Tag: Pope

Pope Benedict minds sex abuse

Pope Benedict has just released his letter to Irish Catholics concerning sexual abuse against children. Although we knew His Holiness would take a tough stand – he’s become less tolerant than his predecessor in punishing priestly abusers – this letter is nevertheless a bombshell for canonists.
One of the most important principles when applying canon law to a situation is that one interpret the law according to the mind of the legislator. Pope Benedict is the Supreme Legislator within the Church. This letter reveals Pope Benedict’s mind on this horrific topic in a manner that leaves little room for ambiguity in its interpretation. Although addressed to Irish Catholics, the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi would do well to pay attention. After all, any attempt from the Holy See to impose reform on Maciel’s movement will follow the mind of Pope Benedict. So you – and I’m speaking directly now to LC/RC canonists – would be foolish to dismiss this letter as addressed only to Catholics in Ireland, and not to your movement.
I urge everyone to read the entire letter here. Here are some key paragraphs that stand out in light of LC/RC handling of the Maciel scandal:

I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them.

Notice the apparent absence of Romanita and Bella Figura in His Holiness’s words. Popes in modern times don’t talk like this. He considers the sexual abuse of children sinful, criminal and treachery. He will publicly shame an entire Church hierarchy to make his point.

It is true, as many in your country have pointed out, that the problem of child abuse is peculiar neither to Ireland nor to the Church. Nevertheless, the task you now face is to address the problem of abuse that has occurred within the Irish Catholic community, and to do so with courage and determination.

The fact that children are sexually abused outside of the Church, or in other parts of the Church, is no excuse for inaction. Focus on the problem in your own background. You have a duty to confront this problem and to fix it.

At the same time, I must also express my conviction that, in order to recover from this grievous wound, the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children. Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future.

There is no recovery without first acknowledging the wrong done, the serious of the wrong done, and the vulnerability and innocence of the victims. This must be followed by sincere sorrow for the wrong done, and a pro-active approach to preventing similar harm to children in the future.
The pope then shares good advice on praying for God’s grace and turning to saints for their Christian example. This is fairly strait-forward.
That being said, the following statements reveal that His Holiness sees bad methodology as a contributing cause to this crisis:

Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. […]
Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person. Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing.

Finally, he makes it clear whose side he is taking in this scandal:

On several occasions since my election to the See of Peter, I have met with victims of sexual abuse, as indeed I am ready to do in the future. I have sat with them, I have listened to their stories, I have acknowledged their suffering, and I have prayed with them and for them.

Not only has Pope Benedict met with the victims personally and listened to their stories, but he has acknowledged their suffering and prayed for them. This is the response one would expect from good and holy priests. And since Christ calls the Pope as head shepherd to lead by example, this is the response the Pope himself expects.
Notice what is absent from the Pope’s letter: No blaming the victims for their (supposed) lack of charity; no passing the entire responsibility to the abuser alone, no silly cliches like “God writes straight with crooked lines,” no chastising the faithful for their outrage or for not also recognizing the good that abusers had accomplished. No use of euphemism to describe painful sind. No denying the effects of abuse upon the victims. No covering up for the sake of avoiding scandal in the Church.
What’s even more interesting, in re-reading His Holiness’s letter a second time, from the beginning, is that he calls the Irish hierarchy to account for their handling of the situation. Yes, the Pope is intervening to help fix the situation. However, it is only because the Irish hierarchy failed in their responsibility to do so. This should be a sobering reminder to current LC/RC supporters. Just as “I was only following orders” has been rejected as an argument for moral justification, so too does Pope Benedict appear to reject “I was only waiting for orders to follow.”
Which is why LC and RC should ask themselves what they (not Maciel) have done to correct the situation, and whether it lives up to the Pope’s expectations. This is the question he asked of the Irish bishops. And this is the question he will ask of you.
Or to quote the Holy Father in a part of the letter addressed specifically to bishops (after saying religious superiors should follow the advice he gives bishops):

Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people towards the Church to which we have consecrated our lives. This must arise, first and foremost, from your own self-examination, inner purification and spiritual renewal. The Irish people rightly expect you to be men of God, to be holy, to live simply, to pursue personal conversion daily.

The Holy Father concludes the letter with several excellent recommendations for prayer, fasting and reform.

Pope Benedict the Fluidian?

Non-trekkies will probably want to skip to the last paragraph. Over at Giselle’s, readers are comparing Legion of Christ/Regnum Christi recruitment to Borg assimilation practices. As a trekkie, I see many alleged similarities.
But let’s not miss the bright side of the galaxy. As the scandal unfolds, I see just as many similarities between Pope Benedict and Species 8472 (aka the Fluidians). For instance, Pope Benedict views life through the cross, not unlike the Fluidians with their cross-shaped pupils. The Holy Father also pilots a living vessel, a spiritual bioship that transverses space and dimension, healing quickly from damage and adjusting organically as needed to confront an immediate threat.
Moreover, there’s his experience under Naziism as a child, coupled with his life-long love of the Patristic fathers (whose influence over his theology has been noticeable throughout his entire life). This has added a third strain to his spiritual DNA and thickened his spiritual blood to where he is practically impervious (and destructive of) to Borg nano-technology.
So my advice to those seeking to break free of the collective? Start reading the early Church fathers. An excellent work with which to begin is Cardinal Newman’s translation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea. For those unfamiliar with this work, the Doctor Angelicus provides commentary on the Four Gospels through extensive quotations from early Church fathers.

Priests, like soldiers, should show moral courage

I’m away today doing canonical research, so I won’t have telephone or Internet access until 8. p.m. at the earliest. Before I leave, however, I just want to comment on something that’s been troubling me in emails, phone calls and blog comments from friends still on the inside of the Legion of Christ (LC) and Regnum Christi (RC). It’s the widespread belief that as individuals most Legionaries are good priests.
I can accept that they are fervent, as well as doctrinally conservative for the most part. Prayerful might also be an adjective that describes most Legionaries.
However, I simply don’t see evidence of the moral courage that I would expect from good priests. Especially among an order that has adopted a military motif. Of course it goes without saying that I am judging actions, and not what is in each Legionary’s heart. Nevertheless, unless God has granted us the grace to read souls like He did to Padre Pio, actions are what we must go by.
As some readers know, many of my friends and readers are military. One of the basic virtues instilled in soldiers by the military is that of courage. Soldiers are taught two forms of courage. The first is physical courage, like when a soldier faces down a terrorist firing an assault rifle at him.
The second is moral courage, which is the courage to do the right thing despite potentially uncomfortable consequences. A friend of mine witnessed an example of moral courage during his basic training. He and his fellow recruits were having a difficult time learning a new parade drill under an extremely crotchety drill sergeant (or what the Marines would call “Heavy Hat” during Marine Corps basic training – that is, the sergeant who is perpetually grumpy and picks apart everyone over the slightest mistake). The sergeant was so upset by their failure to learn the move that he kept them an hour into their next timing.
Now I have to pause here to add a few details. Timings are sacrosanct in the military. If you’re not on time for something, then everyone else suffers. And in theater the suffering can be fatal if another group of soldiers are relying on you for cover from the enemy, supplies, etc. Additionally, the timing happened to be a lecture being given by a Major, which is a senior officer. You simply don’t keep senior officers waiting, especially for an hour. The marching NCO, whose job it is to get recruits to their next timing on time and who I will call “Corporal Bloggins,” had reminded the sergeant a few times that he had gone over his time limit. (Oh, and one last detail, the recruits were very grumpy too because it was a hot summer day on the black parade square.)
Suddenly, the drill sergeant looked at his watch and said: “Oh my goodness, we’re an hour over our next timing. The Major is going to be upset.” (Okay, I’m paraphrasing in somewhat less colorful language given the family nature of this blog.)
The drill sergeant had several options. He could blame the recruits for marching like a sack of hammers due and lacking motivation that afternoon. He could also blame Corporal Bloggins, the marching NCO, for not having been more forceful in his reminder. Instead, the drill sergeant turned to Corporal Bloggins and said: “You will march them over to their next timing right away, and I order you to tell the Major that it is my fault they’re an hour late. It may be your duty to get them their on time, but the Major is to hold me responsible.”
That was the moment, my buddy tells me, that the recruits went from dreading the drill sergeant to admiring him. Why? Because of his moral courage in taking responsibility for a major faux pas. As upset as he was with the recruits’ poor performance, he didn’t pass the blame down to them. Nor would he permit the marching NCO to take the blame for keeping a senior officer waiting for over an hour. The recruits knew that their drill sergeant was a soldier who practiced what he preached, holding himself to a higher moral standard than that which he held the recruits.
Most importantly, the recruits now knew that they could trust the drill sergeant. There was moral substance behind the show. He wasn’t just spit-shined boots, razor-thin creases, starched hat and snappy drill movement.
So how does this relate to goodness among Legionary priests?
Well, with the exception of Fr. Berg (and a couple of others) who has now left the order, I have not seen the moral courage that I would expect from soldiers, and definitely not what I would expect from priests. I’m not saying that it isn’t there – that isn’t for me to judge; I simply haven’t seen it.
To quote George Orwell: “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” This is especially true when universal deceit threatens the salvation of souls, negatively impacts the reputation of good men such as Pope John Paul II, and destroys the reputation of legitimate victims who showed moral courage in bringing the truth to light. All because nobody appears to want to take responsibility for the Legion’s questionable handling of Fr. Maciel’s actions. In short, good priests don’t allow their founder’s sexual vices and deceit to endanger the eternal salvation of souls. Good priests don’t allow their founder’s victims to continue suffering unjustly with sullied reputations. Good priests don’t drag out public scandal to Catholics and non-Catholics by employing Clintonesque communication strategies.
Moreover, while I speak for no military, I know of no soldier who would trust a person lacking in moral courage. Especially if the person avoiding responsibility is a man of the cloth, in a position of responsibility over others or claims to be a soldier of some sort. Failure to own up to the truth and accept the consequences of one’s actions is not simply a mistake, but a failure of character in the opinion of most soldiers I know.
This may seem harsh to those who consider themselves part of a spiritual elite building God’s Kingdom, but that’s the real world. If one soldier in uniform sins, especially if that soldier is among the senior ranks, then all soldiers are tainted with the scandal. All soldiers in the unit are held in disgrace by the public. And the stain to the unit’s honor and reputation can only be removed if the fault is corrected, the perpetrator held responsible and the truth made known. All of which require moral courage.
Nor do I buy the excuse we cannot judge because we’re not in their position. As my Tyranny of Nice co-author Kathy Shaidle often says, to put forward this excuse is to assert cowardice as one’s defacto position. Moral cowardice is contrary to goodness and the example of heroic virtue lived by the saints. Look at St. John Fischer. Nobody reading this blog lived under the reign of King Henry VIII. Yet none of us as Catholics invoke the intercession of the other bishops living under his reign – those who followed their monarch into schism because they lacked the moral courage of St. John Fischer. Those who were kept from speaking the truth openly because of pressure from above.
Now western society no longer has kings who lop off the heads of clergy for expressing Catholic orthodoxy. Rather we have media barons who make or break reputations. A good example of such, in conservative circles, is Sean Hannity at Fox News. Hannity is a former seminarian who believes the Church’s traditional teaching on contraception is outdated. Which of the following is an example of moral courage among the priesthood? Going on national television and correcting Mr. Hannity, or using one’s position at the same media outlet to publicly attack a brother priest for zealously defending Catholic teaching and admonishing a Catholic in error?
Of course the former, a retired Marine, understands the value of moral courage. And thus his actions provide a living example of the Marine motto Semper Fi (“Always faithful”). Which is why I and many other pro-life Catholics look up to him as a good priest.
Therefore – and I am speaking now to each and every Legion priest reading this blog – it is your responsibility before God to show moral courage, come forward with the truth, and repair the great injustice that your founder’s deception has inflicted upon the Church. This is the way of a true soldier and a good priest.

Fr. Maciel had dual personality, says Cardinal

In a story circulating South American and European media, Santiago’s Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz appeared nationally on Chilean TV and said: “Los médicos cercanos al padre Maciel han dicho que tenía dos personalidades distintas. No solamente un tema de doble vida. En un momento era el fundador y en otro era un pobre hombre.”
Here’s how a Spanish-speaking reader translates His Imminence’s words: “Doctors close to Father Maciel have said that he had two distinct personalities. [….] In one moment he was a founder, and in another he was a poor man.”
The article also states that Fr. Maciel injected himself with Demerol, my translator tells me, adding that seminarians ran the pharmacy for him. Coincidentally, Demerol is believed to have been Michael Jackson’s pain-killer of choice. This begs the question whether Fr. Maciel apologists, attempting to gain sympathy for the founder, are now shifting from the Clinton strategy to the Michael Jackson strategy. (Maciel and Michael are both reported to have suffered a stormy childhood at the hands of abusive fathers, both attracted millions of followers making noise that people wanted to hear, both faced legal investigations over allegations of sexual abuse involving minors, and now the addiction to Demerol allegations.)
That being said, there’s serious questions to be asked if the dual-personality explanation is taken at face value. Why do no one in the Legion notice Fr. Maciel was switching back and forth between personalities? If it’s because he was never the “hombre” when around the Legion, then how was he able to switch so conveniently between personalities? And how sure is the Legion leadership that the Hombre Maciel personality never played a role int eh founding of the Legion of Christi/ Regnum Christi movement?
I’m afraid this attempt at an explanation raises more questions than it resolves.
***
Speaking about cardinals and Fr. Maciel, Cassandra has just posted another blog entry on who knew what in the Holy See. Cassandra speculates that recent news reports implicating Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone in the coverup may have confused Pope Benedict’s longtime loyal supporter with previous secretary of state Cardinal Sodano. Not only is Sodano a close friend of the Legion, but his relationship with the current pope has often been stormy, and he has reportedly tried to undermine Pope Benedict’s papal authority in the past.
As Cassandra states:

Sanjuana Martínez reported in CIMAC that one of the babymommies alleges that Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, is implicated in the payment of hush money. That would make for a stupendous scandal if the churchman organizing the apostolic visitation had been previously involved in silencing witnesses, especially after calling for “transparency” in the letter announcing the visitation.
I do not and will not believe that allegation without further evidence. But I wondered if either she or Martínez could have meant to name rather the emeritus Secretary of State, Angelo Sodano, whom we know to have been at the service of the Legionaries in the past.

Pope John Paul II and Fr. Maciel

UPDATE: Damian Thompson also weighs in on the controversy, over at the London Telegraph blog.
****
Cassandra Jones, one of the most insightful commentators on the Fr. Maciel expose, is back. This time Cassandra tackles how this crisis with the Legion of Christ is hurting the papal legacy of John Paul II. (For an earlier blog on this topic, please click here.) I’ve quoted some of Cassandra’s more pithy observations:

The circus nevertheless threatens to distract from the issue more important than Father Maciel’s personal depravity, which, if not fully, we knew about already: accounting for the damage the Legionaries have done to the Church. What interests me is how the scandal now threatens to derail the legacy of Pope John Paul II.
[snip]
What the Legionaries used to say in their vile and dishonest attempt to discredit [Hartford Courant reporter Jason] Berry’s triumphantly vindicated journalism, that he is an enemy of the pope, was distortedly true insofar as Berry has expressed unsympathy for orthodox Catholic understanding in some matters. To have decoupled truth from Gospel witness in its members is one aspect of the disaster the Legionaries have inflicted on the Church. The National Catholic Register used the same voice both to proclaim pro-life and their loyalty to John Paul and to lie in defense of a serial child rapist.

Cassandra is right. Without some serious evidence to corroborate accusations that John Paul II was aware of the situation, we ought not allow this scandal to undermine our affection for the late pope. However, we must recognize that he was not perfect, and that he made a serious mistake in trusting Fr. Maciel.
Moreover, Legion apologists should recognize that they are doing themselves, orthodox Catholics and the memory of Pope John Paul II a great disservice in invoking the pope’s approval.