Many commentators on the Legion meltdown have noted that the American reaction was the most explosive. Actually, the American reaction was more of a ‘Critics of the Legion from across the world, recognizing the American organizational genius and the potential to reach a wider audience, converged on the American Papist blog where much hearty discussion ensued with Legion apologists’ reaction. But let’s just call it the American reaction for simplicity’s sake.
What made the American reaction so nuclear, besides the worldwide audience, were several factors:
– The seriousness of the revelations concerning Fr. Maciel
– The fact Legion apologists were forced to defend their movement in a setting where they did not outnumber their critics 10-to-1.
– The fact both sides converged on the same battlefield, namely American Papist.
The first point is obvious. As far as the second point, gang-style argument doesn’t work when the other side has equal numbers, which suddenly forces you to think about what you’re saying. (I got the impression during the debate that this was the first time many LC/RC members had given serious thought to their practices and methodology. For example, how many of you reading this blog, when the scandal first broke, thought this was only about Maciel and did not extend to the LC/RC movement as a whole?) Stock answers and conversation stoppers don’t go over as well when several sets of eyes are looking at them. As for the third point, blogging as a medium lends itself to the free exchange of ideas.
What I find interesting since the release of the Spanish letter to RC faithful is that all three conditions appear now in the Spanish-speaking world. Hispanics are not stupid. They’ve noticed the discrepancy between the U.S. letter to RC and the Spanish letter, in which the latter avoids direct mention of minor seminarians who first brought forward allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of Maciel.
Following the Spanish-language blogs today, the intensity and number of responses have gone AmP. And they include commentary from both sides. The main battlefield appears to be Jose Martinez’s El Trastevere, which has covered this story for some time. But check out the number and outrage expressed in the responses to this entry reproducing the Spanish letter.
Also take a good look at this spin-off entry, where Martinez challenges Spain’s RC director over the discrepancy concerning alleged abuse victims between American and Spanish versions of the letter. Reader comments are not as numerous as those of the parent entry (although that could change overnight). However, this second entry confirms that the issue has touched a nerve in the Spanish-speaking world, and that the reaction is not uniquely American.
On a side-note I found interesting, Spanish-speaking Legion apologists are presenting many of the same arguments that their American counterparts have long since jettisoned. In large part because these arguments were refuted convincingly during the AmP debates. So I encourage Spanish-speaking readers to make their way over there and share the knowledge they gained during the English-language debate. The American reaction has the potential to go Espanol.
Tag: Legionaries
Will Fr. Garza to be thrown under the bus?
I’m on a short break right now, and I want to be very clear about the following post: I am NOT speaking as a canon lawyer. I’m simply speculating a future possibility based upon the following:
1 – Current observable trends in LC/RC;
2 – Past emails I have received from well-placed sources in the movement describing the parties to this reported controversy;
3 – Observations of other movements within the Church that collapsed or went through a period of internal blood-letting;
4 – A new report in Proceso (click here for a copy mirrored on a blog) alleging that Fr. Alvaro and Fr. Garza are clashing in Rome, and that these disputes are growing louder. According to the report, Fr. Alvaro wants to usher in a series of reforms to the Legion, while Fr. Garza wishes to retain strict control of Integer, which reportedly controls much of the LC/RC’s assets.
To be clear, I don’t know how credible Proceso is as Mexican news outlet. Certainly the blog that cribbed it appears to have some political tendencies. And the report is quoting anonymous sources within the Legion, so I would be cautious going on information in the article alone, unless of Mexican readers can vouch for its credibility as a news source.
However, the allegations are consistent with the Legion’s media focus and spin since the crisis first hit last February. Fr. Alvaro has been all over the place, saying he is reaching out to victims, sharing his regrets, etc. Many Legion superiors have sung his praises, like the territorial directors for the U.S., Germany and Spain. People on the inside report being told that Fr. Alvaro had initiated the investigation in Maciel after he became suspicious about a strange woman hanging around Maciel’s death-bed. So yes, the Legion has moved to defend and build up Fr. Alvaro during this crisis. I suppose this isn’t surprising, given the Legion’s penchant for “rock star” priests and the fact Fr. Alvaro is Director General.
Except…how many of us have heard from Fr. Garza? He is, as Vicar General, the number 2 man in the organization. Moreover, he held this position under Fr. Maciel, and several sources report that he was widely expected to take over from Maciel when the Legion electoral process passed Garza over for the much more affable Alvaro. That we have heard little from him during this scandal is surprising given his position.
Moreover, LC/RC insiders often describe Fr. Garza to me as a financial genius who lacks Fr. Alvaro’s ease and skills with people. Which is interesting because the LC has tried to disassociate itself from Maciel’s ‘double life’, though not the founder himself, but they really haven’t commented much on allegations of a financial nature, other than to say they’re audited annually and are working with Integer. However, the LC hasn’t trotted him out to answer financial allegations as they have Fr. Alvaro to answer allegations of a sexual nature.
Speaking as a political analyst, and not as a canon lawyer, Fr. Garza has all the qualities of a good fall guy should LC leadership decide to throw him under the bus. It’s tempting to predict, but whether it happens is another question. If the Legion leadership has shown itself adept at anything during this crisis, it’s closing ranks.
Victims vanish from Legion’s Spanish letter
Periodista Digital, which broke many of the recent allegations against Fr. Maciel, has now posted the Spanish version of the letter to RC faithful recently sent out in America and Germany. It is addressed to the RC in Spain. You can read the letter here.
In reading through the Spanish version, it’s about 90 percent the same of what was published in America and Germany. So no need to rehash that.
What I found interesting is the 10 percent difference. First, the letter appears much more forceful in warning RC against blog commentary. The usual stuff about charity, conjecture, etc. But second – and this really caught my attention – is the absence of any mention of allegations Fr. Maciel sexually abused seminarians in his case. This surprises me because these were the allegations that led to his 2006 invitation to retire to a life of prayer and penance.
In fact, the letter is structured in such a way as to give me the impression the Holy See invited him to retire because he had fathered a daughter, and possibly more children. There’s no mentions of earlier allegations – those made by former LC seminarians.
Now my Spanish is far from perfect. I initially thought I was missing something in translation. So I ran it through babelfish. Still no mention. I was going to call a friend who happens to be a Spanish translator, but then the comments at the bottom of the article caught my eye. Several readers, who I assume are fluent in Spanish if they’re capable of writing in the language, blast the letter for exactly this reason.
They point out three things:
1 – It’s pretty close to the same letter as the one sent off in the U.S.
2 – The major difference is the lack of any reference to the allegations of sexual molestation of seminarians.
3 – The letter gives the impression that Maciel was invited to retire because of his sexual escapades involving women.
Which raises two questions:
1): Is molesting boys not seen as a big deal by the Legion’s Spanish leadership? After all, they don’t mention it in their Spanish apology, which in my opinion also raises questions about the sincerity of the American and German apologies.
2) Does this explain the discrepancy we’ve heard about Fr. Alvaro reaching out to Maciel’s victims? After all, most of us in the English-speaking world think first of the young seminarians who first brought forth allegations against Maciel. However, they are not acknowledged in the Spanish version of this letter.
These questions are not merely conjecture on my part. The sexual abuse of minors is a serious sin. Both the American and Germans found it important enough to mention. But the Spanish version did not. Yet all three versions claim the support of LC Director General Fr. Alvaro. Given all the allegations circulating about the Legion playing games with orthodox Catholics, and all the focus that’s been put on the original victims, how can you expect us not to notice such a discrepancy?
In light of this major discrepancy, combined with the impression that the Spanish letter gives, I must retract my earlier statement that the American letter presents a step forward for the LC/RC. Most of the original victims spoke Spanish. To omit any mention of them in the language in which they were victimized is simply unconscionable, in my opinion.
Nor will I accept the excuse that the difference is cultural or linguistic. Such an argument appeals to the racism of low expectations, implying that Spanish-speaking folk are incapable of accepting the truth. This is not true, as demonstrated by the outrage expressed against the letter in Periodista Digital’s comments section.
ExLC and I will be in the basement watching football
Time to raise the white flag on the women and LC methodology threads. After reading RC is not my life‘s latest blog entry, titled Breaking Up Is So Hard To Do, I realize I’m in over my head as a guy. RC is not my life uses the imagery of being seduced and subsequently jilted by a lover to describe her experience joining and being asked to leave RC.
Here are some excerpts:
I stopped thinking seriously about my next step in life, and I jumped into RC life. I actually skipped my LSAT to go to a RC retreat. And my spiritual director told me that she thought I made the right choice. God comes first, she said, and I agreed. God first. […]
I don’t know how to explain it, but RC was always on my mind. When I was separated from it, I only thought of when would be my next contact. I’d do anything to go to a meeting or a retreat. I’d think of excuses to call the consecrated. I was nervous for days in anticipation of meeting with a LC priest. When a Youth and Family Encounter came up, there was no doubt that I’d be there. I’d find a way.
And…
Years later, I was asked to leave RC. I took the rejection with grace at the time, but I still feel the sting so many years later. Why wasn’t I good enough? What did I do wrong?
And even though distance from the movement has given me the certainty that I’m better off, it still hurts to know that the movement I gave up everything for, didn’t feel the same. I feel stupid, I feel cheated, I feel betrayed. And way back in the back of my mind, I know that if RC came knocking on my door today asking to have me back, I’d think about it.
I can understand where RC is not my life is coming from. I sit on several tribunals where people share how they found themselves seduced into bad marriages. But as Giselle warned me before tackling this issue, most guys will miss many of the nuances being discussed. So I think I will sneak down into basement with ExLC and watch football.
Hopefully my Packers will have put the Brett Favre drama behind them this season, and rebuilt their defense over the summer.
Who says there’s no ‘LC’ in irony?
Expressing outrage at my Let us prey… entry, Fed up RC states: “1. It is a sin to make false accusation without [sic.] subtantial basis to prove the facts.”
Since Fed up RC appears to be presenting this principle as universally applicable to Catholics, I will respond with a quote attributed to Fr. Owen Kearns, in which the high-profile LC priest reportedly describes Juan Vaca (Maciel’s first accuser) as “a proud, status-conscious man angered and disappointed at his professional failures.”
That’s quite the accusation against a former colleague. To my knowledge Fr. Kearns has not retracted it publicly. And as of this writing I am told Mr. Vaca has not received an apology from the Legion. So where’s the proof?