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.
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?
Giselle says I shamed her into posting about how the Legion churns out Fr. Eye Candy for women. I don’t claim to understand it, but I also don’t know of any other Catholic order so particular about its grooming practices as to reportedly include them in its institutional norms. Moreover, as a guy I know there are certain priests – HLI’s Fr. Thomas Euteneuer being a good example – that just strike us as a men’s men.
That being said, I’ve often wondered over the years, privately, why most Regnum Christi members I know are women, while most of my Opus Dei friends are men. Of couples I know in “mixed marriages,” the husband belongs to Opus Dei and the wife belongs to Regnum Christi. I’ve never met a Regnum Christi husband married to an Opus Dei wife.
But back to Giselle’s comments. She says something that immediately sets off my spiritual spidey-sense:
Spiritual headship is not a trump card with these women because the Legion priests have undermined it all these years, teaching the women to wheedle their husbands for more time and money for the Legion. (There is a reason the women’s sections always outnumber the men’s sections.) For those who don’t go to the brink of divorce (or split outright), there is a squaring off within marriages whereby the wife makes her RC commitments sacrosanct and the husband acquiesces for the sake of his sanity.
I’ve been present while the Legion pitches this. One Morning of Reflection, we were all led along the path: “You are princesses (because you are daughters of a King!)” Well, technically yes (though I like “You’re a worm and no man” better). But many of the women were in tears. What the priest touched on cleverly was their brokeness, their insecurities, and their random experiences of abuse. He built them up, using his own brand of “self esteem potion” so that they were putty in his hands. They literally fought to cook for him and to be the most active and industrious volunteers in the coming years.
Some of the nastiest annulment cases I have ever participated in are those in which a priest came between husband and wife. I’m not talking an abusive situation where the priest advised the wife to get out for the personal safety of her and her children. Rather I’m talking about cases where the wife spent more time with the priest than with her husband. Most of the cases involved Catholics who would be considered orthodox.
The relationship between wife and priest was rarely one of sexual attraction. Rather, husband is busy at work, while Father is busy in the parish. Wife becomes active in the parish because Father is “such a holy priest” and she begins to put his needs before those of her husband and family back home. Relieved at the help he’s receiving, Father affirms wife for everything she contributes to the parish and gives her more responsibilities. He intentionally avoids questioning wife about her marriage and home life because he doesn’t want to know. He needs help in the parish! So long as the relationship isn’t sexual, he can justify it as necessary for the greater good of souls. And Father will tell the tribunal that wife is a good woman who hubby grew to resent when she began to take her Catholic faith seriously.
Not really. The vocation of wife and mother is not the vocation of woman religious. Both vocations are good, but there’s a reason God has separated them. No apostolate should come before one’s family.
I am also troubled by Giselle’s story of grown women being described as “princesses”. Sure I refer to my own daughters as princesses, and with three of them Disney has cost me a small fortune in Princess swag. But that’s part of the charm of being father to little girls. You raise them hoping one day they will find their Prince Charming.
However, I don’t see “princess” as appropriate to an audience of wives and mothers. As St. Paul says in 1 Cor 13:11: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” Thus I find it charming when our parish priest greets my daughters before Mass, saying “Hello princesses.” But I would find such flattery creepy if Father addressed my wife in the same way. So would she.
What pops into my mind is St. Ignatius Loyola’s Thirteen Rule of spiritual discernment – a rule drilled into the head of every Jesuit prior to ordination:
Likewise, [the devil] acts as a licentious lover in wanting to be secret and not revealed. For, as the licentious man who, speaking for an evil purpose, solicits a daughter of a good father or a wife of a good husband, wants his words and persuasions to be secret, and the contrary displeases him much, when the daughter reveals to her father or the wife to her husband his licentious words and depraved intention, because he easily gathers that he will not be able to succeed with the undertaking begun: in the same way, when the enemy of human nature brings his wiles and persuasions to the just soul, he wants and desires that they be received and kept in secret; but when one reveals them to his good Confessor or to another spiritual person that knows his deceits and evil ends, it is very grievous to him, because he gathers, from his manifest deceits being discovered, that he will not be able to succeed with his wickedness begun.
Beware of flattery. It’s never from God and there is always some seduction behind it.
And on that note, I’ll end this post by answering Giselle’s priestly pin-ups with my own:
What you see, dear reader, is 100 percent Semper Fi!
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.
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.
