Ex-Legionaries and Incardination
The National Catholic Reporter is now running yet another shocking story about the Legionaries of Christ, and how they were protected and promoted the highest levels of the Vatican–including and especially–by Pope John Paul II.
It is beginning to seem that Legion and Regnum Christi are and were disturbingly cult-like in the way they function.
Now, of course, many Legionaries are leaving the order –some after many years –and moving into dioceses as secular priests. Some may be leaving for good reasons–recognizing the problems with the order. But some may be leaving simply because it’s a sinking ship.
The rumors about the order have been around for years–I have to say, I’m skeptical of someone who has been in for twenty-five years and suddenly recognizes there’s a problem with the formation and the structure and the vows of secrecy.
So Here’s my question: What procedures are these dioceses putting in place to make sure that that the Legionaries who come over are in fact healthy and likely to be productive priests in parishes? Are the procedures for scrutinizing the soundness of priests who come into a diocese “mid-career” as stringent as those imposed on those who enter the seminary within the diocese? Or are requests for transfer automatically granted?
I think it’s ironic: Some bishops do not allow members of the Legion to set foot within their boundaries. But presto-chango, a year later, the very same priest who was forbidden from entering the diocese as an L.C. is welcomed with open arms as (say) a member of the Archdiocese of New York.
Before arms are opened, it seems to me we need to know a little more about what the procedure and requirements of incardination are.
Anyone know anything?
It doesn’t strike me as irrational that they’d be banned as an order but welcome as individual former members of that order: in cases when the LCs have been barred from operating in dioceses, the cause cited is not their questionable formation as priests, but their failure to submit to the authority of the bishop. The official concern was who they were answering to (and keeping secrets from). The act of leaving the order and petitioning to be incardinated under the authority of a certain bishop addresses that problem directly.
I have to assume there is some individual scrutiny before they’re accepted, but I’m not sure how public (or standardized) we can expect that process to be. I do wonder, though, how difficult it is to conduct any kind of background check on someone whose background involves the Legion. Whom can you ask for information? Who cooperates, and can you trust them to tell the truth? In most cases my guess would be that it comes down to their having other trustworthy people within the diocese vouch for them.
I would also note that asking whether they’re “likely to be productive priests in parishes” assumes they’re being assigned to work in parishes. That hasn’t been the case in the (very) few instances I’m familiar with; those priests have basically continued in the work they were doing before (running retreats and apostolates), but now answering to the bishop and not the leadership of their order.
I think it might be more than that. . . influence on young people, for instance. I think formation matters–not merely vows. If the LC do function as a cult, I think more is required than simply a transfer of authority–the social and personal patterns of interaction run far deeper than that.
You’re right about parishes, although as the LC explodes or implodes, I think more will move to parishes. In any case, I think running retreats would count as the kind of exposure to vulnerable populations that would merit some sort of scrutiny.
The basic question: can/ought dioceses trust the basic formation/screening process of the LC, or ought they to conduct their own tests?
The broader question: What sort of scrutiny background check is involved in the process of incardination?
Mollie – hate to be cynical but would not presume anything. Given the current atmosphere; bishops’ incompetence; and the need for a warm body – there are no procedures.
Remember – even Rome (e.g. Scicluna) states that bishops are independent and act as contractors in the eyes of Rome. So, the usual tension – Rome centralizes when it wants to; and decnetralizes when it works for them.
Remember – the LC investigation’s initial findings come out some time this month. Will it make reference to your excellent point – doubt it.
USCCB has no power or compunction to assert a common policy in regard to your question. Look at the sexual abuse procedures – they vary by diocese and bishop even today.
I’ve never been through incardination, and am not an expert in it, but in my observation, it usually involves a trial/evaluation period of several years. In addition, per the Dallas Charter, it must include scrutiny of the cleric’s background, including a criminal background check. Presumably, a Legionary priest wouldn’t be immediately incardinated.
In cases I’ve seen, a candidate priest is assigned to a parish under the supervision of the parish pastor. Part of the pastor’s job is to evaluate him and share that evaluation with the diocesan personnel board. Ultimately, the board will make a recommendation to the bishop.
Nor, in fairness, should a Legionary background automatically disqualify a priest. Not all of them have been in the order for 25 years. And Maciel bamboozled a lot of people.
Cathy, I’m not saying dioceses shouldn’t be concerned about their formation. But when they’ve been banned, as I understand it, the process went like this:
1) Bishop gets complaints about the activities of the LC/RC.
2) Bishop tells the LC/RC they have to follow certain guidelines and report all their activities to him.
3) the LC/RC violates those restrictions.
4) The bishop says “I have no choice but to revoke your permission to minister here.”
So if an LC priest, at that point, says “I’m supposed to be serving the church, not the Legion, and to do that I think I have to leave this order and offer my obedience to the bishop as an individual,” there’s no irony in the bishop’s considering that offer. It is, superficially, exactly what the next step should be. The whole point is that the bishop now has the ability to address (or prevent) the problems that surfaced back at step 1. But how he does that is an important question. Frankly I’d probably prefer to see former LC priests completely reassigned, rather than being allowed to keep doing the work they were doing before but without the “LC” after their name. Perhaps there should be a transitional program set up for them, a period of observation, so to speak. Maybe there will be.
The Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi should be disbanded, the members “deprogrammed.” The Vatican officials who supported Maciel should be thoroughly investigated, exposed, and removed from any position of power, and Pope John Paul II should no longer be considered a candidate for sainthood.
How can you perpetuate a religious organization that was founded by a sex abusing, non-celibate priest who had a number of children by different women and bribed Vatican officials to protect himself?
Mollie, I think the problem is far deeper than that, myself. It seems from the articles I’ve read that the issue isn’t Maciel alone–it’s the culture and formation pattern that permeates the order. And I suspect that bishops who are wary about the Legionnaires are wary about them–the way they’ve been formed and will form others–not simply some deviation in the chain of command.
The problem it appears from this article interviewing Tom Berg–a former LC who is now a priest of the archdiocese of New York –is that the whole structure of formation inculcates a suppression of individual conscience and a blind obedience to authority. Remedying that is not simply an external matter–a matter of pulling out the authority. You still have a years-long distortion of the conscience to contend with. The problem isn’t simply that they picked the wrong authority–the problem is that they distorted the people they formed.
So I don’t think it is simple matter to become an “ex” LC–existentially at least.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1339296?eng=y
An organization such as the LC would attract men with a certain kind of mindset. Their LC priestly formation would tend to reinforce said mindset.
Incardination might depend as much on a bishop’s own mindset as on the results of any formal background investigation and parish-based trial period assessment. For example, a progressive bishop might be quite wary of accepting a former LC cleric whereas a reactionary hierarch (think someone like Bruskewitz) might be more than accommodating.
Given a cleric’s attraction to LC in the first place, while it may be possible to take the man out of LC, is it possible to take the LC out of the man?\
If I were a progressive bishop, I’d be quite wary of incardinating a former LC priest.
Molly, are you defending the LCs? What do you know that the rest of us don’t?
Just want to add that the current system of loyalty might call for some “deprogramming.”
Among other distressing factors, to me, is the Legion’s culture of silence and of never saying anything negative about the Legion, it’s founders, or its hierarchy.
That is just the sort of clericalism that allowed the founder’s abuses to go unexposed; that is just the sort of clericalism that allowed thousands and thousands of young people to be abused by predator priests who were protected by their peers and their superiors.
If the ex-Legionaries are going to continue with that kind of sensibility, then we can do without them.
Unfortunately, the priest shortage is so desperate in so many places that I fear that these men may be given the benefit of some very real doubt.
I agree; a background check is not enough. Careful examination sof the applicants’ vocation, formation, and values should be made with the same eye to suitability for incardination as is
given to suitability for ordination. The ex-Legionaries should, in this respect, be treated much
like senior seminarians aspiring to Holy Orders, with no particular credence given to the prior
judgements of the Legion.
Peggy and Cathy, my point is a very simple one: I don’t see that what Cathy describes as “ironic” in this post is in fact an irony.
Please note that I haven’t said anything in defense of the LCs or their formation, and I haven’t objected to the idea that bishops should be wary or proceed with caution when it comes to incardinating them. Quite the contrary.
One reason I personally would like to see the order dissolved (rather than simply reprimanded and “restructured”) in the wake of the recent visitation is that it would bring this very question into the light. If every LC priest had to find a new home, that would require a formal, standardized transitional process — or expose the lack of one.
“Incardination might depend as much on a bishop’s own mindset as on the results of any formal background investigation and parish-based trial period assessment. For example, a progressive bishop might be quite wary of accepting a former LC cleric whereas a reactionary hierarch (think someone like Bruskewitz) might be more than accommodating.”
Joseph J. – you may well be right. And to take that thought to its conclusion: the faithful in some areas might be more anemable to a “conservative” priest than those in other areas. It’s a wide, vast church and those who succeed in some places might fail in others.
Fr. Berg’s description of the effect of Legion formation on individual members might well give hard-pressed pastors pause, wondering whether it is safe to entrust the psychological and spiritual welfare of their parishioners to ex-Legion members.
But to some extent, here in New York City’s northern suburbs, the horse has already left the barn. And it imay well be the same elsewhere. The Legion has a way of insinuating itself into parish life with the aim of transforming it in ways many of us would find alarming.
For the last few years, weekend mass rosters in one parish we attend have relied heavily upon priests from the local Legion retreat house. The priests have tried very hard, and, it would seem, successfully, to ingratiate themselves with parishioners and clergy. Their retreats, lectures, and other activities are being aggressively advertised in local parish bulletins.
One of the regulars, a now ex-L.C. clergyman who has asked for incardination in New York has was invited recently to preach a mission at the church. ( When describing the mission from the pulpit, he assured the congregation that by its end there would be opportunity for confession with a group of priests they would “never see again” (chuckles from the pews.) But I had to wonder who those clergymen might be. Present members of the Legion without his concerns about the future of the group? Others in recovery from its effects?
I would not presume to judge the merits of incardinating this priest, who may well fit the profile Fr. Berg sketches of the sort of person most likely to survive the L. C. regime with least harm because of good personal qualities and talents they brought with them. But I don’t think there is any time to waste. We need a comprehensive way to deal with the whole phenomenon of former L.C. priests who may wish to engage in pastoral work, ASAP.
I know absolutely nothing about the LC’s and have never met any. However, I think that it would be a mistake to completely wipe away the good that might have accrued simply because the founder was a sexual deviant and drug addict. Our church would be even more empty now than it is if we applied that standard across the board.
I certainly think that the order needs serious reform or abolishment or some pretty major overhauls. New leadership, a new constitution and new disciplines. And foe heavens sakes, yes by all means ensure that the Maciel’s children’s are well provided for through a trust fund!!!!!! At a minimum the order and church owes it to them. Also pay out whatever compensation is appropriate to his victims.
But I don’t think you should necessarily punish the priests, who may be good. I think that we should be fair.
Afterall the Jesuits are pretty big on obedience and branding. In my experience they are often saying oh he is a Jesuit or he was formed by Jesuits, etc, etc, I have met quite a few Jesuits and in the main I like them.
Plus, the Jesuits also have this practice of manifestation of conscience to superiors in which they manifest everything to their superior. There is this concept of obedience that might work differently in practice today but is part of the tradition of the order.
At this point I don’t really care about church politics and whether an order or person is liberal or conservative – just address in a fair and reasonable and way.
i mean just address these issues in a fair and reasonable way without hitching religious and ideological fetishes to the solutions.
From a mid-March article by Sandro Magister on Legion training practices:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1342498?eng=y
“The dependence of the Legionaries on Maciel was – and for many still is – absolute. There wasn’t a shred of daily life that escaped the rules he dictated. Absurdly exacting rules. Which prescribed, for example, how to sit at the table, how to use a napkin, how to swallow, how to eat chicken without using one’s hands, how to debone a fish.
But this was nothing compared to the control exercised over consciences. The handbook for the examination of conscience at the end of the day was 332 pages long, with thousands of questions.
And then there were – and are – the statutes properly speaking. Much more extensive and detailed than those provided to the bishops of the dioceses in which the Legionaries have their houses. The five visitors went through a lot of trouble to obtain the statutes in their entirety.
From the statutes one gathers that in addition to the three classical vows of religious orders, of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the Legionaries were bound by two other vows – plus a third called “of fidelity and charity” for the select members of the congregation – which prohibited any kind of criticism and at the same time required telling the superiors about confreres seen violating the ban.
These extra vows were supposed to have been removed by order of the Holy See, in 2007. But the rank and file of the Legionaries do not seem to have been notified of this revocation.” I wish I knew how to italicize that last sentence. Talk about infantilizing grown men.
Vital thread.
Jason Berry noted in his interviews that Legionaries in Rome are not being told the full truth about Maciel.
Going to the heart of the matter: what kind of personality is drawn to a Legionary-type order, and is it a mature one? The above is so dysfunctional, let alone the self-flagellation bit for adolescents one hopes is long gone.
Someone said they insinuate themselves into a parish. Exactly, as Berry points out in so many instances in Vows of Silence. It’s a virtual takeover on the sly. Bishops might find they enjoy having
hyper-obedient, clean cut seminarians who run at every command.
The thought of them coming to my parish without significant de-programming (or at all) calls for anxiety meds.
One final point: their minor seminaries need to be closed immediately. The one in my state was subjecting minors as young as 7th grade to pressured recruiting tactics out of reach of their parents. I wrote Bishop McCormack to ask if he were aware of that, and if he had confirmed the Legion was abiding by child protection measures. Of course, I never got an answer. Neither did the attorney general’s office. A bishop can’t tell them how to run the place but can set standards to allow them to function in a diocese. Total silence. There was an abuse allegation at that seminary released in the AG documents. Maybe the diocese and its officials are beneficiaries of some of the legendary Legion generosity?
Look at the place:
http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/articulos/categoria.phtml?lc=se-241_ca-984_ci-801&width=1024&height=768
and see Maciel’s smiling face
http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/artic ulos/categoria_secc.phtml?lc=se-238_ca-886_ci-887
Bill deHaas, what about writing up a description of the deformations in the Legion system, and what is necessary to overcome them? I feel a desire coming on to call a local meeting to discuss the issues.
Susan, absolutely agree: “We need a comprehensive way to deal with the whole phenomenon of former L.C. priests who may wish to engage in pastoral work, ASAP.” And to prepare the diocesan priests as well.
Correct link to Maciel’s laundered “history”:
http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/articulos/categoria_secc.phtml?lc=se-238_ca-886_ci-887.
If it does not work, go to the school’s site first and then select “Our history” under “Who we are”
I think there should be an embargo on LC priests. They are victims, not pastors.
Send them for rehabilitation first, and maybe in a few years time some of them might be acceptable candidates for ministry.
The LC priests need not fear for their livelihood if the ill-gotten gains of their founder are used.
The 2007 text posted by Carolyn Disco shows how much in love the LC people are with their image as the Pope’s darlings. They have been blessed blindly by infatuated popes — the entire process oiled by bribery as Jason Berry has shown — and now they are cursed. The trauma must be terrific!
Carolyn – not sure I am the best person to outline a response.
This thread has the title – incardination. BUT, the pending April LC/RC investigation findings will determine what happens – will it be suppressed or some middle ground?
If there is some middle ground – would suggest that many of these folks (ordained and non-ordained) see themselves as part of a religious community and will want to transition to other religious communities – not a diocese/incardination. But, the same concerns apply? Will superior generals/provincials use any type of screening processes?
Dioceses – incardination — as Jim stated, usually in the old days it might take 5 or more years before a bishop accepted a priest. Given the high need for warm bodies – I have seen folks accepted almost immediately. One issue – who screens in a religious communiity or diocese? If they are put to work, who mentors, who is the on-going formation director who makes the final incardination decision? Based on what? In either scenario – RC/LC folks will wind up in parishes (diocesan or religious); schools, hospitals.
Given the ample evidence and documentation provided by folks such as T. Berg (former LC priest) and as a behavioral health professional, would suggest:
a) psych testing procedures need to be put into place;
b) at minimum, most of these folks (esp. ordained) need to be re-educated or updated for a period of two years or more;
c) special formation directors need to be assigned to lead this process;
d) if the reports are accurate, some of these folks are very damaged (cult-like; need to be de-programmed; this is sophiscated stuff; will the church do that?)
Carolyn – in terms of minor seminaries and high schools of the LC/RC…..as many have noted, we see in the USCCB bishops who will not permit any LC/RC activity all the way to the other extreme – welcoming and inviting them. Will the USCCB change or modify this? Not if their track record holds true?
All minor seminaries should be shut down. We know enough today to realize that their emotional/psychological development is not supported in this type of atmosphere or environment. I was involved in a process of shutting down four minor seminaries in the 1980′s based on careful studies, actual lived experience, etc. It was not an easy task – this type of change is upsetting, dramatic; and challenging to older religious community members. They feel as if the future is being sacrificed.
High schools – the current LC/RC model again does not fit any type of contemporary model of healthy emotional/psychological development. One campus in which you separate males and females – use of outdated development classes reflecting the very issues that many question and have concerns about this group. The USCCB should independently close down all LC/RC high schools.
Finally, this whole situation is sad. How many young people were attracted in their early teen years by the promises and lies of this community – they went into it with idealism, energy, good intentions. Unfortunately, one can only imagine the hurt and damage as the truth has trickled out. I remember transitioning a college seminary in 1985 from a free standing, rural campus (175 years, oldest college west of the Mississippi River) to a House of Studies near the St. Louis University campus. Studies comparing the emotional development of the average college seminary student to the average college STL Univ. student revealed that the seminarians were years behind – isolated; parochial; little cultural/educational opportunities leading to narrow outlooks; little initative; etc. Not very good for future leaders of the church. But, the pain in the religious community was palapable. This was a blow to their motherhouse; their foundation; etc. Now, as time passed, folks realized that it was all for the good.
Can only imagine the difference here – one is shifting buildings; this is shifting souls, minds, hearts that have been deceived. It is basically a version of “psychological rape”.
Please excuse my cynicism – but for some folks I fear that the key question will be – who gets the money (billions) and the property (billions again). Has anyone thought that some of this money should be disbursed to the members to be used to change and rehabilitate their lives?
Bill’s suggestions are quite good, and they move the discussion to another level. The members of LC are victims. They need help so that they can minister, as well as to protect parishes.
Any deformation that comes from LC formation has already begun to fall apart for those who leave. Comprehensive dedication to LC has been abandoned, or they would not be able to leave the order. This is a sensitive and shattering time for many of them, forcing a reevaluation of personal histories, values, and commitments. Some will be very successful in this, and others will not. But I think we should all agree they need support, in the form of prayer as well as in spiritual direction, psychological counseling, and the other things has suggested. The way to protect and nurture the Church is to nurture these priests.
George D –
I agree that your comparison of the LCs with the Jesuits is quite apt. Some men need heroes, and Ignatius was to the Jesuits what Maciel was/is to the LCs. Such young men, I submit, are often very rash by nature, and they know at least unconsciously that they need to be reigned in by strong authority and rules.
The current bishops might learn from the history of the Jesuits. The Jesuits were also banned in the past sometimes from whole countries (by civil authorities), and, if I’m not mistaken, from some Church jurisdictions. We all know that some Jesuits continued their work in those places even to their death in England. How did the banned ones adapt when they were permitted to return?
My question is, *can* that psychological type change (if there really is such a type)? I suspect it can’t, at least not those at the extreme. The psychologists say that once a human being has committed him/herself to a position publicly only extraordinary events allow the person to change his position. (It’s why evidence really counts for little to most of us, at least as regards important matters.) However, the Maciel discoveries might just be the sort of event that will shake up at least some of the LCs and allow them to change their mindsets. But they’ll need re-formation, I think, including a lot of hand-holding for the young. I feel terribly sorry for them.
“An organization such as the LC would attract men with a certain kind of mindset.”
I suspect, base strictly on anecdotal evidence, that many men “with a certain kind of mindset” are those who are joining the priesthood these days — many proudly call themselves JPII priests.
I’m not referring to all newly minted priests by any stretch of the imagination. However, as I read the bios of those men currently studying under the auspices of the Diocese of Oakland, I read a lot of what appears to be scripted pious pap that is designed to please at least the bishop. Will these men actually mature into pastoral collaborative leaders as time goes on, or will they flounce around in archaic costumes and ramble on joyously about the Tridentine mass?
Time will tell, and maybe the more odious of them will be subject to reprogramming.
Mr. Pauwels, let’s not confuse “conservative” with “cultic”.
Jimmy Mac, your last comment reminds me of Davidson and Hoge’s “The Return of the Lay – Clerical Divide” in COMMONWEAL a few years ago:
In another decade or two, we can expect to see the greatest “expectation gap” between the JPII clergy, on the one hand, and the laity — both old AND young, on the other. It would be a sad day if educated, informed, intelligent, and articulate lay folks and professed religious allowed these cultic clergy to make all the critical decisions and have the final say in parish matters.
To JPII clergy, I say: “Get off your pedestal, or I’ll kick it out from under you!”
Can anyone confirm that these are the promises which are made in the ordination rite across all dioceses? Are they prescribed by canon law?
Bishop:
My sons, before you proceed to the order of the presbyterate, declare before the people your intention to undertake the office.
Are you resolved, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to discharge without fail the office of the priesthood in the presbyteral order as a conscientious fellow worker with the bishops in caring for the Lord’s flock?
Candidates: I am
Bishop:
Are you resolved to celebrate the mysteries of Christ faithfully and religiously as the Church has handed them down to us for the glory of God and the sanctification of God’s people?
Candidates: I am
Bishop:
Are you resolved to exercise the ministry of the word worthily and wisely, preaching the Gospel and explaining the Catholic faith?
Candidates: I am
Bishop:
Are you resolved to consecrate your life to God for the salvation of his people, and to unite yourself more closely to every day to Christ the High Priest, who offered himself for us to the Father as a perfect sacrifice?
Candidates: I am, with the help of God
Bishop:
Do you promise respect and obedience to me and my successors? (If a priest is being ordained into an order, rather than a diocese, the priest will ask the candidate to promise respect and obedience to his “ordinary”, which is the bishop of an order, rather than a diocese.)
Candidates: I do
Bishop:
May God who has begun the good work in you bring it to fulfillment.
A cheery thought — all those bumptious JP2 clergy we hear about must now have lost all credibility overnight!
Montalambert regarded the Jesuits much as we used to regard Opus Dei, but then he wrote a letter to someone thanking them for removing his prejudice against the Jesuits. Opus Dei seem to be winning acceptance too, even as the LC fall from grace.
Ignatius Loyola was somewhat nutty, but a real saint. The Jesuits drew on his wisest directives and never became cultic. Blind devotionalism is not a Jesuit trait. Nor, I would say, is blind obedience; the Jesuit idea of obedience is meant to free one’s mind from bias.
Jim McK they are victims, yes, but not ready to function as pastors.
Jimmy Mac: This is the oath taken by the ordained and anyone involved in Church governance:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFOATH.HTM
It includes the phrases “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals. Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”
The nuns doing the “visitation” have to take this oath.
This “definitive” business is what John Paul II thought up — a category of doctrine that is not considered infallible but yet one that cannot be changed, for whatever sense that makes …
I think that the best advice in these situations is the one given by the wise pharisee Gamaliel, “if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them”.
Jeanne:
I don’t necessarily have problems with oaths of loyalty for government officials of any organization. Now, if everyone is required then I think that is a problem.
America survives as a great melting pot due to its indoctrination of the young and requiring them to recite the pledge of allegiance which I personally find abusive.
The pledge should only be said by government officials, police and the military not citizens.
Given that they are so much alike in so many ways, maybe the Jesuits should take in all the L.C.s??
(OK, so I’m getting hysterical here. It’s been a bad two weeks.)
(Hard to see the resemblance between the LC and the Society of Jesus.)
A question: what is the relationship between the LC and Opus Dei? Will Opus Dei bishops be more or less likely to recruit/welcome LC priests than non-Opus Dei bishops?
Hmmm, interesting question, Gerelyn.
Jes’ jokin’, Gerelyn. But there are some likenesses. See some of the posts above.