Maciel – Page 16 – Catholic Light

On contacting victims – Is this how a family treats its children?

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.

German RC territory follows U.S. letter to members (UPDATED)

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: Who were Maciel’s first victims?

[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?

For whom the bell tolls…

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.

An encouraging admission by the Legion – REPORT

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.