Author: Pete Vere

Fear is not a charism

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.

Every Legion critic is Hans Kung for 15 minutes

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.

No apology, no charism.

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.

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.

Legion vs. Canadians in U.S. clothing

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.