Fr. Euteneuer tried to warn Legionaries

Human Life International’s Fr. Thomas Euteneuer is a prophet. I was re-reading his response to Fox News’ Fr. Jonathan Edwards, LC over L’Affair Hannity a couple of years ago. In retrospect, this line from Fr. Euteneuer’s response really stands out:

The church sex abuse scandal was not just about homosexual and predatory priests. It was about clerical negligence and silence on issues that not only affect people’s souls but also ruin people’s lives. It is highly unusual that you or anyone else would want a priest to be silent on issues that affect the salvation of souls.

Wow! Did Fr. Euteneuer realize at the time what he was saying? Or was it entirely the Holy Spirit speaking truth through him?
Just as troubling is a second point Fr. Euteneuer’s raises in his response, albeit couched in his polemical use of the term “politically-correct sissies”. The point is that Fr. Jonathan was no ordinary Legionary priest at the time. Besides being a Fox News analyst, Fr. Jonathan was rector of the Legion’s seminary in Rome, if I recall correctly. This means that Fr. Jonathan’s mindset was instrumental in forming Legion priests from all over the world.
In retrospect, this may help explain why the Legion has for the most part been silent concerning Fr. Maciel’s alleged molestation of former seminarians.

A sense of dissolution

In the combox of the recent schism thread, reader Richard Sutcliff (who has graciously taken on the role of resident SandPounder), raises the following question:

Here is an entirely hypothetical question, but one which I would like Pete to address.
We talk about the possibility of a rump of LCs going into schism if the Pope doesn’t rule their way.
What are the possibilities of the opposite happening, that some of the Legion’s critics refuse to accept Rome’s verdict were the Vatican (again, this is hypothetical) to allow the Legion to continue on?

In my experience? I’ve never seen it happen. Certain individuals may abandon Rome for the Eastern Orthodox Churches, evangelical Protestantism, or even atheism – but I’ve never seen a formal schism over something like this. So I consider it unlikely.
I also consider it increasingly unlikely that the Holy See won’t act in some in some dramatic way to dissolve or refound the movement, especially in light of growing allegations like the following from reputable media sources: “Among the conclusions that he will present in breve to Rome, Blazquez [one of the apostolic visitators] seems to understand clearly that the the intermediate command of the Legion knew about the double life of Maciel as well as as some scandals which occured in Spain, and not only did they do nothing to stop him, they silenced some of the victims.”
If this allegation is true – that the Legion’s middle leadership knew of Maciel’s double-life earlier, but continued to cover up for him and attack the victims (the moral equivalent, I feel, of World War II Germans hiding Nazis in their attics) – then I don’t know how the Holy See can avoid decapitating and dissolving the movement.
Moreover, as one of my former canon law professors use to say: “Rome is never hasty unless you bring the Church hierarchy into disrepute, especially in financial matters. Then she acts swiftly and the consequences are always painful.” There’s no question among many orthodox Catholics outside the LC/RC that Maciel’s actions and the movement’s response have brought the Church and Pope John Paul II’s legacy into some disrepute. Especially since apologists for the movement continue to link its credibility to that of the late pontiff.
Among the Legion’s critics, both internal and external, one also sees a growing consensus for dissolution of the congregation in lieu of attempting reform (although critics are divided on whether the Holy See should permit the movement’s current members to attempt a refoundation). I get the same feeling I had back in February, when Catholics from across the faith spectrum came to a consensus that the Legion was incapable of handling the crisis internally, and that intervention from the Holy See was necessary. Yeah, pro-Legion apologists kicked up a fuss at the time, accusing critics of lacking faith in the Church. When momentum continued to grow anyway, the same apologists tried to spin it into saying that any outside intervention or investigation should come from Cardinal Rode. In contrast to these pro-Legion apologists, Pope Benedict agreed with the sensus fidelium.
Having said that, I think the greater danger for the Legion right now is that orthodox Catholics won’t accept a refoundation should it come about. Why? Because we’re parents. It’s one thing for us to accept the Holy See’s verdict that a movement can be refounded, but quite another to involve our own families in the refoundation. There are other options for orthodox Catholics, you know.
Which is why, to give a potential refoundation a fighting chance at taking root,the Holy See must do three things in my opinion:
1 – Impose several deep reforms upon the movement.
2 – Appoint outside superiors to implement these reforms.
3 – Apologize publicly to Maciel’s victims and offer them reasonable restitution.

How do you solve a problem like Morena?

Many rumors are swirling about the future of the Legion and Regnum Christi, some receiving the acknowledgment of reputable journalists and Church commentators. In surveying these rumors, what concerns me is that there is little or no mention of the third degree consecrated (3gf). I pray the Church does not overlook their future, and what can be done to facilitate their transition to a more stable vocation..
Should the Holy See dissolve the LC/RC, most of RC can be turned over to diocesan Bishops or other Church authorities outside the movement. On the other hand, the Church will always find a place for priests willing to reform and minister within the Church’s vineyards.
However, the toughest blow – potentially – will fall upon the the 3gf and upper year seminarians with the Legion. They’ve invested years of time and effort into the movement’s formation. However, they lack any permanent binding connection to the consecrated state. Like a partner shacked up without the benefit of marriage, their relationship can be severed at any time, for little or no reason.
So what happens to people like Rocio Moreno – who as a 32-year veteran of the 3gf has spent most of her adult life promoting Maciel and the movement? Her story is one I contemplate with sadness as she likely faces an uncertain future. You can read her story here.
A few things stood out as I read through it:
– She was young when she became one of the first 3gf, accepting the call because other family members were highly active in the movement and it had the Church’s approval.
– She has spent most of her adult life connected to the movement, and is a product of their methodology.
– She appears to associate the movement, the movement’s charism, and her vocation to the movement, with Maciel.
This last point is seen through her answers to following questions:

How do you see the founder’s role in your vocation?
He himself invited me to be a part of the Movement. He showed me that God loved me so much and that God could be calling me to consecrate my life to him, just as the apostles did. I don’t remember everything that he told me, but he spoke a lot about Christ, the Church, and the apostolates and places where we would be going after we formed ourselves as consecrated women.
What has it meant for you to be one of the first consecrated women?
Being one of the first consecrated women has meant a huge responsibility for me personally. I am aware that I must live and pass on what I learned, saw, and heard directly from Nuestro Padre. I feel like it depends on me, on us cofounders, to preserve the spirit in its entirety, and I will do this if I live each day with fidelity, trying to live my life according to the Statutes (the Statutes of the Regnum Christi Movement). I will do this if I guard the virtue of charity as the most precious pearl.
What is the greatest gift for you of being a cofounder?
I think that the greatest gift of being one of the first ones is the grace of having lived alongside my founder. I saw him living what we were being asked to live: humility, detailed charity, always speaking well of others, and tender love for Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the pope.

So how do you solve a problem like Morena?

Is schism possible?

The following line stands out in America Magazine‘s latest blog on the LC/RC crisis: “[The apostolic visitators’] main task, apparently, is to assess whether the order’s members will be accepting of whatever Rome decides.” (Emphasis mine).
This leads some readers to ask whether schism is a possible outcome. Possible? Yes. Probable? I would say no at this point, except perhaps for a small rump group. (Whenever emotions run this strongly with a religious movement going through meltdown or serious change, in my experience, small pockets of “true believers” will always separate and go their own way. So don’t be surprised if a dozen or so LC priests break off to start the “Maciel Catholic Church”.) That being said, only the LC/RC can answer this question with certainty.
Yet one never knows until decision time comes. To understand how schism could happen, please see my blog entry from last April: How schism becomes an option.
Having said that, schism offers no benefit for the Legion. In my opinion schism would kill their fundraising and recruitment, which to outside observers like me appears to be at the heart of their charism. The Legion would have to spin its separation from Rome after decades of propaganda trumpeting its fidelity to the Holy See.
This can be done, as seen from other ultra-montane movements that ended in schism. However, the cost of doing so is the near-death of new recruitment coupled with heavy losses among rank-and-file membership who recognize the Holy Father as the Church’s supreme visible authority. As said to me recently by a wise canon lawyer who had been part of a similar movement that melted down, “What convinced me to leave was the very principles they had instilled in me when I joined, namely, fidelity to the Holy See and obedience to the Holy Father.”
So the schism option ends with Fr. Alvaro and the Legion as a footnote on page 296 of some future Church historian’s doctoral dissertation.
On the other hand, a re-founding offers the LC/RC a fighting chance at survival, especially if the movement renounces Maciel, brings in a superior general from outside the movement to oversee the reform, and is careful not to burn bridges with priests like Fr. Berg – former insiders who have left the Legion and/or called for serious reform. Orthodox Catholics outside the movement are more likely to give a refounding the chance it needs if individuals like Fr. Berg vouch for its sincerity and credibility.
Additionally, it’s not a bad position for Fr. Alvaro to find himself in should he turn over leadership of a refounded movement gracefully. He’s reportedly been with Fr. Maciel since he was 12. In retrospect, most people will find it understandable that he struggled to come to grips with Fr. Maciel’s secret lives, how it impacted the old movement and its methodology, and that this affected his ability to lead the old movement through its meltdown. But there’s no shame in stepping aside for younger leadership, not as heavily tainted with Maciel, if the movement is refounded.
Should Fr. Avaro do so gracefully, accepting reform overseen by outsiders appointed by the Holy See, and in doing so give a refounded movement its fighting chance at survival, Fr. Alvaro can then assume the role of elder statesmen within the refounded movement. If the refounded movement survives, then history will not record Fr. Alvaro as the General Director who presided over the LC/RC’s downfall. It will record him as the individual who led the LC/RC into refounding as a new movement, one focused on Christ and not Maciel, and as an individual who had enough wisdom to step aside and allow the refounded movement to reform and take root. It may even record him as the founder of the movement.
So Fr. Alvaro kinda becomes like Moses. He was close to the Pharaoh, but eventually he accepted God’s will to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, through the desert and to the border of the promised land. God would not allow Moses to lead the Israelites into the promised land, due to Moses’s past sins, and leadership was turned over to Joshua who then led the Israelites into the promised land. But God forgave Moses and allowed him to see the promised land from the border. And to this day we honor Moses for his part in salvation history.
Of course, there’s still the question of apology and restitution to Maciel’s victims. However, I think we are likely past the point where such an apology and reform can save Maciel’s movement.