My heart is broken as I contemplate recent media reports surfacing from the Spanish-speaking world over Fr. Maciel’s children. It is broken for his children, their mothers, his victims, and members of the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi now digesting this new information. It is heartbroken for Pope Benedict XVI who bears the burden of sorting out this mess within a divided orthodox Catholic movement.
One thing we call all do right now, from the Legion’s most ardent apologists to it’s most vociferous critics – and everyone in between – is pray for Pope Benedict XVI and the apostolic visitators. Pray that God gives them the grace to discern a solution equitable to all parties, and one that will heal current divisions without compromising truth.
St. Joseph presents the perfect intercessor for this intention. He is foster father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, whose name the Legion claim. He is also the protector of the universal Church, the universal protector of family and the virtue of chastity, and a perfect example of manly virtue.
Toward this intention, I’ve started another novena to St. Joseph facebook group, where all sides to this debate can gather to pray that God’s will be done in the months ahead. To join, please click here.
Tag: Maciel
A legion of inheritors
A discussion is brewing on Life After RC about Fr. Maciel’s child(ren) possibly inheriting the Legion’s property. Unfortunately, in death, as in life, Maciel’s legacy remains a tortured mess to navigate.
The issue would be simple if Maciel had owned and run a business like any other during his life. His child(ren) would inherit his property as well as his share in the business.
However, an institute of consecrated life is not a business. It’s a highly-public spiritual work of the Church. Its property does not belong to the individual who founded it, but to the Church. So from a strict canonical perspective, Maciel’s mistress and daughter would have rights against the Legion as victims, but not as inheritors.
Secondly, as Church property, all spending on the part of the Legion must conform to the intention of the donors.
In canon law, the “intention of the donors” when it comes to managing ecclesiastical goods is almost as sacrosanct as the inviolability of the sacrament of confession. Donations are to be used according to the intentions expressed by the donors in making the donation.
The reason this issue is treated so seriously is because the Church lives and dies by the donations of the faithful. No donations, no apostolate. Clergy and religious take vows or promises of poverty, but they still need to eat, sleep and have access to the basic necessities of life. If the donation process is called into question, or falls into disrepute, then everyone is hurt as the faithful become wary about donating to the Church.
So….the Church does not mess around with the intention of donors.
Having said that, it is doubtful that the majority of faithful donated to Fr. Maciel and the Legion with the intention of contributing to a luxurious upkeep of his mistress(es) and child(ren). Rather, although I have no statistic or empirical evidence to back me up on this point, I would imagine most probably donated to Fr. Maciel with the intention of “furthering the apostolate” of the Legion’s spiritual undertakings. Thus it was probably donated with assumption that the money was not going to Maciel personally, but to the Legion.
Therefore, from the perspective of the Church, the money and property belongs to the Legion (and not Fr. Maciel) to be administered according to the intentions of the donors. This is why the Church cannot simply turn a chunk over to Maciel’s mistress(es) and child(ren) as an inheritance.
That being said, what about the natural rights and inheritance of Maciel’s daughter as his daughter? Keep in mind she is not suppose to exist as siring children contravenes the promise of chastity Fr. Maciel made prior to his ordination. Hence the great mess as her rights as inheritor clash with the rights of the Catholic faithful as donors.
I don’t know the answer, except to pray for Pope Benedict who has a real mess on his hands to sort out.
The mother of Fr. Maciel’s daughter speaks
ExLC has blogged the Spanish article here, and is translating it into English as we speak. Head on over to his blog. She appear to claim that her relationship with Fr. Maciel began when she was still a minor. Here’s the first paragraph as translated by ExLC:
“I would have never chosen this path for my life…When I met this man, I was under aged. Neither my daughter nor I knew who this man really was until the very end.” It is the first time that Norma Hilda Baños puts her story in words, and with these words, the long guarded secret, the sin which pursues her, finally takes shape. Thinking about it brings tears to her eyes. The Cronica found her in her sanctuary, in a luxurious residential area of Madrid, Spain. She seems to be taken aback. Dialogue is not easy. Beyond the opening, which stretches out from the doorway, there is a space of 3,500 square feet. She has live here for years with her daughter. The home has no husband or father. It has never had one. Her daughter is the fruit of a prohibited relationship. Who knows what kind of stories this woman had to invent when asked about the father of her child? Anything but telling the feared truth: he was the founder of the Legion of Christ, Fr. Marcial Maciel, who left her pregnant when she was 26 years old.
If true – and at this point, I believe the balance of probabilities leans greatly toward the accuser – the only way forward for LC/RC leadership is to finally admit that Fr. Maciel was an abuser (and not simply that he gave in during a moment of weakness), renounce his influence as founder, and publicly apologize and offer reparation to his victims.
The Legion need to cooperate, says Archbishop O’Brien
In his first interview since the Legion announced its apostolic visitation , Archbishop O’Brien of Baltimore speaks the truth in charity. Basically, this visitation is a chance for the Legion to gets its act together, but they need to cooperate fully with the Holy See.
Are you confident the Legionaries are ready to cooperate?
I hope so. I’ll put it that way: I really do hope so. It depends on so many individuals being open, because it just takes a few to try to block it and to mislead. I hope that the Legionaries will realize that in the long run, this is going to help them.
You’re recently had talks in Rome with Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, the superior of the Legionaries. Are you confident he’s ready to cooperate?
I can’t say. I’m quite sure he would want to see this thing cleared up, and I hope he’ll realize that the best way is to encourage everyone to cooperate.
What are the issues that the visitation should consider?
In the first place, they have to look at Maciel himself. What are the facts, who knew them, when did they know them, and why did it take so long for them to become public? They should look at the financial dimension. They also need to examine who the victims are, and what’s being done to meet the needs of those victims.
Then, they need to look at the structure that Maciel created. There was a good deal of secrecy in his own life, and there’s secrecy in the structures he created. It would be helpful to know why there is such secrecy. For example, why is there such an effort with their seminarians to limit their exposure to the real world out there? What are their recruiting strategies for vocations to the priesthood? How above board are they? What are the numbers involved, how many priests have been ordained and how many are still active in the priesthood with the Legionaries?
The whole interview is worth reading by clicking here.
Apology to Dr. Edward Peters
I’ve removed my earlier post ‘Canon Law, Ed Peters and me’.
There were a number of problems which, when brought to my attention, I agree were problematical on my part, and I apologize to Dr. Peters:
– I don’t know what previous experiences Dr. Peters has had with the LC/RC, therefore I have no business speculating on whether he was surprised by revelations about Fr. Maciel.
– It referred to a private conversation that I initiated. This was unprofessional on my part, and I offer no excuses. Especially when I reported that he did not seem to concerned about our differences, which I had no business reporting or speculating upon.
– In so doing I suggested more familiarity between us than is the case, as we have never met in real life or worked on any canon law project together.
– Dr. Peters was not calling for the suppression and reconstitution of the LC/RC, but is suggesting it as a possibility.
Additionally, while I believe I reported accurately when I said Dr. Peters’ response tended to focus more on the structural problems these revelations suggest, whereas I was asking more the question what do we do with current LC/RC members, I in no way was implying or intended to imply that Dr. Peters is not equally concerned about what to do with these people.
Therefore I apologize again to Dr. Peters. There is no excuse for this lapse in professional judgment, and I pray I have not tarnished Dr. Peters’ reputation in any way.