The New York Times's Damien Cave has a front-page story today headined "Mexican Church Takes a Closer Look at Donors."

[T]he Roman Catholic Church in Mexico has been trying to confront its historic ties to drug traffickers. Long dependent on gifts, but often less than discriminating about where they come from, the church is grappling with its role as thousands die in turf wars among rich, and sometimes generous, criminals.

For an impoverished church, narcolimosnas ("narco alms") are difficult to turn down. Where does the church draw the line? When is money too dirty to accept? The article quotes a prison chaplain who was born in Brooklyn:

Father Coogan explained that for some priests, danger and poverty had made it easy to say, Hey, the guy who owns the factory, hes a bastard, but we take his money, so why not take the drug money?

When I read the headline, I assumed the name of Marcial Maciel would come up at some point. The disgraced founder of the Legion of Christ was apparently a very effective fundraiser (and a powerful figure) in his native Mexico. The article is focused on the problem of accepting money from drug cartels, so Maciel doesn't get mentioned. But the historical background about the political marginalization of the church and its consequent impoverishment may help explain why someone Maciel was so effective and so highly regarded in his lifetime.