Fool Me Once. . .
In an article on the Legionary of Christ-published National Catholic Register, Fr. Owen Kearns, L.C., issues a statement admitting his founder Maciel’s wrongdoing, and issuing what I think is a tepid apology to Maciel’s accusers. The statements comes two weeks after the Legionaries’ own official statement distancing themselves from their founder, and after rumors that the Vatican would place the order in receivership started surfacing. Objectively speaking, one could say that it is an expedient rather than a prophetic apology.
As spokesperson for the LC, Kearns did not only defend his founder. He strongly attacked those who came forward to speak against him. He put in place an editorial policy for the National Catholic Register that downplayed the accusations. Arguably, this policy contributed to an active cover up.
Now some Catholics see no reason to doubt Kearns‘ claim that he was duped by the Legion. REGAIN doesn’t treat the apology with the same acceptance.
This raises a broader question that we’ve discussed below: As Christians, we are admonished to be charitable, and to forgive. Those of us who aren’t victims of Kearns’s false accusations or the LC don’t have standing to forgive, of course. But we do have standing to assess the statement, which is public. At what point does common sense trump charity? At what point does a sensible person judge that someone as far up in the order as Kearns ought to have been aware of some of the goings on in the order–and perhaps was willfully blind? How do we assess whether an apology is sincere? How do we reconcile “street smarts” and Gospel values?
“How do we reconcile “street smarts” and Gospel values?”
One part of this is that they address different things. Forgiveness and reconciliation are about restoring personal relationships. “Street smarts”, in this case, is about prudence. If I cheat on my wife, she can forgive me and agree to go about the hard work of repairing the marriage, but that doesn’t mean she would be remiss in glancing through the call history on my cell phone.
Another part of it is that a plea for forgiveness isn’t supposed to exist in a vacuum – it’s just one step in a larger program of reform. Our street smarts should make us Missouri: the Legionnaires need to “show me” that they’ve reformed. Have the Order and its leaders truly amended their lives? What concrete things can they do to demonstrate that? Are they doing anything by way of reparation? If those aspects are missing, then our “street smarts” may lead us to question the sincerity of their apology. Or so it seems to me.
In their statement, the LC leaders claimed that all the revelations contradicted their knowledge of Maciel:
And the letter to the members of Regnum Christi said:
As I said here at the time, that’s debatable. Describing the scandal as “sudden” is flat wrong — this was a very long time coming — and “totally unexpected” is difficult to credit. Berry’s reporting in NCR indicates that at least some of the order’s leadership must have known what Maciel was up to. Their “experience of him personally,” especially at the end of his life, could not possibly have been protected from knowledge of his many “reprehensible” pursuits. So if the guys at the very top are still claiming to have been taken completely by surprise, it’s very difficult to guess how much someone like Kearns might have known (or might have been guilty of more than bad judgment).
Jim–you’re right. Kearns doesn’t need to apologize to me–he didn’t hurt me. But I have to assess his apology–his public statement, and decide how much credence I will give not just to this but to anything he says in the future, as a public figure in the church. In assessing his statement–in assessing, in a way, his character, how do we rightly balance a Christian hermeneutic of charity versus real world cynicism?
Now, if I were reading this statement as part of a court case against someone caught in the middle of a racketeering ring, I’d move toward the cynical side. Why wouldn’t we do that here? Why shouldn’t we do that here?
Or.. . is he more akin to a mob accountant or the child of a mobster that doesn’t want to believe the worst about his beloved father?
Also worth reading is the Feb 2009 critique by NCRegister’s longtime columnist, Fr. Raymond D’Souza, in First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/02/the-legion-and-the-national-ca
He did a very good job at summing up the problems in specifics, and the sense of personal and ecclesiastical betrayal in general. I wonder what he has written about the Kearns letter.
In any case, he raises metrics by which to measure repentance.
What do you mean you “don’t have standing to forgive”??
Of course YOU DO.
We all have, not only “standing” (that overly legalistic weasel-word), but we have an obligation to forgive. Forgiveness is not limited to those who are injured. It applies to everyone. How much? How many times? Seventy times seven, i.e. every time.
You don’t have “standing” to forgive, but you have standing to throw rocks in a public stoning? You don’t have standing to forgive, but you have standing to judge?
This really does display a very troubling misunderstanding of some very fundamental concepts of Jesus Christ.
At what point does common sense trump charity? Never.
Charity in all things. ALL. It is true that charity (love) and truth go hand-in-hand, but subjective “common sense” is not necessarily truth, and it certainly never trumps that love of others which is called charity.
I know that it is more fun to attack and to denigrate and to tear down and to congratulate yourself and pat yourself on the back for your moral superiority in doing so, but it is not the Christian way.
Bender, there is an enormous literature on forgiveness. I am myself persuaded by the argument that on a human level, only victims are in a position to forgive wrongs, properly speaking. For example, if your best friend’s wife cheats on him, you can’t forgive the wrongs she did to him. He is the only one with the right to do that (which is what I mean by “standing”). Since I have not been wronged by Kearns, I am not in a position to forgive him. That’s Jason Berry’s right. That’s the right of the victims he accused of lying.
What I can do is decide whether to a) believe Kearns’s account; and b) to trust him in the future. Sometimes people lie. Sometimes people are weak. Some people have bad judgment. It’s a consequence of original sin.
So Christians, like everyone else have to decide what to do about that. How do you decide whether to trust someone again when they have proven so gravely mistaken, with such grave consequences, on something so important?
If I read stories of political corruption in the government, I’m not obliged to credit every denial of responsibility. Nor am I obliged, in a jury, to believe every defendant’s claim of lack of knowledge.
So how do we balance recognition of original sin, on the one hand, and the possibility of repentance and growth, on the other?
“Kearns doesn’t need to apologize to me–he didn’t hurt me.“
If I follow that line of reasoning, no Bishops need to apologize to the church at large for hiding predator priests; they only need to apologize to those directly affected.
I think it is fair to say that Kearns, as director/publisher of the NCRegister, and one who continued to say that up is down, and in is out during the entire revelation of the Maciel’s evil ways, DID hurt me, me being the People of God, the Church. So, yes, he does need to apologize to me, and you, and you, and each and every one of us.
Clerics, particularly those in positions of management and influence, as men ordained to live “in persona Christi”, cannot expect to be given a certain degree of deference on one hand, but then not to have to accept the fact that their actions, good and bad, have a wider result than just on a one-on-one basis.
I don’t think common sense and charity are ever in conflict. First you need to figure out the situation; that’s where common sense comes in, and experience, and cynicism, and judgement. Even the odds of repentance and future trustworthiness can be calculated. Charity doesn’t in any way involve diminishing what went on or what might go on in the future. I think it does involve realizing the weakness and cluelessness of humanity, and in some sense realizing how I might have been tempted to do the same myself. But that should never obscure what actually happened or what should take place to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Bender says about how we should love and forgive one another.. Then says
‘know that it is more fun to attack and to denigrate and to tear down and to congratulate yourself and pat yourself on the back for your moral superiority in doing so, but it is not the Christian way.’
Thanks for the lesson???
I agree with Cathy, only the injured can forgive a deed or an omission of what is due. These are matters of personal, individual injury as against injury to the community.
As to he community, when a trusted leader proves to be a liar, for instance, the community as a whole loses moral credibility because it discredits the values of the community. It *shouldn”t discredit them necessarily, but people generally conclude that those values aren’t life converting and the whole religion is discredited. (Don’t ask me what a “value” is. Very difficult philosophically, but I’m convinced they’re real.)
But there is another group of injuries to consider. Indirectly the individual members of the community *are* injured, but in different ways from the victims of abuse.
As members of the community we have been individually injured by the behavior of the bishops. They have pained each of us because of our empathy with the children and their parents, and they have embarassed us because they make us look like individual fools for accepting their authority about anything, plus they have used our individual monetary contributions to pay for their sins, and most important they have injured the poor especially because the money that should have gone to the poor has gone to victims and lawyers. Perhaps worst of all, they have shaken the faith of many individual members of the community, in some cases destroying it. I wonder if ANY of the bishops realize all this.
So which parables are applicable to this situation? The prodigal son? The useless servant who buried his talent in the ground?
The act of forgiving benefits primarily the one doing the forgiving. It may or may not benefit the one being forgiven. (A murderer can refuse to express remorse, but the surviving family can forgive and thereby achieve some degree of peace, of closure.)
Common sense must come into play. As a friend once heard in a AA meeting, “Jesus told his followers to turn the cheek, not to bend over.”
This is very simple – let’s see what Rome does or does not do in terms of LC/RC.
Suggestion – this group needs to be suppressed. An outside, independent group should be appointed to set up transition criteria (to dioceses, other communities); an accounting group needs to set up to do a forensic investigation – property, foundations, current holdings – from this group evidence may surface per country that could and should lead to legal charges and investigations (some of these folks just like sexual abusers) should stand trial;
Forgiveness – is demonstrated by evidence of restitution and steps to heal the victims across LC/RC.
I agree with Bill D. – the legion should be surpressed and restitution to victims given.
Perhaps worst of all, they have shaken the faith of many individual members of the community, in some cases destroying it.
Indeed, and that’s “deconversion”: they have turned some people *away* from Christ. They have done the exact opposite of what priests are supposed to do.
I am not sure what forgiveness has to do with being “street smart”. If my dog bites me in his excitement when we take walks, I will put a muzzle on him to protect myself. I forgive him of course, but it doesn’t preclude self-protection just in case he wants to do it again. Kearns should be placed in a position where his naivete cannot cause further harm, that is, he should not be in a position of responsibility over other people. This is completely independent of forgiveness.
And then there is the troubling statement of Jesus: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Yes. It is troubling. That’s why there’s a tension. But what are its implications? The way you’re reading it, it seems that there is no difference between a virtuous and prudent person and one who’s not.
If Kearns came out against Maciel he would be considered a “whistle Blower.” Most whistle blowers are either fired, ostracized or done worse to. Very few people have the courage to come out against a person such as Maciel because the whole force of persuasion is on his side and one will not look forward to a hero’s welcome but rather fierce ridicule and ostracism.
So Kearn’s was probably wrong and knew what Maciel was about. Anyone here who has gone through a Catholic seminary, or worked for a corporation, college, state or federan agency knows the oppression waiting one who will speak out against irregularities.
The sorry conclusion is that most will not speak out against injustices when they are in the minority, especially a minority of one who elects to do something about it.
As far as speaking out against injustices, what kind of leadership extols John Paul II when he wanted to replace perhaps the most important martyr of our times, Oscar Romero. What kind of perfidy allows us to extol leaders who preside over a coverup and make the institution more important than children? What kind of writers extol Augustine who approved of the killing of Christians to conform to dogma? When it comes to being true to our faith, many more questions have to be asked.
Augustine approved of civil penalties for recalcitrant Donatists, but not of killing them as far as I know. Aquinas, on the other hand, approved of treating heresy as a capital offense.
Augustine made some mistakes, to be sure, but to my mind remarkably few. I think it is actually virtuous to extol him, just as it is virtuous to extol Scripture even though it is full of much worse mistakes than any that the civilized and humane Augustine committed.
“(2) If it is indeed the case that Fr. Maciel’s abuse of the sacrament of confession was the basis for his banishment in 2006, then it is important to examine how he shaped the practice of confession in the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi, especially in regard to the formation of seminarians. For example, is the strict separation between external forum and internal forum maintained in the Legion of Christ seminaries, as required by canon law? ”
This is the most important thing that Fr. D’Souza says, I think, because it questions Maciel’s theology of conscience. Having proven himself a “master fraudster”, as Fr; D’Souza puts it, ISTM that all of the LCs and RCs ought to be questioning *everything* that that master fraudster taught them that was different from what the rest of the Church teaches and requires of its members. They should first admit their own gullibility and start over with theology, and probably with the history of the Church as well.
Poor people. What a XXXXXXX Maciel was. (Yes, I’m judging him morally.)
Actually, Augustine poked fun at the Donatist’s offering themselves to martrydom. They were being killed by the authorities and Augustine knew it and approved.
Joe, such a bad analogy between scripture and Augustine. Talk about examples limping. This one doesn’t get off the ground.
Augustine, and other “Fathers of the Church”, furthered the notion of empire. I don’t think they can be honored for that. They continued the decline of the leadership of the church.
JAK –
I used to quote that regularly, but with the discussions here I realize that it is one of those statements of Jesus that is not meant to be taken literally or not in the most obvious sense at all times. I think He probably meant that we should never judge whether or not the *intentions* of another person were evil or to what degree they were evil. In other words, we should never make an absolute judgment of guilt.
But we can judge the evil of the outcome of a choice when it is a public outcome. If I see someone being cruel to a child, then it is obvious that he/she is committing a crime — but is it a *sin*? I don’t think we can ever really know with absolute certainty. So we ought not to judge intentions because — intentions being private — we *cannot be sure* what they actually are.
But sometimes we have to punish or at least complain about the public, external deed and infer what the *probably* intentions were. But what degree of probability should there be before we act? That probably differs with the seriousness of the apparent misdeed.
At least that’s how I see it now. Better go read some Anscombe :-)
Cathy: How am I reading the statement of Jesus?
Jim Pauwels spoke about forgiveness and reconciliation versus prudence. This question was raised in an article about a group which, in the postwar years in El Salvador, has been searching for children who were “disappeared” during the war — meaning, in many cases, that they were seized by the army. The group, called Pro-Busqueda, has managed to find some of those children and reunite them – sometimes decades after they were disappeared – with their families.
The article — “What Did You Do in the War, Mama,” by Tina Rosenberg — was published on February 7, 1999 in the N.Y. Times Sunday Magazine
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/07/magazine/what-did-you-do-in-the-war-mama.html
The NAB points out that Matthew 7:1
“is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Matthew 7:5, 6″
“but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.”
The point that I would make is that not to judge at all would obviate the need for forgiveness. How is it possible to forgive a person for doing something that you have not judged to be a matter that requires repentance and forgiveness?
It occurred to me as I was writing this that I see a problem with Jesus saying, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do,” in that Jesus is telling the Father something as if the Father didn’t know it already. But the NAB says, “This portion of Luke 23:34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution.”
Here, drawn from Aquinas’s Catena Aurea, are some reflections on Mt 7:1-2 made by early Church authorities. They are along the same lines as the NAB footnote.
Jerome: But if He forbids us to judge, how then does Paul judge the Corinthian who had committed uncleanness? Or Peter convict Ananias and Sapphira of falsehood?
Pseudo-Chrys.: But some explain this place in this way: that the Lord is not forbidding Christians from reproving others out of good will, but only that Christians are not to despise Christians by making a show of their own righteousness, hating and condemning them often on suspicion alone and pursuing private grudges under the guise of piety.
Chrysostom: … He says, “Do not judge,” that is, be not a bitter judge; correct him indeed but not as an enemy seeking revenge but as a physician applying a remedy….
Chrysostom: He does not forbid us to judge all sin absolutely, but lays this prohibition on such as are themselves full of great evils, and judge others for very small evils….
Augustine: I suppose the command here to be no other than that we should always put the best interpretation on actions about which it seems doubtful with what mind they were done. But concerning actions that cannot be done with good purpose, as adulteries, blasphemies, and the like, He permits us to judge; but about indifferent actions that might be done with either good or bad purpose, it is rash to judge, but especially so to condemn. There are two cases in which we should be particularly on our guard against hasty judgments: when it is uncertain with what mind the action was done; and when it is uncertain what sort of a person one may turn out to be who now seems either good or bad. Let us not, therefore, either blame things about which we do not know with what mind they are done or so blame things that are manifest that we despair they can be healed.
Here one may think there is difficulty is what follows, “With what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged.” If we judge a hasty judgment, will God also judge us with the like? Or if we have measured with a false measure, is there with God a false measure by which we will be measured? For by measure I suppose is here meant judgment. Surely this is only said, that the haste in which you punish another shall be itself your punishment. For injustice often does no harm to him who suffers the wrong; but must always hurt him who does the wrong.
Would agree with Gene and Ann. Growing up in a largely Southern Baptist area, I grew to dread the typical out of context scripture quotes that were hurled at you for almost anything. I found those doing the quoting usually did so in terms of manipulation, their own ends, etc.
Thanks for the more careful drill down in terms of “judgment”. The comments I made above about the LC/RC were not judgements – they were suggestions to set up a process to help (in my opinion) are the victims of this situation – most members of the LC/RC. The processes I laid out are just that – processes. Church, civil authorities can make their own judgements – I just want to insure that there is actually some type of “day in court” rather than sweeping this under the carpet.
BTW – not judging in an appropriate situation is really just another type of judgement. All too often, Fr. K’s quote was used by bishops and administrators to move pedophile priests from one place to another.
If I were to quote from scripture, I would use Mary’s words as an expression for all those mothers who lost sons/daughters to the LC/RC and are in such pain today – sexual, psychological, emotional abuse:
From Mary’s Magnificat: “He has cast down the mighty from their thrones and has exalted the holy (or lowly)”
“Judge not” I take this to be a warning against pretending to make a comprehensive judgment of the moral state of someone as if one were God. It does not mean that if there is sufficient evidence that Father X has raped an altar boy, we should say and do nothing. How does that sound?
Bill De Haas, thanks for the lesson about not proof-texting. I’ll have to remember that when someone quotes Mk 9:41 to me, or 1 Jn 4:16.
Joe Gannon: I think the meaning of Jesus’ saying is pretty clear from the context. He has already taught the disciples his prayer, which included the verse: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”; and now he says: The judgment you passed will be passed on you. The measure with which you measure will be used to measure you.”
The question Cathy raised was not about Maciel’s abominable behavior–how’s that for a judgement?–but about Fr. Kearns’ sincerity, even his character, and to that question I do think that the saying from the Sermon on the Mount is relevant, in particular as interpreted by the Fathers above.
Jesus said “Judge not, lest you be judged.”
But there are these texts that seem to amplify that by distinguishing between correction and judging:
John 7:24: Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.
1 Cor 6:1-8:
1 How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones?
2 Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts?
3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not everyday matters?
4 If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church?
5 I say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to be able to settle a case between brothers?
6 But rather brother goes to court against brother, and that before unbelievers?
7 Now indeed (then) it is, in any case, a failure on your part that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated?
8 Instead, you inflict injustice and cheat, and this to brothers.
BTW, I don’t think prooftexting is the problem, but prooftexting out of context is the pretext (as my old evangelical pastor used to say.)
Tepid indeed, Prof. Kaveny.
“Objectively speaking, one could say that it is an expedient rather than a prophetic apology.” Oh, yes.
Actually forgiveness implies judgment because you cannot logically forgive A for what he has done to you unless you unless you judge that what he did was wrong and intentional.
It’s a good thing you never went into law , Joe-it seems wouldn’t have had the stomach for it! The fact is, of course, people lie. Maciel lied. I myself don’t think he could have gotten away with this pattern of activity without substantial help from powerful insiders. In trials for conspiracy, the most common lie is “I didn’t know.”
It’s striking to read the earlier statements issued by Kearns, admonishing good Catholics to believe the denials of the founder. I fear that you had you way, we’d all have piously believed Maciel. Someone had to say, “I smell a rat” This doesn’t make sense. We’re going to pursue it further.”
I myself do not find Kearns’ denial credible–any more than I did the denial of some of the people involved in Enron. Maybe he’s extraordinarily gullible. I don’t know. But something is wrong here.
Nixon. Clinton. Pete Rose. Now I think it was perfectly reasonable to say –in making up one’s mind about these guys, “they’re lying.” I have no idea what their eternal fate is, but in purely temporal matters, I think I’m permitted to use common sense in assessing whether they’re likely to be telling the truth. .
So. .. do you think Kearns gets a break because he’s a priest? What about someone in a polygamous cult who says, “I didn’t know that so-and-so was engaging in a sexual relationship with underage girls?”
Perhaps I am the Joe addressed in Cathy’s last. If so, I’m struck by the fact that twice now you have presumed to know what I was thinking, what “my way” is. Nothing I have said implies that we should have believed Maciel. You don’t need my permission, or anyone else’s, to wonder whether Maciel could have got away with this without help from powerful insiders. Not likely, I would say. I thought your question was about Fr. Kearns and his sincerity and character, both nouns used by you in your initial posts on this thread. I like questions, but I tend to regard them as questions, to answer which some evidence is usually required, at least in our legal system. But perhaps the questions you were asking in your original post were only rhetorical. I do think the saying of Jesus I cited is pertinent. It’s a variant, isn’t it, on the Golden Rule: Don’t judge people by standards you wouildn’t want applied to yourself.
The “Fool Me Once. . . Shame on You, . . . Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me” was meant to apply to a) Maciel himself, and those in the LC who trusted his denials back into the 1950s, and b) to the rest of us, who may have trusted the denials of his spokespersons.
As I’m sure you know, different levels of proof are required for different types of trial. But of course, we’re not talking about putting someone in jail, or taking away huge sums of money from them here. We’re talking about the degree to which we should continue to give our trust to someone.
So if I were a physician or lawyer, and grossly wrong about the advice I gave a patient or a client, and apologized, I would expect them to a) change professionals; and b) think of me as incompetent, or worse (if the mistake benefited me); and c) possibly report me to the licensing bureau for incompetence. This is in fact what happens to professionals.
Incidentally, in trying criminal conspiracies, a co-conspirator is chargeable with the actions of a co-conspirator that were made in furtherance of the conspiracy, whether or not he knew about them or even approved them. You don’t have to prove knowledge.
So the law of conspiracy isn’t going to help you here. Maybe what needs to happen is that a RICO claim is brought against the LC. A colleague who’s an expert in this area thinks there’s a good case.
Whether deemed a judgment or an observation or otherwise, I have some difficulty with Kearns’ apology. It seems somewhat hard to believe that the truth about Maciel was so hard to believe. The LC knew about his difficulty being ordained, until an uncle-bishop obliged/indulged him. The LC knew about the charges against him from the 1950s regarding alleged drug addiction. The LC–or at least some of the leadership–knew about his unaccounted-for and unaudited use of large sums of cash over many years. The LC knew about his penchant for secrecy and lack of transparency. The LC knew about the sexual abuse allegations at least from 1997. It is often very difficult to believe that an idol or hero could be guilty of such wrongdoing. However, at some point, reason must take over. That does not mean that reason unavoidably guides one to a conclusion of guilt. But, certainly, where there is significant smoke, there is an obligation by those in leadership to at least investigate whether there is fire.
That is where the issue of judgment comes in. We all judge. We are called to judge. Indeed, judgment is one of the great gifts of God. It is an innate defense mechanism, a mechanism of survival. If we see a brigand approaching us wielding a knife, with a wild look in his eye and a menacing demeanor, our judgment kicks in. At very least, we cross to the other side of the street. It is that ability to judge that protects us. The same is true of emotional survival, or institutional survival. It is supposed to be our judgment–our gift from God that helps us discern danger–that should take over to protect us, our beloved institutions, our community, our society. If confronted by the appearance of–or at least the increasing potential–of danger (in this case, the growing evidence over many years against Maciel), should not basic human judgment have beckoned LC leadership to investigate or possibly to have crossed to the other side of the street? It is very strange that LC leadership did not take action to avoid the danger of scandal and calumny and harm to themselves, their movement and others. I suspect this is why they have been accused of being a cult–cults often cause followers to abandon or forfeit basic human survival instincts in favor of a person who does not have much interest in the survival of his followers.
On forgiveness, it is something personal to the wronged party. It is a choice for the wronged party. It seems to me that there are different sins and relationships. The sins of Bill Clinton begged one kind of forgiveness from Hillary Clinton (forgiveness for marital infidelity and a breach of marital vows and public humiliation) and yet another from Chelsea Clinton (fatherly infidelity and betrayal and public humiliation). But, Bill Clinton also was right to apologize to the nation and beg our forgiveness for any number of more general and perhaps less personal betrayals to the country as a whole. The betrayals to his family were more personal and intimate than others. It may be easier for me as one of millions of Americans not related to Clinton to forgive him. Nevertheless, as Christians, we are all called to forgive. It is easier for me–not a member of LC or RC–to forgive the LC leadership than perhaps Maciel’s victims or his “family”–those in the movement. One of the great mysteries of the Divine is precisely that God loves(ed) Hitler, Amin, Hussein, Judas, Dahmer, etc. as desperately as He loves me. That calls for me–for all of us–to attempt to follow His example.
However, that does not mean we turn a blind eye to the evil–or the potential for further evil–presented by those who have wronged us and others. Forgiveness does not mean that there should be no justice. Did LC leadership know of Maciel’s evils but did nothing? We forgive them, but we should also hold them accountable. Perhaps we accept their apologies at face value, but we don’t ignore their wrongdoing if it means that justice will not be done. Jesus exhorted the members of the mob to throw the first stone if they were without sin. But, when the crowd dispersed, he also exhorted the adulteress to go and sin no more. That is a call to us to not CONDEMN (a form of inappropriate judgment), but to also hold accountable ourselves and others we judge as having committed wrong.
Cathy: Go back to your first post initiating the thread and you will see that there is nothing there about Maciel himself; it is all about whether we may regard Fr. Kearns’ apology as sincere, and whether the “common sense” and the “street smarts” that apparently conclude it was not are compatible with charity. I hadn’t realized on my first reading that you had already concluded that in this case common sense did indeed “trump” charity. As I”ve said, I have difficulty in figuring out when your questions are merely rhetorical.
I just noted that in his Second Inaugural, Lincoln cited the dominical statement. Speaking of the South and the North, he said: “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”
I agree with JAK that the issue as posed concerns the sincerity of Fr. Kearns’ apology and request for forgiveness. And I agree fully with the comments of Michael Burnett regarding judgment, forgiveness, and accountability. We all make numerous judgments in the course of each day, many or most of which are not particularly substantial in the greater scheme of things. Sometimes, of course, our judments are more weighty. In either case, a judgment is always relative to the available evidence and to our understanding of that evidence. Judgments may also be of different kinds depending upon the context in which we are making them. A court of law is one place in which a determination must be made regarding an issue, and the legal arena has its own criteria that must be respected. Fr. Kearns has issued an apology to a community of readers and to a wider audience in the Church, in which somewhat different criteria of judgment are operative (although the basic principle of correspondence to evidence remains primary). Finally, I would emphasize that judgments are almost always provisional and open to revision in the light of new evidence or understanding.
Personally, I don’t know enough about Fr. Kearns or the LC to make a really definitive judgment about his sincerity. Do any of us? Provisionally, I can probably agree that it seems a stretch to think that he had no idea of what was going on with Maciel. On that basis, and given some of his past statements, it may be that I am not in a position to fully trust what he says. On the other hand, when someone at least attempts to acknowledge that they were wrong about something and to seek forgiveness, then in the Christian context (though not necessarily in the legal context) , I think the initial response is to accept the sincerity of the apology at face value, with the proviso that judgment may be revised in light of what happens in the future. This doesn’t mean that I would immediately absolve Fr. Kearns or that I wouldn’t bring a hermeneutic of suspicion to his future statements, but it is to acknowlegde the statement for what it is and to see where things go from here.
Joe, it’s perfectly compatible to a) ask a question; and b) to have a judgment about how the question should be answered, and c) recognize that other people will or may think differently, and want to have a vigorous discussion about why. I did open comment boxes, after all.
Is it a rhetorical question–yes, in one sense. I’m not in a position to DO anything about it.
But public apologies are meant to sway public opinion. Tiger Woods.
I do take a very, very dim view of the LC–I think they ought to be treated as a cult. I also of mindful of the ways in which the LC themselves used the “don’t judge” meme to protect Maciel.After reading Jason Berry’s work, I don’t see the problems in the order as limited to him, but as also requiring the cooperation of powerful people in the order –like Kearns. So that, as well as the timing of the apology, as well as its tone, affects how I receive it.
I am very concerned about recycling LC into parish work and other powerful positions–without careful investigation of what went wrong and why.
It shouldn’t be necessary to say this, but…. I have not been defending Fr. Kearns, about whose sincerity and character I am not in a position to judge; still less have I been defending LC, which I have never liked.
Unless we equate a person with what he or she has done, then there is room to distinguish the appropriate response to his or her deeds and his or her personhood. Given a set of deeds that deserve punishment, one can punish as fitting and still, in view of the person’s freedom, offer the forgiveness necessary to continue to respect their capacity for doing good now and in the future, the forgiveness necessary to acknowledge that he or she is and will always be our brother or sister.
None of this forgiveness forbids a prudent caution about what we might expect, on the basis of his or her past deeds, that the person will do now or in the future. But the forgiveness does encourage the guilty person to reform.
Is it hard to practice this sort of forgiveness? Yes. Is it worth doing, whatever the outcome? Yes.