relfection. Which is why the Carthusian charism continues, 900 years later, unreformed by the Church.

Here is an excerpt from one of St. Bruno's most famous letters, which in my opinion provides sure guidance vis-a-vis many of the issues surrounding the Maciel controversy:

Contemplation, to be sure has fewer offspring than does action, and yet Joseph and Benjamin were the favourites of their father. This life is the best part chosen by Mary, never to be taken away from her. It is also that extraordinary beautiful Shunammite, the only one in Israel to take care of David and keep him warm in his old age. I could only wish, brother, that you too, had such an exclusive love for her, so that lost in her embrace, you burned with divine love. If only a love like this would take possession of you! Immediately, all the glory in the world would seem like so much dirt to you, whatever the smooth words and false attractions she offered to deceive you. Wealth and its concomitant anxieties you would cast off without a thought, as a burden to the freedom of the spirit. You would want no more of pleasure either, harmful as it is to both body and soul.

You know very well who it is that says to us: "He who loves the world, and the things of the world, such as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and ambition, does not have the love of the Father abiding in him"; also "Friendship with the world is enmity with God". What could be so evil and destructive then, so unfortunate, or so much the mark of a crazed and headstrong spirit, as to put yourself at odds with the one whose power you cannot resist and whose righteous vengeance you could never hope to escape? Surely we are not stronger than he! Surely you do not think he will leave unpunished in the end all the affronts and contempt he receives, merely because his patient solicitude now incites us to repentance! For what could be more perverted, more reckless and contrary to nature and right order, than to love the creature more than the Creator, what passes away more than what lasts forever, or to seek rather the goods of earth than those of heaven?

So, what do you think ought to be done, dear friend? What else, but to trust in the exhortation of God himself and to believe in the truth which cannot deceive? For he calls out to everyone, saying: "Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest". Is it not, after all, a most ridiculous and fruitless labour to be swollen with lust, continually to be tortured with anxiety and worry, fear and sorrow, for the objects of your passion? Is there any heavier burden than to have one's spirit thus cast down into the abyss from the sublime peak of its natural dignity - the veritable quintessence of right order gone awry? Flee, my brother, from these unending miseries and disturbances. Leave the raging storms of this world for the secure and quiet harbour of the port.

For you know very well what wisdom in person has to say to us: "Whoever does not renounce all that he has, cannot be my disciple".

It is well worth reading the whole letter, by clicking here. Why not make a donation to the nearest Carthusian monastery, asking the good monks to pray for Maciel's victims as well as those who have been harmed by the movement. The address for their North American monastery is:

Charterhouse of the Transfiguration
Carthusian Monastery
1084 Ave Maria Way
ARLINGTON, Vermont 05250
USA

Former LC seminarian/brother Bonum, Verum and Pulcrum recently blogged several allegations surrounding his experience of being shipped off to a Legion apostolic school as a young teen. Particularly gripping is the following, which I've broken up into paragraphs. The first paragraph describes Bonum's homesickness, the second how communication reportedly was cut off between the teen and his family, and the third delves into what many would consider spiritual extortion:

I was thirteen years old and I was heartbroken. First day on the ground there in New Hampshire and the first of many heartbreaks had arrived in full force. I was so homesick I felt physically ill for the first four months or so. To make matters worse the fathers and brothers intercepted phone calls from my parents for the first two weeks, telling them not to call for awhile in order to let me settle in. They also opened all my mail before I got it in order to "safeguard my vocation". As if my "vocation" was so fragile that I wouldn't be able to handle a bit of bad news from home.

My letters to my folks were also screened before being sent. I submitted a letter to my mom and dad and the brother returned it to me and chastised me for submitting it closed. He told me that there were no secrets here and that from now on I was to leave all my envelopes open in order for the priests and brothers to read them first. This was a crucial time for them to start indoctrinating me and the other boys that had arrived.

We were told from the get go that our discernment process was over. God had led us to the Legion and it was safe to assume that was how he let us know that we all had vocations, all of us! We were told, in no uncertain terms that Christ had entrusted souls to our care. We were told that failure to remain in the Legion would result in the loss of those souls and certainly our own as well, was that something we could live with?

Read Bonum's entire story by clicking here. I believe Bonum's experience also answers former Legionary Jack Keogh's (aka Monk) protest that "it's gross overstatement to suggest that [LC/RC] 'stake their souls' on Maciel's spiritual path."

Anyway, I'll leave it to readers to judge what's 'beyond the pale" for a 13-year-old receiving religious instruction while away from his family. At that age, my biggest worry was that the neighbors would think I'm a geek because my parents prohibited me for religious reasons from listening to Iron Maiden:

[UPDATE: Zenit has published an excellent, fair and balanced story on the Holy See's press release. The story even stresses the paragraph that I had quoted below. You can read the Zenit story by clicking here. What's curious is that in searching Zenit's archives, I find no coverage of Fr. Sada's apology earlier this year. Nor can I find any mention of the Legion's recent, widely-distributed news release concerning their letter to Maciel's son. Thus I'm pleasantly surprised by the good coverage Zenit gave to the Holy See's press statement on this topic.]

Original entry:

There was no direct mention of the Legion of Christ in yesterday's press statement by the Holy See "concerning cases of the sexual abuse of minors in ecclesiastical institutions." However, in addressing the scandal in other parts of Europe - namely, according to the statement, "the German Jesuit Province (the first to be involved, through the case of the Canisius-Kolleg in Berlin), the German Episcopal Conference, the Austrian Episcopal Conference and the Netherlands Episcopal Conference - the Holy See Press Office offers us insights into Pope Benedict's thinking on the issue:

The main ecclesiastical institutions concerned [...] have faced the emergence of problem with timely and decisive action. They have demonstrated their desire for transparency and, in a certain sense, accelerated the emergence of the problem by inviting victims to speak out, even when the cases involved date from many years ago. By doing so they have approached the matter 'on the right foot', because the correct starting point is recognition of what happened and concern for the victims and the consequences of the acts committed against them.

To read the Holy See's press statement, please click here.

Found this on Jean Heimann's excellent Catholic Fire blog. It is an excellent bio of St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusians, and includes important information such as:

- Bruno was one of the most remarkable scholars and teacher of his time: "...a prudent man whose word was rich in meaning."

- His Order enjoys the distinction of never becoming unfaithful to the spirit of its founder, never needing a reform.

- St. Bruno is the patron of diabolic possession and Ruthenia.

You can read the entire bio here. Here is a translation of St. Bruno's famous letter to his friend Raoul Le Verd. And this link takes you to several prayers to St. Bruno.

I hope you will join Giselle and me today in praying and fasting for Maciel's victims. Today is particularly significant as Maciel's birthday, since in previous years the movement went all out in celebrating the founder's birthday movement-wide.

Reader James Bremmer pipes in with some good information in the comments section of a previous blog entry:

March 18, is the anniversary of Maciel's baptism. Traditionally, in the Legion, this day was also celebrated as a first class feastday. I just spoke with my brother in the Legion's house of formation in Connecticut, he has been doing a Eucharistic hour everyday since the apostolic visitation began, praying for the success of the visitation. Not all Legionaries are bad and should not be painted with that brush, some are there to serve the church.

You are not the first concerned friend of family member to whom I have spoken. Over the last couple weeks I have heard several stories of people on the inside who "get it," and who are praying that Rome successfully sorts everything out. I am told that the incest allegations have shocked even many who had remained serene up until now.

As the old cliche goes, I have some good news and I have bad news if the the Holy See refounds the Legion. FIrst the bad news: It will be priests like your brother who have the toughest road ahead. While those priests who played a major role in Maciel's coverup will likely find themselves sidelined, while other priests in the rank-and-file leave for dioceses or other orders, priests like your brother are left to pick up the pieces.

It's a demanding task as they will be required to simultaneously bring justice to Maciel's victims, restore trust among the laity, reassure their own concerned and disappointed laity, show obedience in letter and spirit to legitimate Church authority, and win over hard-core and old guard Maciel loyalists among their priestly ranks. Not an easy task.

However, the good news - according to Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei - comes from the fruits of daily Eucharistic hour. Christ will be with your brother to strengthen him, and the Church present to guide him along. However, if I may be so bold as to make a recommendation, your brother will likely need his hour of daily Eucharistic adoration even more after the AV than during it.

So let's add James's brother to the list of people we pray and fast for today. Let us also agree to March 18 as another day of prayer and fasting for Maciel's victims and members currently caught in the system. Let us pray that God gives current members the opportunity to see this scandal through the eyes of the victims, as well as the humility to sincerely apologize and offer these victims restitution. And let us pray He grants the victims the grace to heal and forgive.

In the comments' section on another thread, Eric asks me some important questions:

Pete, some have said the Legion might be refounded. How would that work?

Only the Holy Father would know for sure, since he is the one who would have to approve it. That being said, here are some possibilities, in no particular order:

1 - A name change
2 - A new set of constitutions
3 - New leadership, likely a combination of overseers imposed from outside the movement and new leadership inside.
4 - A particular apostolate and specific devotions.
5 - Some sort of renunciation of Maciel.

Of course one would also expect an apology to Maciel's victims, however, this is not directly tied to a refoundation.

If the Legion were to actually repudiate Fr. Maciel, wouldn't that be admitting that Fr. Maciel didn't impart a genuine charism of the Holy Spirit?

It would become a moot point at the time, given that a new movement would be founded and Maciel would no longer be recognized as founder.

And if that's so, what would the refoundation be based on?

A need in the Church identified by the Holy See.

Can you start a congregation without a charism?

The Holy Spirit can provide a charism through the founder, or He can provide a charism through the Holy See, or through the Bishops if the Holy See decides to break up the order into several smaller orders.

As for the charism of the movement, I see three possibilities, depending upon the AV recommendations and how the LC reacts to them.

1 - The movement decides to cling to Maciel or their way of life, paying the Holy See lip service only. In this case the spirit of the movement remains Maciel's. The Holy See would likely continue to tighten the noose until the movement collapses or goes into schism.

2 - The movement accepts the reforms half-heartedly and/or the bulk of the membership bolts. In this scenario the LC becomes a sort of "half-way house" to contain current LC members until they can find another order or diocese to go to. In this scenario, the charism is that of the half-way house, to provide pastoral support for and reintegrate former members back into the Church mainstream.

3 - The members decide to embrace the reforms whole-heartedly, in both letter and spirit, give it an honest attempt to make things work, and in the process discover a particular need within the Church that they are capable and willing to fill. In this case the fulfillment of the need becomes the charism.

In one of the earlier threads, Rosemarie asks as good question:

Aren't there some "secrets" among Catholics? The ceremonies of the Knights of Columbus are pretty much kept secret, except from the Church heirarchy, I guess. But women and non-members aren't let in on the ceremonies of the Knights and similar Catholic fraternal organizations.

Speaking as a Knight for 17 years, and the advocate for my council, the Knights of Columbus ceremonies are kinda secret...sorta... You can actually find them in the U.S. Library of Congress. Additionally, it's made clear to every knight in our constitutions and bylaws that the "secret" does not bind if to maintain the secret would violate one's duty toward Church or State.

The same is true of the "secrets" and ceremonies of the International Order of Alhambra, a Catholic fraternal organization of which I'm a former member of the international executive. I would imagine the same is true of the Knights of St. Peter Claver and any Catholic fraternal organization. Similarly, I have several friends who are Opus Dei, have invited me to their events and retreats, and I have never encountered any secrets other than when confessing my sins to a priest affiliated with the movement. But the secrecy of the confessional binds all priests - not only those affiliated with Opus Dei.

That being said, there is an order that is often considered the most secretive in the Church. They have strict haircuts, follow a strict rule when it comes to food, each minute of the day is regimented, and fraternal charity and the spirit of their founder is something you will come across in correspondence with them. In fact, the order has never deviated from the spirit of the founder, and has proven highly resistant to any attempt at reform. The order also has its own internal jargon that few outsiders, when they're permitted inside, seem able to grasp. Which is another thing... not a lot of outsiders within the Church, either among the laity or Church hierarchy, can articulate exactly what members of this order do.

Sound familiar? Well, there's a couple key difference. The first is that their founder is a saint. The second is that all the aforementioned practices work for members of the order. Has for the last 900 years. Which is why they are considered the only major order within the Church never to have been reformed. Additionally, it is said that the devil feared their founder as his holiness drove away even the most obstinate of demons. Here's a link to the order's website.

Here's a peek at life in their monastery:

Be sure to check out Part II, Part III and Part IV.

Several sources tell me that tomorrow, March 10, is traditionally a day of first class celebration within the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi. At least during previous years. For those unfamiliar with the significance of this date, March 10 is the day Mama Maurita gave birth to Maciel.

In recent days there has been much talk about the division this scandal has caused between Catholics. Perhaps we can make tomorrow a day of prayer and fasting for Maciel's victims, in reparation for the evil they suffered at Maciel's hands. Given that tomorrow is Wednesday, not to mention during Lent, it is already a day of fast and abstinence.

I'm assuming that during Lent most readers already recognize the need to pray the Rosary and attend Mass. However, here are further suggestions of prayers and sacrifices we can offer tomorrow for Maciel's victims:

- a Holy Hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

- A thorough examination of conscience followed by confession.

- The Chaplet of St. Michael the Archangel

- Apologize to someone you have hurt or wronged over the past year.

- If you are an integrated parent whose evenings (and those of your children) are normally consumed by apostolates, take the night off and spend it together as a family.

- An hour's volunteer at an apostolate or mission that serves the poor - soup kitchen, food bank, St. Vincent de Paul Society, etc.

I'm sure there are many more ideas you can think of. So let's make tomorrow a day of prayer and fasting for Maciel's victims.

Time Magazine has weighed in on last week's scandal involving the Legion of Christ and allegations Maciel molested his eight-year-old son. Particularly pointed in the concluding paragraph:

While the Legion's website message last week was sympathetic to Lara and her sons, the order made a point of exposing José Raúl González's private demand earlier this year that the Legion pay him $26 million to keep quiet about his father's sexual abuse. The order insists it did not pay, suggesting that as the motive for the tell-all radio interview. Masferrer says the Legion has also circulated reports that Maciel was surrounded by exorcists in his final days, suggesting that his immoral acts were the work of demons and not the priest. That's a Hail Mary ploy at best. And it does little to obscure the fact that it's up to Benedict now to decide whether Padre Maciel's Legion is itself possessed of enough demons to warrant more severe penance.

To read the entire article, please click here.

The blogger Bonum, Verum, Pulchrum sounds like someone I would normally enjoy sharing a beer with. We both like Gregorian Chant, have served in the Canadian Forces, are critical of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, share a distaste for Gangsta Rap, and are big literary admirers of JRR Tolkien. As a Northerner, I can tolerate him being from southern Ontario if he promises to keep quiet about the spring bear hunt. (Unless he supports us, in which case I'm all ears.)

However, Monsieur Bonum reveals a serious flaw in his character when he proclaims himself an unrepentant fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs. For American readers, this is Canada's equivalent to cheering for the Buffalo Bills.

For non-sports fans, Leafs fans are hockey's equivalent to Regnum Christi members. We're not actually sure if they're fans of the sport. They're always making excuses for their team's poor performance, either by diverting the discussion to individual Leaf players or by slagging everyone else's team. (Just substitute Montreal Canadiens for Jesuits and even the conspiracy theories match.)

So it pains me to be a good sport when it comes to theological insights proffered by a Laughs' fan. However, Monsieur Bonum has done an excellent job contrasting the alleged practices of the Legion's apostolic schools with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. I encourage every concerned parent to read his entry by clicking here.

In the interest of fair play, I'll omit the "SHUT. IT. DOWN" tag for this blog. There's no hope of making the playoffs when you're trailing every other team in the league except the Edmonton Oilers by at least eight points.

In his response to The monk who stole juxtaposition, Monk writes:

Nor do I indulge in speculation about the "final impenitence" of MM. That, I believe is truly beyond the pale and unbecoming of someone whose opinion seems to carry some weight for so many on this and "related" blogs.

For those just tuning into the conversation, the "final impenitence" (note Monk's use of "scare quotes") is a reference to the Like Founder, Like Sons thread.

To answer Monk's question, is it beyond the pale to speculate about Maciel's visible actions alleged on his death bed? I would agree if Maciel was merely a lone individual acting out his perverse fantasies - or nightmares, when one looks at the situation through the eyes of his victims.

However, Maciel was the founder of a large religious order and its lay auxiliary. He offered the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christ his (not His) methodology as a sure means of holiness and path to eternal salvation. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that LC and RC are reporting accurate membership numbers. That's 72,000 souls who have staked their eternal fate on the spiritual path revealed to them by Maciel.

Of course nobody but God is competent to judge Maciel's eternal destination. And given that Maciel's canonization is unlikely in the future, we will never know in this lifetime where he ended up in the next. Let us pray that he made his peace with God in his final moments. More importantly, let us pray that his victims make their peace with God before going on to the next life.

Yet with 72,000 souls at stake, the rest of us would do well to heed Maciel's alleged signs of deathbed impenitence. What's beyond the pale is that we would risk losing one more soul to his methodology.

SHUT. IT. DOWN.

While Mons. Ratko Perić, bishop of Mostar, is going to Rome this week (according to the Croatian press), I'm going to catch up by presenting his most recent article reviewing problematic aspects of the alleged supernatural messages from the Medjugorje phenomenon.

(Translated from the Italian version.)

The deviations of Medjugorje
Bp. Ratko Perić, January 25, 2010

Introduction. Recently, after his "private" visit to Medjugorje, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, stated that in the discernment of the phenomenon, beyond the positive elements, it is necessary to take account also of "some open questions". [1] In this article we report some "dubious" things, erroneous answers or heresies, that is, doctrinal errors written in the Chronicle of the apparitions of the parish of Medjugorje and in some other writings connected with the "Medjugorje phenomenon". The original of the Chronicle is located in the archive of the parish office of Medjugorje, and a copy at the diocesan curia of Mostar. It is not surprising that the "young people of Medjugorje" at one time attributed their imperfect doctrinal knowledge to the Blessed Virgin Mary, but we are surprised at how priests, parochial vicars of the era at Medjugorje, Fr. Tomislav Vlašić (who edited the Chronicle from September 11 [1981] to August 31, 1984) and Fr. Slavko Barbarić (who continued from September 2, 1984 and died in 2000) could have recorded such suspect and heretical phrases. How could they have supposed, not only that there was new knowledge that was supposed to be adopted by individual persons and by groups of the faithful who yearn for "miracles" and "healings", but that the Church herself would also change her biblical and magisterial doctrine! We have already seen various "games" about the "great sign" as well as the innovation about the change of the liturgical calendar relative to the Nativity of the Madonna. Bishop Pavao Žanić wrote several times, with arguments, about these remarks or obvious lies in the context of the Medjugorje phenomenon:

• In the supplement to the diocesan newsletter of 1982;
  
• In the "Current (unofficial) position of the diocesan curia" from 1984;
  
• In the "Declaration on Medjugorje" at Medjugorje in 1987;
  
• In the booklet "The truth about Medjugorje" in 1990 (in Italian, German, English, and French)

Here we will limit ourselves only to the self-evident deviations that are recorded by the chroniclers of Medjugorje as "revelations" and "messages", delivered through the individual "seers".

Another excellent reflection by Deidre Mundy (aka Mouse at American Papist) on the whole Legion fiasco. This time she tackles the secretive nature of Maciel's practices, as opposed to open nature of Catholic teaching. Here's a pithy snippet:

I keep hearing that I can't really understand RC/LC, because I've never been on the inside. And ex-members have blogged about secret books (some plagiarized!), books only available to members, books that were supposed to be kept hidden in back bedrooms or at retreat centers.

THIS IS NOT CATHOLICISM. We don't have 'secret teachings.' There are no 'secret books of the Benedictines.' Heck, even the 'secret archives' of the Vatican aren't really secret--they're just poorly catalogued and you have to make an appointment to work with them (like most archives). Heck, even the 'secret' parts of the Mass aren't secret. Anyone can get a Sacramentary and see the parts the priest is supposed to say silently.

Read Deidre's entire post here. The whole 'special knowledge from being on the inside' reminds me of the Church's struggle with gnosticism during the early centuries of the Church. It's another good reason to...

SHUT. IT. DOWN.

Former Legionary priest Jack Keogh (aka Monk) has a new post up in which he touts the Charter for Compassion. Says Monk while discussing the principles of compassion defined in the Charter:

I invite my readers to adopt the charter as your own, to make a lifelong commitment to live with compassion. I think the principle is especially relevant when discussing the life and times of Fr. Marcial Maciel and the congregation of the Legionaries of Christ.

This request was preceded two days ago by a post Monk titled: Did Fr. Marcial Maciel's "son" ask for $26,000,000?

Notice Monk's use of the reverential prefix 'Fr.' despite all we now know about Maciel. Notice also how Monk's headline zones in on the amount of money requested by Maciel's alleged victim, without mentioning (in the title) the context in which this compensation was requested. And notice how Monk includes "scare quotes" around the word son. This is followed by more scare quotes in the blog's third paragraph, where Monk states:

The congregation published a letter written by Fr. Carlos Skertchly to Carlos Raul Gonzalez Lara on January 12, 2010, in which he says that Raul demanded up to 26 million in compensation in order for him no to reveal "the truth".

So it's my turn to be confused here. Is all Monk's talk about "compassion" merely cow patties?

Several readers have pointed me to this post criticizing critics of the Legion, authored by Jo Flemings at the Just Jo blog. I will not slag her for venting her heart. I believe I read somewhere - though I may be mistaking her for someone else - that she and her husband are converts, that her husband is a former Protestant minister, and that together they have around a dozen kids. From glimpsing through her blog I noticed her oldest daughter graduated from Southern Catholic College, that her husband and at least one child is RC, and that one of her sons is a Legionary brother (seminarian) while another son is at the Legion's apostolic schools. Sounds to me like she was recruited.

She seems like a sincere and prayerful Catholic mom, which is why I believe God will honor her prayers vis-a-vis the LC/RC. When He does, the scales will drop from her eyes. And Jo will likely find herself in a world of hurt. Seen it dozens of times with other sincere Catholic moms in her position - including Giselle. Nothing we tell her now can prepare her for the pain of this particular cross is revealed. When one's children confront one with the truth about their experiences in the movement. Pray that her children not lose their faith over it.

That being said, a good fisking is in order when it comes to her reader D.A. Burke's response to her posting:

Jo - I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. I am currently reading "Pope Fiction" which deals with the question of how and why we can stay confidently committed to a Church that has regularly been subject to scandal, and abuse, and... has regularly overcome its own sin enough (by God's grace) to do more good in the world, time, and eternity, than any other institution known to man.

This book was written by Pat Madrid, a dear friend of mine. In fact we even co-authored another book together on extreme forms of conservative Catholicism. When we started writing More Catholic Than the Pope, Pat was a supporter of the LC and tried to recruit me to RC. By the time the book was published, he had left RC and come to share many of my reservations of the movement. Today Pat is openly critical of Maciel, the Legion, and how the movement has treated Maciel's victims.

Those who would have us abandon the Movement because of the grave sins of the founder would find themselves in a completely untenable position under many of our past Popes.

This is called hyperbole. Outside the Legion no salvation is not a defined dogma of the Church, despite the best attempts of Maciel and his supporters to make it one through their mantra Lost vocation, sure damnation. The Church can exist without the Legion of Christ or Regnum Christi. The Church existed for 19 hundred centuries without either movement. Thousands of saints were canonized without the intervention of Maciel. Dozens among the Jesuits alone.

On the other hand, Maciel's death reportedly showed all the visible signs of final impenitance - which Catholic theology traditionally holds to be the unforgivable sin mentioned by Christ in Holy Scripture.

Would they apply the same logic and leave the Church?

No.

The Church was founded by Christ. Christ is God. Christ is perfect. Christ guaranteed the Church's indefectibility when He promised us the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. No such promise exists for any order within the Church. Especially not one founded by an incestuous and unrepentant pedophile. In fact, Christ makes other promises about incestuous pedophiles who harm children, not to mention religious authorities who abuse their office, and these promises are not nearly as cheery or reassuring.

Peter denied Christ! Is there any worse sin than that?

Yes, stating that one has never denied Christ (or the Holy Spirit) when one in fact was a serial child molester. St. Peter never molested or photographed himself molesting his eight-year-old child. He was, however, sorry for his sins.

Paul was a murderer before his conversion.

The word "before" here is key. Paul was not a murderer after his conversion. That's why we speak of Paul as a convert.

Yes, they repented. Many of our corrupt Popes did not. What are we to leave?

Our false comparisons. Maciel was head of a movement. It was a movement he founded to feed his various perversions, by using the guise of Catholic piety (i.e. Vow of Charity) and orthodoxy to acquire, abuse, conceal and protect his access to unsuspecting victims. Thus the entire methodology is corrupt.

On the other hand, no Pope is head of the Church. Christ is. The Pope is merely the visible head. The Pope assumes a vicarious role on behalf of Christ. Yet Christ remains the true head of the Church.

In contrast, the longer this controversy drags on without proper apology or restitution to Maciel's victims, especially for the role played by individual supporters in covering up for Maciel and persecuting his victims, the more it becomes clear that the movement is truly headed by the spirit of Maciel. I believe this is what other orders refer to, when speaking of the spirit of the founder, as the founding charism. In the Legion, however, the founder's spirit has become a curse.

SHUT. IT. DOWN.

Thanks to the sharp-eyed anonymous poster at Life-After-RC who picked this up. According to the last paragraph of an article appearing in today's IPS:

Another Mexican woman who had a relationship with Maciel lives in Spain with her daughter, who the order has publicly acknowledged as the daughter of the Legion's founder. They live in comfort in a luxury apartment after apparently reaching an agreement with the order to keep quiet. (Emphasis mine)

Contrast the last line with the following letter written by Fr. Fr Carlos Skertchly, LC (ostensibly on behalf of Fr. Alvaro) to alleged Maciel incest victim Raul Gonzalez Lara:

However, in no way can we accede to your request for money in exchange for silence. While we value all of the pain and suffering that you have shared with us, and we deplore the evil of scandal that may follow, we will never accept petitions of this sort, which are also illicit. (Emphasis mine)

Am I the only one confused by the Legion's stand on "extortion"?

UPDATE: Joe Catholic offers an excellent critique of my position in the comments section.

***********
Initial entry

Legion of Christ/ Regnum Christi contacts have asked me privately, behind the scenes, what I think of the LC/RC attempt to portray Maciel's son Raul as an extortionist for demanding his inheritance in addition to compensation for having been sexually abused by Maciel? Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the LC/RC are correct about Raul. Let us suppose that Raul engaged in extortion rather than follow proper legal procedure.

So what?

Speaking as a parent to children who are around the same age Raul was when Maciel began to abuse him sexually, including (allegedly) taking photographs, I don't care if Raul is engaging in extortion. I really don't.

Extortion just isn't a big deal to me when I'm thinking about having one's childhood innocence ripped from you, on camera, by the man (supposedly living a vow of chastity) who conceived you while taking advantage and lying to your mother. And unlike Maciel's spiritual children, Raul can never renounce Maciel as his biological father.

Thus even though I don't believe the official LC version of the story, it would change nothing for me as a parent if they were telling the truth this time. My concern is that Raul and his siblings receive just compensation from the LC/RC and/or Maciel's estate for the horrible abuse they suffered at hands of Maciel.

Moreover, I find it absolutely scandalous as an orthodox Catholic layman that despite reportedly knowing of Raul's existence since 2008, the family has been unable to receive justice from the Church in Mexico. No wonder there are so many anti-clerical Freemasons in the Mexican government and media. Bl. Miguel Pro - one of my favorite Jesuits - must be shedding tears from Heaven knowing that the Catholic peasants for whom he gave his life have now been forced to turn to their former persecutors for justice and protection from Churchmen who put their checkbook before the welfare of children.

But I suppose we ought not be surprised. After all, as Christ Himself states in Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

In sustaining the Legion's finances, at least we're now clear on which master Fr Carlos Skertchly, LC serves. Pray that he discovers his Creator in this lifetime, for the sake of his soul. However, it is now time for other individual LC and RC to decide which master they serve.

The Italian weekly magazine Panorama, in its March 11 issue, has a piece about the anticipated commission of inquiry on Medjugorje. There's no official word yet, but for your interest, here's a translation. (The original article is only accessible to subscribers, but the blog Dagospia has the text.)

N.B.: The article uses the term "shrine", and I present it as-is, but this is not officially correct, as Church authorities have not given the title of "shrine" to the parish church of St. James or to any other place at Medjugorje.

UPDATE 3/7: The Croatian press is reporting that Bishop Perić is making a visit to Rome this week. Diane K. at Te Deum Laudamus has the information she found. [PS: Diane, have you ever considered changing that name to Te Deum Blogamus? :-)]

Miracles of Medjugorje: Ruini investigates
The Pope opens an inquiry on the apparitions

VATICAN -- Benedict XVI wants a clear understanding about the apparitions of the Madonna of Medjugorje. That's why he has decided to form a commission of inquiry, led by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, associated with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

And the next few months are predicted to be stormy for the shrine of the Queen of Peace, near Mostar (Bosnia-Herzegovina), which has become the #3 Marian shrine of Europe (over 1 million pilgrims a year and thousands of conversions).

In spite of the title, though, the Queen of Peace of Medjugorje has brought chaos in the Church: accused of manipulating consciences and of having an affair with a Sister, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, former assistant pastor and, in the first years, spiritual advisor of the six young seers (now married adults) who receive the apparitions of the Madonna and speak her messages to humanity, had to leave the Franciscan habit to avoid a trial by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Nor is there peace in the conflict between the diocese of Mostar, led by Bishop Ratko Peric, and nine ex-Franciscans, expelled from the Order of Friars Minor, who have not agreed to give up their parishes. The recent visit to Medjugorje by the cardinal of Vienna, Christoph Schönborn, reignited spirits: the bishop of Mostar took a stand against the purple-clad cardinal because he had celebrated Mass and met with seers.

"Next year will be the thirtieth anniversary of the beginning of the apparitions. It is time to make clear: whether we're dealing with the most colossal blunder in the history of man, or the most important event in the history of Christianity since the Resurrection of Christ," observed Saverio Gaeta, journalist and author of the volume "Medjugorje. È tutto vero" (Piemme). And those want to check it out in person can plan for March 13 at the "palasport" in Casalecchio di Reno (Bologna), where a twelve-hour prayer meeting will be held, dedicated to the Madonna of Medjugorje, with Paolo Brosio and Nek taking part. The seer Mirjana will be there, and according to the program, in the course of the meeting she will receive her daily apparition of the Madonna. --Ignazio Ingrao

Some related posts:

• NEW 3/8: Bishop Perić reviews doctrinal confusions in ten Medjugorje messages


• Cdl. Saraiva's sceptical take


• Cdl. Schönborn confirms the talk of a commission


• Theologian Fr. Manfred Hauke on criteria for discernment, and a response to critics


• Bp. Ratko Peric on: The "Great Sign", the role of Tomislav Vlasic, the "Gospa's birthday"

ExLCBlog has translated Fr. Patrick O'Connell's reported reaction in the media to the Maciel incest scandal. What strikes me about Fr. O'Connell's response is the fact it is human. He uses plain words to describe a gut reaction, avoiding careful euphamism and ambiguous grammatical constructs.

Father admits the confusion many LC feel about the founder as more dark accusations become public. Yet he's candid about Maciel's actions and their consequences - both potential and real.

Admittedly I don't know much about Fr. O'Connell. Everything I'm hearing is good, but people will flock to any light when darkness consumes the room. However, I prefer to remain optimistic, believing that Fr. O'Connell is one of the good Legionary priests who has been caught in the crossfire of Maciel's sins and the leadership's [alleged] coverup.

Okay, I thought cow and monk stories were getting a little old. Yet in light of the Legion of Christ's latest round of blame the [alleged] victim (click here), MariGold at Life-After-RC asks: Hey, Pete, can't you give us another story about the abbot, the monk and the cow? Please? And get the threat about suing the Legion for damages as being "illicit."

Done! The Legion's attempt to brand Maciel's son an extortionist has given my inner muse the stomach flu, and here's what came up. (Or to quote, off-the-record, one of my spies in the movement's highest echelons, who tipped me off about the letter's release: "It's disgusting. Once again, we're assuming the role of victim by spinning Maciel's son as an extortionist. Left out is the context of his demand. Namely, that he's a real victim, that his paternity claim is probably legitimate, and that he's been horribly abused by Maciel.")

So this latest version is dedicated to MariGold....

******
The Monk who milked the Widow

A long time ago, a 60-year-old Monk set out on his travels accompanied by his assistant, a young Brother. Night was falling when the Monk told the Brother to go on ahead to find lodging. The Brother searched the deserted landscape until he found a humble shack. A poor teenaged widow and her infant son lived in the hovel.

The Brother returned to the Monk, who asked - in the interest of the Brother's soul, of course - whether he found the Widow (and with a little more discretion, her infant son) cute.

The Brother blushed.

"Ah," said the Monk. "You better stay here and sleep in the barn, less the Devil tempt you with a widow younger than yourself. Vocations are a fragile and precious gift. They are given to us from all of eternity. Thus a lost vocation means sure damnation."

"Nevertheless," said the Monk. "We cannot leave her alone with a little one while Freemasons, Jesuits and town criers like Jason Berry roam the night. I will go ahead and keep her company. I'm an old man - nearly 60 - who has never said no to the Holy Ghost. And you know I suffer from severe cramps in the lower stomach area. These bring me relief when temptation strikes."

The Brother nestled down in the back of the cart, to save the cost of an inn for the night, grateful to God for having co-founded a monastery with a such a wise Monk.

The Monk approached the Widow's hovel. It occurred to him that the young widow likely had little means of supporting herself and her son. Her husband had probably been around her age when he died - too young to build up a pension. The Monk guessed that she was Catholic - after all, she had offered him and the Brother room and board for the night. This presented further complications as the Pope had recommended the Monk to the Governor and to the Archbishop as an efficacious guide to young people. The monk was famous! The widow might recognize him immediately and offer what little substance she subsisted on, perhaps at the expense of her infant son!

"There must be a better way," said the Monk under his breath. "I know, I'll disguise myself as a wealthy horse breeder. Or perhaps as one of the King's spies." In the end, he decided to do both.

The widow answered the door, and the Monk, disguised as a spy disguised as a horse breeder, invited himself in for the evening. As he walked through the door, he could not help but notice how big and energetic the Widow's toddler was.

"I bet he drinks a lot of milk," said the Monk to the Widow as she nursed her son to sleep. "And milk is so expensive these days. If you marry me, I will give you your own cow to feed him." Of course the disguised Monk had only the welfare of the Widow and her son in mind. The Monk had taken a special vow of charity, which sometimes required him to break his more traditional vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Nevertheless, the Monk knew that the Widow was a devout Catholic. She would never think of seducing a Monk (her name was not Lucretia), so to protect her conscience he kept his disguise. This was done out of Christian charity, which God had chosen the Widow from all of eternity to receive from the Monk.

The Widow was taken aback by the Monk's offer. Despite his mustache weaved from horse hair, she could not help but notice he was three times her age. Nevertheless, she accepted his proposal in good faith - and given that our story takes place before the Council of Trent's imposition of canonical form for marriage had received wide promulgation throughout the Church -- the two exchanged wedding vows in the privacy of the hovel.

The years passed and the Monk traveled back and forth between the Widow's cottage and the monastery. The widow never suspected the Monk's true identity. She just assumed that horse breeding and spying for the King kept the Monk busy and away from home. The couple had two more children together.

One day, when the Monk was back from his business trips, the Widow walked into the barn and caught him painting portraits of her sons as the three males stood in a stall. This would not be so unusual except that the Monk and her sons were completely naked. She looked up to their faces: Her younger son looked terrified, her older son looked confused, and the Monk (wearing nothing but his fake mustache) looked guilty.

The Widow had passed the Town Crier on her way home from the market. He had described a suspicious monastic wanted in connection with disappearing cows throughout the county. It suddenly dawned on the Widow. This was no horse breeder. [DELETE EUPHEMISM OF YOUNGER SON PRACTICING HIS MILKING, SINCE WE ARE TO BELIEVE NONE OF THE EVIL WE HEAR IN MEDIEVAL LEGENDS] In fact, she was the one who had been milked - by the seductions of a renegade priest through some unspeakable sorcery.

"This is all a misunderstanding," the Monk pleaded as the Widow invited him to jump over a cliff. "However, I will suffer this temptation to jump like Our Lord tempted in the desert by the devil." He did not have much choice. The Widow was backed by her three sons, while none of the Monk's brothers were around to cover up for him. (Which was quite a shocking scene given that the Monk was still naked.)

The Monk somehow survived the fall and he petitioned the Pope to allow him to recuperate in a special monastery, where he could spend the rest of his life in prayer and penance. It was not a bad life. The Pope had suspended the Monk's faculties to preside over public prayer, including celebration of the sacraments. Out of zeal for this penance the Monk also forswore - for the good of the Church, of course - his right to private prayer.

The Widow and her sons returned to the cottage. There they noticed the Brother standing in the place of the cow given to them by the Monk.

"Where's our cow?" the youngest lad said.

"You have a duty to remain charitable," said the Brother. "We've taken the cow as payment for the seed your mother stole from the Monk who founded our monastery. How dare she take advantage of him while he was weakened from stomach pains. How dare you embarrass us by demanding the Monk's cow back. That's extortion!"

"But he promised us the cow after lying about being a Monk, bringing me into this world, and making me practice my milking whenever he was home," said the lad.

"Extortion! Extortion!" cried the Brother as he covered his ears and ran toward the cliff.

THE END

***
And on that note, it's time to end this gong show of the grotesque.

SHUT. IT. DOWN.

This gets even more curious, given that up until now the LC has only admitted to knowing about the existence of one daughter, as discovered by Fr. Alvaro in an investigation after Maciel's death. According to the San Francisco Examiner:

The Rev. Jesus Quirce, rector of the Legion's Universidad Anahuac in Mexico City, sent a letter to The Associated Press and other news media on Thursday confirming that he had met with Raul Gonzalez several times in 2008 and 2009, though he said Gonzalez never mentioned being molested.

You can read the full report here.

In yesterday's AP picks up Maciel incest allegations thread, Bill White asks me some good questions. Namely...

- Any thoughts about the historical and sociological roots of the modern wave of religious sexual abuse?
- Did it start just a couple of generations ago, or has it been with us the last two millenia or more?

To answer Bill's second question first, clerical sexual misconduct has been with us since the beginning of the Church. It tends to come in waves. This is why tradition built up a whole body of canonical jurisprudence to prevent and punish molesters among the clergy. Had Marcial Maciel been living in the Middle Ages, he would have risked public execution for witchcraft.

Similarly, retiring to a monastery for "prayer and penance" is a tradition as old as monasteries themselves. I suspect this may be where the word "penitentiary" came from as a synonym for prison. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to conclude that monasteries were exclusively for grave sinners. In times where the secular clergy were infested with perverts and the power-hungry, pious celibates would band together and found monasteries to escape the debauchery (often sexual, financial and political) among their secular counterparts. Regardless, the Church has always struggled with the issue.

That being said, let's look at Bill's first question. From my experience with the recent sexual misconduct crisis to face the Church in North America, and now Ireland, I've come to take a dim view of the Church's minor seminaries. Basically, ripping young teens from their families while they're going through puberty - a time when they need the example of Mom and Dad and healthy relationships between the sexes - is a recipe for disaster down the road. Often one emerges from these seminaries a grown man intellectually and physically, but still a teenager emotionally and in terms of mental maturity.

Many of my clients were older priests who had gone through the minor seminaries, and who in their first year of priesthood had committed one or two inappropriate acts with sexual overtones against teenaged boys. This is behavior that a parent or coach would normally correct if exchanged among teens of roughly the same age, but feel no need to approach law enforcement authorities over if the two parties had been roughly the same age. I'm talking things like rolling up your wet towel in the dressing room after a shower and whacking your team-mate in the arse. It's immaturity when exchanged between two 15-year-old boys. It's creepy when coming from a grown man who also happens to be clergy.

So the young priest is dragged before the bishop, is rebuked severely, and shipped off to a grueling assignment away from youth for the next year or two (such as chaplain to local Catholic nursing home). He comes back to parish ministry, and ministers for several decades without further incident or complaint. However, come the sex abuse crisis, the Church opened all the old files and these priests now found themselves shipped off to "prayer and penance" because of these types of incident during their first year of priesthood. And no, I'm not justifying what they did at the time. But I feel many of these incidents might have been avoided had these priests spent their teen years with their families, rather than in minor seminaries. After all, St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother and the local synagogue were good enough for Our Lord Jesus Christ during His formative years.

That being said, the question has taken a more gruesome turn if recent allegations are true. As noted by Randie in the comments section of Life-After-RC (click here), "Maciel's son said his abuse began when he was 7 years old. I hope we can stop splitting hairs over whether MM was a pedophile or an ephebophile." And this is without considering the incest angle, as well as the allegation Maciel photographed the abuse of his own children.

Which is why at this point my reaction as a father to young children trumps my reaction as a canonist or Catholic journalist: SID - SHUT. IT. DOWN.

It is one of the most fundamental principles of sacramental theology and Christian ministry. One cannot give what one has not received. Thus one must first receive what one wishes to give. In practical application, this is why the priest, at Mass, first consecrates and then consumes the Eucharist. Then he invites the ministers of Communion to receive before inviting the rest of the congregation. Likewise, in the Church, a religious community receives its charism from the founder or the Church, before passing it along to the faithful ministered to by the community.

With this in mind, and knowing what we now know about Maciel, I invite each LC and RC to ask himself the following questions:

- What has the Church received from Maciel?
- What have the LC and RC received from Maciel?
- What have you personally received from Maciel through LC and RC?
- What have your family and friends received from you as a member of LC or RC?

Speaking solely as a concerned parent and as a former Catholic journalist, and not as a canon lawyer, someone needs to have a little talk with Jason Berry, co-author of Vows of Silence. Politely ask Mr. Berry - no, beg him for the good of the Church - to pop the following questions to his contacts and share their responses with the rest of us:

- Who in the Church and LC knew what about Maciel?
- And when did they know it?

Please get this information out now, before the Apostolic Visitation comes to an end next month. The information cannot be whitewashed if it is already public.

The Associated Press has now picked up, in English, the latest scandal alleging Maciel sexually molested his son and adopted step-son:

During a radio interview Wednesday, Lara Gutierrez charged that Maciel, who died in 2008 at age 87, sexually abused one of his two sons with her as well as a son she had from a previous relationship. The sons, now adults named Jose Raul and Omar, said the abuse went on for years.

Click here to read the whole report.

If your stomach still isn't turning, Giselle offers an additional update at Life-After-RC:

More from a friend who speaks Spanish. First son recounts his abuse starting at age seven (including photos, for Maciel to keep as mementos). It got so bad that he became sexually confused and asked his dad if he could see a psychiatrist. MM says he knew a really good one in Spain and sends him over (to stay with "Auntie Norma" the other wife) and he begins counseling.

As a canonist, I'm trying to look at this latest revelation as dispassionately as I can. As a Catholic, I trust Pope Benedict to do the right thing with the AV. But as a parent to children in the same age range as Maciel's when the LC founder began to abuse them, I have only one reaction: SHUT. IT. DOWN.

Deidre Mundy of the Mommy Writes blog (aka Mouse at American Papist) offers some trenchant commentary about the latest scandal surrounding Marcial Maciel and the Legion of Christ's handling of the situation. Particularly poignant is her following observation:

This is another place where the Legion is falling short. When faced with the evidence of Maciel's crimes, they're NOT providing a countersign. They're not reaching out to the victims or engaging in public penance. Instead of shining a floodlight to illuminate the darkness, they're trying to hide the crimes under a bushel basket.

Please read her entire commentary here.

Some more bad news for the Legion of Christ, shortly after Juan Vaca (one of Maciel's first victims to come forward publicly) reportedly dismisses recent LC/RC apologies as vague and mere media strategy (click here).

In a live Spanish-language radio interview earlier today, Jose Raul Gonzalez (one of Maciel's alleged sons) accuses the Legion of Christ/ Regnum Christi founder of having sexually abused Raul and his brother. According to notes taken by Aaron during the interview, Raul also alleges that although Fr. Carlos Skertchly (the priest who met with Raul on behalf of current LC Director General Fr. Alvaro Corcuera) "talks about Christian charity," Fr. Skertchly "rejects Raul's requests for money as his inheritance and also in compensation for 8 YEARS OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF RAUL AND HIS BROTHER BY MACIEL." You can read Aaron's summary translation here and here.

Additionally, CNN Mexico has posted its report (in Spanish) here. Additionally, Youtube has uploaded part of the radio interview (Starts about 90 seconds into the first part):

Part 1

Part 2

No comment.

UPDATE: Giselle tackles the queer Jesuit theory here.

UPDATE II: Thanks to loyal reader Jane for uncovering the original article to which the above op-ed was responding. Although I still disagree with the author's slag against the Jesuits (let me know when the LC produces a Fr. John Hardon, SJ) , I'm a little more sympathetic knowing the original piece was published in February of '09 (when the scandal first broke) rather than February of '10. Why a response was published over a year later, I don't know.

ExLC's reposting of The Monk, the Cow and the Apology has garnered quite the reader reaction. An anonymous reader weighs in this morning with the following:

Consider the following possible interpretation of Monk's version of the story: the monk who pushed the cow off the cliff is the Pope who will more than likely shut down the LC/RC (the cow). The fruit from the RC/LC members efforts to build up the Church while clinging to LC/RC are like the lot of the poor family that clung to the cow(LC/RC) for their lifeline. When our Holy Father "pushes their cow over the cliff" they will be forced to cling to Christ and he will then be able to use their efforts in a purer and more fruitful way. From Monk's version: " "You know Father, we used to have a cow. She kept us alive. We didn't own anything else. One day she fell down the cliff and died. To survive, we had to start doing other things, develop skills we did not even know we had. We were forced to come up with new ways of doing things. It was the best thing that ever happened to us! We are now much better off than before." I have experienced this in my own life. It is so much brighter outside of the movement. God has great plans for you, LC/RC members, that will be realized once you let go of the "cow" and let Christ, not the LC priests, be your hope!! I look forward to your release!!!

That's not a bad way of looking at it. However, it requires a little tweaking of the original story, to explain why it became morally acceptable to take the cow and push it off the cliff. Otherwise we're back to the utilitarian error of "the ends justify the means." One of the first principles of Catholic moral theology is the following: "One cannot do evil so that good may come about."

So let's try this again, but from the other perspective:

***************
The cow that stole the monk

A long time ago, an Abbott set out on his travels accompanied by his assistant, a Brother, and a cow. Night was falling when the Abbott told the Brother to go on ahead to find lodging. The Brother found a humble trailer, in the middle of nowhere, which he ignored. The family was obviously poor since they lived in a trailer. And from the statue of St. Peter Claver standing beside the doorsteps, the Brother discerned that the family was probably of darker complexion.

This was hardly suitable lodging for the Abbott, who suffered from a rare allergy to eumelanin - the pigmentation that causes darker skin tones in humans. In fact, the Pope had secretly dispensed the Abbott from ministering to Catholics with dark complexions. Now the Brother had never actually spoken to the Pope or read the letter of dispensation (after all, it was so secret it could only be passed on through the confessional!), the Abbott had assured the Brother that this was the case. Of course, an exception was made for Catholics of African ancestry who possessed a lot of gold (since the metal's bright glistening reflected sufficient light from other sources to neutralize the darkness of their skin tone) or those who wore special red hats given to them personally by the Pope.

However, the Brother noticed a heard of cows nearby, which meant the family were probably migrant farm hands working a nearby dairy farm. So the Brother continued up the road until he notices a large, stately, country manor.

The mother, father and children were dressed in the latest styles usually found only among the big city bourgeoisie. It was pure fashion! And the Abbott, having received a vision of clerical fashions in the 1950's, required his Brothers to conform to his vision, despite the fact the 1950's were still several centuries away. Some would call this the Abbott's charism.

So the Brother asked if he and the Abbott could spend the night in their dwelling. "You are most welcome to spend the night," said the father of the family. They prepared a feast of expensive hams, fine cigars, and brought in some Mariachi minstrels for entertainment. The Abbott's cow was put out in the pasture with the other cows.

The next morning, the Brother and the Abbott said their good-byes and set out to continue their journey. They had an important meeting in Rome and far was their journey. They were even a little behind schedule as it would be several centuries before the invention of airplanes.

"Could we borrow a horse and carriage from you?" said the Abbott.

"Sure," said the Mother. She trusted the Abbott and Brother were holy men of God who would remember her in prayer once they got to Rome, despite the Abbott having been too tired to preside over grace during the visit.

"That's very charitable of you," said the Abbott. "But what about our cow? She could hardly keep up with this horse and carriage. And I have important business with the Pope."

"We could keep her here with the other cows," said the Mother. "I'm sure my husband doesn't mind."

"That's been your vocation since before eternity," said the Abbott. "I knew you would not say no to God. So understand that my cow requires extra care. She has been personally blessed by the Pope. So she is a sacred cow, who due to delicate health has required golden treatment since a young calf. You must massage her three times a day, feed her only the best grains and at specific times, and milk her gently in the morning and in the evening. She requires her stall cleaned daily, and fresh straw to sleep on. Here's the checklist. Plus, because it would be sinful to waste her milk, you must promise me you will feed only her milk to your family. This may sound like a lot, but I know you won't say no to God."

The woman promised and the Abbott headed off in the coach with the Brother. Years later, a Bishop ordained the Brother a priest. So he too became a Monk. One day he found himself on the same road where he found lodging so many years ago. Remembering the comfortable digs and the special treatment, he decided to visit the family. He rounded the curve in the road and to his surprise, he saw the mansion reduced to rubble, surrounded by gardens that had been taken over by weeds. In the middle of the field, flies buzzed around the rotting carcasses of an entire herd of cows.

The Monk knocked on the door. A poorly-dressed man answered. The Monk asked, "What ever became of the family who used to live here? Did they sell the property to you?"

The man looked surprised and said he and his family had always lived on the property. The Monk told him how he had stayed in a nice mansion on the same spot, with his master the old Abbott. "What happened to the family that lived here?" he asked.

The man pointed a pike at the Monk's throat. "You know Father, we used to have a herd of cows. They kept us alive. Quite comfortably, I might add. But then my wife invited your cow into our field, as an act of charity toward you and the Church. Your cow required a lot of care - my wife started spending all her time in the barn, to the neglect of our children, me and the household. The effort burned her out. I tried to reason with her, but you had her convinced the cow was sacred and that God would punish her if she did not put your sacred cow before everything else."

"Moreover, our kids - who had always been of strong constitution - fell ill most of the time, and could no longer help out around the farm. Either they were helping Mom keep up with your checklist, or they were suffering from the effects of their sickness. At first I thought the sickness was due to them and their Mother spending too much time in the barn, stressing out over your cow. I called the doctor. He informed me that my wife and children had Mad Cow disease, which we traced back to your cow. But by then it had spread to my herd. Our family is ruined is because of the charity you extracted from us!"

"How dare you say such uncharitable things," said the Monk. "That cow was blessed by the Pope!"

"Well this morning my farm hand Cyrene Porres came over to the farm, roped your cow, and at my instructions pushed it over the cliff," said the father. "Although it is too late for my family and herd, your golden cow will not be infecting any more families or herds."

And with that the Monk rushed over the cliff attempting to save his sacred cow.