Legion of Christ/ Regnum Christi: September 2009 Archives

[Final update before I leave: Thank-you for your prayers and well-wishes. If you will allow me to impose upon you one last time, let us resolve to pray a Hail Mary and the traditional prayer to St. Michael whenever we hear 'charity' about why someone has left a movement, or that Fr. Berg never truly had a vocation, etc. It requires only a minute of your time and it yields innumerable graces - for the victims, for the Church, for ourselves, and for friends and family in the movement.]

This will be my last blog entry until December.

A small controversy erupted in the combox yesterday after I hastily edited a couple of comments from readers, removing words that I felt had come close to the line when describing certain clergy. I can understand why this happens. We are upset with a situation in which children were potentially endangered, victims wrongfully maligned, and embarrassment brought upon Catholics in general. We should be upset. Thus I apologize to Juana and other readers for not offering an immediate explanation, and I thank Richard Chonak for taking control of the situation.

I made the edits for reasons I had intended to explain at the time in a subsequent comment. However, a minor family emergency (howling baby with a cold threatening to wake older siblings with a cold - those of you who are parents know the drill) drew me away from the computer. I forgot what I had been doing, having come down with the cold myself, and I simply resumed packing.

And there's lots to pack.

My employer has offered me, on short notice, a two-month assignment starting next week. This is on top of a weekend assignment. Internet access will be limited and irregular during this time, as I discovered during month-long assignments for May and July. (This is why I was silent on Fr. Berg's departure from the Legion, and his subsequent interview with Chiesa, until weeks after the fact.) Meaning I will miss the results of the preliminary reports from apostolic visitators.

So this is my last posting until December.

Many of us are angry and hurt with the situation. I'm a parent, I think of my own children every time a new allegation surfaces. I met some of the victims personally in 2004 and found them credible. When I returned from this meeting, I was subjected to what I felt were high-pressure phone calls (from individuals hinting certain impressions, without stating it directly, of Giselle and her marriage). So yes, I've been there. In fact I was there when John Paul II was still pope.

I also followed closely the lawsuit against ReGAIN, where the Legion forced the discussion board shut down, imposed a gag order (I am told), and reportedly attempted to subpoena the identities of the board's contributors. I need not remind you of how litigious the LC/RC has been in the past.

Of course, now that the truth is out about Maciel (with more likely to come), the movement can neither sue nor silence every critic. I suppose they can try if they really wanted to. However, this would likely consume a tremendous amount of resources at a time when the economy has forced the average person to tighten one's belt. There's also potential negative publicity which the Legion can hardly afford.

Nevertheless, this is not permission to cross certain boundaries without providing evidence. Yes, it's okay to call Maciel a pederast. On the balance of probabilities he probably was. We have testimony after testimony from his alleged victims, and the Holy See isn't in the habit of retiring older priests to a life of prayer and penance - especially not founders of large movements - without strong evidence of serious wrongdoing.

We have a moral duty as Catholics to hold the Legion accountable and seek justice for Maciel's victims. This needs to be done in charity. Not charity as Marcial Maciel defined it, but charity as Christ and the Church define it. As we hold the Legion accountable, we must remember that our goal is truth and justice - not vengeance.

If the LC/RC collapses completely or goes into schism, let it be because of the consequences of their own actions. Our actions, as Catholics, must remain consistent with the teachings of Christ. (Even if we fall short on occasion - myself included.) We must continue to preach repentance and urge our LC/RC brethren to do better. We must continue to seek justice for Maciel's victims.

So here are our goals in what I believe to be their order of priority:

1 - Truth

2 - Justice for Maciel's victims, including a public apology and restitution (insofar as restitution is possible).

3 - The welfare of our children and our families.

4 - Assistance for friends and family who have been adversely affected by the founder or the movement.

Continue to speak out for victims. Pray regularly for all Catholics affected by this scandal. God will see us through these rough times

God bless you all!. Please keep my family and me in prayer..

UPDATE: Eric Sammons has blogged an entry from a reader explaining how the vocation to the priesthood and the vocation to the Legionaries are intertwined in the minds of many, which is why one often sees collateral damage to one's faith after leaving. It's worth reading, along with Eric's subsequent commentary (click here).

Initial post

I was suspicious when the pseudonymous poster "Edmund Ritter" showed up on the ExLC blog a few months ago, claiming to be a Legion priest in Rome studying psychology. (Although it wasn't clear from what I read whether he was claiming to do so privately, or within an academic context). However, ExLC vouched publicly for Fr. Ritter's authenticity. He also reassured me privately that the two know each other well. (In non-lawyer speak, I'm passing the buck to ExLC).

That being said, I was heartened by Fr. Ritter's following response on the ExLC blog to my recent Catholic Light posting (which ExLC reposted) explaining why we should not write-off a reconstitution of the Legion:

Your position seems to be identical to my own. If the Pope wants to suppress the LC, then let the damned thing be suppressed! But if he sees it has a chance reconstituted in new form or with a new management, then let's go for it, those of us inside who can.

[Not] everyone here is insane. Many are simply uninformed, and they must be informed by authority. The Pope must speak clear to his Legionaries if they are to understand what has happened to them, and why. Then a reconstitution is possible and feasible -- once elementary truth and justice has been established.

God has done this sort of thing before: it's Salvation and Redemption. Adam and Eve -- both insane in their rebellion and sin -- beyond redemption? Not even they. Now the Church sings their ruin as the "Happy Fault that obtained for us such a Redeemer" each year at the vigil mass of Easter Sunday. I do not believe I am abusing analogy. I believe God reapplies this same method every time a sinner walks out of the confessional absolved. If God wants it, and if the Legionaries are not totally insane but respond generously and humbly, why cannot the same happen for their stricken institute?

Let's all pray a decade of the Rosary for Fr. Ritter and other Legionaries in his position.

Someone please page Fr. Damien Karras.

[Update: According to readers with a lot more Spanish expertise than me, it appears that Espinosa was using an offer of DNA testing as a rhetorical device to call into question the paternity of recent individuals claiming to be Maciel's children. It also appears that Espinosa is the son of Maciel's cousin. Anyway, this is why I avoided providing a translation or analysis on this article.]

Initial post

Religion Digital has just published an explosive interview with Alejandro Espinosa, Maciel's nephew who claims to have been molested by his uncle as a young seminarian. The allegations are numerous, serious and specific. Given my poor grasp of Spanish, I am not going to attempt translation. However, Espinosa has offered a sample of his own DNA to help establish the credibility of those claiming to be Maciel's children [See update above for clarification on this last point].

There's an old expression among canon lawyers, taken from Roman legal principles: Semel malus semper praesumitur esse malus. "Whoever has been convicted of evil is always presumed to be evil." This principle comes to mind as I consider Richard Sutcliff's following objection vis-a-vis the LC/RC scandal: "It seems as though you are very willing to publish and believe anything bad about the Legionaries, yet subject anything that might make them look at all good to the most rigorous scrutiny."

Let's look at this from another angle. For decades we believed the LC/RC when they told us Maciel was a living saint, that he had never said no to God, that the victims were inventing allegations against him, that they were motivated by jealousy and anti-Catholic agendas. Only we know now that the victims were telling the truth vis-a-vis the crux of this controversy, namely that Maciel was a serial pervert.

So the question arises: What else were these victims, long denounced as liars, telling the truth about? Whether or not LC/RC leadership wishes to acknowledge it, the benefit of the doubt has now shifted to the victims from Maciel and his movement. As one former RC apologist said to me recently, "Pete, we cannot tell after all these years which [alleged] victims are telling the truth and which are not. But we'd be in a much better position to face this scandal if we just assumed they're all telling the truth."

A second thing to keep in mind when reading this blog. I have both a telephone number and a private email address. So does Giselle. We're quite accessible to folks inside RC/LC who share our concerns, but who don't feel tin a position to speak out publicly. Perhaps they rely on the LC/RC for their paycheck, perhaps they have a son with the Legion or a daughter with the 3gf. Perhaps they themselves are LC or 3gf. The same is true of those who comment in our comboxes. As blog hosts, Giselle and I see the email addresses and many are recognizable from inside the movement.

The point being? Many still inside the movement find themselves frustrated by their leaders' response to this crisis. These insiders now believe the evil they hear, in some cases claim to have witnessed it themselves, and many are alleging even more serious accusations that have not yet been reported. I can vouch that Giselle and I are sitting on several such allegations that we won't blog about until some other media source reports it, the individual making the accusation agrees to go public, or some other credible source corroborates it. So Giselle and I keep it quiet until we can attribute it. Nevertheless, this private information often pans out.

Along the same lines, more than one high-profile member of LC/RC has copied me or summarized for me their correspondence with the apostolic visitator for their region. Other bloggers and journalists report receiving similar inside information shared with the apostolic visitators. (I suspect many readers would be surprised to learn just who inside the movement has joined the throng of bloggers expressing outrage over the leadership's handling of this scandal.) And some of this correspondence requests that the movement be shut down completely or reconstituted with new leadership. So while pontifical secrecy binds the visitators, who can be disciplined by the Holy See for leaking information, it's much more difficult to control the flow of information leaked by those being visited.

So to answer Richard's question, I find many of the new allegations surfacing in the media to be credible because I'm hearing similar stories from people still highly active in the movement. Some of these people played a role in the persecution of Maciel's victims, doing so in the mistaken belief that Maciel was a living saint incapable of such moral perversion. They feel horrible about what they perpetuated on the victims. And they're angry about having been misled into misleading others.

Which is another reason why I believe the movement's only shot at survival is reconstitution under a new leadership. It appears that the current leadership lacks the confidence of many of its current members, including some in high-profile positions. A movement cannot survive for long if its rank-and-file and middle management lack confidence in its leadership.

How could I forget Catherine de Hueck Doherty and her Madonna House community in my earlier posting about authentically Catholic resources? The reminder came as I glimpsed through Giselle's thread discussing how to be a better Catholic parent after leaving LC/RC (click here). I cannot speak within the context of the LC/RC, but I know several Catholic parents who found Catherine's books most helpful after their families left one of several schismatic manifestations of Catholic tridentinism. As a Russian Orthodox baroness who converted to Catholicism after fleeing the communist persecution in Russia, and who subsequently dedicated her life to serving Christ and the poor, she brings some deep spiritual insights when explaining the connection between Catholic Tradition, Catholic spirituality, and our daily lives as Catholics.

Unfortunately, it appears that Catherine's Dear Parents book is out-of-print. However, here are several other excellent selections for parents seeking to rediscover their Catholic spirituality in family life:

- Living the Gospel Without Compromise
- Welcome, Pilgrim (scroll down to backlist, must be ordered by phone)
- Poustinia
- Sobornost
- On the Cross of Rejection

And written by other affiliates of her apostolate:

- Mothering
- The Power of Love

One of the things that distinguished Catherine early on among new religious movements is that she always preached submission not only to the Holy Father, but to the diocesan bishop as well. You can read about her cause for canonization here.

Legion apologist Richard Sutcliff asks the following questions in the comments to this thread: "So what are the non-negotiables for some of you 'jousters'? What are the points about LC/RC that you will say, 'even if the Pope says this' my conscience still says it's wrong and therefore I will oppose it?"

To which Jane, our resident meanie, replies:

My non-negotiable is an apology to Father Maciel's abuse victims, who went public in 1997 to reveal Maciel as an abuser. The Legion lauched a campaign to defend Maciel, and maligned the reputations and character of the victims.

In early February of this year, individual LCs or LC employees either conceded that the abuse allegations are likely true or even apologized to the victims for failing to believe them. The Legion has yet to offer an official apology. We have heard from Father Bannon (in April?) that they are trying to locate the victims. Ah, so you admit, there ARE victims, and they are owed an apology! We heard (from LC priests in our section) that the LC is going to apologize, but "privately", and that after receiving an apology, the victims can choose to go public with the facts of the apology, if THEY so choose. Pretty self-serving, no?

I know RCs who refuse to so much as buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks because the company supports Planned Parenthood. Yet they don't bat an eye at seeking spiritual nourishment for themselves and their children from a congregation of priests which cannot summon the humility and courage to apologize to a group of victims who have been so clearly wronged.

Richard S, I would like to turn this around. What are your thoughts on the lack of apology?

I don't know who all Jane speaks for, but certainly she can include me. A full and public apology to Maciel's victims is a non-negotiable requirement to re-establishing trust. No apology, no trust. As stated repeatedly since this scandal broke, an apology to Maciel's victims is a requirement of natural justice. The need to apologize for one's wrongdoing is also a teaching found in every reputable Catholic children's catechism.

Moreover, as I have opined elsewhere: No apology, no charism. Thus a public apology to Maciel's victims is a non-negotiable requirement, in my opinion.

One last note before I get back to my family duties (It's been a rough night - our three youngest are down with the flu). Having initially been attracted to the LC/RC through what they saw was a fervent expression of orthodox Catholicism, many readers are wondering where they can meet their spiritual needs outside of the LC/RC movement. I assume you already pray the rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Here are some other suggestions:

1. Check out your local parish. A lot has changed, for the better, in the last 20 years,
2. Spend more time with your family, caring for the spiritual needs of one's spouse and children.
3. For guys, the Knights of Columbus are always recruiting.
4. Many graces are attributed to those who pray this prayer to St. Joseph daily.
5. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
6. Take five or ten minutes each day to meditate upon one of St. Ignatius of Loyola's rules for spiritual discernment, starting with the first and working your way down.
7. Read St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea, which is the Angelic Doctor's compilation of hundreds of quotations from Church Fathers, ordered as verse-by-verse commentary on the Four Gospels.
8. For daily spiritual meditation according to the readings at Mass, check out Francis Fernadez's In Conversation with God. Originally written for Opus Dei, the series has since been adopted by several Catholics and Catholic movements with little or no connection St. Escriva or the movement he founded.
9. Spend some time in Eucharistic adoration.

Several readers have asked where I see Legion of Christ/ Regnum Christi members going if the Holy See reconstitutes the Legion under new leadership, as growing rumors suggest. The answer is long and complicated. Which is why we should all be grateful to Eric Sammons for tackling it.

Observing the experience of another movement that went through something similar, Monsieur Sammons sees four possible paths for former members:

1. They remained in the reconstituted organization.
2. They formed a new organization under the ousted leadership and outside of Church oversight.
3. They left the group and returned to their parishes.
4. They left the group and the Church.

Non-trekkies will probably want to skip to the last paragraph. Over at Giselle's, readers are comparing Legion of Christ/Regnum Christi recruitment to Borg assimilation practices. As a trekkie, I see many alleged similarities.

But let's not miss the bright side of the galaxy. As the scandal unfolds, I see just as many similarities between Pope Benedict and Species 8472 (aka the Fluidians). For instance, Pope Benedict views life through the cross, not unlike the Fluidians with their cross-shaped pupils. The Holy Father also pilots a living vessel, a spiritual bioship that transverses space and dimension, healing quickly from damage and adjusting organically as needed to confront an immediate threat.

Moreover, there's his experience under Naziism as a child, coupled with his life-long love of the Patristic fathers (whose influence over his theology has been noticeable throughout his entire life). This has added a third strain to his spiritual DNA and thickened his spiritual blood to where he is practically impervious (and destructive of) to Borg nano-technology.

So my advice to those seeking to break free of the collective? Start reading the early Church fathers. An excellent work with which to begin is Cardinal Newman's translation of St. Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea. For those unfamiliar with this work, the Doctor Angelicus provides commentary on the Four Gospels through extensive quotations from early Church fathers.

Human Life International's Fr. Thomas Euteneuer is a prophet. I was re-reading his response to Fox News' Fr. Jonathan Edwards, LC over L'Affair Hannity a couple of years ago. In retrospect, this line from Fr. Euteneuer's response really stands out:

The church sex abuse scandal was not just about homosexual and predatory priests. It was about clerical negligence and silence on issues that not only affect people's souls but also ruin people's lives. It is highly unusual that you or anyone else would want a priest to be silent on issues that affect the salvation of souls.

Wow! Did Fr. Euteneuer realize at the time what he was saying? Or was it entirely the Holy Spirit speaking truth through him?

Just as troubling is a second point Fr. Euteneuer's raises in his response, albeit couched in his polemical use of the term "politically-correct sissies". The point is that Fr. Jonathan was no ordinary Legionary priest at the time. Besides being a Fox News analyst, Fr. Jonathan was rector of the Legion's seminary in Rome, if I recall correctly. This means that Fr. Jonathan's mindset was instrumental in forming Legion priests from all over the world.

In retrospect, this may help explain why the Legion has for the most part been silent concerning Fr. Maciel's alleged molestation of former seminarians.

In the combox of the recent schism thread, reader Richard Sutcliff (who has graciously taken on the role of resident SandPounder), raises the following question:

Here is an entirely hypothetical question, but one which I would like Pete to address.

We talk about the possibility of a rump of LCs going into schism if the Pope doesn't rule their way.

What are the possibilities of the opposite happening, that some of the Legion's critics refuse to accept Rome's verdict were the Vatican (again, this is hypothetical) to allow the Legion to continue on?

In my experience? I've never seen it happen. Certain individuals may abandon Rome for the Eastern Orthodox Churches, evangelical Protestantism, or even atheism - but I've never seen a formal schism over something like this. So I consider it unlikely.

I also consider it increasingly unlikely that the Holy See won't act in some in some dramatic way to dissolve or refound the movement, especially in light of growing allegations like the following from reputable media sources: "Among the conclusions that he will present in breve to Rome, Blazquez [one of the apostolic visitators] seems to understand clearly that the the intermediate command of the Legion knew about the double life of Maciel as well as as some scandals which occured in Spain, and not only did they do nothing to stop him, they silenced some of the victims."

If this allegation is true - that the Legion's middle leadership knew of Maciel's double-life earlier, but continued to cover up for him and attack the victims (the moral equivalent, I feel, of World War II Germans hiding Nazis in their attics) - then I don't know how the Holy See can avoid decapitating and dissolving the movement.

Moreover, as one of my former canon law professors use to say: "Rome is never hasty unless you bring the Church hierarchy into disrepute, especially in financial matters. Then she acts swiftly and the consequences are always painful." There's no question among many orthodox Catholics outside the LC/RC that Maciel's actions and the movement's response have brought the Church and Pope John Paul II's legacy into some disrepute. Especially since apologists for the movement continue to link its credibility to that of the late pontiff.

Among the Legion's critics, both internal and external, one also sees a growing consensus for dissolution of the congregation in lieu of attempting reform (although critics are divided on whether the Holy See should permit the movement's current members to attempt a refoundation). I get the same feeling I had back in February, when Catholics from across the faith spectrum came to a consensus that the Legion was incapable of handling the crisis internally, and that intervention from the Holy See was necessary. Yeah, pro-Legion apologists kicked up a fuss at the time, accusing critics of lacking faith in the Church. When momentum continued to grow anyway, the same apologists tried to spin it into saying that any outside intervention or investigation should come from Cardinal Rode. In contrast to these pro-Legion apologists, Pope Benedict agreed with the sensus fidelium.

Having said that, I think the greater danger for the Legion right now is that orthodox Catholics won't accept a refoundation should it come about. Why? Because we're parents. It's one thing for us to accept the Holy See's verdict that a movement can be refounded, but quite another to involve our own families in the refoundation. There are other options for orthodox Catholics, you know.

Which is why, to give a potential refoundation a fighting chance at taking root,the Holy See must do three things in my opinion:

1 - Impose several deep reforms upon the movement.
2 - Appoint outside superiors to implement these reforms.
3 - Apologize publicly to Maciel's victims and offer them reasonable restitution.

Many rumors are swirling about the future of the Legion and Regnum Christi, some receiving the acknowledgment of reputable journalists and Church commentators. In surveying these rumors, what concerns me is that there is little or no mention of the third degree consecrated (3gf). I pray the Church does not overlook their future, and what can be done to facilitate their transition to a more stable vocation..

Should the Holy See dissolve the LC/RC, most of RC can be turned over to diocesan Bishops or other Church authorities outside the movement. On the other hand, the Church will always find a place for priests willing to reform and minister within the Church's vineyards.

However, the toughest blow - potentially - will fall upon the the 3gf and upper year seminarians with the Legion. They've invested years of time and effort into the movement's formation. However, they lack any permanent binding connection to the consecrated state. Like a partner shacked up without the benefit of marriage, their relationship can be severed at any time, for little or no reason.

So what happens to people like Rocio Moreno - who as a 32-year veteran of the 3gf has spent most of her adult life promoting Maciel and the movement? Her story is one I contemplate with sadness as she likely faces an uncertain future. You can read her story here.

A few things stood out as I read through it:

- She was young when she became one of the first 3gf, accepting the call because other family members were highly active in the movement and it had the Church's approval.

- She has spent most of her adult life connected to the movement, and is a product of their methodology.

- She appears to associate the movement, the movement's charism, and her vocation to the movement, with Maciel.

This last point is seen through her answers to following questions:

How do you see the founder's role in your vocation?

He himself invited me to be a part of the Movement. He showed me that God loved me so much and that God could be calling me to consecrate my life to him, just as the apostles did. I don't remember everything that he told me, but he spoke a lot about Christ, the Church, and the apostolates and places where we would be going after we formed ourselves as consecrated women.

What has it meant for you to be one of the first consecrated women?

Being one of the first consecrated women has meant a huge responsibility for me personally. I am aware that I must live and pass on what I learned, saw, and heard directly from Nuestro Padre. I feel like it depends on me, on us cofounders, to preserve the spirit in its entirety, and I will do this if I live each day with fidelity, trying to live my life according to the Statutes (the Statutes of the Regnum Christi Movement). I will do this if I guard the virtue of charity as the most precious pearl.

What is the greatest gift for you of being a cofounder?

I think that the greatest gift of being one of the first ones is the grace of having lived alongside my founder. I saw him living what we were being asked to live: humility, detailed charity, always speaking well of others, and tender love for Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the pope.

So how do you solve a problem like Morena?

This is why I love you all:

Hi Pete,

thought of you when watching this video...

The following line stands out in America Magazine's latest blog on the LC/RC crisis: "[The apostolic visitators'] main task, apparently, is to assess whether the order's members will be accepting of whatever Rome decides." (Emphasis mine).

This leads some readers to ask whether schism is a possible outcome. Possible? Yes. Probable? I would say no at this point, except perhaps for a small rump group. (Whenever emotions run this strongly with a religious movement going through meltdown or serious change, in my experience, small pockets of "true believers" will always separate and go their own way. So don't be surprised if a dozen or so LC priests break off to start the "Maciel Catholic Church".) That being said, only the LC/RC can answer this question with certainty.

Yet one never knows until decision time comes. To understand how schism could happen, please see my blog entry from last April: How schism becomes an option.

Having said that, schism offers no benefit for the Legion. In my opinion schism would kill their fundraising and recruitment, which to outside observers like me appears to be at the heart of their charism. The Legion would have to spin its separation from Rome after decades of propaganda trumpeting its fidelity to the Holy See.

This can be done, as seen from other ultra-montane movements that ended in schism. However, the cost of doing so is the near-death of new recruitment coupled with heavy losses among rank-and-file membership who recognize the Holy Father as the Church's supreme visible authority. As said to me recently by a wise canon lawyer who had been part of a similar movement that melted down, "What convinced me to leave was the very principles they had instilled in me when I joined, namely, fidelity to the Holy See and obedience to the Holy Father."

So the schism option ends with Fr. Alvaro and the Legion as a footnote on page 296 of some future Church historian's doctoral dissertation.

On the other hand, a re-founding offers the LC/RC a fighting chance at survival, especially if the movement renounces Maciel, brings in a superior general from outside the movement to oversee the reform, and is careful not to burn bridges with priests like Fr. Berg - former insiders who have left the Legion and/or called for serious reform. Orthodox Catholics outside the movement are more likely to give a refounding the chance it needs if individuals like Fr. Berg vouch for its sincerity and credibility.

Additionally, it's not a bad position for Fr. Alvaro to find himself in should he turn over leadership of a refounded movement gracefully. He's reportedly been with Fr. Maciel since he was 12. In retrospect, most people will find it understandable that he struggled to come to grips with Fr. Maciel's secret lives, how it impacted the old movement and its methodology, and that this affected his ability to lead the old movement through its meltdown. But there's no shame in stepping aside for younger leadership, not as heavily tainted with Maciel, if the movement is refounded.

Should Fr. Avaro do so gracefully, accepting reform overseen by outsiders appointed by the Holy See, and in doing so give a refounded movement its fighting chance at survival, Fr. Alvaro can then assume the role of elder statesmen within the refounded movement. If the refounded movement survives, then history will not record Fr. Alvaro as the General Director who presided over the LC/RC's downfall. It will record him as the individual who led the LC/RC into refounding as a new movement, one focused on Christ and not Maciel, and as an individual who had enough wisdom to step aside and allow the refounded movement to reform and take root. It may even record him as the founder of the movement.

So Fr. Alvaro kinda becomes like Moses. He was close to the Pharaoh, but eventually he accepted God's will to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, through the desert and to the border of the promised land. God would not allow Moses to lead the Israelites into the promised land, due to Moses's past sins, and leadership was turned over to Joshua who then led the Israelites into the promised land. But God forgave Moses and allowed him to see the promised land from the border. And to this day we honor Moses for his part in salvation history.

Of course, there's still the question of apology and restitution to Maciel's victims. However, I think we are likely past the point where such an apology and reform can save Maciel's movement.

Several readers continue to point out difficulties accessing our comments section at Catholic Light. If you're reading this as part of the LC/RC's high-level Mexican leadership, please skip to number 2.

1 - For friends, family and rank-and-file members of LC/RC, I apologize for the difficulties with our comments section. I wish I could offer a concrete fix or update on the problem. Unfortunately the problem is beyond my technological capacity to understand, address and correct. Richard Chonak, our blog host and tech guru, has been looking into it in his spare time; but given his busy schedule and the fact he's already shown great kindness in hosting this discussion, I'm reluctant to make greater demands on his time. In the interim, Giselle had kindly offered to host comments on corresponding threads at Life After RC. It's not the best solution, but it's all I can offer right now.

2 - If you happen to be reading this as high-level Mexican leadership of LC/RC, I regret that the hidden life of our blog-hosting software comes as a complete surprise to us. These current difficulties are a cross we accept with complete serenity, always reminding ourselves that in keeping with our vocation as Catholic bloggers that our focus is Christ. We regret if the difficulties with our blog software, which was partially developed by Catholic programmers, has caused discomfort for some. However, we remain grateful for all the good we have received from this software in living out our charism of Catholic bloggers and bringing others to Christ. We remind you of your Catholic duty in charity not to judge this software, despite certain human limitations that are now coming to light as with any other software. Let me reassure you that the vast majority of our readers continue to visit the site, and I have sought the advice of a prudent computer expert to assist me in overcoming these unfortunate difficulties.

[UPDATE: For readers still having difficulties with our comments' section, Giselle has kindly opened a thread here.]

Jesuit magazine America has just published an interesting report on the Legion's future. According to sources close to the Legion in Spain, the magazine reports, the order is to be either dissolved or refounded. The report states that Regnum Christi members and rank-and-file Legionaries are pushing for a refounding, while the Legion's leadership is resisting the move. Additionally, the report states that Americans favor a quick (institutional) decapitation of the Legion's current leadership, much to the chagrin of the Spaniards.

There's also some interesting speculation on the role of the apostolic visitators, whether the Legion is prepared to accept changes required by Rome, and what will happen to some of the Legion's properties and apostolates if the order is refounded.

Click here.

Giselle has posted an unofficial translation of Fr. Alvaro's letter reportedly sent to LC priests and RC consecrated. You can read the translation here. Like Giselle's reader Don, I suspect this may be the letter referred to in August by LC priest (and blogging internal critic) Fr. Damian Karras. Even if it isn't, Father's following criticism still sums it up best:

The Superior General has just sent an eighteen page letter meant, apparently, to motivate and strengthen the LCs in these difficult times. The meandering missive never even names the problems that are rocking the congregation to its core and basically offers three bits of advice to its confused, anguished and frustrated priests: pray, don't read the newspapers and trust the superiors.

Trust the superiors? Like we all trusted Fr. Maciel, our Superior General, for nearly 70 years?

For my own part, I feel a lot more pity for LC Director General Fr. Alvaro after reading this letter. I kept think back to that passage from Lord of the Rings where Gandalf says to Frodo:

Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.

I suppose there are many similarities between Maciel and Sauron, between the founder's methodology and the Ring of Power. Like Gollum, Fr. Alvaro strikes me in this letter as someone who once was like us, but who having under the spell and influence of his precious, is eager to hold on at any cost. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Regardless, we don't know what role remains for Fr. Alvaro as the scandal unfolds. Especially if rumors in the Mexican media pan out of a power struggle between Fr. Alvaro and his Vicar General Fr. Garza, who also served as vicar general for Maciel. My heart tells me Fr. Alvaro can still play an important role in the movement's meltdown, whether for good or for ill.

Having said that, I discern a lack of confidence in the letter attributed to Fr. Alvaro. The Legion and Regnum Christi follow a military motif. But as any current and former military can tell you, soldiers expect communications to be concise and to the point. So too do sailors and marines. (Air Force are a bit of an exception, but even they get to the point once the meandering threatens to cut into their coffee break.)

The Jesuits operate much the same way. I attended a Jesuit college for my undergrad. One of my visiting professors during graduate studies in canon law was a Jesuit. I have worked with Jesuits in the canon law profession. Their communication is always precise and concise. Essays are limited to one page only. Anything longer and they stop reading. Anything longer and they wonder whether you know what you're talking about, or grasped the central point.

The Legion is capable of pointed and focused communication. It is capable of such under Fr. Alvaro's leadership. A good example is the order's response in 2006 when the Holy See invited Fr. Maciel to retire to a life of prayer and penance.

In contrast, the more recent letter goes on for several pages without identifying what necessitated the letter. In so doing Fr. Alvaro's letter communicates three things, in my opinion: A lack of self-confidence in his leadership, a lack of confidence in the priests and consecrated to whom the letter is addressed, and a lack of confidence in the message the letter attempts to convey. And a general who lacks confidence cannot inspire it in his soldiers. I don't know what Fr. Alvaro is talking about in his letter. Does he?

Giselle's reader Jane put the letter's word count at 8,555. That's 8,553 words too many, in my opinion. What's needed is a simple "I'm sorry" to Maciel's victims. Fr. Alvaro, this is the only message that will restore confidence in your leadership.

Which brings me to this quote from Fr. Alvaro's letter:

Believe me that I would give my life, or whatever it would take, so as to soften the cross of each one, and that I feel very unworthy of being able to offer you my whole life and renew to you my gratitude, support and brotherly closeness.

Nobody is asking Fr. Alvaro to give up his life. We're simply asking him to apologize publicly to Maciel's victims. It's a debt of justice owed to those who were victimized at the hands of Maciel, then victimized again by having their reputations shredded when they came forward with the truth. Yet this is the one course of action Fr. Alvaro keeps avoiding. Why?

A question readers keep asking is whether Maciel was excommunicated for allegedly absolving in the confessional accomplices in sins against the Sixth Commandment. As most of us are aware, the expression "sins against the Sixth Commandment" covers serious sins of sexual nature. The question comes from canon 977 which prohibits a priest from absolving his accomplice in a sin against the Sixth Commandment, except in danger of death, combined with canon 1378, paragraph 1 which automatically excommunicates a priest who violates canon 977. I don't have access to the 1917 code right now, but I believe it too excommunicated a priest for absolving in the confessional an accomplice in sins against the Sixth Commandment.

Regardless, we don't know the answer to this question. Here is what we do know:

1. The case against Maciel was introduced before the CDF during the 90's, alleging Maciel had violated canon 1378 or its equivalent found in the 1917 code.


2. During the investigation the CDF invited Maciel to retire to life of prayer and penance in exchange for not pursuing the case.

A reader asked me why I thought the Pure Fashion threads seem to provoke such strong reactions. I think it's because the issue touches many of us concretely. Whereas few readers were personally abused by Maciel, and none to my knowledge have fathered his children, many readers are mothers who have volunteered with the Pure Fashion program, or parents to daughters who have participated in it. So Pure Fashion is an example of how the Maciel scandal touches us - and more importantly to us as parents, our children - personally.

Which is why I appreciate CindyB, who describes herself as ex Regnum Christi and a six-year veteran of Pure Fashion, sharing her thoughts in this thread. Whether this was intentional on her part or not, Cindy expresses the internal conflict felt by many who have been part of this program. On the one hand, she left RC because of the way it elevated Maciel (who she can no longer dignify with the prefix "Father") despite serious allegations against him. On the other hand, her own experience with Pure Fashion was good, and she sees a desperate need in today's world for programs that promote modesty, purity, and "programs that can influence teenagers and young adults to make better choices through positive self-esteem." Her concerns are legitimate.

Hence her statement that Priscella likely "meant that [Maciel]'s behavior needed the message of Pure Fashion."

Here's the difficulty. Knowing how many volunteer hours Catholic moms like Cindy and Priscella put into the program with only the best of intentions for their daughters, it breaks my heart to say this. However, it is a point long recognized by saints and media critics:

People look to the medium when discerning the message.

St. James knew this. As he states in the New Testament epistle bearing his name: "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." He understood that one's actions offered the best proof that one had received the Gospel message. St. Francis of Assisi clarifies this point further, stating: "Go into the world and preach the Gospel, but only use words when necessary." And of course there's Marshall McLuhan's aphorism: "The medium is the message."

In the case of Pure Fashion, the message of purity and modesty is contradicted by the medium of Fr. Maciel. The founder's actions where anything but modest and pure. Teenagers know this. They may not piece it together right away, or they may not repeat it within earshot of parents while living under their roof. But they know. And eventually there's the temptation to act upon it. If the founder can molest seminarians and father children through various mistresses - while still receiving public gratitude from holy priests, along with Mom and Dad - what's a little premarital foreplay or displaying a bit of bellybutton n comparison? After all, Maciel engaged in much worse while building God's kingdom.

Or the reaction may be one of anger, of feeling lied to or mislead for all these years. I've seen this happen. The relationship between parent and child is never the same afterward. The child will always second-guess Mom and Dad. Jezebel can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe from her comments that she was taken aback by the support she received from orthodox Catholic parents over her critique of Pure Fashion. We may disagree with her position on human sexuality, however, many of her criticisms of Pure Fashion have the ring of truth about them.

And if I can recognized this as a Nascar dad with no fashion sense, you can bet your teenage children will recognize it as well. It's just a matter of time before the child google searches "Pure Fashion" or "Regnum Christi," comes across a critique written by someone who disagrees with us on Humanae Vitae, and is struck by how strongly the critique resonates. Or the child may hear of Fr. Maciel's duplicity from other children from orthodox Catholic homes while trying to recruit them to the kingdom. Who will the child blame for feeling misled, deceived or embarrassed in front of one's peers?

Not Fr. Maciel. Not LC priests. But you, the parent.

Make no mistake about it. So long as Pure Fashion remains connected to Regnum Christi, which in turn continues to express its gratitude to the founder, Maciel remains the medium. And as the medium, he is also the message.

As for the other question, how can orthodox Catholic moms instill modesty and purity in their daughters, while having a little mother-daughter fun... Who needs a program? Here's what a good friend of mine, who happens to be the mother of several sons formerly with the Legion, did with her daughters. Instead of dropping $450 on a program she purchased each teenage daughter a Catechism of the Catholic Church for $10. After putting the younger kids to bed, she took aside each adolescent daughter individually, and used the catechism to initiate one-on-one mom-and-daughter discussions on purity, modesty, fashion, sexuality, family, and marriage.

She was surprised by how each daughter opened up in this one-on-one atmosphere. What most of her daughters wanted, after years of apostolate and activity outside the family, was not another program. They wanted honest and open communication with Mom.

Every few months or so my friend and other homeschooling moms nearby would each pick a daughter (starting with the oldest), hop in the van, and head off to the big city Saturday morning for a Mom & Daughter shopping trip. They would find a hotel, each mom and daughter sharing a room, then all the moms and daughters would gather in the lobby and head off together for a mom and daughter supper. This was followed by Mass on Sunday morning before heading home.

How could the moms afford this? With the $440 they saved.

The girls could not have been more thrilled. Every time I visit it's "Do you like this outfit? Mom helped me pick it out during our last shopping trip," or "Next year I will be old enough to go on a shopping trip with Mom."

And this, I believe, instills more strongly the message of modesty, purity and self-esteem in our daughters than any pre-packaged program. Why? Because it's the medium of the heart. Mom, you are telling your daughter that she is so important to you that you willingly sacrifice time from your busy schedule to spend it with her. That her purity, her modesty and her self-esteem are worth these evenings and weekends together.

Mom, the medium is your message.

What would cause orthodox Catholic parents and sexually-permissive feminists to express agreement on a public blog? The following post by a reader calling herself Priscilla...

I comment both as a Regnum Christi member and board member of a local Pure Fashion program. Accept my sincere apology on behalf of the Regnum Christi movement for the scandalous behaviour and infidelity of Fr. Macial, founder of the Legion of Christ. All the more does his behavior indicate the need for Pure Fashion, an excellent program for anyone who wants to purchase it for their group, to support young women in their self-discovery. [Emphasis mine]

The comment is in response to a sexually-permissive feminist fisking of a recent Marie Claire article promoting Pure Fashion, a RC-affiliated apostolate that revolves around fashion and modeling. Before I link to the original blog entry, please be aware [WARNING!] that it is not safe for children or for work. Click here.

Two thoughts:

1 - As one of Canada's most famous converts to Catholicism, media theorist Marshall McLuhan, once quipped: "The medium is the message." What message is being sent to our daughters about chastity and modesty when Fr. Maciel is the medium?

2 - Come to think about it, what's Pure Fashion's message? In scanning photo and video galleries posted to their website, I'm surprised none of the feminist bloggers (or Catholic parents for that matter) picked up on the absence of more heavyset models (For previous discussion on this topic, click here). After all, this is a concern with the fashion industry that feminists and orthodox Catholics have often shared. And given the underlying context of character development, one would think all young ladies could benefit, not just those of a certain body type.

New allegations from the Spanish-speaking world. Giselle has an unofficial translation here. In reading through, this part really stands out given all that has happened over the past eight months (emphasis mine):

[Maciel's] three Mexican children -the oldest is 29, the middle one, Jose, is 27 and the younger one who is not over 15- have not yet been able to assimilate the multiple lives of their father. 'He was very strict with them' says Bonilla 'He had many norms for them that should be followed strictly: no smoking, no drinking, no girlfriends until 20 or 21 years of age, and the most notable; no lying...'

Ironic, given that the LC/RC leadership's failure to come forward with the truth, and the appearance of covering up for Maciel's lies, are fueling the scandal right now.

Received this from a reader last week, which I am just getting around to now. Please note I haven't had time to verify the Envoy quote, but I trust the reader who sent it to me:

I also opened up an Envoy today (Fr Maciel's writings) [...] and found this in Envoy II Letter 98. It is scary theology! Fr. Maciel is talking about the Blessed Mother and says:

I have placed you in her heart, asking her to give you the gift of fidelity and perseverance so that, like her, you will also become co-redeemers of humanity along with Christ. [Emphasis Pete's]

What is hitting me is that RC making us think our role was even bigger and better than anyone and we had to take is serious and be faithful to RC till the end to play this important role for Christ. I would be a co-redeemer of humanity along with Christ

This would make an excellent topic for Mgr. Palud to address, if he weren't so swamped with missionary work in Jamaica and his role as prior of the Mission Society of Mandeville. For those new to this blog, Mgr. Palud is the canon lawyer and missionary who oversees the Journey of a Young Priest blog. He's blogged a number of thoughts on the Legion of Christ, having formerly been a religious and canon lawyer with Les Fils de Marie. For non-Canadian readers, the Fils de Marie was in many respects a Canadian home-grown version of the LC. Former LC and former Fils de Marie tell me the two orders were permitted to socialize freely prior to the the Fils de Marie meltdown, which was unusual for either order when it came to outsiders. The Fils de Marie worked hand-in-hand with the Armee de Marie (Army of Mary), much like LC work hand-in-hand with RC. One difference, however, is that the movement's founder was a woman, Marie-Paul, so she could never officially be a member of the movement's clerical branch.

The similarities between the rise and fall of each order are uncanny. Mgr. Palud will blush at reading this - perhaps even protest in my combox - but I was speaking to another canonist today, who has followed the history of both movements. This mutual acquaintance described Mgr. Palud's actions during the Fils de Marie meltdown as "similar to Fr. Berg's in many ways."

The attraction to the Fils de Marie was their reputation of orthodoxy, loyalty to the Holy Father, and fervent Marian devotion. Its priests were educated in Rome at some of the most reputable pontifical universities. However, their founder began to compare herself to Mary as co-redemptrix, and she also proffered some strange theological comparisons of herself to Christ's Real Presence. Additionally, her followers maintained during the Church's crackdown of the movement that she was suffering like Christ on the cross.

Mgr Palud had been one of the higher-profile priests in the movement. He challenged these theological irregularities. This led to the movement devoting an entire issue of its magazine to his condemnation, misquoting him, attributing all sorts of nasty and worldly motives to his departure, questioning his orthodoxy and commitment to the movement, etc. He was accused of acting out of pride and ignoring the voice of God! For those who read French, you can find out for yourself what a nasty person Mgr. Palud is by clicking here. (This despite the Army of Mary/Fils de Marie's incessant preaching about "love" - much like the the LC/RC speaks of charity).

So I would be interested in hearing what Mgr. Palud has to say before voicing my own opinion. He's been there, seen that, and made the nominal role of Canonists Who Became Traitors to Their Own Movement (a bit of an inside joke among canon lawyers, given that canon lawyers within movements often side with the Church when the movement begins to melt down and/or the Holy See intervenes). In return, perhaps we can raise a few bucks to help keep his school open.

The scandal concerning Fr. Maciel and the LC/RC is now exploding on Spanish-language blogs, much like it did on American Papist and other English-language blogs last February. In glancing through the comments posted to Spanish-language blogs, I notice several references to the English-language debate, as well as similarities between the arguments put forward by LC/RC apologists in Spanish and what concerned Catholics faced during the English debates.

So here is some advice to Spanish-speaking Catholics concerned with the situation:

1 - Pray to St. Joseph, daily.

2 - The debate is about Fr. Maciel and the LC/RC. Don't allow the debate to be side-tracked into one about Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson or the SSPX. The latter is a separate debate.

3 - Demand an apology to victims, including alleged victims of sexual abuse, whose reputations were unjustly tarnished. There is no compromise on this point.

4 - Do not be intimidated by theologians or priests. Admitting to and apologizing for one's wrong-doing, especially when it has harmed others, is so fundamental to Catholic teaching that most Catholic children's catechisms clearly express this teaching.

5 - You have the right to approach your diocesan authorities with any questions or concerns.

6 - Express the truth in charity. The other person may not be ready to concede or face the truth right now, but he or she may come around later after giving the issues more thought. In expressing the truth with charity, you leave the door open to future discussion should the other person come around later.

7 - That being said, true charity is charity for souls. It can never compromise the truth. Your loyalty to the Church and to the truth come before your loyalty to any movement.

8 - For married members of RC, your vocation before God is as spouse and parent. Put your family's spiritual well-being first.

9 - Whenever possible, ask pointed questions rather than accuse. A person who feels overwhelmed by the facts, especially when expressed in a relationship of opposition, may shut down mentally or revert to pre-conditioned defenses. This is natural when a person feels that he or she is being attacked personally. So don't overwhelm your opponent with the facts. Rather get the other person to think about the facts by asking questions about the facts, and by allowing the other person time to think before answering. (For example, "Would a good priest not feel a deep obligation as a Catholic and as clergy to apologize to someone who had had harmed through his actions, even if he thought at the time that his actions were justified?")

10 - For the guys, be men. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that part of manly virtue includes the moral courage to speak the truth, even when it is inconvenient, and the courage to stand up for injustice perpetuated against those weaker than oneself. You have heard Maciel's story, and you have heard the stories of his alleged victims who were minor seminarians at the time. Who do you believe is closer to the truth in telling their story? Who was the weaker party when abuse allegedly took place? As a father, what example of Catholic manhood and manly virtue do you set for your sons and daughters if you ignore or coverup what you believe to be the truth?

When the scandal first broke concerning Fr. Maciel, I believed the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi would survive because I felt an apology to victims would be forthcoming, followed by deep reforms. Eight months, ExLC sums up the situation in the following blog entry. In particular, he notes:

Now on to the statements: from two territories in the United States, one in Germany, and now Spain.

And one glaring omission: no one has owned up to a single mistake.

Until the Legion fesses up to their part in this scandal, orthodox Catholics will find it imprudent to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not unlike the sacrament of confession that requires the penitent to confess his sins and show a firm purpose of amendment before the priest can offer valid absolution.

From the mailbag:

Pete - I was told by my spiritual director that my commitment to RC is just like wedding vows. Is this true? Is there a way I can break them?

No, your commitment to RC is not like wedding vows. If the two were similar, then you would take actual vows when joining RC or the 3gf, and these vows would be binding for life. This means RC could not determine suddenly that a member no longer has a vocation to the movement. (The life-long commitment goes both ways).

If your RC spiritual director is telling you that your commitment is similar to marriage, then you need to report him/her to your local Ordinary (diocesan Bishop, vicar general, episcopal vicar). Not only is this poor theology, but it is something that the Church may wish to look into for potential coercion. (Not that one's commitment to RC changes one's state in life.)

As far as any promises or commitment you made in RC, simply discuss them with your parish priest or whoever hears confessions at your local parish. He can remove them. Additionally, you can also write to your local ordinary, asking that they be removed. Your letter doesn't have to be any longer than a page, and should include the following: a sentence or two stating when you joined, a paragraph or two explaining why you want to leave, a sentence asking him to dispense you from any promises or commitment you made to the movement.

Giselle, RC is not my life and ExLC are all discussing an alleged incident reported by one of Giselle's readers:

NEWSFLASH: The women in a certain [formerly thriving] section were just visited by their new priest. In addition to the other introductory information he passed along, he praised them for their fidelity, sadly noting that much of the RC leadership had defected out of sheer pride. They were there when everything was good, when the accolades were rolling in, when the limelight was on them. Once the road got a little rocky, they threw in the towel -- since they don't know how to deal with crosses.

Now I haven't had time to check sources, and I find the reported incident a little strange given Fr. Scott Reilly, LC's following recent assurance to U.S. RC:

Understandably, in the midst of the present circumstances there have been a few of our members who have felt that they can serve God better by separating themselves from the Legion and Regnum Christi; others have opted temporarily to step aside to see and evaluate, waiting also to see the outcome of the Visitation. The vast majority has opted to continue doing as much good as they can from where they are, knowing that our time here on earth is limited, and trusting that with the guidance of the Church whatever needs to be corrected in time, and whatever is good will be confirmed. Each one has made his or her choice before God, moved by their love for him and their desire to serve him to the best of their ability, and for no other consideration. Let us have great Christian understanding and respect for all. Each of us must presume the best and purest intention in the other, pray for each other, and recognize that each one of us suffers and recovers in different ways and at different times.

But for the sake of making a point, let's assume there are witnesses to corroborate the alleged incident. Pride can be a good thing. It depends upon the context and how the word is being used.

Growing up in the French Catholic school system, one of the first lessons a young student learns is that romantic-based languages often have two words for one English counterpart. This is because the English word contains both meanings. To understand which meaning is being used, one has to look at the context.

Law is an example I deal with every day. In French the word law can translate into loi (or lex in Latin). Each of the Ten commandments is an example of loi. Or the word law can translate as droit (ius in Latin), meaning a system of jurisprudence or law in the broader sense. The American legal system is an example of droit.

The same is true of pride. Depending upon the context, pride translates into French as either orgueil or fierté. Orgueil is the type of pride that denotes arrogance. For example, refusing to apologize for having slandered victims of sexual abuse is an example of pride that translates into French as orgueil. This type of pride is one of the seven deadly sins warned against in the Bible.

In contrast, fierté is a type of pride through which one identifies with the goodness of something. I suspect it may be related to the French word foi, which means "faith". A couple examples of fierté come to mind. "Displaying the same pride in his Catholic faith that had been instilled in him during his Marine Corps training, the pro-life priest went on national television and defended Catholic teaching on contraception." Or "A proud Catholic mother, Mary resigned from her apostolate to devote more time to her children's needs."

There is nothing wrong with this type of pride. In fact God loves this type of pride, as we read in Psalm 47:4 ("[The Lord] chose our heritage for us, the pride of Jacob whom he loves.") Like any good father, Jacob took pride in his descendants, the Jewish people, whom God chose as His own. Far be it for me to accuse Our Lord and this venerated Old Testament Patriarch of a deadly sin. I'm not that proud. I am, however, proud of our Old Testament heritage as Catholics. Hence the difference between orgueil or fierté.

So faced with this type of situation, I would guess that a certain amount of fierté would motivate a person to leave. After all, not apologizing to one's victims for having unjustly tarnished their reputation is an example of orgueil that few Catholics wish to identify with.

Many commentators on the Legion meltdown have noted that the American reaction was the most explosive. Actually, the American reaction was more of a 'Critics of the Legion from across the world, recognizing the American organizational genius and the potential to reach a wider audience, converged on the American Papist blog where much hearty discussion ensued with Legion apologists' reaction. But let's just call it the American reaction for simplicity's sake.

What made the American reaction so nuclear, besides the worldwide audience, were several factors:

- The seriousness of the revelations concerning Fr. Maciel

- The fact Legion apologists were forced to defend their movement in a setting where they did not outnumber their critics 10-to-1.

- The fact both sides converged on the same battlefield, namely American Papist.

The first point is obvious. As far as the second point, gang-style argument doesn't work when the other side has equal numbers, which suddenly forces you to think about what you're saying. (I got the impression during the debate that this was the first time many LC/RC members had given serious thought to their practices and methodology. For example, how many of you reading this blog, when the scandal first broke, thought this was only about Maciel and did not extend to the LC/RC movement as a whole?) Stock answers and conversation stoppers don't go over as well when several sets of eyes are looking at them. As for the third point, blogging as a medium lends itself to the free exchange of ideas.

What I find interesting since the release of the Spanish letter to RC faithful is that all three conditions appear now in the Spanish-speaking world. Hispanics are not stupid. They've noticed the discrepancy between the U.S. letter to RC and the Spanish letter, in which the latter avoids direct mention of minor seminarians who first brought forward allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of Maciel.

Following the Spanish-language blogs today, the intensity and number of responses have gone AmP. And they include commentary from both sides. The main battlefield appears to be Jose Martinez's El Trastevere, which has covered this story for some time. But check out the number and outrage expressed in the responses to this entry reproducing the Spanish letter.

Also take a good look at this spin-off entry, where Martinez challenges Spain's RC director over the discrepancy concerning alleged abuse victims between American and Spanish versions of the letter. Reader comments are not as numerous as those of the parent entry (although that could change overnight). However, this second entry confirms that the issue has touched a nerve in the Spanish-speaking world, and that the reaction is not uniquely American.

On a side-note I found interesting, Spanish-speaking Legion apologists are presenting many of the same arguments that their American counterparts have long since jettisoned. In large part because these arguments were refuted convincingly during the AmP debates. So I encourage Spanish-speaking readers to make their way over there and share the knowledge they gained during the English-language debate. The American reaction has the potential to go Espanol.

I'm on a short break right now, and I want to be very clear about the following post: I am NOT speaking as a canon lawyer. I'm simply speculating a future possibility based upon the following:

1 - Current observable trends in LC/RC;

2 - Past emails I have received from well-placed sources in the movement describing the parties to this reported controversy;

3 - Observations of other movements within the Church that collapsed or went through a period of internal blood-letting;

4 - A new report in Proceso (click here for a copy mirrored on a blog) alleging that Fr. Alvaro and Fr. Garza are clashing in Rome, and that these disputes are growing louder. According to the report, Fr. Alvaro wants to usher in a series of reforms to the Legion, while Fr. Garza wishes to retain strict control of Integer, which reportedly controls much of the LC/RC's assets.

To be clear, I don't know how credible Proceso is as Mexican news outlet. Certainly the blog that cribbed it appears to have some political tendencies. And the report is quoting anonymous sources within the Legion, so I would be cautious going on information in the article alone, unless of Mexican readers can vouch for its credibility as a news source.

However, the allegations are consistent with the Legion's media focus and spin since the crisis first hit last February. Fr. Alvaro has been all over the place, saying he is reaching out to victims, sharing his regrets, etc. Many Legion superiors have sung his praises, like the territorial directors for the U.S., Germany and Spain. People on the inside report being told that Fr. Alvaro had initiated the investigation in Maciel after he became suspicious about a strange woman hanging around Maciel's death-bed. So yes, the Legion has moved to defend and build up Fr. Alvaro during this crisis. I suppose this isn't surprising, given the Legion's penchant for "rock star" priests and the fact Fr. Alvaro is Director General.

Except...how many of us have heard from Fr. Garza? He is, as Vicar General, the number 2 man in the organization. Moreover, he held this position under Fr. Maciel, and several sources report that he was widely expected to take over from Maciel when the Legion electoral process passed Garza over for the much more affable Alvaro. That we have heard little from him during this scandal is surprising given his position.

Moreover, LC/RC insiders often describe Fr. Garza to me as a financial genius who lacks Fr. Alvaro's ease and skills with people. Which is interesting because the LC has tried to disassociate itself from Maciel's 'double life', though not the founder himself, but they really haven't commented much on allegations of a financial nature, other than to say they're audited annually and are working with Integer. However, the LC hasn't trotted him out to answer financial allegations as they have Fr. Alvaro to answer allegations of a sexual nature.

Speaking as a political analyst, and not as a canon lawyer, Fr. Garza has all the qualities of a good fall guy should LC leadership decide to throw him under the bus. It's tempting to predict, but whether it happens is another question. If the Legion leadership has shown itself adept at anything during this crisis, it's closing ranks.

Periodista Digital, which broke many of the recent allegations against Fr. Maciel, has now posted the Spanish version of the letter to RC faithful recently sent out in America and Germany. It is addressed to the RC in Spain. You can read the letter here.

In reading through the Spanish version, it's about 90 percent the same of what was published in America and Germany. So no need to rehash that.

What I found interesting is the 10 percent difference. First, the letter appears much more forceful in warning RC against blog commentary. The usual stuff about charity, conjecture, etc. But second - and this really caught my attention - is the absence of any mention of allegations Fr. Maciel sexually abused seminarians in his case. This surprises me because these were the allegations that led to his 2006 invitation to retire to a life of prayer and penance.

In fact, the letter is structured in such a way as to give me the impression the Holy See invited him to retire because he had fathered a daughter, and possibly more children. There's no mentions of earlier allegations - those made by former LC seminarians.

Now my Spanish is far from perfect. I initially thought I was missing something in translation. So I ran it through babelfish. Still no mention. I was going to call a friend who happens to be a Spanish translator, but then the comments at the bottom of the article caught my eye. Several readers, who I assume are fluent in Spanish if they're capable of writing in the language, blast the letter for exactly this reason.

They point out three things:

1 - It's pretty close to the same letter as the one sent off in the U.S.

2 - The major difference is the lack of any reference to the allegations of sexual molestation of seminarians.

3 - The letter gives the impression that Maciel was invited to retire because of his sexual escapades involving women.

Which raises two questions:

1): Is molesting boys not seen as a big deal by the Legion's Spanish leadership? After all, they don't mention it in their Spanish apology, which in my opinion also raises questions about the sincerity of the American and German apologies.

2) Does this explain the discrepancy we've heard about Fr. Alvaro reaching out to Maciel's victims? After all, most of us in the English-speaking world think first of the young seminarians who first brought forth allegations against Maciel. However, they are not acknowledged in the Spanish version of this letter.

These questions are not merely conjecture on my part. The sexual abuse of minors is a serious sin. Both the American and Germans found it important enough to mention. But the Spanish version did not. Yet all three versions claim the support of LC Director General Fr. Alvaro. Given all the allegations circulating about the Legion playing games with orthodox Catholics, and all the focus that's been put on the original victims, how can you expect us not to notice such a discrepancy?

In light of this major discrepancy, combined with the impression that the Spanish letter gives, I must retract my earlier statement that the American letter presents a step forward for the LC/RC. Most of the original victims spoke Spanish. To omit any mention of them in the language in which they were victimized is simply unconscionable, in my opinion.

Nor will I accept the excuse that the difference is cultural or linguistic. Such an argument appeals to the racism of low expectations, implying that Spanish-speaking folk are incapable of accepting the truth. This is not true, as demonstrated by the outrage expressed against the letter in Periodista Digital's comments section.

Time to raise the white flag on the women and LC methodology threads. After reading RC is not my life's latest blog entry, titled Breaking Up Is So Hard To Do, I realize I'm in over my head as a guy. RC is not my life uses the imagery of being seduced and subsequently jilted by a lover to describe her experience joining and being asked to leave RC.

Here are some excerpts:

I stopped thinking seriously about my next step in life, and I jumped into RC life. I actually skipped my LSAT to go to a RC retreat. And my spiritual director told me that she thought I made the right choice. God comes first, she said, and I agreed. God first. [...]

I don't know how to explain it, but RC was always on my mind. When I was separated from it, I only thought of when would be my next contact. I'd do anything to go to a meeting or a retreat. I'd think of excuses to call the consecrated. I was nervous for days in anticipation of meeting with a LC priest. When a Youth and Family Encounter came up, there was no doubt that I'd be there. I'd find a way.

And...

Years later, I was asked to leave RC. I took the rejection with grace at the time, but I still feel the sting so many years later. Why wasn't I good enough? What did I do wrong?

And even though distance from the movement has given me the certainty that I'm better off, it still hurts to know that the movement I gave up everything for, didn't feel the same. I feel stupid, I feel cheated, I feel betrayed. And way back in the back of my mind, I know that if RC came knocking on my door today asking to have me back, I'd think about it.

I can understand where RC is not my life is coming from. I sit on several tribunals where people share how they found themselves seduced into bad marriages. But as Giselle warned me before tackling this issue, most guys will miss many of the nuances being discussed. So I think I will sneak down into basement with ExLC and watch football.

Hopefully my Packers will have put the Brett Favre drama behind them this season, and rebuilt their defense over the summer.

Expressing outrage at my Let us prey... entry, Fed up RC states: "1. It is a sin to make false accusation without [sic.] subtantial basis to prove the facts."

Since Fed up RC appears to be presenting this principle as universally applicable to Catholics, I will respond with a quote attributed to Fr. Owen Kearns, in which the high-profile LC priest reportedly describes Juan Vaca (Maciel's first accuser) as "a proud, status-conscious man angered and disappointed at his professional failures."

That's quite the accusation against a former colleague. To my knowledge Fr. Kearns has not retracted it publicly. And as of this writing I am told Mr. Vaca has not received an apology from the Legion. So where's the proof?

Giselle says I shamed her into posting about how the Legion churns out Fr. Eye Candy for women. I don't claim to understand it, but I also don't know of any other Catholic order so particular about its grooming practices as to reportedly include them in its institutional norms. Moreover, as a guy I know there are certain priests - HLI's Fr. Thomas Euteneuer being a good example - that just strike us as a men's men.

That being said, I've often wondered over the years, privately, why most Regnum Christi members I know are women, while most of my Opus Dei friends are men. Of couples I know in "mixed marriages," the husband belongs to Opus Dei and the wife belongs to Regnum Christi. I've never met a Regnum Christi husband married to an Opus Dei wife.

But back to Giselle's comments. She says something that immediately sets off my spiritual spidey-sense:

Spiritual headship is not a trump card with these women because the Legion priests have undermined it all these years, teaching the women to wheedle their husbands for more time and money for the Legion. (There is a reason the women's sections always outnumber the men's sections.) For those who don't go to the brink of divorce (or split outright), there is a squaring off within marriages whereby the wife makes her RC commitments sacrosanct and the husband acquiesces for the sake of his sanity.

I've been present while the Legion pitches this. One Morning of Reflection, we were all led along the path: "You are princesses (because you are daughters of a King!)" Well, technically yes (though I like "You're a worm and no man" better). But many of the women were in tears. What the priest touched on cleverly was their brokeness, their insecurities, and their random experiences of abuse. He built them up, using his own brand of "self esteem potion" so that they were putty in his hands. They literally fought to cook for him and to be the most active and industrious volunteers in the coming years.

Some of the nastiest annulment cases I have ever participated in are those in which a priest came between husband and wife. I'm not talking an abusive situation where the priest advised the wife to get out for the personal safety of her and her children. Rather I'm talking about cases where the wife spent more time with the priest than with her husband. Most of the cases involved Catholics who would be considered orthodox.

The relationship between wife and priest was rarely one of sexual attraction. Rather, husband is busy at work, while Father is busy in the parish. Wife becomes active in the parish because Father is "such a holy priest" and she begins to put his needs before those of her husband and family back home. Relieved at the help he's receiving, Father affirms wife for everything she contributes to the parish and gives her more responsibilities. He intentionally avoids questioning wife about her marriage and home life because he doesn't want to know. He needs help in the parish! So long as the relationship isn't sexual, he can justify it as necessary for the greater good of souls. And Father will tell the tribunal that wife is a good woman who hubby grew to resent when she began to take her Catholic faith seriously.

Not really. The vocation of wife and mother is not the vocation of woman religious. Both vocations are good, but there's a reason God has separated them. No apostolate should come before one's family.

I am also troubled by Giselle's story of grown women being described as "princesses". Sure I refer to my own daughters as princesses, and with three of them Disney has cost me a small fortune in Princess swag. But that's part of the charm of being father to little girls. You raise them hoping one day they will find their Prince Charming.

However, I don't see "princess" as appropriate to an audience of wives and mothers. As St. Paul says in 1 Cor 13:11: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways." Thus I find it charming when our parish priest greets my daughters before Mass, saying "Hello princesses." But I would find such flattery creepy if Father addressed my wife in the same way. So would she.

What pops into my mind is St. Ignatius Loyola's Thirteen Rule of spiritual discernment - a rule drilled into the head of every Jesuit prior to ordination:

Likewise, [the devil] acts as a licentious lover in wanting to be secret and not revealed. For, as the licentious man who, speaking for an evil purpose, solicits a daughter of a good father or a wife of a good husband, wants his words and persuasions to be secret, and the contrary displeases him much, when the daughter reveals to her father or the wife to her husband his licentious words and depraved intention, because he easily gathers that he will not be able to succeed with the undertaking begun: in the same way, when the enemy of human nature brings his wiles and persuasions to the just soul, he wants and desires that they be received and kept in secret; but when one reveals them to his good Confessor or to another spiritual person that knows his deceits and evil ends, it is very grievous to him, because he gathers, from his manifest deceits being discovered, that he will not be able to succeed with his wickedness begun.

Beware of flattery. It's never from God and there is always some seduction behind it.

And on that note, I'll end this post by answering Giselle's priestly pin-ups with my own:

What you see, dear reader, is 100 percent Semper Fi!

I received an interesting email from a reader, who like many readers wonders what one should do when one's entire family is involved in RC. The reader kindly gave me permission to rewrite and blog it:

There are individuals and families who have been involved in RC for 10, 12, 15 years. Some families include mom, dad, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and children - all RC. How does one objectively discern one's path through this scandal when one's own family members are diehard RCs. How does one dissent from the group? What does Sunday dinner at Grandma's house look like when one decides to leave, or take a 'time out'?

I can appreciate your tough situation. The best solution, in my opinion, is to speak the truth in charity. I won't lie: your family may hate you for it, in which case you will hear back immediately. Or they may feel the same way you do, and are just waiting for someone to speak up because they're scared they're the only ones who feel this way. You would be surprised how many readers describe your situation when emailing me. Giselle and I have heard from several folks who, like you, are appalled by the Legion's response thus far.

Many of your friends and family will object strenuously at first, but most will come around later if your words "have the ring of truth" to them. After all, who wants to associate openly with a liar, a fraud and a serial pervert? Would you let your daughter date Marcial Maciel? (What about your son?)

What holds the system together, as far as I can tell from reader response, is fear. Fear of a system that crushes dissent. Fear of loss of status and reputation within the movement and the parish. Fear of whisper campaigns. Fear of spending the next 15 minutes as Hans Kung when accused of going against Pope John Paul II because he approved a set of constitutions under the mistaken belief that a founder practiced what he preached. Fear of admitting one was wrong about Maciel's victims who spoke the truth. Fear about being labeled judgmental (This is going to sound more harsh than what I intended, but it needs to be said: An unrepentant serial abuser and pedophile is not your moral superior. Neither are those who demand you not judge his actions, or those who continue to show him public gratitude while his victims wait for an apology and restitution of their good name. Nor are they your intellectual superiors, regardless of how many degrees they obtained from pontifical universities.) Fear of doing what is right.

Fear, however, is not a charism.

At least not one that comes from the Holy Spirit. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. He states clearly that the truth will set us free. If one fears speaking the truth in charity, then one is not listening to the Holy Spirit. And so the fear continues.

I recall interviewing Bishop Fred Henry for a pro-life publication last year. For American readers, His Excellency is a Canadian Bishop so outspoken for the truth that he makes Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz look timid in comparison. "I didn't set out to be controversial when I was consecrated a bishop," he told me on the record. "It just happened because I never feared to speak the truth. Why should we fear? The worst they can do to you is chop off your head. In which case, Christ says we win."

In looking back at how this scandal has played out since February, Fr. Berg is the only Legion priest to survive with his credibility intact. The blogs parse every statement of every LC priest, looking for evidence of ambiguity and double-talk. The one exception is Fr. Berg, whose statements are taken at face value.

Why? Because from the beginning Fr. Berg did not fear to speak the truth in public. He may not have succeeded in reforming the Legion, but his fearless speaking of the truth in charity invigorated Regnum Christi members to demand better of Legion leadership, to demand the Holy See intervene with an apostolic visitation, to demand that the truth be made public.

If the Legion movement somehow manages to reform, it will be because Fr. Berg put truth before fear. And if the Legion disintegrates because its members dis-integrate, it will be because they put fear before truth. Nevertheless, Fr. Berg will still have survived with his reputation and the Westchester Institute intact - again because he put truth before fear

And so the best course of action, whether it be with one's family, one's section or one's superiors, is to speak the truth openly and in charity. That and prayer to St. Joseph.

I think it was my Tyranny of Nice co-author Kathy Shaidle who once quipped, after being denounced as a Nazi for expressing conservative during an on-line debate, that "In the future everyone will spend 15 minutes as Adolph Hitler." I was never much into Andy Warhol; but could appreciate the reference.

It's not just the left that's given to such hyperbole governed by Godwin's Law (Whoever cries Nazi first, forfeits the debate). In sifting through push-back from Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi supporters this long weekend, I'm seeing a resurgence of the only enemies of Catholic orthodoxy/ the pope/ John Paul II attack the Legion meme. I'm convinced that every Legion critic will now endure 15 minutes as Hans Kung.

For example, over on the America magazine blog, reader John Stangle savages Austen Ivereigh for commenting on the letter sent out by American RC directors:

Has any "proof" been offered or seen that Fr. Maciel actually fathered one or more children? Or, as you state above, "sexually abused" anyone? A letter by a Mexican attorney to sue is nothing.

Confirmation that Fr. Maciel fathered a child is contained in the letter published by Fathers Scott Reilly and Julio Martí on the Regnum Christi website. As far as I know, neither of these Legion priests is a Mexican attorney.

I've been quite taken aback by the seeming vengence and even gleeful reporting over the accusations towards Fr. Maciel -and over his "purging" on this America blog at various times. What dastardly deeds did the Legionaries do? Surely that the Legionaries had support of John Paul II can't be in itself a reason - or can it?

I haven't conducted any scientific surveys or consulted any expert in media psychology, but I believe the controversy has more to do with the Legion sheltering a pedophile for decades while presenting him to the world as a living saint. That and not apologizing to victims once the founder's sexual proclivities became known.

Over on the No Apology, No Charism thread, Mouse reports coming across a similar appeal to JPII phenomena:

My RC friends are all claiming that there MUST be a charism in their some place, because the pope approved it... but to me this seems more like a case of a marriage where one of the spouses lied about who they were, their intentions, and their ability to be married in the Church....

I agree. That being said, I cannot comment on what your RC friends are saying, but I have a number of devoutly Catholic friends from Poland, who fled the communist persecution. All of them are furious with Maciel and the Legion for dragging their beloved pope into this mess. Having lived behind the Iron Curtain, they can understand how Pope John Paul II was sucked in Maciel. They are devout Catholics who suffered for their faith, and without exception they tell me that part of the persecution included communists destroying the reputations of good priest by spreading false rumors of pedophilia. Nevertheless, they also assure me Pope John Paul II never would have tolerated a known fraud or pedophile. I believe them. They're orthodox Catholics and they resent how the Legion continues to cite Pope John Paul II in its defense, sacrificing his reputation to defend the acts of a pedophile.

And on the 'I wasted the best years of my life on a fraud' thread, reader Enda Mc chimes in with her testimony insinuating that critics of the LC/RC are enemies of Catholic orthodoxy. Here's some excerpts:

I am a Catholic who was well trained in debate and the techniques of argument and who has benefited from the great example of devout and loving parents...

Then please address the arguments put forward by your movement's critics, rather than spread suspicion about the motives of those making the critique.

I looked deeper into the question deciding to judge by the fruits. One one side there were some who felt slighted and personally hurt along with a few bodies who had their own agenda. Some examples of this were a campaign to allow priest to marry and for the promotion of contraception among catholics (incidently lead by an Irishman).

The Legion's critics now include Archbishop O'Brien and Cardinal George Pell. I don't believe either senior churchman has called for the ordination of married men or promoted contraception.

On the other side I met a group of people who were as close to Christ as I have ever seen or met. There were a few who displayed what seemed to be an unhealthy worship of the founder. I decided (due to this analysis, to prayer and to what I recognized as God's hand in my life), to become a member.

If a movement is incapable of apologizing sincerely to victims of the founder's violations of the Sixth Commandment, or for having attacked the good name of these victims when they came forward with the truth about the founder, then I believe it is more than simply a few who demonstrate an unhealthy worship of the founder.

Do not forget the first Pope lied about Christ, denied Christ and abandoned Christ. Do all those who wish to crush the whole of Regnum Christi want to do the same to the one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church next because of the failings of men?

So we're back to our 15 minutes as Hans Kung. How soon we forget that the Legion is not the Church, does not possess Christ's promise of indefectability given to St. Peter and the Church, and that we have a clear record from Holy Scripture of St Peter repenting - at the moment he received His commission from Christ.

And while we're at it, I might as well address the Medieval-popes-were-more-corrupt-than-Maciel canard. Yes, it's true that popes in the Middle Ages were held to a different moral standard by their peers, and they didn't have to contend with angry bloggers or Jason Berry. However, if we're gonna wax Medieval, peasants also had several means to deal with corrupt churchmen that would not go over in contemporary society. They usually involved bonfires and pitchforks. In short, there would be no debate over the Legion's charism had Maciel been a child of the Middle Ages. Every one of his priests (with the exception of Fr. Berg) would either be suffering the passion of Jan Hus right now or hiding in a Benedictine monastery. This is how peasants in the Middle Ages dealt with sorcerers, which they considered clergy who misused their office to seduce young men and women.

But back to 2009. So long as the movement pretends that its critics are Hans Kung for 15 minutes rather than admit the founder was a fraud, I don't see the Legion surviving.

I've pulled this comment from the combox. An anonymous reader raises an issue with which I have been struggling since the Legion's apology to victims failed to materialize last winter:

Pete: I do think you should see the issue of charism and apology as linked deeply to one another. I imagine in the mind of the LCs that every effort to come to full terms with the malicious nature of the founder's acts is putting another nail in their coffin as an order, only it's right now an emotional connection that is bringing this forth in such a malformed manner. The full acceptance and implications is still what is in the making. If they can dump in totem MM, break all ties historically, spiritually and theologically, I bet the apologies will come gushing forth. Right now the two are linked. Every step away from the founder will be a step closer to the apologies many seek, I would wager, but it is also a step closer to their own dissolution. Is that not what you see happening..? It must be a very hard process, very hard.

I agree that there is some connection between a sincere apology to Maciel's victims and the potential existence of a LC/RC charism. It's a question I have been thinking about since January when the scandal broke. I simply haven't figured out the connection.

At the very minimum, a sincere apology would reassure us of the LC/RC's good faith as Catholics. It's kinda hard to believe a movement is inspired by the Holy Spirit when it lacks Catholic sensibility. Especially when we're speaking about the movement's response to a serious crisis created by the founder.

Reassurance from members takes on additional significance because the founder's life is so unconvincing. Given Maciel's lifetime of fraud, calumny and sexual predation, we must look toward the co-founders (pardon the Legion talk, but it's apprepos in this context) for evidence of a charism pleasing to God.

In short, Maciel failed to convince us that his is a path that leads to holiness. So the burden falls upon those who co-founded the movement with him. Their example tells us whether a valid charism was transmitted. If their example does not conform to Catholic faith and morals - which demand immediate apology and restitution to Maciel's victims - one can only question whether this path leads to Christ. And a charism, if it is valid, must lead to Christ.

This is not to say that the apology generates the charism. After all, as Legion superiors pointed out when the Holy See invited Maciel to retire, all of us are called to prayer and penance. But the apology is a sign that the movement is serious about holiness and its Catholic obligations before God.

No apology, no charism.

When news of Maciel's daughter first went public back in February, many LC/RC defenders likened the situation to a family discovering their father had kept a second family on the side. I can both understand and appreciate this analogy. In fact, it was the first thing that came to mind as I read the following email from a reader (rewritten slightly to disguise the correspondent's writing style):

I asked my RC director if the General Director had contacted the original eight victims. She said she didn't know, but asked me why I assumed Fr. Alvaro was speaking about the original eight accusers. She said there are victims still in the LC who are coming forward, and that Fr. Alvaro, because he is General Director, will take care of victims within the LC family first and those on the outside later. This is just like a father would take care of those kids in his family first if there was an issue, my director said. This did not sit well with me. What are your thoughts on this?

Let's suppose you're the mother in the analogy used by the Legion back in February. Let's suppose you just discovered that your deceased husband had abused your children and made your family do without while supporting a mistress in the next town, that he had lied to you when some of your children approached you to complain about the abuse, and that he had deceived you into disowning them and turning them away from your doorsteps.

Would you only look after the children who remained in your household? Or would you, as a mother, seek out your estranged children - those who ran away or who you threw out of the house - because they had tried to make you aware of the abuse and you didn't want to believe them? And would you threaten any child in your household who sought out his or her estranged brothers and sisters, in order to apologize and repair the fraternal relationship?

One's children remain one's children, even when they find themselves estranged from their family.

As I mentioned earlier this week, I'm a fan of Mgr. Michael Palud's Journey of a young priest blog. Which makes sense given that we're both Canadian, canon lawyers and we both left movements that went awry from the Church. Because of his experience leaving a movement that melted down when its leader jumped the shark, and helping to found a new institute under a solid bishop, he brings some excellent spiritual advice to those affected by the Maciel scandal. Nevertheless, I had to chuckle at an observation he blogged this morning concerning the American reaction to this scandal:

What seems unrelated to this is the whole L.C. saga that continues. It is really an arena where life and death meet each other in a strange way. With it the incredible gamut of emotions that grip people in all these discussions. I am fascinated especially the way Americans react. Somehow, they don't react like the rest of the World. Perhaps it is because Canadians tend to be more flegmatic, or again because Canadians are, in a way, more akin to Europeans. I just don't know.

What strikes me in all these discussions in the Blogoshpere is that our American friends find it difficult to think out of their U.S. custom-made box. Sometimes, I believe, the heritage of the American Consitution, the Influence of Locke and Hume in the American psyche is stronger that we could admit. At any rate...I am in the deepend here and should just shut up.

I too noticed that Americans seemed much more outspoken than the rest of the Catholic world on this scandal, and said so back in February. The reason I believed this to be the case is that Americans are generally tolerant and hospitable people, but cannot tolerate two types of people: 1) Liars, and 2) Those who intentionally harm their children. The crux of the Maciel scandal is founder who lied to inflict harm upon children, then lied to cover it up. So the American reaction, in keeping with their character, is nothing short of nuclear when compared to that in the rest of the world.

Yet Monsignor also describes the Canadian reaction as more flegmatic. On the surface, he's right. Which is why several European friends, on both sides of the issue, have asked me to explain the American reaction and why the reaction next door in Canada seems to have been nothing but silence.

Here's where I must interject with a little secret. Canadians aren't any less angry than Americans, we're just a little more sneaky about how we express ourselves. We're a small part of the LC/RC's worldwide apostolate. What we think and how we react isn't going to be given the same weight as what Americans think and how they react. Which means our audience is a lot smaller. As Canadians, we know this. (Which is why most of you are reading this at Catholic Light, the American blog to which I belong, and not at my Canadian blog).

So instead of putting forward a Canadian response, we harness American technology, drop a 'u' here and there from our spelling, avoid mentioning geography, and join the American throng. We know that in America we can reach a wider audience and help shape a reaction that must be taken more seriously. Don't get me wrong; we don't lie or intentionally conceal the fact we're Canadian, we simply do nothing to correct the assumption that we must be American if we're this vocal in the American debate and have not identified ourselves as Canadian.

However, I know who a lot of these people are. We've corresponded privately or met in person. About half the English-speaking bloggers providing regular commentary on this scandal are Canadians using American blog-hosting technology (like me!) And while Americans outnumber us in the comments section, Canadians form a sizeable minority of regular and outspoken commentators. So the reaction on English-speaking blogs is not simply one of outspoken Americans vs. meek and docile Canadians (with Brits, Aussies and New Zealanders weighing in here and there). Rather it's outspoken Americans joined by a contingent of sneaky Canadians.

One topic that keeps resurfacing in LC/RC discussion is the pressure families feel to recruit, join Regnum Christi (RC), and ship their children off to Legion of Christ (LC) schools. Vocations are fragile - that's the justification often expressed - and must be sheltered and protected from the world, where too many temptations abound. The implication being as follows: Not to ship off one's child to these spiritual bomb-shelters is to endanger one's child and his vocation.

This begs a few questions. For example, where are LC priests and RC lay consecrated suppose to minister once they emerge from their spiritual cocoons? As St. John Chrysostom teaches, monastic life and parish priesthood are both pleasing to the Lord, but they require different training.

The RC/LC are often compared to Opus Dei, which came into being around the same time. Both projects were founded by young Spanish-speaking priests during a tumultuous time in their national history, when the Church was under persecution. Both drew Catholics looking for a more fervent expression of the faith.

Having said that, here are some notable differences. St. Josemaria Escriva always saw Opus Dei as an apostolate of Christ embracing the world. Subsequently, Opus Dei members interact with the world quite a bit through social activities, education and the pursuit of professional practice and credentials. Rather than ship teenage boys off to apostolic schools, these young men are encouraged to pursue spiritual and academic excellence, to develop a trade or profession toward which they are suited, and to be active in the world.

There's no pressure to join Opus Dei as a numerary or supernumerary. The vast majority of people I have encountered at Opus Dei events are cooperators - that is, non-members who support Opus Dei's work but who do not feel called to membership. They participate in some spiritual and social activities, insofar as they feel called and find time to do so.

And Opus Dei is happy with that. They understand that a vocation to numerary or supernumerary is a calling from God that needs to be discerned carefully through prayer and contemplation. So Opus Dei's usual reaction when someone wishes to become a cooperator, numerary or supernumerary, is to tell the individual to slow down and take time for discernment before Our Lord.

Yet what about priestly vocations? Some priests discern a vocation to Opus Dei having already been ordained, but the majority are called from the ranks of numeraries - that is, the celibate male members. Most of these individuals are well-established in professional careers as doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, business professionals, university professors, etc. In other words, they're out there in the world, interacting with other people, living in the world, conversant of the world, but not of the world, yet attempting to embrace the world as Christ embraced the world from the cross. Far from being sheltered throughout most of their lives, Opus Dei seminarians enter their seminary formation with proven track-records as spiritual and professional leaders.

This may seem risky to those more familiar with the LC/RC model. To become a priest with Opus Dei, a young man must first finish his schooling, which often involves attending secular schools and universities, then he must practice his profession for some time - all while discerning a lay vocation with the Work. Then he must continue to practice his profession as a member of the movement, while simultaneously taking on leadership positions within the movement. Once he is established in his prayer life, his professional career and his Opus Dei apostolate - and only then! - does he begin to discern the call to holy orders. Which requires more prayer and discernment before Opus Dei ships him off for seminary formation.

So many steps before he even starts his seminary formation! So many potential roadblocks, distraction and temptations. How could a young man possibly make it to priesthood without losing his vocation?

Well... let's see what the numbers say. The LC/RC boast 800 priests, 2,500 seminarians and 75,000 lay members of Regnum Christi. In comparison, Opus Dei's numbers are as follows: 1,900 priests and 85,000 lay members.

If priestly vocations are so fragile that they must be sheltered from the world - sheltered even from good Catholic parents and the family structure, as reportedly happens with the Legion's apostolic schools - how does one account for the fact that Opus Dei has over twice the number of priests as the Legion? Both movements were founded around the same time under similar external circumstances, both appeal to a similar audience, but Opus Dei sends its young men out into the world to live as laymen before calling them back to priesthood, whereas the Legion - like the fearful servant in the Gospel - buries its talents in a field, away from human eyes.

And I'm not even commenting upon the quality or durability of vocation. Opus Dei has one of the lowest defection rates in the Church. Once ordained a priest with Opus Dei, you will probably remain a priest with Opus Dei until you die. On the other hand, nobody quite knows the defection rate for LC clergy - and of the dozen or so English-speaking bloggers who regularly comment on the LC/RC scandal, FOUR are former LC/RC clergy. And this doesn't include numerous readers commenting on the blogs - some now professed atheists - who introduce themselves as former Legion clergy or seminarians.

So remember St. John Chrysostom's advice to parents (and as a saint, doctor and father of the Church, his means have been tested throughout the centuries and found credible): you are raising children, not monks. If God has a vocation for your children, whether it be priest or monk, He will call them when the time is right.

Over at Life After RC, reader MnM raises several concerns about Fr. Maciel and the Legion, how children were victimized by him, questioning why the Holy See didn't intervene in 2006 with an apostolic visitation when children were potentially at risk. After a little back-and-forth, MnM states that he/she is fearful about speaking out publicly because:

My four children attend an LC school. They range in age from PreK to 8th grade. All LC schools require that the children and their parents sign a contract which gives them power to expel the children on the basis of unfavourable behavior from either the children or the parents. The [powers that be] have an immense amount of power and will not hesitate to use it against dissenters.

I'm not here to pick on MnM. As a parent myself who has been involved with movements that ran astray from the Church, I completely understand what MnM is going through. Additionally, I have heard from other parents going through the same thing, parents who re-enrolled their children thinking Fr. Maciel had fathered only one daughter, but who after a summer of reflection and revelation are now questioning their decision to re-enroll their children in LC/RC schools.

I'm not going to tell you whether to do so or not. Only you as the parent know what is best for your children. That's up to you to discern with God and your spouse, and to make the decision that is best for your child(ren).

However, you should never fear expressing your concerns to your child's educators. Both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law are clear: parents are the primary educators of their children. This means exactly what it says: the responsibility for your child's Christian education falls primarily on your shoulders as parents. Therefore, as a Catholic parent, you have both the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION before God to ask questions and demand answers from those who YOU entrust with your child's education. If you think your children's Catholic education may be compromised, then you have the same RIGHT and an OBLIGATION before God to act in your child's best interest.

You assumed this obligation when you chose the vocation of marriage and parent. To validly marry, canon 1055 states a potential spouse must be open to the "procreation and education of children." As an ecclesiastical judge, I have judged marriages invalid where a spouse was open to the procreation part, but could care less about the child's upbringing, saying to the other parent: "You wanted the children, you look after them."

Therefore, if you fear speaking up about matters that concern your child's education, and if that fear silences you, then you are not living up to your responsibilities of the vocation you chose before God. It's that simple. You're not living up to your marriage vows. It is your duty as parent to make the primary decisions about your child's education. And it's up to you to act, if you believe your role as parent and primary educator is not being respected or is being undermined.

An eagle-eyed reader spots the following story in today's Zenit, a Catholic news service owned by the Legionaries of Christ: Italian Priest Uncovers 100 Pedophile Networks

This letter from the German RC territorial director just appeared in the German edition of Zenit. It is similar to the one released in the U.S. My German is about as good as my Spanish, so I won't attempt a full German translation, but you can read it here). A babelfish translation shows the letter following the same general chronology of talking points as the U.S. letter.

Could any of our German-speaking readers confirm?

[UPDATE from Richard: I've drafted a translation and taken the liberty of adding it here:]

[UPDATE: On an interesting - but not as serious - side-note, Berry and Renner confirm that St. Rafael Guiza was among portly saints canonized by the Church. He reportedly struggled with obesity and diabetes, which I find interesting given last week's discussion on how one rarely encounters portly priests in the Legion (click here).]

Initial Entry

I picked up Jason Berry and Gerald Renner's Vows of Silence tonight (click here for the DVD with the same name, which includes a Spanish version), after RC Is Not My Life asked me to check the Jesuit connection to Fr. Maciel's expulsion from the second seminary he attended. It seems that Maciel wasn't just paranoid - the Jesuits were suspicious of Maciel and the Legion. Berry and Renner report that the Jesuits from the beginning suspected his sexual proclivities.

Yet what caught my eye in re-reading their chapter on Maciel's seminary days was his expulsion from his uncle's seminary, the first seminary Maciel attended. Particularly how it relates to the death of St. Rafael Guizar Valencia, who was Maciel's uncle, sponsoring bishop and rector of the first seminary Maciel attended. Maciel always claimed expulsion due to a "misunderstanding" after his saintly uncle's death. Berry and Renner explore the alleged misunderstanding, shedding the following light (carefully footnoted) on page 155:

Bishop Guizar died on June 6, 1938. The Legion history says that "misunderstandings" arose. "Marcial had to leave the seminary." [LC priest and biographer Fr. J. Alberto] Villasana reports that two months after the "holy death" of his uncle, "the vicar-general of the vacant see and the new provisional rector expel from the seminary 'the Bishop's spoiled nephew who is planning a foundation'"--a religious order. The italics are Villasana's; the quotation is clearly Maciel's interpretation of what the two churchmen of his uncle's diocese thought of him. The self-absorbed Maciel misses the implication of two church superiors, in a persecuted land, washing their hands of a seminarian from an influential family. "Spoiled" begs the larger question: what in his character made them recoil?

An even darker explanation may underlie the expulsion. The day before Bishop Guizar died, he had been heard shouting angrily at Maciel. He was giving his eighteen-year-old nephew a dressing down after two women had come to the bishop's house to complain about Maciel, who was their neighbor. Father Orozco, who was among the original group of boys to found the Legion of Christ in 1941, said he heard the women had complained about the "noise" Maciel was making with children he had brought into his home to teach religion. He said that the seminary officials blamed Maciel for his uncle's heart attack.

Berry and Renner are careful in their presentation of the alleged incident. They don't accuse Maciel of molesting children or indirectly causing his uncle's death. Rather they present the testimony of someone who was present, noting unusual circumstances, and leave us to draw our own conclusions. But given what we now know of Maciel's double-life, along with what we know about St. Rafael as a holy bishop who sought always what was right in the eyes of God despite the persecution he would suffer, I think we can conclude fairly that this incident concerned more than a mere "misunderstanding".

As Berry and Renner point out in subsequent passages, the Catholic Church in Mexico was undergoing a severe persecution. The Church was starving for priests. Maciel was from an influential Church family that included two bishops. Yet as Berry and Renner state, two church superiors nevertheless expelled Maciel from his uncle's seminary.

But let's look at this from the perspective of other parties who were present. What would compel two church ladies - who, in allowing their children to be catechized during a time of persecution, were likely risking their lives and the physical welfare of their children - to come forward and denounce the seminarian nephew of a bishop much beloved by the Catholic faithful?

One might argue they were anti-Catholic agents who were trying to bring embarrassment upon the Church, but this doesn't fit the circumstances. First, they approached St. Rafael with their allegations, rather than civil authorities who were looking for any stick with which to beat the Church. Second, St. Rafael acted on their complain, jacking up his nephew in anger. What would compel this holy man of God to tear down his own flesh and blood seeking to follow in his footsteps unless he found the women and/or their allegations credible?

So once again we find Maciel's life as murky as his sexual proclivities. Which begs the question, who were Maciel's first victims?

I cannot recall this many readers disagreeing with me. I didn't expect my analysis on the recent letter from the U.S. LC/RC to be popular with most of you. But to say that reader reaction was 99 percent critical (I don't consider constructive criticism to be negative) would be to exaggerate the support I received.

Besides the comment shared by a reader on CL, you can read Giselle's reaction and those of her readers here. RC Is Not My Life also critiques the letter and respectfully challenges my position, with 100 percent reader support (as of this writing), here. Moreover, these comments are typical of the reaction I'm hearing from friends still in the RC. Which may be why none of the movement's apologists have shown up in the comments section of American Papist to defend the letter (as of this writing). I won't even speculate about potential comments from ExLC and his gang, should he decide to the post the letter. Given that his audience tends to be lean toward former LC rather than former RC, reactions there to LC/RC correspondence are often the most cynical.

That being said, I still believe this letter is a positive step forward for the Legion, despite its weaknesses identified by others. Yet for those on the inside of LC/RC, there's the dark cloud to this silver lining. And it's coming not from Giselle or other critics who have left the movement - of course they're going to be a tad wary of anything coming from the Legion or Regnum Christi - but from those still on the inside. It's coming from those who gave Legion superiors the benefit of the doubt last February when the news first broke.

This dark cloud was foreseen by Fr. Damien Karras, a 30-year-veteran of the movement who defended Fr. Maciel up until news broke of his daughter. As Fr. Karras stated in a blog to Legion superiors last March:

The tragic comedy of the past few months, with superiors running around telling and not telling, promising transparency but only deepening the murkiness that engulfs the LC, has made their lack of credibility evident to even the most gullible among us. I rank highly on that scale.

And now, no one believes you.

It doesn't mean that there aren't LCs who have other motives for toeing the line or flying beneath the radar and making their peace with a system they've figured out how to survive in (and some quite nicely).

It doesn't mean that the LC will run out of yes-men who unctuously cater to authority and offer the same safe old cliches and pre-approved commentaries as they nervously munch their Maria cookies at merienda-cena...

It means that they do not believe you.
And if they don't believe you, they certainly don't trust you.

This should not be overlooked or underestimated as you meet in Rome these next few days. Your lack of credibility - not Fr. Maciel's past sins - will eventually buckle and break the Legion.

I have always endeavored to give hope to those still in the Legion, if only they would apologize to Maciel's victims and begin a process of self-criticism leading to a reform of the Legion's internal culture. But I'm no longer sure what - if anything - the Legion can do to restore institutional credibility in English-speaking countries. And believe me - just because most Canadians, Brits, Aussies and New Zealanders haven't been as vocal as the Yanks, doesn't mean we don't support them. Americans enjoy the support of most people I have spoken to from other English-speaking countries. And as for members from Spanish-speaking countries, it's Mexico and Spain that are driving this story right now, Spanish-speakers are uncovering new allegations, evidence to support these allegations, and breaking this news to the world.

But back to the apology. Yes, it's the right thing to do. Yes, God will see the members through as individuals if they trust Him. However, there's a difference between individual and institution. And there's a difference between this letter receiving a cold response from former members who helped Maciel's victims bring their allegations to light, and the letter being savaged as insufficient and "more of the same" by those still in the movement (who hope the Apostolic Visitators will reform the Legion and Regnum Christi).

The former speaks to the need for a thorough process of reconciliation and reform. The latter speaks to the internal loss of one's institutional credibility among those who carry out the movement's day-to-day apostolate. As any soldier can tell you (given LC/RC fondness for military imagery) no army can function when generals lose the confidence of senior non-commissioned members and junior officers - that is, those responsible for overseeing operations on the ground.

Usually the generals are the last to know. They find out only after the war has been lost.

Two breaking news stories today have interrupted my week catching up on other projects. The first concerns the release of a decision in a major case before Canada's "Human Rights" Tribunal that, to everyone's surprise, came down on the side of freedom or speech and religion. For the past decade anti-Christian activists have been using the tribunals to persecute Christian organizations like the Knights of Columbus, Fr. de Valk (Canada's equivalent to Fr. Frank Pavone) and Christian Horizons for promoting traditional Christian morality. For more information, check out my book with Kathy Shaidle (featuring an introduction by Mark Steyn): The Tyranny of Nice.

In writing this book, I noticed several similarities between the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the Legion of Christ in how they try always to promote "the appearance of nice", treat those who dissent and express legitimate criticism of their methods, and how they create hierarchies of power and contribute to a culture where the average person is reluctant to speak the truth.

The second story is the following letter reportedly sent to Regnum Christi members in Atlanta and New York by Fr Scott Reilly and Fr Julio Marti. Giselle has posted it here. Assuming this letter is legit (I haven't confirmed with Legion sources [UPDATE - a Regnum Christi source confirms receiving the letter]) my overall impression is that this is both encouraging and substantial. It may not be perfect - and here I agree with Giselle's criticisms, and have a few questions of my own (like "How can we be sure Fr. Alvaro and other high-ranking Legion superiors didn't know while Maciel was still alive?") - but these questions can be resolved later. For now, I believe this is a significant step in the right direction, and we as Catholics need to encourage the Legion and Regnum Christi to keep walking along this path.

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now for an in-depth analysis. But here is a summary of why I believe this reported letter is significant, substantial and important step in the right direction. These points are listed in no particular order of importance, and some of the quotations are out of order from which they appear in the letter:

- "We also hope to remedy some of our shortcomings in communication - for which we are sorry-, so that together we can continue walking what will surely be a long path of healing and reconciliation with those who have been hurt by the misdeeds of Father Maciel." This is both an admission and an apology for the Legion's questionable communication strategy thus far.

- "As priests, our hearts go out to all those who have been harmed or scandalized by [Fr. Maciel's] actions. To all we extend a special apology on behalf of the Legion and our General Director..." This is admission that Fr. Maciel's actions have both harmed and scandalized the Church, and a clear apology for the harm and scandal.

- "We also regret that our inability to detect, and thus accept and remedy, Father Maciel's failings has caused even more suffering." This is an admission and an apology on several levels - for not accepting the truth about Fr. Maciel sooner, for not fixing the problems sooner, and for additional suffering caused to Fr. Maciel's victims because of inaction on the Legion's part.

- "In the recent past, after Father Marcial Maciel had retired, we came to know that he had had a relationship with a woman and fathered a child. Even more recently, there have been allegations of other relationships and other children." and "All this leads us to value even more the wisdom and pastoral approach of the Holy See concerning the allegations of past sexual abuse against Father Maciel that had surfaced." The expressions "fathered a child" and "allegations of past sexual abuse" is clear language, unlike vague euphemisms like "the founder's double life." I also believe it's the right (and most charitable) language for the Legion to use in these circumstances. It spares us the sordid details, which the vast majority of us don't need to know, but is specific enough to inform us what Fr. Maciel allegedly did.

- "Given the partial nature of the information available and the impossibility to evaluate immediately and in a definitive manner these complex allegations, the Legion of Christ cannot, at this time, make a statement regarding them." The Legion is telling us what they don't know, rather than try to avoid their potential to be true or continue to attack the alleged victims.

- "As it was stated in the communiqué published on May 19, 2006, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith investigated these issues and invited him to a reserved life of prayer and penance, renouncing all public ministry." Given the context in which this statement appears, the Legion is de facto admitting that the 2006 invitation from the Holy See was not a reward for Fr. Maciel's exhaustion after a "lifetime of building God's Kingdom," nor are they maintaining Fr. Maciel's innocence like Christ suffering on the cross.

- "As an institution, as a family and as individuals, this unexpected turn of events has been traumatic. Being weak humans, even if reacting with Christian virtue, many of us have gone through experiences of shock, anger, disbelief, denial and fear, both humanly and spiritually. These emotions, the vast tangle of information, supposition, speculation and opinion, the different cultural sensitivities, and the Christian duty not to publicize the sins of others, have made it difficult to publish the sort of direct statement that many expected of us." The Legion is admitting to a wide-range of human emotions, that such emotions are normal, instead of resorting to Legion "happy talk" about "serenity" and other Stepford impulses.

- The Legion also states the problems are beyond its capacity to handle internally, and what steps it is taking - involving outsiders - to recognize, address and correct problems within its internal culture.

- There are several statements in which the Legion tries to identify - I believe sincerely - with those victimized by Fr. Maciel.

- The Legion appears to repudiate the "lost vocation, sure damnation" mentality of the past, saying it's okay to leave the Legion, take a break from the Legion, seek confessors and spiritual direction outside the Legion, and one is not any less Catholic or acting contrary to God's will in doing so.

- Instead of passing the blame to the Church, the Legion is taking responsibility for its actions, showing where the Church is acting to correct the Legion's problems, and attempting to restore trust in the Church.

Again, it might not be 180 degree turn, but given the Legion's past handling of this crisis, 160 degrees is both substantial and encouraging. It shows the Legion is taking the scandal seriously, is taking responsibility for the problems leading up to it, and that the internal culture that led to this scandal is starting to change.

My advice to the Legion? Words need to be followed up by action. Now that the Legion is turning in the right direction, they need to begin walking forward. My advice to current LC/RC members is as follows: The one point from this letter where you are open to fair criticism concerns the claim that the Legion has tried to contact Fr. Maciel's potential victims.

We know the Legion has contacted the RC membership, that it was in touch with Maciel's mistress Norma and her daughter who is also named Norma. We know that Fr. Anton spoke with at least one alleged victim who had been a seminarian with the Legion. But what about those former priests and seminarians who initially brought forward the allegations in public?

Up until now they deny having been contacted by the Legion. Their allegations were public, so to a certain degree they have forfeited their right to privacy in these matters. Was there an effort to contact them? If so, when, where and how?

If not, does the Legion intend to contact them? If the answer is yes, when, where and how?

This is a point I think current RC members need to press the Legion on. How the LC answers this question will impact how everyone else continue to view the order.

My advice to the Legion's critics? Of course this will require baby-steps at first, until the Legion is sure of its footing. So while it's important that we keep pushing them forward, we must be careful not to push them down. As my former spiritual director use to tell me: "God doesn't expect perfection from us overnight. But he expects improvement." So let us continue to encourage the Legion to improve, by encouraging the Legion where it is making significant improvement.

Monsignor Michael Palud - a knowledgeable priest whose many titles includes doctor of canon law, Vicar General of the Diocese of Mandeville, and Prior General of the Missionary Society of Mandeville - has gently corrected my earlier comments about how the society was founded out of the ashes of the Fils de Marie, which were based upon media reports I had read. (And before I forget, please check out the related Journey of a Young Priest blog - well worth reading for those following the LC situation). I apologize for the inaccuracies in my initial report, and appreciate Mgr. Palud taking time to correct the record (which I have bolded and italicized) and give CL readers a first-hand account of how his institute was founded - an experience that gives hope to those currently in LC/RC:

Dear Pete,

Interesting comment, although not totally accurate. Allow me to expand. Before the Fils de Marie saga broke out, indeed a few years before that, the officials of the Propagation of the Faith advised Bishop Boyle, former Superior General of the Passionists and First Bishop of Mandeville, that he might consider founding a missionary group of men dedicated especially for mission work in the Caribbean and to sustain the missionary works of the Diocese. I was his Vicar General at the time (and still am the Vicar General of the Diocese). I encouraged Bishop Boyle to go forward. He was touched by my enthusiasm, but said to me, "Mike, I am too old to begin something new, and then again, I would need a group of men to begin this."

When the Fils de Marie became manifestly heretical, the Superior General--after the Doctrinal Note of 2000 bearing Cardinal Ratzinger's signature was published--ordered all the Sons of Mary "back home" to Canada. Five Sons of Mary, including myself, left the institute and remained in the Diocese of Mandeville. We were just interested in continuing our lives as missionaries, under the guidance of our Bishop like all the other missionaries in the Diocese.

It was then that the BISHOP approached us and proposed to us the project which the authorities in Rome had nudged him to do a few years earlier. He first convoked me and asked me if I remembered what he had told me about this project. "Of course, I remember Your Excellency, I even pushed your Excellency to go forward with it."

He replied, "Yes, that is correct. I was thinking of giving that project to you and your men [who left the Sons of Mary]."

I said to him, "If that is your intention, Your Excellency, you will have to speak with the men yourself."

So, a few days later, he convoked us all to his office, thanked us for remaining faithful to the Church and the People of God then he sat us together and gave to all present what was to be our initial legislation [remember, Paul Boyle was an excellent canonist]. One of our members asked if we could reflect on this before embarking on this new venture he was proposing to us.Indeed, the separation from our Institute had been painful. Naturally he said yes and we took time to pray and discern. Then we said yes to this project.

Our charism of course is Passionist, Marian and Missionary. We have an excellent relationship with the Passionist General and of course with our new Bishop who is a Passionist. Indeed we are considered a "branch" of the Passionists (like there are many branches in the Franciscan family).

We are configured as a Diocesan Society of Apostolic Life. After our consent to his project, Bishop Boyle formally founded and established the Mission Society of Mandeville by episcopal Decree. He received the perpetual incorporation of the first members. He then appointed a Passionist as our first Master of Novices as vocations started coming to join us. The rest is history.

We run a high school, a home for abandoned children, two parishes, a mission station and we staff the Passionist Retreat House and do retreat work..A number of us occupy curial positions. As for me, I am still the Vicar General of the Diocese, another member is the Diocesan M.C. and Liturgy Director. Another member occupied the Office of Youth Ministry for a number of years. We are also involved in tertiary education within the Catholic College of Mandeville. Our life is totally "poured out" for the sake of he missions in this developing country.

Indeed, we would welcome anyone who is serious, hard-working, has a genuine love for the Eucharist, the Blessed Mother and the Magisterium (a good sensus Ecclesiae!), has a genuine sense of mission and being with the People of God, and ready to lay down his life in the Mission Lands forever by proclaiming the memory of the Passion to our People.

We have more work than we have men. We were asked to open in other areas of the Caribbean. So, anyone interested can petition, and we will help them in the process.

I just wanted to set the record straight that we did not intend to begin something new. We did not approach our Bishop. He approached us with this project, founded our Institute, guided us, presided the first General Chapter and obtained a first grant from the Propagation of the Faith to help us begin the Mission Society of Mandeville. He has left this world, but has left us a legacy intimately tied to mission life, passionist and marian spirituality.

Out of a terrible experience of death came new life. And I am grateful for it.

Monsignor Michael Palud, JCD
Vicar general of the Diocese
Prior General of the Mission Society

Again, thank-you Monsignor for correcting the record, fpr doing so with charity, and for giving hope to others now going through what you went through a decade ago. Now let's see if we can net you some vocations!