UPDATE:
– Mouse from AmP (Deirdre Mundi) is blogging again this afternoon and she deconstructs two myths of Legion/RC supporters: 1) God writes strait with crooked lines; 2) God brings good out of evil.
– A saint yells at a pederast? (and nobody notices?)
*********************
Very busy today with other projects. However, there’s a lot going on for readers looking to make sense of the Legion of Christ/ Regnum Christi scandal:
– If found out late last night that the Jason Berry interview with Anderson Cooper had been postponed again due to the health-care debate. As soon as I find out what the new date is, I will let you know.
– Possible Changobeer sighting in the comments section of Eric Sammons’s blog. (Hat tip to Jane for mentioning this in yesterday’s post indexing of Changobeer’s blog).
– John Allen is back! He’s mounted a vigorous defense of Pope Benedict’s handling of the sex abuse crisis involving Europe and the Legion. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the National Catholic Reporter leading Pope Benedict’s defense against his secular critics.
– Aaron whacks a troll over at Erin’s blog, explaining his attempt to report to local police the abuse he [allegedly] suffered as a minor in the Legion.
– Let us join Giselle in praying to St. Joseph, Protector of the Universal Church, as the next stage of the apostolic visitation begins. (Click here).
– Nat has put together an interesting blog attempting to untangle the Holy See’s request to untangle the Legion from Maciel. (Click here).
– Bonum posts a letter from a grateful mother to her bishop, for helping her and her husband rescue their son from a Legion apostolic school. The mother lists several serious allegations against Maciel and the methology her son was subjected to. (Click here).
No comment
Developing over at Erin’s blog:
Monk wrote: “Recently, I quoted John Paul 11 as saying: ‘you resemble the company you keep.’ […] RC seems new to these environs – and has managed to raise more than a few hackles. However, the substance of his remarks is bang on. He is well worth listening to – especially now before he ends up resembling the company he keeps!”
Red Cardigan wrote: “RC, you keep missing the forest for the trees. I’m not sure, given what you wrote about the ‘Gaia-worship’ example, that you even understand what an analogy is. I’m also not sure if you aren’t just a really annoying troll–you’re beginning to seem like one.”
Troll, formerly known as RC said: “Trolls ask inconvenient questions and point out flaws in thinking, especially those of analogies that don’t work.”
Lauretta said: “Would you like to tell Aaron Loughery from Ireland that there is no proof of Legion sex abuse? He is the one the stated that he was sexually abused, the man who abused him was sexually abused by a Legion priest, that man was abused by a Legion priest, who was in turn abused by a Legion priest who was abused by Maciel.” [To read Aaron’s allegations, click here and here].
TROLL said:
Aaron Loughery is a coward.
If he had any integrity, he would press charges, and let whoever was accused mount a defense in a proper court of law that would determine his guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Instead, he mounts a whispering campaign, and you gossipers willingly participate. Where is that angel with the flaming coal to purify all your mouths?
“Medjugorje under the magnifying glass”
The Vatican’s new study commission is conducting its research behind the scenes, but an open theological debate continues, mostly in Europe, regarding the alleged apparitions and supernatural messages of Medjugorje. Here at Catholic Light, I’ve been covering some of the discussion from the German Catholic press.
In his latest contribution, Fr. Manfred Hauke, a professor in the Catholic theology faculty in
Lugano (Switzerland), has followed up on arguments by Medjugorje defenders Dcn. Thomas Müller and Dr. Christian Stelzer, who disputed some of Hauke’s historical points. He offers a response with information from two experts:
- Medical expert Dr. Thilo Buchmüller explained that the reported healing of three-year-old Daniel Setka in 1981 was not proof of a miracle.
- Anthropologist Mart Bax responded to complaints about name discrepancies in his writings about ethnic violence near Medjugorje.
A third Medjugorje supporter, Fr. Ivan Dugandzic, OFM, a member of one of the previous commissions, offered his own defense which appeals to the theories of Karl Rahner. Professor Hauke responds to Dugandzic’s argument as well. The article follows.
Veteran LC wrestles with the scandal
To readers just tuning in to the LC/RC scandal surrounding Maciel and the movement he founded, catching up on the blog conversation can seem rather daunting. One of the best sources for “tuning in” to the discussion is Changobeer – the blog of the pseudonymous Fr. Damian Karras (the priest in the movie Exorcist) written by a 30-year veteran of the Legion (commonly believed to be Fr. Frances Snell, LC). Although eight months have passed since Changobeer’s last entry, the blog still offers insight into several facets of the scandal and Legion thinking throughout out.
Fr. Changobeer was close to Maciel. He believed in Maciel’s innocence, and defended the founder up until news became public of Maciel’s daughter. The same with regards to a charism within the Legion. But Fr. Changobeer also believed strongly in obedience and submission to the Holy See – not only in word, but in spirit. He often expresses discomfort with the Legion’s response to words or instructions from the Holy See. He also recognized that some self-critique of the order was necessary for the movement to purify itself. Thus many of his blog entries concern questions that arose in an honest attempt to reconcile his belief in Maciel’s sanctity and the Legion’s charism with obedience to the Holy Father.
Here’s a chronological index of Changobeer’s posts as he wrestles with several issues concerning the scandal. Please let me know if I have missed any:
– May 05 – He points to the Vatican Secretariat of State letter as proof of Maciel’s innocence.
– Jun 05 – He dismisses Maciel’s critics and the allegations, but admits the Legion needs to engage in self-criticism, to stop being so secretive and to stop alleging conspiracy theories.
– Jul 05 – He disagrees with Sandro Magister’s prediction Pope Benedict’s action against Fr. Gino was a foreshadowing of what was in store for Maciel. Says the outcome with Maciel will be different.
– May 06 – He states that something confusing has just hit and he is still struggling to understand it, will post his best explanation but he is not satisfied with it. His next post states that the issue is the Holy See’s communique inviting Maciel to retire to a life of prayer and penance, and the separation the Holy See draws between Maciel and LC/RC. He identifies and struggles with many questions.
– Oct 07 – Although normally quite critical of ReGAIN, he expresses disagreement with the Legion hiring high-powered lawyers to sue the organization. Compares it to Scientology.
– Jan 08 – Discusses Roman-mandated changes within the Legion, including suppression of the extra two vows. Optimistic for the changes, but concerned about the “serene” facade and interpretation of Legion superiors.
– Jan 08 – Tribute to Maciel upon his death.
– Feb 08 to Apr 08 – Writes five-part series attempting to explain and clarify the Legion’s charism. (Part one, part two, part three, part four, part five).
– June 08 – He wrestles with Archbishop O’Brien’s criticism of the Legion, and how closely the Archbishop came to banning the Legion in Baltimore. Renews call for transparency and self-examination in the Legion.
– Sept 08 – Strongly questions the credibility of Jason Berry and Maciel’s other victims. Says he believes Maciel based upon working side-by-side with Maciel for several years.
– Sept 08 – Criticizes Legion, Church officials and the wider Catholic community for ignoring Maciel’s death and funeral, and the cloud of suspicion this left concerning the founder.
– Nov 08 – Attends Cistercian retreat, describes how relaxing and rejuvenating it was compared to the frantic pace of past (presumably Legion) retreats.
– Jan 09 – News of Maciel’s daughter breaks. Fr. Changobeer becomes first LC-affiliated priest in English blogophere to admit the significance of the news vis-a-vis Maciel and LC/RC. He is also the first to publicly call for full disclosure, for LC leadership to resign (if needed), and for an apostolic visitation from Rome.
– Mar 09 – Suggests that Legion leadership lacks credibility, and that the seeds of the Legion’s methodology were rooted in Maciel’s sins.
– June 09 – He argues that the only way forward for the Legion is to tell the truth.
– June 09 – Points out the difference between Maciel being flawed, and Maciel being a liar.
– June 09 – Explains why the Legion must purge itself completely of Maciel.
– Jul 09 – Refutes the “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” analogy being argued by the Legion and its supporters. Explains why any good accomplished by Maciel is irrelevant to this scandal.
– Jul 09 – Criticizes the movement for trying to downplay Maciel’s sins and attempting to move forward, business as usual.
– Aug 09 – (Last post) – He reveals that LC superiors are trying to preserve Maciel’s writings for future generations, while avoiding direct mention of Maciel and his actions.
It’s official: Rome confirms study commission on Medjugorje
From the Vatican Information Service:
VATICAN CITY, 17 MAR 2010 (VIS) – The Holy See Press Office today published the following communique:
“An international investigative commission on Medjugorje has been constituted, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini and dependent upon the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Said commission – made up of cardinals, bishops, specialists and experts – will work privately, submitting the results of its work to the authority of the dicastery”.
I assume that this is good news for Bishop Perić of Mostar, as he has wanted an intervention from the level of the Holy See for a long time. It has been twenty years since the last official investigation, held at the level of national bishops’ conference in the former Yugoslavia. While the facts of the case’s early years have not changed, the intervening years have allowed us to examine the historical record, and they have confirmed the wisdom of the bishops’ decision to deny approval.
After the commission presents its report to CDF, there may eventually be a declaration on the case, containing a doctrinal judgment and pastoral directives.
The doctrinal judgment could be:
- “constat de non supernaturalitate“: the phenomenon is confirmed to be not of supernatural origin
- “non constat de supernaturalitate“: the phenomenon is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin
- no judgment, but cautious encouragement: “nihil obstat“
Because the phenomenon is ongoing, it cannot be given a fully favorable evaluation (“constat de supernaturalitate“), so the most favorable result theoretically available is to give cautious encouragement on the grounds that “nothing stands in the way”.
I mention that last option as a theoretical possibility, but the many objective reasons against approval, and the relatively few and subjective reasons for approval make me expect that the doctrinal judgment will be negative. Readers unfamiliar with the case against the apparition can see the archives of this blog. Under the category of “Apparitions and Mystical Phenomena”, there are translations of commentaries from experts and reports by Bishop Perić, which point out questionable aspects of the “messages”.
[UPDATE (3/21): I have some further discussion of possible verdicts here.]
In addition to a doctrinal evaluation, CDF can also issue pastoral directives. Possibly it might leave them up to a lower authority, either the local bishop or the Bosnia-Herzegovina bishops’ conference.
In the case of a negative doctrinal evaluation, the current vague limitations could be left as is, or there might be new restrictions.
What cannot be forbidden totally is travel to Medjugorje and visits to the parish church: after all, it is a lawful parish, and Catholics are free to attend Mass there. Also, the long-standing devotional traditions of the country, such as the saying of seven Our Fathers, etc., are perfectly acceptable, and their spread to other places is unobjectionable.
What can be regulated or prohibited? Devotions based on the alleged apparition; the use of titles such as “Our Lady of Medjugorje”; the publishing of promotional material (in literature, through the mass media, on the internet); the use of Church facilities to promote the claims of supernatural revelations; the participation of the clergy in promotional events; perhaps even the participation by the laity in promotional events.
Promotional events which could be regulated or restricted may include prayer services, speeches, journeys to Medjugorje: perhaps any event based on a belief in the claimed supernatural origin of the phenomenon. If the Church wishes, She can regulate or forbid the formation of associations to promote belief in the apparitions: that is, She can forbid the various “Medjugorje centers” or “Marian centers” from promoting the claims of supernatural apparitions.
At present, foreign priests can celebrate Mass or hear confessions in Medjugorje without the local bishop’s permission, merely by presenting proof (a celebret) to the pastor, attesting that they are in good standing with their own diocese or religious order. It is conceivable that this freedom could be restricted in some way.
Of course, these are only possibilities that indicate the range of actions that could be taken, depending on how permissive or restrictive an approach the authorities of the Church decide to take.
Is it possible that the Church might issue a split decision: say no to the apparition, impose some restrictions, and yet allow or encourage visitors to keep going to Medjugorje as a “place of prayer” or of “retreat”? Such a mixed verdict would be intended to smooth over difficulties among those faithful who are very attached to the alleged apparitions; it would seek to spare the poor country a loss of tourist revenue; it might seek to keep the reported “good fruits” going. But it seems there would be a fundamental inconsistency about it, and it opens Church authorities to an accusation of consequentialist decision-making.
Some voices, pro- and con-, are saying that the goal of the commission should be to render a decision before the 30th anniversary of the start of the affair: that is, before mid-June, or before this summer’s planned youth festival in early August. I’m not holding my breath for that: if a commission with twenty members (so says papal spokesman Fr. Lombardi) reaches conclusions and writes a report that quickly, that may be the first real miracle to happen in connection with Medjugorje.