A reader asked me why I thought the Pure Fashion threads seem to provoke such strong reactions. I think it’s because the issue touches many of us concretely. Whereas few readers were personally abused by Maciel, and none to my knowledge have fathered his children, many readers are mothers who have volunteered with the Pure Fashion program, or parents to daughters who have participated in it. So Pure Fashion is an example of how the Maciel scandal touches us – and more importantly to us as parents, our children – personally.
Which is why I appreciate CindyB, who describes herself as ex Regnum Christi and a six-year veteran of Pure Fashion, sharing her thoughts in this thread. Whether this was intentional on her part or not, Cindy expresses the internal conflict felt by many who have been part of this program. On the one hand, she left RC because of the way it elevated Maciel (who she can no longer dignify with the prefix “Father”) despite serious allegations against him. On the other hand, her own experience with Pure Fashion was good, and she sees a desperate need in today’s world for programs that promote modesty, purity, and “programs that can influence teenagers and young adults to make better choices through positive self-esteem.” Her concerns are legitimate.
Hence her statement that Priscella likely “meant that [Maciel]’s behavior needed the message of Pure Fashion.”
Here’s the difficulty. Knowing how many volunteer hours Catholic moms like Cindy and Priscella put into the program with only the best of intentions for their daughters, it breaks my heart to say this. However, it is a point long recognized by saints and media critics:
People look to the medium when discerning the message.
St. James knew this. As he states in the New Testament epistle bearing his name: “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” He understood that one’s actions offered the best proof that one had received the Gospel message. St. Francis of Assisi clarifies this point further, stating: “Go into the world and preach the Gospel, but only use words when necessary.” And of course there’s Marshall McLuhan’s aphorism: “The medium is the message.”
In the case of Pure Fashion, the message of purity and modesty is contradicted by the medium of Fr. Maciel. The founder’s actions where anything but modest and pure. Teenagers know this. They may not piece it together right away, or they may not repeat it within earshot of parents while living under their roof. But they know. And eventually there’s the temptation to act upon it. If the founder can molest seminarians and father children through various mistresses – while still receiving public gratitude from holy priests, along with Mom and Dad – what’s a little premarital foreplay or displaying a bit of bellybutton n comparison? After all, Maciel engaged in much worse while building God’s kingdom.
Or the reaction may be one of anger, of feeling lied to or mislead for all these years. I’ve seen this happen. The relationship between parent and child is never the same afterward. The child will always second-guess Mom and Dad. Jezebel can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe from her comments that she was taken aback by the support she received from orthodox Catholic parents over her critique of Pure Fashion. We may disagree with her position on human sexuality, however, many of her criticisms of Pure Fashion have the ring of truth about them.
And if I can recognized this as a Nascar dad with no fashion sense, you can bet your teenage children will recognize it as well. It’s just a matter of time before the child google searches “Pure Fashion” or “Regnum Christi,” comes across a critique written by someone who disagrees with us on Humanae Vitae, and is struck by how strongly the critique resonates. Or the child may hear of Fr. Maciel’s duplicity from other children from orthodox Catholic homes while trying to recruit them to the kingdom. Who will the child blame for feeling misled, deceived or embarrassed in front of one’s peers?
Not Fr. Maciel. Not LC priests. But you, the parent.
Make no mistake about it. So long as Pure Fashion remains connected to Regnum Christi, which in turn continues to express its gratitude to the founder, Maciel remains the medium. And as the medium, he is also the message.
As for the other question, how can orthodox Catholic moms instill modesty and purity in their daughters, while having a little mother-daughter fun… Who needs a program? Here’s what a good friend of mine, who happens to be the mother of several sons formerly with the Legion, did with her daughters. Instead of dropping $450 on a program she purchased each teenage daughter a Catechism of the Catholic Church for $10. After putting the younger kids to bed, she took aside each adolescent daughter individually, and used the catechism to initiate one-on-one mom-and-daughter discussions on purity, modesty, fashion, sexuality, family, and marriage.
She was surprised by how each daughter opened up in this one-on-one atmosphere. What most of her daughters wanted, after years of apostolate and activity outside the family, was not another program. They wanted honest and open communication with Mom.
Every few months or so my friend and other homeschooling moms nearby would each pick a daughter (starting with the oldest), hop in the van, and head off to the big city Saturday morning for a Mom & Daughter shopping trip. They would find a hotel, each mom and daughter sharing a room, then all the moms and daughters would gather in the lobby and head off together for a mom and daughter supper. This was followed by Mass on Sunday morning before heading home.
How could the moms afford this? With the $440 they saved.
The girls could not have been more thrilled. Every time I visit it’s “Do you like this outfit? Mom helped me pick it out during our last shopping trip,” or “Next year I will be old enough to go on a shopping trip with Mom.”
And this, I believe, instills more strongly the message of modesty, purity and self-esteem in our daughters than any pre-packaged program. Why? Because it’s the medium of the heart. Mom, you are telling your daughter that she is so important to you that you willingly sacrifice time from your busy schedule to spend it with her. That her purity, her modesty and her self-esteem are worth these evenings and weekends together.
Mom, the medium is your message.
Tag: Maciel
If they were marriage vows, the commitment would be life-long
From the mailbag:
Pete – I was told by my spiritual director that my commitment to RC is just like wedding vows. Is this true? Is there a way I can break them?
No, your commitment to RC is not like wedding vows. If the two were similar, then you would take actual vows when joining RC or the 3gf, and these vows would be binding for life. This means RC could not determine suddenly that a member no longer has a vocation to the movement. (The life-long commitment goes both ways).
If your RC spiritual director is telling you that your commitment is similar to marriage, then you need to report him/her to your local Ordinary (diocesan Bishop, vicar general, episcopal vicar). Not only is this poor theology, but it is something that the Church may wish to look into for potential coercion. (Not that one’s commitment to RC changes one’s state in life.)
As far as any promises or commitment you made in RC, simply discuss them with your parish priest or whoever hears confessions at your local parish. He can remove them. Additionally, you can also write to your local ordinary, asking that they be removed. Your letter doesn’t have to be any longer than a page, and should include the following: a sentence or two stating when you joined, a paragraph or two explaining why you want to leave, a sentence asking him to dispense you from any promises or commitment you made to the movement.
Jesus loves pride
Giselle, RC is not my life and ExLC are all discussing an alleged incident reported by one of Giselle’s readers:
NEWSFLASH: The women in a certain [formerly thriving] section were just visited by their new priest. In addition to the other introductory information he passed along, he praised them for their fidelity, sadly noting that much of the RC leadership had defected out of sheer pride. They were there when everything was good, when the accolades were rolling in, when the limelight was on them. Once the road got a little rocky, they threw in the towel — since they don’t know how to deal with crosses.
Now I haven’t had time to check sources, and I find the reported incident a little strange given Fr. Scott Reilly, LC’s following recent assurance to U.S. RC:
Understandably, in the midst of the present circumstances there have been a few of our members who have felt that they can serve God better by separating themselves from the Legion and Regnum Christi; others have opted temporarily to step aside to see and evaluate, waiting also to see the outcome of the Visitation. The vast majority has opted to continue doing as much good as they can from where they are, knowing that our time here on earth is limited, and trusting that with the guidance of the Church whatever needs to be corrected in time, and whatever is good will be confirmed. Each one has made his or her choice before God, moved by their love for him and their desire to serve him to the best of their ability, and for no other consideration. Let us have great Christian understanding and respect for all. Each of us must presume the best and purest intention in the other, pray for each other, and recognize that each one of us suffers and recovers in different ways and at different times.
But for the sake of making a point, let’s assume there are witnesses to corroborate the alleged incident. Pride can be a good thing. It depends upon the context and how the word is being used.
Growing up in the French Catholic school system, one of the first lessons a young student learns is that romantic-based languages often have two words for one English counterpart. This is because the English word contains both meanings. To understand which meaning is being used, one has to look at the context.
Law is an example I deal with every day. In French the word law can translate into loi (or lex in Latin). Each of the Ten commandments is an example of loi. Or the word law can translate as droit (ius in Latin), meaning a system of jurisprudence or law in the broader sense. The American legal system is an example of droit.
The same is true of pride. Depending upon the context, pride translates into French as either orgueil or fierté. Orgueil is the type of pride that denotes arrogance. For example, refusing to apologize for having slandered victims of sexual abuse is an example of pride that translates into French as orgueil. This type of pride is one of the seven deadly sins warned against in the Bible.
In contrast, fierté is a type of pride through which one identifies with the goodness of something. I suspect it may be related to the French word foi, which means “faith”. A couple examples of fierté come to mind. “Displaying the same pride in his Catholic faith that had been instilled in him during his Marine Corps training, the pro-life priest went on national television and defended Catholic teaching on contraception.” Or “A proud Catholic mother, Mary resigned from her apostolate to devote more time to her children’s needs.”
There is nothing wrong with this type of pride. In fact God loves this type of pride, as we read in Psalm 47:4 (“[The Lord] chose our heritage for us, the pride of Jacob whom he loves.”) Like any good father, Jacob took pride in his descendants, the Jewish people, whom God chose as His own. Far be it for me to accuse Our Lord and this venerated Old Testament Patriarch of a deadly sin. I’m not that proud. I am, however, proud of our Old Testament heritage as Catholics. Hence the difference between orgueil or fierté.
So faced with this type of situation, I would guess that a certain amount of fierté would motivate a person to leave. After all, not apologizing to one’s victims for having unjustly tarnished their reputation is an example of orgueil that few Catholics wish to identify with.
American reaction goes Espanol
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.
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.