The fate of the Legionaries
July 13, 2009, 8:19 am
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Sandro Magister today has an interview with Fr. Thomas Berg, former Legionary of Christ, on the apostolic visitation of the group that has just been initiated. The problems seem to go far beyond the scandalous conduct of the group’s founder, Fr. Maciel.
Joe, there have been rumours about the Legion–and the Legionnaries–for years now. One very upright Catholic, a good and holy man, I know has privately referred to them as a “cult” to me.
Why isn’t the docility itself the problem–the systematic undercutting of the ability to think for oneself–to access one’s own well-formed conscience? Why isn’t the problem the entire cult of blind submission to authority?
And my question to Father Berg would be: did you only realize this culture was a problem now? Why didn’t Catholic teaching –why didn’t St. Thomaas Aquinas–why didn’t St. Ignatius–why didn’t the whole spiritual tradition of the Church make you realize that the culture was reducing people’s capacity before God, not enabling it ? Why is it only the sex escapades of Maciel that made you realize there was a problem?
And –to be blunt about it–what good did they actually do? To form an entire cadre of people whose consciences are so tied to this culture of submission and unquestioning obedience seems to me to form people as instruments of a leader’s will–not to educate them as children of God.
And how did they choose bishops to review them? It looks, to me, like they picked bishops who are friendly and supportive of the Order. Again, that seems to be a problem: How much did these bishops know, and when did they know it?
Is it true, as Magister writes, that “some of the most prominent Legionaries” requested the apostolic visitation? It seems to me that most of the pressure for Vatican intervention came from outside the Legion–Jason Berry, George Weigel, et al. I second Cathy’s concern about the bishop-visitors. Friends shouldn’t investigate friends.
Vatican appointments are often a mystery, but I would not automatically say they are pro-Legion. One visitor was a priest in Vercelli under Bertone, who had named him vicar general for the diocese, so we might be able to figure out he got the position.
Cassandra Jones has a blog about the legion with some insight. (I do not know anything about her, but her name is suggestive of truth-telling) Chaput for instance hired 3 ‘exiles’ from the Legion to teach in his seminary, which is a rather ambiguous contact with the Legion. Ms Jones, the blogger, adds some analysis of his appointment as visitor:
http://cassandrajonesing.blogspot.com/2009/06/archbishop-charles-j-chaput-ofm-cap.html
I think they need some pretty conservative visitors if the Legion is to be persuaded to do anything. They might lean in favor of the Legion, but they will not be dismissed as easily.
What kind of people were drawn to the LCs in the first place? What attracted them?
The LCs have been described as a cult, and I agree with this assessment.
If these bishops are, indeed, “friends” of the LCs, then I think their “visitation” risks becoming nothing more than a “whitewash” enterprise.
If the Vatican wants honest feedback about the LCs, it should hire an independent outside contractor to do an in-depth assessment of this movement. Rome could then use the results as a yardstick to assess other groups, etc. in the church.
The International Cultic Studies Association (http://www.icsahome.com) might be a good place for the Vatican to start.
Cathy (whose ankle I hope is mending) asks: “why isn’t the problem the entire cult of blind submission to authority?” I would underscore, of course, “blind.”
It seems to me that Father Berg agrees when he says:
“At the core of serious problems in the internal culture of the congregation is a mistaken understanding and living of the theological principle – in itself valid – that God’s will is made manifest to the religious through his superior. The Legionary seminarian is erroneously led to foster a hyper-focusing on internal “dependence” on the superior for virtually every one of his intentional acts (either explicitly or in virtue of some norm or permission received, or presumed or habitual permissions). This is not in harmony with the tradition of religious life in the Church, nor is it theologically or psychologically sound. It entails rather an unhealthy suppression of personal freedom (which is a far cry from the reasoned, discerned and freely exercised oblation of mind and will that the Holy Spirit genuinely inspires in the institution of religious obedience) and occasions unholy and unhealthy restrictions on personal conscience.”
I hope it is not “vana curiositas” that causes me also to wonder with Cathy about Father Berg’s growing disenchantment with that culture and the stages of his own discernment. Should at some point he care to reflect upon it publicly I think it would be of help to many.
“Why isn’t the problem the entire cult of blind submission to authority?”
Because it depends on who that authority is. A well-formed conscience is one that is oriented to the will of God to begin with.
All seem to agree that the Legionaries are a Cult — we used to think as students in Rome in 1972-3 that they were weird. But John Paul II loved them and promoted them. The Vatican is still putting a lot of trust in these new movements — the Neocatechumenate, for instance, has many members working on the Vatican staff, I am told. The Vatican is incapable of turning a criitical spotlight on its own culture, and that is one of the main reasons why their is so much abuse in the Church.
Bob –yes, thanks for emphasizing that aspect of the interview.
I guess my point is that I think the problems with the formation were problems in and of themselves –whether or not they were used to cover up sexual misbehavior, because they stunt the relationship of the person to God. The reason I’m concerned about Fr. Berg is the timing. Presumably, it would have been possible for Fr. Berg to see these flaws in formation before the long-rumored problems with Maciel were too great to ignore. So, why didn’t he worry earlier?
My worry is–if you think the problem is just Maciel, not the culture, then the solution isn’t to change the culture, but to get a better person to obey. And that, imho, is a cult, not a Christian religious order.
The theory and practice of authority and obedience within the group was one of the issues that I was referring to as problematic among the Legionaries. Berg’s description is echoed by a student of mine, ex-Legionary, who is still dealing with a mass of feelings towards them.
It might be interesting to study how different religious orders think of authority and obedience, and to see whether and, if so, how these views reflect their different spiritualities. I recall that we had earlier discussions of the differences between Jesuit and Dominican approaches to obedience at the time of the actions against the two orders in the first half of the 1950s.
Building off of Cathy’s question — what concerns me is the fact that Berg left, to say all of this from the outside. He seems to have a reasonable view of what adequate “reform” will require from the LCs, but he opted to leave rather than advocate for that reform from within the order, which leads me to believe he doesn’t hold much hope that it will actually happen. I don’t want to lean too much on what is essentially a personal decision, of course, but it doesn’t make me optimistic.
Joseph O’Leary, do you believe that John Paul II was aware that there were members of the Legionaries who were engaging in horrific criminal acts? Someone who professes to be Catholic but does not recognize the authority of the Magisterial Teaching of the Catholic Church is not in communion with the Catholic Church to begin with.
JPII was aware of the accusations. He dismissed them as rumors rather than investigating them, and he actively protected Maciel. He stopped, in fact, investigations.
I think that was a decision he must regret now, in heaven.
What was the exact evidence that was presented to John Paul II., who presented this evidence, and what led John Paul II to believe that this evidence was not based on fact?
I think that the consensus here is that the Legion was a cult, grounded in blind obedience.
One thing missing here is a mention of the word loyalty, because, outside the legion, its existence and growth was only possible in a culture emphasizing loyalty more and more within the clerical scene and beyond.
What was known, on the inside, by Church leadership, given its own secrecy, will be a matter of conjecture -but is hardly a matter of doctrine.
One might well add that the notion of institutional protection overriding dealing with criminal behavior (and rationalized as avoiding scandal?) has been clear enough among heirarchy not only in the US but elsewhere.
How well Legion reform will occur strikes me as being not only a matter of cleaning out Maciel and working on maturity issues of its members, but a need for a braoder appreciation of those maturity issues in the Church itself to reinforce their importance.
Other “visitations” do not make me optimistic.
Would approach this from a number of different levels:
a) Berg gives some good directions in terms of an internal investigation of the LC/RC’s constitutions, rules, etc. Like others, question how LC took the historical, traditional religious vows and redefined them esp. obedience. If you look at the internal growth of the significant religious communities e.g. Jesuit, Dominicans, Vincentians, Franciscans, etc. it appears that their constitutions and vows are, at the core, very different from LC/RC?
b) in terms of the 5 named bishops – two thoughts……it might take orthodox, conservative bishops to make an impact on this group? or, are we seeing what John Allen calls, “Bella Figura”; action on the surface but no real change at the core – concern about appearances?
c) finally, would suggest that this internal investigation also needs to be an external investigation:
- most of the significant religious communities went through a rigorous process to be recognized by Rome. LC is a personal prelature of JPII; in fact, how much of JPII’s own personality worship allowed this group to exist – overruling what appears to be a very questionnable history in terms of structure, organization, fund raising, etc. (what about other JPII groups that have followed a similar pattern – Neocatechatical Movement, Opus Dei?)
- the history of the great religious communities indicate that they met a “need” of the church – they did not form to be a parallel church. They built up the church via supporting parishes, seminary training, mission work, etc. Is there a clear Need that LC/RC addresses?
- will these bishops include folks who will follow the money? UN and US IRS rules basically question any charitable group/community that raises money but uses more than 20% of those funds to support its own structure. My guess is that more than 65% of all fund raising for LC/RC goes to supporting their own structures? Again, why? Appears to be a parallel church?
- on the one hand, glad that Berg came forward. He appears to be in his late 40′s or 50′s, so he joined in 1986 – he was not a teenager. Yet, he spent 14 years with them, was ordained, and then almost 10 years later, leaves only after the public scandal of Maciel? He was in formation? especially liked his new position over ethics and human development – based on what expertise, training,
- it appears that LC has suffered a significant departure of degreed and leadership folks (in Dallas, we have an ex-LC bishop who never speaks about his experience?) Why is this happening? What is left behind?
- the other disturbing area is recruitment – for 25 years US seminaries have moved away from high school recruitment and to formation houses for college kids as the earliest starting point. This is based on sound psychological and actual priestly formation experience. Yet, RC seem to recruit at a younger and younger age?
- would strongly encourage the bishops to use Scott Appleby’s works on “fundamentalism” – he has five criteria. Apply those to the constitutions, laws, and vows of RC.
Here’s an old John Allen column–which discusses the matter. My own view, given the larger pattern of JPII’s dealings with people like Law, is that he didn’t believe people who professed their love and loyalty to him could do those things.
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word010705.htm
“In the last column before my hiatus, I noted that Pope John Paul II had recently praised Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado and the order he founded, the Legionaries of Christ. With respect to the accusations of sexual abuse lodged against Maciel, I wrote: “I think the only honest answer is that the pope and his senior aides obviously do not believe the charges.”
That comment brought a response from Jason Berry, who along with fellow journalist Gerald Renner co-authored the book Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, which is in part about the Maciel case.
Berry writes:
I’m sorry, but there are more honest answers than that. It is just as likely that John Paul II and Cardinal Angelo Sodano don’t care if the charges are true. They view the Legion as an asset to protect. The pope has a long record of refusing to punish powerful churchmen who abuse the young, which you fail to mention. John Paul’s support of Maciel is consistent with his response to other men of flawed morals or compromised judgment.
Cardinal Bernard Law resigned after a catalytic role in an epic scandal. John Paul rewarded him with a basilica in Rome. In 1995, he let Vienna’s Cardinal Groër ease into a position at a shrine when he resigned in disgrace as a pederast. As the scandal escalated John Paul would not discuss it in public. When American bishops Symons, Ziemann, Sanchez, O’Connell, and Ryan resigned under similar clouds John Paul did not remove any from the priesthood. Each is a bishop, albeit sans diocese, today.
Since your column appeared, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reopened the case against Maciel. I would modestly suggest that Vows of Silence had something to do with that. Find me another priest, anywhere, in the world, against whom nine men gave detailed allegations of sexual assault, via church channels, and whose life has been as deeply probed in print. (You might have used the word ‘irony’ in quoting John Paul’s praise of Maciel for ‘the integral promotion of the person.’)
You wrote that “Vatican officials believe the evidence is old and ambiguous.” You did not explain what they consider “ambiguous” in the graphic sexual acts, years, dates and places cited in documents from 1976, 1978, 1989 and 1998. I have read thousands of legal documents in reporting on the church’s crisis in hundreds of articles and two books. Far from ambiguous, the evidence against Maciel is overwhelming. To call it “old” begs for clarity: John Paul ignored mounting accusations for decades. Is the pope “ambiguous”? I ask you.
What does your phrase “absent a smoking gun” mean? Nine men stated they were [abused] and psychologically tyrannized as young seminarians.
John, I must make a final point, with little joy, as you helped me during my 2002 research in Rome, and I hope still we are friends. Others in the Vatican press corps helped me too. Cultivating sources in that small, often cozy world with huge career implications should make a journalist doubly cautious. You have made glowing comments in columns and lectures about Maciel’s prime defenders: Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Mary Ann Glendon, George Weigel and Legion of Christ Fr. Tom Williams who lives in Rome. You have identified Williams in NCR as a friend. Williams was Maciel’s spokesman in an ABC News report in which he denied the charges, though admitting he had never asked Maciel about them. When you single out Williams and others (who have been guests at the Legion college in Rome) for praise, you can’t have it both ways. It is disingenuous to write: “It’s not for me to say whether [Vatican officials'] conclusions are justified”‘ At some point, the facts demand one to take a stand, rather than be a cipher. Your tone and comments are those of an apologist for Maciel and the Legion. I encourage you to change that position.”
Normally I let readers’ comments speak for themselves, but since Berry issues a challenge, I will say just a quick word. Jason Berry stood virtually alone in the 1980s in breaking the sexual abuse story in the United States, much of it in the pages of the National Catholic Reporter. He has earned his strong feelings, and I can appreciate why attempts to be dispassionate may seem to him like moral cowardice. Still, it doesn’t ring true psychologically to say that Vatican officials, including the pope, “don’t care” whether charges of sexual abuse against Maciel are justified. To believe that requires making them out to be monsters. The fact is, some Vatican officials believe the charges are a smear campaign, others that it’s a case of “he-said, they-said,” and others aren’t sure what to think. In the background sometimes are prejudices about the scandalous nature of the press, and the way that accusations of sexual misconduct have been used over the centuries by enemies of the church. One can certainly argue that this isn’t good enough, and that the accusers deserve a hearing. Perhaps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will bring some resolution. But I hope it’s not an “apology” to realistically describe a climate of thought, and I also hope we’re not going to go down the road of impugning someone’s integrity on the basis of who their friends are.
By the way, Jason, we’re still friends. “
I’m with Jason Berry I am afraid. That Cassandra Jones Blog referenced by Jim McK above has a time line that shows how early there was sufficient evidence in Rome to have stopped Maciel and reformed the Legionaries had there been the will to do so. Yet, step by step, a cynical diplomatic fix settled into place that allowed the Legion to save face and continue the abusive “formation” program described so painfully by Father Berg. At this point, it is hard to believe that the human damage from this can ever be repaired. And what are the odds that this second Visitation, fifty some years later, will be handled any more effectively?
Yes, diligent investigation by the likes of Berry and Renner would seem to have established Ithe damning facts about Maciel. But as Father Berg suggests, the internal response of the Legion to the “facts” seems firmly rooted in denial. Yes, Benedict is not John Paul, but he has a similar history of overlooking abusive behavior in powerful clerics with whom he sympathizes. ( See the piece in last week’s Tablet on his fulsome praise for the disgraced Archbishop Paetz who resigned in Poland after he was accused of repeatedly sexually abusing seminarians.) And the Legion seems to have won a good deal of favor in Rome, based on its perceived “loyalty” and its ability to attract seminarians (poor souls).
The sort of external investigation Bill DeHaas suggests could be very helpful, though it doesn’t seem likely.
We have seen those in the highest of places, out of fear, ignore the horrors of the rich, the powerful, the loyal. Berry 10 vs. Omnia Roma 0
We have seen it in Madoff case, we have seen it in Marciel case. . When will we learn? Forget obedience in other posts. My rule is, institutional loyalty should always be viewed as shaky ground.
“Yes, Benedict is not John Paul, but he has a similiar history of overlooking abusive behavior in powerful clerics with whom he sympathizes.”
Susan, what is your evidence that Pope Benedict is aware of any cleric that has been involved in abusive behavior and has overlooked it? What is your evidence that Cardinal Law was aware that clerics were involved in abusive behavior and ignored it? If it is true that there were clerics who were aware of abusive behavior and did not report it, why were they not held accountable for enabling the abuse by the courts? If the court agreed to a settlement without holding the abusers accountable then wouldn’t that make the court guilty of enabling possible future abuse?
Nancy, the evidence about Cardinal Law is in his sworn deposition. If you think institutional loyalty is a virtue ,just remind your self that the NY Yankees dumped Babe Ruth on the Boston Braves.. )-:
“one might well add that the notion of institutional protection overriding dealing with criminal behavior (and rationalized as avoiding scandal) has been clear enough among heirarchy not only in the U.S. but elsewhere.
Any person guilty of not reporting known abuse, is part of the scandal to begin with. One can not avoid scandal while participating in scandal. The guilty are those who brought scandal to the Church, not the Church.
Nancy, though I hadn’t mentioned Cardinal Law, the way he has been treated in Rome, being appointed Arch-priest of St. Mary Major, and given positions on eight important congregations, would be considered by most people the highest sort of reward for work well done. As Ed pointed out above, the case against him is spelled out best in his own extensive depositions which are available on the Bishop Accountability. Org site. (Look under Boston Records.) http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
As to the Paetz case, Pope John Paul accepted his resignation after he had been accused repeatedly of molesting seminarians. However, he was allowed to continue participating in church events and has had several recent audiences with Pope Benedict, who sent him a message praising him for his “saving work for the good of the church,” saying, “ Guiding your sheepfold, you gave a testimony of faith in the resurrection of Christ which drove away all fear.” “Venerating Mary as Mother of the Church and Queen of Poland with a son’s love and piously worshipping the saints and blessed of your land along with your people, you laboured for spiritual progress.”
Underlying some of the discussion is the awful practice of Romanita and the overbearing influence of the curia.
Folks may want to argue with Bery about the good or bad intentions of individuals, but the system with its emphasis on internal loyalty, secrecy and bein gpart of the inner circle to move ahead hardly makes for declaiiming the goodness of indivdulas when great evils are concealed and/or sippressed.
Personally, I think JPII is responsible for many of the problems the Church faces because of his desire for all to be in lockstep with him and his demands of loyalty of that sort.
The Law matter is ilustrative and note how many of law’s abetters moved up the hierarchical ranks.
Same is true today as that loyal Philadelphia protector of the institution,. Carlsen, is rewarded by the current Pontiff.
I also think it’s fair to score John Allen who does quite well for himself by keeping his sources in Rome in both prin tand not in much disfavor.
The theme of obedience runs through this thread and is the explanation. Emperors, kings, presidents and prime ministers have always demanded obedience over truth. It is a more comfortable way of governing even if it leads to more serious problems. This is why heresy has always been the number one sin in the church because it essentially challenges orthodoxy. Governing which respects the rights of others is more uncomfortable than suppressing any dissidence. This is why we have the restorationists led by John Paul II since the council. It is easier to go back to absolute obedience than to be a St Paul and work hard with the churches to bring the life of Christ into the communities.
The whole saga of the Legionairres of Christ show us that we need hard word and indomitable spirit (not dominating) to build the church. It is easier to use the guillotine than the carrot. A leader who ends up crucified is not a model but is considered a failure. Yet look what he built. He clearly had many problems with orthodoxy.
There is an outstanding, if strongly-worded analysis and deconstruction of the letter Fr. Berg wrote to LC/RC members five months ago. See http://www.life-after-rc.com/2009/02/parsing-father-berg.html . It clarifies some cultish aspects of his response:
BERG: “4. For your own spiritual needs right now:
a. Remember you are free to speak with anyone, inside or outside the Movement about your pain, your reactions to this tragic news, and for ease of conscience to speak to whomever you believe can best help you at this time. I would encourage you to reach out to and find guidance from priests whose holiness and sound judgment you trust, whether Legionaries or not.
ANALYSIS: This is an enormous red flag: *Permission* to speak with outsiders. The reason he says this is because it is normally not the way of operating. He is graciously giving them what should, by all rights, be theirs already. “You are free to speak” is a frightening comment from a spiritual leader allowing his followers a “grace period” that isn’t normally in place. Can outsiders see this?….
BERG: If you still find the letters of the founder helpful in prayer, feel free to use them. But it is certainly OK to leave them aside. Remember that in many ways, the spirit and charism we have lived is Pauline. Continue to nourish your spirit on the letters of St. Paul.
ANALYSIS: By all means, read what the pederast wrote to throw you off the scent. Read the clever duplicity. See how holy he could be on paper while he was engaging in serial abuse of the innocent and laughing up his sleeve. .. What about that can’t these men grasp? The spirit is not Pauline — the spirit has been diabolical.”
Prof. Kaveny is right to focus on “docility.” I notice Berg’s use of it, and the hair stands on the back of my neck. What causes people to be so blind? A chancery leader in NH once told me people basically want to be told what to do, period. He recounted a woman asking him what is the correct number of members on a pastoral council? Were 11 too few or 13 too many, or something along those lines. He jokingly said 11 is the right number. She did not get the humor, and he hung up. When the priest called back to apologize, she did not understand what he was talking about.
I wrote to Fr. Berg last February after his letter came out. At the time he was still speaking of “ALLEGED” victims. He had written:
“Given the near impossibility of ascertaining what happened over so many years (the earliest accusations would have been dated to the 1950′s), and because I am not privy to the findings of any of these investigations, I do not know which of those earlier accusations might be true.” http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=651
To fill in the documentation gap, I emailed Fr. Berg two reports from the 1950’s, making him privy to exactly the findings of investigations, sworn under oath. No response.
http://www.regainnetwork.org/let/fedE.pdf report by LC superior 8-24-1954, given “In obedience to Your Reverence’s summons and conscience-binding order to reveal under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and only the truth … If things continue as they are, the only possible result would be the deformation and spiritual ruin of many souls… “
http://www.regainnetwork.org/let/FerE.pdf report by another LC superior 8-23-1956, given “under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth… pleading with ecclesiastical authorities,…to prevent the ruin and deformation of this order, which I have so deeply loved”
—————-
Is there anything ambiguous here? Authorities KNEW and chose to be blind. See the DVD of “Vows of Silence” to understand the depth of injustice: http://www.vowsofsilencefilm.com/film.html
A few days later, Fr. Berg wrote:
“The thing I am most pained about—I share this as a brother—is the near absence of but fleeting suggestions of sorrow, and of apologizing for the harm done, both to alleged (ALLEGED?) victims of Maciel, and, frankly, to all of you.” http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=788
I see Berg now acknowledges, “I fear there may be more victims of Fr. Maciel out there.” Progress certainly with the removal of “alleged,” but still no outright statement that Maciel was a sexual abuser of countless boys over decades.
I believe B16 needs to receive publicly Juan Vaca, Jose Barba, Arturo Jurado and the others who filed the canon case (Jason Berry too; sadly it is too late for Renner who died of cancer). The pope needs to do what he as Ratzinger failed to do for decades: admit the truth of their accusations, and grant them a clear verdict as a belated measure of justice. Or is that too pointed and vivid an acknowledgement of the facts? They deserve much more from he who commented it was a “delicate matter” and whether it was “prudent” (in 1999) to investigate someone who had done so much for the church.
“Joseph O’Leary, do you believe that John Paul II was aware that there were members of the Legionaries who were engaging in horrific criminal acts? Someone who professes to be Catholic but does not recognize the authority of the Magisterial Teaching of the Catholic Church is not in communion with the Catholic Church to begin with.”
A. I did not say anything about these criminal acts. Even if no criminal acts had occurred LC would still have been a CULT, and John Paul II should have seen this, but his own authoritarianism prevented him from seeing it. He encouraged many similar organizations, the Pope’s Armada. The ultra-conservative antics of LC are still more approved of in the restorationist epoch we are living through than anything sensible and normal.
B. Maciel never criticized the Magisterial Teaching but was one of its loudest advocates. His private kinks were proably something he squared with his conscience or regularly confessed. He may not have been entirely sane. In any case, even if he had criticized Magisterial Teaching that would not imply that he is not in communion with the Church — such a drastic statement would excommunicate the bulk of intelligent and critical Catholics and indeed seems close to the cultic ultra-traditionalism that produces phenomena like this to begin with. Please reflect.
Fr Berg’s comments about Maciel were disturbing to me. I am not convinced that purging the LC of all connection to Maciel is the way to go. It just reinforces the paradigm of the dependable leader whom we can trust. The undependable types are eradicated from memory.
Perhaps the best result of this will be a group of people who join obedience with skepticism. Not all religious leaders are saintly, so how can people live in community and obey someone who has great flaws? The push for canonization that grow up around the founders of communities reinforce a sense that ti is always right to be obedient. But people need to learn that their leaders are not perfect, yet generally still should be obeyed. Perhaps that is what will come of this, a more nuanced obedience that will not be slavish.
I do not really know. I just sort of feel that eradicating the memory of Maciel is similar to embracing him unconditionally. If we demand a church free of imperfections, we will soon be without a Church.
After that troublesome post, let me offer another.
I think it is better that the Vatican not laicize bishops. I started thinking about this with the Lugo case in Paraguay; someone said that this was the first time a bishop has been laicized in modern times. It set me thinking. Why would the Vatican have the authority to laicize a bishop? That would mean that the Pope, and not a bishop, has the fullness of orders. Sure, the Pope can determine if a bishop has a diocese, but he cannot overrule the divine authority invested in another. Without a diocese, the bishop is functionally laicized anyway, unable to perform his episcopal functions. The further step, of over-turning the sacrament, seems like it should be beyond the Vatican’s authority.
BTW, in looking at Caritas in veritate I noticed that the Italian word “laicismo” was translated as “secularism”. That sheds a completely different light on this question, and a whole host of others!
Jim McK: The Pope can’t undo the sacramental ordination of a deacon, priest, or bishop. Laicization simply means that the man cannot licitly exercise his office.
In the Romance languages, “laicisme” or “laicismo” functionally means the same thing as our English “secularism”; it refers to an ideology that often accompanies secularization, which holds that religion is a purely private matter, with no public significance. Its association with the clergy-laity relationship in the Church is at best remote.
Might Jim McK be confusing laicization with a declaration of nullity re: sacred orders?
I might be, but I do not think so. As I said, the functional equivalent of laicizing is achieved by depriving the bishop of a ‘place’ to exercise. The point is that a bishop is entrusted with authority on the same level as the Pope, ie the fullness of orders. Calling for the laicization of a bishop may be ceding a greater authority to the Pope than he wishes to assume.
I certainly did not wish to distract from the issue of Maciel and the Legion, which fascinates me. It is just a minor point in that discussion of obedience and authority. Is there, should there, be a supreme authority who can do anything?
I suppose I’m a bit more skeptical. Why, given all we know, is obedience even a good thing?
Functionally, es=-the army. If what you’re trying to do is create a an army for God (Legionnaries of Christ, it’s clear why you’d want an army. If what you’re trying to do (and this is my fear about Chaput) is turn yourself into a leader who can command a legion of Catholics to vote as they’re told, well, that’s good.
But I honestly don’t see why obedience is any more than an instrumental good.
I understand that there are people who like to be told what to do. Those are the people I’m very wary of.
Thank you, Prof. Kaveny, for your question about obedience. I understand the term is derived from “ob audire,” to listen intently. I can’t remember exactly where I picked that up, but the point sticks in my mind. It takes on a different cast with that meaning, but still begs the question, obedient to whom?
When a priest takes a vow of obedience, what exactly is meant by that, and does his conscience have anything to do with it? Obedience can be blind or not. Submitting with full assent born out of a mature, free conscience to what God requires is one thing, but the arbitrary exercise of episcopal authority or that of a religious superior who equates his word with God’s will as a matter of principle is another.
Legionaries still run minor seminaries where boys as young as seventh grade are enrolled, to be formed (brainwashed) in rote acquiescence to whatever a superior dictates. Maybe they still do not pass out whips to adolescents for self-flagellation if impure thoughts appear, or create crippling fear by the mantra, “lost vocation, sure damnation,” (Maciel’s victims endured both) but the mindset is one of total control. Just look at Berg’s letter as an example: permission to do anything is required, and forget about thinking critically.
I’m interested in what emotional needs are met by Legionary-type organizations, and why so many parents, adults, and young people fall prey to such authoritarianism. The pain and confusion of those who leave is its own testament to their terrible encounter with destructive formation.
But bring in the money, the priests, absolute unquestioned obedience/loyalty (read the catechism, over and out), and listen to the praises of the fruits. (Glendon, Bennett, Neuhaus, etc.) No pesky cafeteria Catholics to deal with.
Now, blind spots are not the property of any group, but how can people be so deluded, given the bright red flags? The consequences are beyond tragic. The Legion as such should be suppressed; trying to save something so dysfunctional at its core is pointless.
Does anyone here have a citation for what I heard Aquinas said? Something about he would rather face God having violated the rules of the church than his conscience.
Thanks, Carolyn, good points.
Prof. Kaveny – not able to put my hands on a few recent presentations about current “obedience” applications and definitions within apostolic communities but here are a couple of suggestions:
a) most of what I hear and read today about “obedience”/the vow of obedience is defined using the term – Discernment – both individually, with a superior, and within a community mission. If any thing, many communities struggle more with the tension between a communal mission and an individual community member who has a different commitment in mind – link to: http://mission.depaul.edu/podcast/discernment1.asp (with your broken ankle, the podcast does not take long to listen to)
b) the other comparison to LC comes from my experience with the Vincentians – Vincent dePaul explained obedience in terms of simplicity, mentoring, and leadership that called forth by example rather than use of power, authority, etc. Here is a paper by the former provincial of the Midwest Province on Discerment (he acknowledges that Ignatius of Loyola led the way): link – http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=vhj
Note that in both links you will never find the word – Docility.
Will the Vatican ever admit that by failing to vet the Legion properly over many years it allowed–to say the least–much harm to befall many people. It’s not unlike the role of the SEC in the Madoff affair. Except that the claims of the SEC to be able to discern evil may be more modest than those of the Vatican.
Is there precedent within the church of an order surviving and thriving after its founder has been utterly discredited? I’m not thinking of any other examples, but there are many orders that I know nothing about (indeed, have never heard of!).
Is it instrinsic to a religious order that its founder be venerated (and by implication venerable)? Ultimately, how rooted is an order’s identity in the person of its founder?
Here’s another link with good information:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/2005/03/01/115394
“Sifting the Wheat from the Tares: 20 Signs of Trouble in a New Religious Group” by Peter Vere.
Jim McK, you wrote, “Calling for the laicization of a bishop may be ceding a greater authority to the Pope than he wishes to assume.”
The pope already appoints bishops. Why would or should he be reluctant to remove them if he believed it necessary for the good of the church?
Joseph – thanks – excellent summary from Fr. Morrissey.
“Please reflect.” Joseph O’Leary, after reflecting, my concern is that some will use the abuse scandal to try to undermine the Magisterium, The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.
Nancy, that is certainly a valid concern — in Ireland we had reams of letters dismissing the Church and Christianity in the most radical and intemperate terms because of our abuse scandals. However, responsible criticism of the Magisterium, especially when its teaching or the over-enthusiastic embrace of it has been regularly associated with scandal, is not something that puts one out of communion with the Church, as you seemed to suggest; it can even be seen as a service of the magisterium; I would see Charles Curran, for instance, as a servant of the magisterium.
Carolyn Disco — note that secular as opposed to religious priests do not make vows of obedience. They promise obedience and respect to their bishop and his successors on ordination day, that’s all. Neither do they make vows of chastity; they sign a promise to live as celibates some time before receiving the order of diaconate (or formerly subdiaconate).
Joseph, what teachings of the Magisterium has been associated with scandal?
that should read have been
Joseph O’Leary – I am learning the intricacies of religious terms over time, and hate to admit how old I was before I understood secular priests do not take a vow of poverty. And who ever heard of “secular” priests in the first place, a seeming contradiction in terms? A priest is a priest is a priest, and “sacred” at that.
But, I wonder if there is any practical difference between a vow of obedience and a promise of obedience? Basically, either means to obey the bishop, yes? Is the distinction a technical or a substantive one?
Perhaps the violation of a promise is not as serious a matter as the violation of a vow. Is one mortal, the other venial? It’s a world unto itself, and I learn. Better late than never.
So, in popular understanding, a sister is a nun, when technically, she is not. And who knew she is not considered clergy? Neither is a religious brother, who is exempt from being reported by bishops for sexual abuse in their annual audits — because, after all, only clergy are counted; meaning seminarians’ abuse is also excluded.
Maciel instituted private vows not to say anything negative about him or any superiors in the order, and to report those who do. Why that police state initiative was not a huge sign of repression is beyond me. And in violation of canon law, your supervisor was your confessor and spiritual director. It was those vows that his victims kept in fear and trembling during the first Vatican investigation decades ago, and therefore lied in exonerating Maciel.
So much of church organization seems really about power and control couched in religious terms, the concentration of which is worrisome. The proper exercise of authority is not especially visible. I hope the Visitation team is astute enough to forego all the fawning submission usually bestowed very effectively by the Legion on hierarchy. “As your humble servants, we promise whatever you want in total obedience.”
(I read in Weakland’s autobiography — got a quick peek the other day — that an experienced bishop told him early on that his choice was to support his priests or the curia. The pattern goes right up the line.)
Nancy,
You ask: “What teachings of the Magisterium have been associated with scandal?”
Without getting into a lengthy back and forth, I believe this catechism section on secrecy qualifies:
2488
The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
2489
Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. ***The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion.*** No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it
Carolyn – good questions. My canon law days are well past me; and I slept through most classes; thank god. But, there is a significant difference in the church’s understanding of religious vows in a religious community and the promise of obedience that a candidate for orders makes to his diocesan ordinary.
A few practical differences:
- the ordinary will change a numbe of times and the priest is obedient to whomever occupies the diocesan position as bishop or temporary leader of the diocese
- religious communities are also complicated – some are apostolic; some are monastic, etc. but the vow of obedience is to the religious communitie’s charism, mission as directed by the community’s current leadership. That leadership will also change over the lifetime of a priest but the vow is to the community’s charism, mission via a superior, provincial, abbot, etc. In fact, one advantage for religious communities is that they do not answer to a bishop but to their communities leadership which answers to Rome. (granted, for a religious to minister in a specific diocese, he needs permission of that diocesan bishop). But, his ministry, where he lives, serves, etc. is determined by the religious community; not a diocesan bishop.
Carolyn, based on the statements you referred to from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it should be clear to everyone that those involved in the scandal were dissenting from the Magisterial Teaching of The Catholic Church to begin with.
Not at all, Nancy. We certainly interpret differently. It has been clear to everyone I’ve shown this to that the cultural mindset of protecting the institution is right there in black and white.
I see the catechism as the playbook for secrecy that kept bishops from reporting abuse, transferring priests to unsuspecting parishes, the primacy of avoiding scandal, the lack of a right to the truth for survivors, their attorneys, and the public. I know, they never meant to…but they can legitimately claim their judgments were right in line with the text.
No matter, we just have contrasting views of the Magisterium. It’s allowed (grin).
Carolyn, the Magisterial Teaching of The Catholic Church is grounded in The Truth, The Word of God, which means your view of the Magisterium is false to begin with.
P.S., Carolyn, you failed to include this explanation from the Catechism regarding CCC 2488 and CCC 2499.- “Professions such as politicians, doctors, lawyers, psychologists, and others in positions where confidences are entrusted should preserve confidentiality, UNLESS THERE IS A GRAVE AND PROPORTIONATE REASON FOR DIVULGING THE INFORMATION. The same is true about ordinary personal relationships in which confidences are shared.”
I think I framed my query rather badly before, so let me try again: what does it mean to a religious order if its founder is discredited? If the Legionnaires succeed in expunging all mention and imagery of Maciel, then what is left of their identity? Is there any precedent in the church for such a thing?
Jim – was not trying to avoid your questions. The links I provided above do give you some interpretations about the connection between “charism” and a founder. Historically, most significant orders had a charism that met a need; a founder (male/female) that lived, called forth, and applied this charism; and a community that fulfilled this charism.
My knowledge is limited but most significant religious communities had a founder who inspired or called the community forth. But, would argue that these communities also had “marks” that included a charism (separate from the founder; so not a personality cult); had constitutions/rules that set out the charism as separate from the founder’s personality; had a succession plan; met a glaring need of the church and society (again, well beyond just supporting the personality cult of the founder).
CARA has had some comprehensive studies about the life cycle of religious communities by Nygren & Ukeritis. (self-disclosure – Nygren and I are old friends; one year apart in grad school and worked on the same college formation team) Their research indicates that “most” religious communities develop because of an immediate need, grow, reach a plateau, and slowly die over a 300 yr. period. There are obviously some exceptions to this pattern. The also laid out what US communities need to do in the next 10 years or face a decline. From their executive summary: “In the final section of the executive summary Nygren and Ukeritis conclude that, “Fidelity to the spirit of the founder and responsiveness to critical and unmet human needs are basic to the ongoing mission of religious communities.” They present a call to action for religious communities by identifying eight issues that must be addressed if religious communities are to respond effectively to the challenges of the twenty-first century.
They asked Jon Padberg, SJ to expand this into an historical look back.
I am aware that some of the largest and most significant religious communities have gone through their own cycles of rising, death, rebirth, etc. The reasons can be internal divisions; external suppression by society or church e.g. Jesuits from the church; other orders via the French Revolution; Spanish Civil War, etc. In some of these cases, a “second” founder enabled the original charism to be reborn; the community flourished again, and continues today.
If you agree with Nygren’s conclusions, then the connection to the founder’s charism and the mission are the two central components of any community. Specifically to your question, it would seem that LC would have a very difficult time continuing in the light of this research and a current mission that seems to focus more on their own growth than a need of the current church or society.
Links: http://www.resourcingchristianity.org/grantproduct.aspx?PRDID=e461879b-1b42-4b7f-aae3-4bac2a228480
Bill, thx for your response. Good food for thought. It appears that the need for a “second founder” for the Legionnaires is immediate!
Jim – I referred to the study because what seems to be missing from the LC set up are:
a) distinct charism separate from Maciel;
b) what exactly was and is the need that LC addresses (beyond a desire to be orthodox; react to certain parts of Vatican II; and set up their own seminary and school system that builds up their community/finances but does it build up the church?)
c) what works and accomplishments has LC done that is not overwhelming directed at their own community?
Again, that is the danger of a community that is expedited by the personality of a pope and given his direct personal prelature; answerable to him. Very dangerous as we now see in hindsight. It seems that JPII was not always “traditional” in all of his actions.