Eating Doritos after Regnum Christi

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

It’s sort of funny to consider that the four of us met through Regnum Christi. Our girls’ getaway used to be a weekend retreat or convention. Since the scandal with Father Maciel, we have continued to do Gospel Reflections on our own, though not as a part of RC. We still woke up each morning in Florida and said our morning prayers together. We still went to Mass and said our Rosaries. But it was sort of fun not to spend the weekend sitting in a hotel convention room listening to lay testimonies. It felt very rebellious.
I remember a cousin of mine, once explaining to me why she didn’t want to join Regnum Christi with me: “Sometimes I just want to sit on the couch and eat Doritos,” she said. In light of Father Maciel’s writings on Time and Eternity, I often feel guilty about doing anything that’s not an apostolic activity. So I have devolved into a Dorito-eater. Hopefully, there will still be room in Eternity for me. My entire adult life as a Catholic has been tied up with Regnum Christi, and one of these days I’m going to write a post about how life has changed since I’m not really involved.

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

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

You can read Adam’s full story here.

Has Medjugorje already received a negative verdict?

The other day I offered some fairly conventional thoughts about the possible outcomes of the new international study commission on the Medjugorje phenomenon.
In that piece I suggested that the study could lead to possible verdicts of “constat de non supernaturalitate“, or “non constat de supernaturalitate“, or merely a decision to wait and let things go on with no verdict. But I may have been wrong about the possibilities. One of those may no longer be an option.
I learned earlier today about a 2008 interview with Abp. Angelo Amato, then secretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, about the discernment of alleged apparitions. In addition to his past responsibility, Abp. Amato is reportedly now a member of the study commission on Medjugorje.
In the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire of July 9, 2008 (reproduced here and here), he answered some questions about a 1978 document from CDF on this subject.
I’ve translated most of the interview (below), but here is the part that draws my attention:

Q.: At the end of these proceedings, what positions can authority take?
A.: There can be approval, the constat de supernaturalitate, as was recently done by the bishop of Gap [France] for the apparitions of Laus. Or disapproval, the non constat de supernaturalitate, as for example quite a few pseudo-mystical manifestations.
Q.: But can the “non constat de supernaturalitate” be considered a wait-and-see decision, compared to the negative, which would be the “constat de non supernaturalitate”?
A.: In the Norms we are talking about there is only mention of constat de and non constat de. There is no sign of constat de non.

Well, I get to learn something new every day.
So, if CDF does follow the 1978 norms exactly, then the old distinction between non constat de supernaturalitate and constat de non supernaturalitate may have been dropped.
One has to wonder: what motivated this change from past practice? Was the omission intended to limit what options authorities should consider in future cases? Would Pope Benedict keep this change, or act to make it clear that the more clearly negative formulation remains an option?
If this reduction of options is real, it would imply that the Yugoslav bishops already gave the Medjugorje phenomenon the most negative verdict possible (non constat) in 1991. Perhaps a clarification from Rome about these norms would be helpful.
Perhaps this explains the statement of Cardinal Puljić in 2009: “The doctrinal issue of the Medjugorje phenomenon is resolved, but its pastoral significance must still be taken into account.”
The Avvenire interview follows. Thanks to Diane K. of the Te Deum Laudamus blog, who tipped me off about it.
[UPDATE (10/2011): Welcome, Jimmy Akin readers!
Since writing this, I’ve become more reserved about the speculations I made above. Some months ago I asked Mariologist Fr. Manfred Hauke whether the 1978 document means that constat de non would be excluded in the future, and he replied that it would be best to apply the “hermeneutic of continuity” to the document. The three constat options are long established in Catholic practice, so it’s best not to assume from SCDF’s omission that there was any intent to change the possible options. If SCDF had wanted to take on that issue, they could have done so directly. Moreover, I suppose, such a change would need to be addressed in a published document, not one issued sub secreto to the bishops. A published document would have a more thorough process of preparation and review. –RC]

Continue reading Has Medjugorje already received a negative verdict?

Pope Benedict minds sex abuse

Pope Benedict has just released his letter to Irish Catholics concerning sexual abuse against children. Although we knew His Holiness would take a tough stand – he’s become less tolerant than his predecessor in punishing priestly abusers – this letter is nevertheless a bombshell for canonists.
One of the most important principles when applying canon law to a situation is that one interpret the law according to the mind of the legislator. Pope Benedict is the Supreme Legislator within the Church. This letter reveals Pope Benedict’s mind on this horrific topic in a manner that leaves little room for ambiguity in its interpretation. Although addressed to Irish Catholics, the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi would do well to pay attention. After all, any attempt from the Holy See to impose reform on Maciel’s movement will follow the mind of Pope Benedict. So you – and I’m speaking directly now to LC/RC canonists – would be foolish to dismiss this letter as addressed only to Catholics in Ireland, and not to your movement.
I urge everyone to read the entire letter here. Here are some key paragraphs that stand out in light of LC/RC handling of the Maciel scandal:

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

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

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

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

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

There is no recovery without first acknowledging the wrong done, the serious of the wrong done, and the vulnerability and innocence of the victims. This must be followed by sincere sorrow for the wrong done, and a pro-active approach to preventing similar harm to children in the future.
The pope then shares good advice on praying for God’s grace and turning to saints for their Christian example. This is fairly strait-forward.
That being said, the following statements reveal that His Holiness sees bad methodology as a contributing cause to this crisis:

Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. […]
Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person. Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing.

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

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

Not only has Pope Benedict met with the victims personally and listened to their stories, but he has acknowledged their suffering and prayed for them. This is the response one would expect from good and holy priests. And since Christ calls the Pope as head shepherd to lead by example, this is the response the Pope himself expects.
Notice what is absent from the Pope’s letter: No blaming the victims for their (supposed) lack of charity; no passing the entire responsibility to the abuser alone, no silly cliches like “God writes straight with crooked lines,” no chastising the faithful for their outrage or for not also recognizing the good that abusers had accomplished. No use of euphemism to describe painful sind. No denying the effects of abuse upon the victims. No covering up for the sake of avoiding scandal in the Church.
What’s even more interesting, in re-reading His Holiness’s letter a second time, from the beginning, is that he calls the Irish hierarchy to account for their handling of the situation. Yes, the Pope is intervening to help fix the situation. However, it is only because the Irish hierarchy failed in their responsibility to do so. This should be a sobering reminder to current LC/RC supporters. Just as “I was only following orders” has been rejected as an argument for moral justification, so too does Pope Benedict appear to reject “I was only waiting for orders to follow.”
Which is why LC and RC should ask themselves what they (not Maciel) have done to correct the situation, and whether it lives up to the Pope’s expectations. This is the question he asked of the Irish bishops. And this is the question he will ask of you.
Or to quote the Holy Father in a part of the letter addressed specifically to bishops (after saying religious superiors should follow the advice he gives bishops):

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

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

Comparing King David to Maciel

I would have assumed that the author of this recent comment proclaiming Maciel’s innocence was either a troll or someone being sarcastic. However, in the last couple days I have come across a former-LC-brother-turned-RC-organizer with an Anglophone name who actually expressed similar thoughts.
Regardless of whether the individual is trolling, being sarcastic or expressing sincere thoughts, his/her following words hit me: “Finally, it is Catholic teaching that good comes out of evil. Jesus was from the lineage of David, and David had an adulterous relationship with Uriah’s wife and then had him killed.”
Okay, we’ve all heard LC/RC apologists use the King David analogy before. And we’ve all responded: “King David repented publicly. Maciel claimed innocence until death.” Fair enough.
But what about King David before he repented? Before Nathan confronted him with the story of the two shepherds? Let’s take a good look at 2 Samuel 12.
First, God deprived King David of his first child with Uriah’s wife. In short, God permitted the death of the fruit conceived from David’s and Bathsheba’s adultery. Moreover, God did so on the seventh day, which is the day a baby boy would normally have been circumcised under the Old Covenant – signifying his covenant with God. Since David was asleep when the child died during the night, I’m guessing the child died before receiving circumcision. But I will leave the Biblical experts to figure this out.
Second, God forgave David, but David’s adultery and murder continue to curse his descendants long after David had repented. As the prophet Nathan tells David in confronting him: “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised God, and have taken the wife of Uri’ah the Hittite to be your wife,” and “Thus says the LORD, `Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.
For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’”
Forgiveness is possible. God will forgive a repentant heart as He forgave King David. But forgiveness does not remove the temporal consequences of sin. Nor does God’s forgiveness insure the survival of the fruit of one’s sin.

So what’s the hidden meaning?

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