Maciel & beyond

Your gift counts double until 5/31: $29,040 to go in our Easter Campaign. Please help now!

Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org

Maciel & beyond

By Diogenes (articles ) | May 21, 2006 4:36 AM

From Our Store: Defining Issues (eBook)

Below are some initial thoughts on the affair of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado. Though it's true of every post, it won't hurt to emphasize that these opinions may not reflect those of Catholic World News or, for that matter, of California State University at Fullerton.

The Holy See's Communication doesn't specify what the exact charges were. Maciel's accusers say the 1998 complaint is that of absolutio complicis, giving absolution to one's own partner in sin, and the Communication frames the situation in terms of the document Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, whose provisions include, but are not limited to, violations of the Sacrament of Penance. Maciel's 2002 statement says, "I never engaged in the sort of repulsive behavior these men accuse me of," but does not further specify the accusations. It is probable, though not certain, that the investigation which the CDF conducted concerned violations of the confessional, and that its findings (risultanze) and the consequent decision hinge on these delicts.

Maciel was "invited" to relinquish all public ministry. On the assumption that he was deemed guilty of violations of the confessional, this seems oddly incomplete. On one hand, the crime brings with it an automatic excommunication (whose remission is reserved to the Holy See: C. 1378); on the other hand, forgoing public ministry would presumably leave Maciel free to hear private in-house confessions -- doubly odd under the circumstances. This makes me wonder whether the CDF didn't come to further decisions (and restrictions) that have not been communicated publicly: i.e., perhaps we're only getting the non-confidential part of the judgment and sanctions.

Those inclined to believe Maciel innocent haven't been done any favors by the LC communications squad, which regularly manages to increase the very suspicions it sets out to allay. Case in point: Maciel's censure has been an open secret in Rome for two months; yet when John Allen asked for a reaction to the censure on the eve of its publication he got the reply, "We have nothing to say. We don't know anything about this." The first sentence would have sufficed.

Equally frustrating to a just assessment of the situation is the LC requirement "never to make outward verbal criticism, written or otherwise, of any act of governance or of the person of any rector or superior of the Congregation, and to inform forthwith the immediate superior of the member who has made such a criticism." Many religious communities have rules that discountenance grumbling; the LC's stricture is not simply another rule, but is undertaken as a vow: that means the member risks damnation if he acts against it, and it binds his conscience in a uniquely comprehensive and final way. Ironically, this vow makes the LC's support of Maciel epistemically valueless -- I'm not saying it's morally valueless, simply making the obvious point that testimony in favor of a man is shonky when offered by a witness who has vowed a priori, and under pain of mortal sin, never to speak ill of him.

Writing of the 17th century cleric Miguel de Molinos's reaction to ecclesiastical censure, Ronald Knox wrote, "I confess I find in this curious outpouring a perceptible echo of that hysterical humility which meets you, everywhere, in the writings of Madame Guyon. It seems to have been a fault of temperament with the Quietists -- and I do not except Fénelon -- that they could not take things quietly. Every slight, every set-back in their careers had to be dramatised and exclaimed over; they resign themselves to their loss not (as we might expect) with a pious shrug of the shoulders, but in a roaring ecstasy of self-abandonment." Granted that the investigation and decisions regarding Maciel are more than a mere set-back, there's also more than a touch of this "hysterical humility" in the LCs' language about the serenity and tranquility with which Maciel is carrying the cross of Christ, etc. It's edifying to the point of disedification.

Several people have reacted to the decision by positing the following syllogism: If Maciel were innocent, it would be a gross injustice for the CDF and Pope Benedict to impose restrictions on his ministry that invite us (even if they don't require us) to believe that he is guilty. But we have no grounds for thinking the Pope and the CDF have the motive, still less the character, to visit such an injustice upon Maciel. Therefore, he's not innocent. I find this reasoning persuasive. But it leaves a lot of questions hanging. Are we to imagine Maciel's punishment apportioned to his proven guilt, or apportioned to his unproven but evident guilt, or not apportioned to his wrongdoing at all but based on factors such as his health, or the containment of scandal, or the good of the LCs? Does the Holy See recognize an obligation to address the pastoral needs of the accusers, to the extent that their injuries have been shown well-founded?

Robert Bork, who is an ex-Marine as well as a former judge, was once asked whether, were he a defendant in a criminal proceeding, he'd rather go before a military or a civilian court. He made the formidably trenchant reply that, if he were guilty, he'd rather be tried by a civilian court; if innocent, by the military. However you parse that judgment, it doesn't reflect well on civilian courts, and it would seem to apply a fortiori to ecclesiastical justice. Had you been charged with the atrocities Maciel was charged with, and it was decided to forgo a trial and commit you to life of private penance, in which situation, i.e., guilt or innocence, would you find that a satisfactory conclusion? Exactly.

Many of us know personally Legionaries of Christ or members of Regnum Christi who lead lives of sincerity, integrity, and exemplary virtue. It's painful to consider how much of their good will and wholesome piety has been spent in defense of Maciel, and how much of what remains may be jeopardized by his disgrace. To us spectators, the Maciel Affair has been particularly exasperating because it brought into conjunction two vexing traditions of (shall we say) "abbreviating the truth" -- the LC's, in service of its institutional defensiveness; the Holy See's, in service of what may be charitably termed charity and less-charitably termed saving face: la bella figura. It's time for a change. Just as Pope John Paul II permitted some of the ugliness and weakness of age to be put on view, the better to witness to its inherent dignity, perhaps the Holy See, and orders such as the Legionaries, can risk more candor about the ugliness and weakness of their human endeavors, the better to witness to God's grace at work.

An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:

Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!

Easter Campaign:
Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($29,040 to go):

$80,000.00 $50,959.70

36% 64%

Read more from Off the Record

« Previous post

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 6 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments

Posted by: - May. 22, 2006 7:36 AM ET USA
The Legionaries have a fundamental decision to make: continue to accept the fiction that their founder is somehow a victim, rather than a perpetrator, or face the truth they have so long denied: that he has very probably done things that make one recoil in disgust and loathing. Uncle Di is careful to avoid antagonizing LofC members/sympathizers, but they will crumble if they continue to dissemble and lie ("we don't know anything about this.") Yes, you do, if you have eyes to see.
Posted by: - May. 22, 2006 6:48 AM ET USA
"Does the Holy See recognize an obligation to address the pastoral needs of the accusers...?" Exactly! While many question - and rightly so - the impact of this on the good people in the LC and Regnum Christi, little thought has been given to its impact on Maciel's victims. Denied justice for decades, this appears to vindicate their charges and acknowledge that they were right. But it is small comfort to them if the Holy See has not responded to them directly. Justice delayed...
Posted by: - May. 22, 2006 2:05 AM ET USA
...Cont'd Sin doesn't work this way, and the more heinous it is, the more it poison's everything else. It poison's the ability to be faithful to Christ in almost every way, and kills sanctifying grace. I accept that it's in the realm of possibility, but believing it actually makes me more distrustful of almost everyone. If someone with his otherwise admirable faith life can do something so heinous, what about you Di? Or me? Can we know anyone? Can we know anyone by their fruits?
Posted by: - May. 22, 2006 1:56 AM ET USA
As a member of Regnum Christi, I am saddenned by the news. I will say that I still find it difficult to believe that he truly did these heinous things. Sin in one's life is not insulated from all other aspects of a persons life, but instead permeates almost everything that person does. These accusation's aside, almost everything else about Fr. Maciel show's complete dedication to Christ and his Church. There are no other outward signs. cont'd.....
Posted by: www.inquisition.ca - May. 21, 2006 10:19 PM ET USA
Uncle Di, your comment doesn't make me laugh as usual, but I can't find anything to disagree with. I tried joining the Legionaries about 15 years ago, in Cheshire, Conn. I ran away after two days. Something had spooked me like I've never been spooked in my life. I couldn't put my finger on it at the time. I'm glad I didn't join the LC, but like you, I feel bad for the good people in the LC who now have to pick up the pieces...
Posted by: normnuke - May. 21, 2006 6:44 PM ET USA
Excellent essay, as usual, Diogenes. For my part I see the affair Maciel as having been settled and now residing in that gloomy land where justice does not shine brightly lest it embarrass the reputation of one (JPII?) not able to defend it and whose reputation it is ardently desired not to be tarnished. Maciel cops a plea.