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.
Pete, I think that what you have said here makes sense. However, I don’t think you and your anonymous reader are saying quite the same thing.
My sense of their comment is this – if the LCs can wrap their heads around the truth of their founder’s fraudulent, abusive life, and reach a point where they see the need to apologize to MM’s victims for branding them liars, this is precisely where they run into trouble, that is “the nails in their coffin”. Because to apologize is to admit that the allegations were true, that MM sexually abused young teens as far back as the 40s or 50s. Doesn’t this seriously bring into question the validity of the charism? This a good question for a canon lawyer.
The legion is in between a rock and a hard place. If they apologize, they risk exposing their charism as invalid, because their founder was abusing minors at the very time he was founding the Legion. If they fail to apologize, then, it appears the movement is not “serious about holiness and its Catholic obligations before God”. As you say, this brings into question again whether they have a valid charism, given their shortcomings in the area of honesty and humility, not to mention mercy and compassion for abuse victims.
I agree with Jane and I think this might be why the LC is reticent even to acknowledge that there were victims at that early stage as well as why their supposed outreach is described in such vague terms so no one has any ideas who has actually been contacted (certainly none of the original victims per Giselle).
I would go so far as to say that even if the LC, showing nothing but sorrow, contriteness and goodwill for all, had immediately apologized and made reparations, and had come clean with the nature and timing of MM’s crimes, we would find that the evidence points to a lack of charism. The founding simply did NOT lead MM to a life of holiness. Unfortunately for the Legion, facts are stubborn things (which is why they don’t wish to release any more than absolutely necessary!).
Peter–just curious — are there any other cases in Church history analogous to this one? Where an approved order is later discovered to be charism-less and approved under false pretenses?
The templars, while suppressed, don’t seem to work as an example– they weren’t FOUNDED in iniquity…..
The Jesuits HAVE a valid charism, but were suppressed for a while anyway…
But are there any other orders/movements that were basically “annulled?’
Just curious…. 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….
Mouse,
What do you think these friends will do if the Pope SHOULD come out and state the charism to be invalid? (honestly, I don’t see that happening myself) Have you asked them? I’m curious as to what their response would be.
I do think that if the church does not come out and state the charism to be non-existent, it makes a mockery out of charisms and founders in general. What is so special about charisms if child-molesting perverts can use them to create an order that allows them to prey on the innocent for 65 years? What does that say about the importance of founders to the orders they create? That it doesn’t matter in the least if a founder is a pervert? That orders don’t really need founders, anyway? That goes against everything the Church has consistently taught about orders.
It will be quite interesting to see how the Church handles it. I will be shocked if they come out and say there never was a charism—mostly because of how often the Vatican hierarchy has praised the order to high heavens. But I don’t know how they will handle the notion of a charism flowing through a child molester, who continued to molest and abuse people for 65 years, and whose order was designed precisely to allow him to do so.
I have NO idea what my RC friends would do, Anon. Basically, they can’t even wrap their minds around the possibility…. you know… crooked lines….flawed instruments… we all sin…capuchins….so much good…..etc.etc.
Basically, the LC leadership has provided just enough in the way of slogans and cliches to make it possible for them NOT to really think about it….
Personally, I think the church’s best move might be just to suppress, say ‘no charism’ and ‘we were all wrong.’ It would take great humility, but I think Benedict is capable of such humility, especially when kids are on the line. (He REALLY loathes child-abusers… and people who brainwash kids, so this is right up his alley…)
But for the gung-ho RC members who believe the Legion can do no wrong and who’ve convinced themselves that Maciel’s crimes are no big deal? They have a long road ahead of them. I pray that they’ll conform their wills to Rome’s decision, even though it will hurt. And I pray they have good parish priests to help them through the trauma. And I pray they’ll be able to take a break a bit, and find God in the downtime.
I know some will stick with the Church, and are only in RC because the Church has ap[proved it. I know others who may have a harder time letting go….. But I figure for now, all we can do is pray, and be around for when they need a shoulder to cry on…..
Jane wrote: “Pete, I think that what you have said here makes sense. However, I don’t think you and your anonymous reader are saying quite the same thing.”
Probably not. Given the complexity of the question, I would be more surprised if everyone was saying the same thing – especially since some of the Church’s brightest theological minds are struggling to discern the answer. And not being one of these minds, even I contradict myself whenever I speculate on the question. So the most candid answer I can share is that I don’t know the answer.
Nevertheless – and I am speaking personally here, not as a canonist or catechist – I would have a hard time accepting that the Legion has a charism unless they first issued a sincere apology to Maciel’s victims. ALL OF THEM.
“Doesn’t this seriously bring into question the validity of the charism?”
Yes and no. And I fully admit my thinking on this topic has evolved since February, in response to criticism from other canonists like Ed Peters and Mike Dunnigan.
It definitely brings into question whether Maciel had the charism. But a charism might have been transmitted through his co-founders (and again, I apologize for the Legion-speak), independently of Maciel. In which case Maciel served as an accidental means through which the co-founders came together and founded the institute. But this is merely speculation on my part, albeit one that makes possible a re-founding of the order.
Which leads us to Mouse’s questions: “Peter–just curious — are there any other cases in Church history analogous to this one? Where an approved order is later discovered to be charism-less and approved under false pretenses?”
There are some that shared some similarities, but none exactly the same. The Legion’s problem is unique. Nevertheless, there are elements from crises faced by other institutes that offer us some insight.
For example, nobody is quite sure who founded the Carmelites, I believe. I’ve heard St. Albert, St. Bertold, St. Simon Stock and even the Old Testament prophet Elijah. On the other hand, the Servites were co-founded, rather than founded. Seven young men came together from Patrician families to found the movement.
More recently, the Fraternity of St. Peter was founded by a group of priests and seminarians who left the SSPX after Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without Rome’s permission. The FSSP obviously has a charism, and is growing in the Church, but it was co-founded by those who rejected the actions of the previous founder.
But even this isn’t an exact fit because, for all his faults, Archbishop Lefebvre was never accused of pedophilia, sexual vice, fraud, or dishonesty. But it’s an example of a movement rejecting the actions of a founder who ran awry of the Church, which then co-founded a new movement based in large part on the old movement, but nevertheless possessing a valid charism.
“My RC friends are all claiming that there MUST be a charism in their some place, because the pope approved it.”
I’m about to address this in a new post.
Pete,
I would like to see the idea of the “co-founder” explored a bit further. Perhaps by readers who are well-versed in Legion history? My impression of the term “co-founder” is that it is a sign of Maciel’s entrepreneurial genius, a way of making his followers feel invested in the group. And I think it has worked beautifully—who wants to admit they helped found an order designed to give free rein to the founder’s sexual deviancy, greed, power-mongering, drug addiction, etc. Each and every one of those co-founders has a vested interest in making sure the Legion comes out of this looking as good as possible. It’s one small part of Maciel’s built-in survival mechanism for the order he created.
My question: what does “co-founder” actually mean? Did ANYBODY at the top actually help make up the structure of the order, other than Maciel himself? Have any of the co-founders had any say-so whatsoever in the design, spirit, culture, etc, of the norms and regulations? Did Maciel look to anybody among the co-founders for advice or input? Did the co-founders have ANY power whatsoever to change anything about the structure of this order?
I have never been under the impression that the Legion was anything but the design of one man, who ran it with an iron rule. Granted, he was apparently out of sight womanizing and such quite a bit of the time, but the people who ran it during his long abscences still ran it by MACIEL’S rules.
Is there any proof that the term co-founder has any meaning beyond being a tool to keep Maciel’s followers feeling vested in the organization? A true co-founder of an organization should be more than a laborer carrying out the commands of the boss. As far as I have been able to tell, not a single LC/RC member has been a co-founder in any true sense of the word.
Anonymous, I have no doubt I’m using the word “co-founder” differently that Maciel intended it. For him, it was a matter of people joining him as the founder to perpetuate (in most cases unknowingly) his spiritual ponzi scheme.
Whereas I’m using it the sense that, having renounced Maciel and his actions, the movement is refounded by several of Maciel’s former followers, who co-found with each other, rather than with Maciel.
Having said that, the question is moot in my opinion unless the LC first renounces Maciel and apologizes to his victims. The average Catholic simply won’t accept that the movement has a charism if the movement lacks Catholic sensibility in this regard.
Pete Vere says:
“It definitely brings into question whether Maciel had the charism. But a charism might have been transmitted through his co-founders (and again, I apologize for the Legion-speak), independently of Maciel. In which case Maciel served as an accidental means through which the co-founders came together and founded the institute. But this is merely speculation on my part, albeit one that makes possible a re-founding of the order.”
Anonymous says:
“My question: what does “co-founder” actually mean? Did ANYBODY at the top actually help make up the structure of the order, other than Maciel himself? Have any of the co-founders had any say-so whatsoever in the design, spirit, culture, etc, of the norms and regulations? Did Maciel look to anybody among the co-founders for advice or input? Did the co-founders have ANY power whatsoever to change anything about the structure of this order?”
Good points/questions. Interestingly, my 3gf spiritual guide revealed one of the tactics that the LC was taking in their own “internal investigations”. According to her, the Legion is now looking to those who were with MM in the early days in order to understand better the role they played in the foundation. At the time I took this to mean that they were looking for evidence of a foundation through these original “co-founders”. The very recent letter from Reilly and Marti, however, makes it pretty clear that LC still intends to view MM as their founder.
I was told when I incorporated into RC that a co-founder is someone who joins RC (or ECYD if a youth) during the lifetime of the founder. We were told that it is a time of special graces that won’t be available after the founder passes away. Now that the founder is revealed to be a complete fraud, this definition that RC used brings up a whole bunch of interesting and complicated questions, assuming it’s even true. Of course, given what we know now it’s very likely that this line, true or not, was used primarily to suck in and retain good Catholics. So of course that brings up the question that if someone was fraudulently recruited (as many, if not the majority of RC’ers probably were), would the graces still apply?
Glad there are better-informed heads involved in this discussion, Pete!
Pete,
That makes sense. I would venture to say that any such group of men trying to salvage something from the Legion mess should probably use a term other than “co-founder” to describe themselves. They should probably avoid the use of “charity” in any part of their charism, too, considering how the Legion has managed to twist that virtue (as well as several others) into a vice.
One major problem I can see is that “re-founders” of such an order have so MANY words, concepts, etc, that they would have to avoid in order to separate themselves from Maciel. Maciel truly coopted so much that is beautiful in our Church and turned it into hideous deformations of the truth. It would be quite a challenge.
An even bigger challenge would be finding priests who were untouched enough by the malformation of their founder’s order that they would be truly capable of forming something truthful out of the ashes, at least this early in the game. I personally would have a hard time trusting the wisdom and spiritual maturity of any LC priest at this point. (Not that I don’t think there aren’t some very well-meaning LC priests, mind you). The virtues of charity, humility, docility, etc, etc, have been so twisted in the way they learned them that I wouldn’t be able to trust their advice and discernment ability until they had had time to deprogram somehow. I don’t even know how that could happen for them, apart from being placed among other orders/dioceses so that they could live around priests who are living authentic Catholicism.
Oops – Pete that last comment meant that YOU are one of the better heads (as opposed to the likes of moi). I just read your humble deference to “brighter minds” but, God’s truth, I’ve benefited tremendously from your thoughtful commentary and hope you continue the prolific postings. They are received with much eagerness and gratitude by many of us who are trying to get a handle on this whole mess.
If the apologies are still incomplete, then that’s a sign that the LC are attached to protecting Maciel’s image to some extent. But really that’s impossible.
If they become willing to completely lose him, that could mean that there is a enough of a good basis in the community to build on.
This is a case of wheat growing amid tares, and if we follow our Lord’s word, everything will have to be uprooted in the end in order to separate them.
When that is all done, we can look on everyone with mercy, even people who did great evils. Maciel, for all his compulsions, crimes, and shameful deeds, probably had some real devotion and became — not as a real charism, but just as a matter of divine providence — an accidental occasion of divine grace in some people’s lives.
I second what Still RC says regarding the concept of “co-founder” – someone alive while the founder is still alive. And yes, we heard the same story of graces, etc.
It is also my impression that co-founders had the unique responsibility of being the ones to get the RC going in their own areas. Co-founders were to be the people who came up with creative ideas to share the Movement with others; be the muscle to really get things going where we were. We were encouraged to continually come up with proposals to aid in getting the word out (about the Movement & the Apostolates)and grow our sections for the benefit of the Movement and the Church.
The idea that a “co-founder” is one who helped to form the “foundational processes” of the Movement however….that’s interesting to me. I wouldn’t say that was the case however, I also know people whose role it was to put order into the Section (ie- being the person who came up with an economy that had accountability in terms of forms, approvals, etc)….taking the skeleton and putting some meat on it….
“if someone was fraudulently recruited (as many, if not the majority of RC’ers probably were), would the graces still apply?”
I’m told that my experiences with RC recruiting aren’t anomalous and that others saw the same thing: When my daughters and I were being recruited for Challenge, there was a strong undertone of pride, that the girls would be with “cool Catholics, not just nerdy people”. I don’t remember the wording, but they also implied that they were only looking for the very best Catholics. Now, I struggle with pride as much as anyone else, but I did recognize that it shouldn’t be a basis for recruitment in a Catholic movement; it’s one of the deadly sins! So individual members might ask themselves if they joined RC through pride. Of course among the other parishioners, the existing RC members do have a reputation for arrogance. So I wonder if the charism isn’t just pride; sorry, but that’s mostly what I’ve seen here (as well as a lack of forthrightness and a willingness to spread false innuendo about priests and laity who’ve opposed them.)