Plot, thickened

From John Allen

In fact, however, the communication came from the Secretariat of State, the department that handles papal diplomacy and acts as a coordinator for the work of other Vatican agencies. It came in the form of a fax, which was unsigned but bore a seal from the Secretariat of State indicating official status. Italian Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State, is a longtime supporter of Maciel and the Legionaries of Christ.

What this means is that the statement did not come from the Vatican agency that ultimately has responsibility for deciding Maciel's fate. Officials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have refused to make any comment on the recent news reports, but a senior Vatican official told NCR May 25 that the congregation has made "no statement" on the Maciel case, even to the Secretariat of State.

The official stressed this does not mean that there eventually will be a canonical case against Maciel, merely that the agency charged with making that decision has not yet communicated its intentions. Given the preeminence of the Secretariat of State within the Vatican, at a minimum these recent developments suggest there are grave doubts within the Holy See about proceeding.

Asked for comment, a spokesperson for the Legionaries of Christ in New York said that he did not believe the distinction of which office issued the statement ultimately made any difference.

"We believe the Holy See is speaking with a unified voice on this issue," Jay Dunlap, the Legionaries' Communications Director for North America, told NCR May 25. "The way in which it was communicated was intended to make that clear."

Comments

[Brian]

So I see that Cardinal Sodano still mistakenly believes he is Pope, just like at the end of JPII's pontificate.

This showdown should be interesting since the Sandro Magister article alluded specifically to the fact that Sodano was against proceeding with the investigation. Too bad this is outside of the scope of his jurisdiction.

[Steve Skojec]

I'm sorry, but this is actually funny. The Legionaries are so anxious to have someone throw them a bone here that they're jumping at shadows.

It used to always be, when they couldn't counter the criticisms of their critics, they would rely on the old, "But the pope loves us!" bit.

Now, they've got a pope who at least was willing to look into opening up an investigation. The tactics they've used over the last couple of decades have to shift a bit, though it doesn't seem it's doing anything for their case...

[WRY]

I think the notion that Vatican's Secretariat of State issues statements without knowing what is going on to be rather laughable. I'm sure Allen and the rest of the Reporter crew are deeply disappointed, but it sounds like nothing but an infallible declaration will do to convince them that this dog won't hunt.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Please WRY. John Allen is a good and decent reporter. He may be wrong but I would be a little less dismissive of his reporting or what he is reporting.

What is clear is that things are murky. Let's pray that everything gets cleared up one way or the other.

[AnotherCoward]

"We believe the Holy See is speaking with a unified voice on this issue,"

...even though the office actually responsible for any case against Maciel refuses to make a statement one way or the other....

...yes... very unified...

I've not got a dog in this fight, but it's silliness like this that makes the LC look all the more guilty of what otherwise I'd say is nothing more than shadows.

[Brian]

"I've not got a dog in this fight, but it's silliness like this that makes the LC look all the more guilty of what otherwise I'd say is nothing more than shadows."

AND those who continue to posit this as being a "liberals" vs. "orthodox" thing. Like many have said before, does it make any difference if Fr. Maciel or any of the other Legionaries is "orthodox" if their "orthopraxy" includes pederasty?

I said "if." Stop trying to shoot the messenger. I do not agree with John Allen's theology, but at least he had the contacts to get to the bottom of the subterfuge. Remember, Sandro Magister said Sodano would try to block this. Well, Sodano and Ratzinger weren't exactly big buddies when things were equal--especially when Sodano would try to be Pope during the end of JPII's pontificate.

This will prove to be VERY interesting. The Secretary of State has NO jurisdiction in this matter. None whatsoever.

[Brian]

Jornada backs up...on 5/25/05

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/may05/050525/042n1soc.php

Translation of opening paragraph:

"In an unusual strategic maneuver, the Order of the Legionaries of Christ set a trap when they led the public to believe that a statement from the Vatican said that there is not nor will there be a canonical process against the priest, Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the religious order, accused of sexual abuse by various former seminarians when they were children and adolescents. There is no official statement from the Vatican nor is one forthcoming. Therefrore, the process against Maciel is still under- way in the Ecclesiastical Tribunals in Rome.

The Legionaries know very well that the Catholic Church does not operate by issuing statements, least of all about such delicate and shameful cases as the accusations of sexual abuse against the founder of a religious order."

[Larry]

Brian

The Legionaries will survive and continue to flourish no matter what happens here.

It's sad i know. But there are many more intriguing things that the church has to do , than paying attention to jealous heretics.

[Kevin Miller]

a senior Vatican official told NCR May 25 that the congregation has made "no statement" on the Maciel case, even to the Secretariat of State.

Yeah, that's strong evidence, all right. We don't even know that the "official" is with the CDF. If this is good reporting, I'd hate to see bad reporting.

(Usual Disclaimer: I don't know what's happening with the LC and/or the Vatican. I'm addressing only the REPORTING here.)

[Brian]

Wow! Larry and Kevin. Wow! Please inform to whom you referred to as "jealous heretics"? Also, this is not about whether or not "the Legion will survive." Certainly, those priests of the Society of Jesus thought as much a few hundred years ago. We know their days are numbered now since they have virtually NO VOCATIONS. I thought the Church infallibly guaranteed indefectibility of the Church. I didn't know it extended to the Legion of Christ! Wow! Learned something new here today.

Kevin: What in the world are you talking about? John Allen's quote you mentioned merely reported what the Vatican official said to him. This confirms what the CDF press officer said to the Legion, which also confirms what he said to the Regain people. He has no news. There is nothing to report. The Legion tried to twist that into "news." The sucker media fell for the PR 101 ploy.

By the way, I still cannot believe you have no opinion of the Legion of Christ, being they recruit actively from the University where you teach all the time. I also didn't know that a degree in theology enabled one to even know "good reporting" from bad.

Do you think all of the false reports spread by AP, CNS, NY Times and others without checking sources was "good reporting"? Their entire story was false. Completely and entirely made up from a news release from a party with a vested interest in the decision. PR 101. In fact, we PR hacks don't even try that with the business media.

[Julia]

Larry:

"paying attention to jealous heretics"

What did you mean by this?

[Hugh O'Regan]

It would be incorrect to say that John Allen "had no news". The news that John Allen was reporting was that the LEGION was knowingly or unknowingly speading false information; saying that there was no and would be no investigation.

If the legion was honest they would retract their press release. They must know that it is CDF policy not to comment one way or the other until an investigation is complete.

[carol mckinley]

" think the notion that Vatican's Secretariat of State issues statements without knowing what is going on to be rather laughable"

Yeah - Allen's implying that Cardinal Sodono is a conspirator!

Truly asinine.

[carol mckinley]

Last week, Roberts and Allen were horizontal that Reese was tossed off America magazine for heresy.

That swell newspaper doesn't have an agenda now does it?

Please, you've taken leave of your senses.

[carol]

"They must know that it is CDF policy not to comment one way or the other until an investigation is complete."

Correct.

--let us not forget that last year, the CDF had no comment on Canon 915 when many of us tried to get them to execute it upon the apostate and excommunicated John Kerry.

They're weighing the consequences of actions and executions at a very, very fragile time here in the US.

I hardly think we should believe John Allen over Cardinal Sodano.

[Matthew M.]

This is all very nice, but I'm really interested in steering the thread back to whose dogs are in which fights. And where, exactly, do these dogs fight?

[Loren Z]

In the March 2002 First Things Fr. Neuhaus writes:

The story is told of St. Philip Neri (1515–1595) that he gave a most unusual penance to a novice who was guilty of spreading malicious gossip. He told him to take a feather pillow to the top of a church tower on a blustery day and there release all the feathers to the wind. Then he was to come down from the tower, collect all the feathers dispersed over the far countryside, and put them back into the pillow. Of course the poor novice couldn’t do it, and that was precisely Philip’s point about the great evil of tale bearing. Slander and calumny have a way of spreading to the four winds and, once released, can never be completely recalled. Even when accusations are firmly nailed as false, the reputations of those falsely accused bear a lingering taint. “Oh yes,” it is vaguely said, “wasn’t he once accused of . . .

Do you see the moral of this story Amy?

[amy]

Loren Z:

In the March, 92 issue of the Gospel of John, Jesus said: "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

Do you see the moral of this, Loren?

This is a forum where people discuss what's, uh..in the news. Far more people read about this case in other news venues than read my blog. Have you sent this to them to every newspaper and wire service in the country as well?

The people who discuss here, come from all over - some are LC/RC, some work for them, some are ex-LC/RC, some are just observers. People who are not drones like to discuss things, and are helped by exchanging opinions and information.

That's the moral of the story.

[Rod Dreher]

You go, girl. Deploying phony piety to shut down necessary discussion of a very important issue won't work anymore. Good.

[Brian]

Well, technically speaking, we could call all "news" "gossip." But since there is a public interest at stake, and we do live in the U.S. (even though freedom of speech is technically, a heresy, per Leo XIII), we must do our best to do this in a spirit of seeking the truth and without degenerating into "gossip." As many people have children or other friends and family associated with the Legion and RC, it may be in their public interest to know the truth. Based upon my previous experience with RC (6 years), their errant news release is par for the course. I am no big theological fan of John Allen nor NCR. They set themselves against the Church. But I believe Vatican II, that great bastion of orthodoxy, talked about "elements of truth" in non-Christian religions. So let's look for the "elements of truth" in John Allen's normally insightful and fair reporting, rather than seeking the cyanide? All in the "spirit (I mean "letter") of Vatican II," mind you...

[Peter Nixon]

Loren's concern is certainly a serious one, although Fr. Neuhaus is hardly an objective observer when it comes to LC/RC. We recently had a priest in our diocese returned to active ministry after an abuse allegation was judged to be unfounded, and I'm sure all are familiar with what happened to the late Cardinal Bernadin.

But the concern in this story is not Fr. Marciel himself, but rather what appears to be efforts on the part of LC/RC officials and those sympathetic to the organization to frustrate the investigation. There are serious questions about whether LC/RC has used its connections to powerful individuals in Rome for this purpose. I'm glad that reporters like John Allen are staying on top of this.

[Hugh O'Regan]

"I hardly think we should believe John Allen over Cardinal Sodano."

It is not a question of believing one over the other. John Allen is a respected journalist. And he is pointing out what you already know and confirmed as CDF policy, which is, The CDF does not comment on a case until an investigation is over.

The LC is a controversial Catholic Organization, their modes of operation are not above criticism and I am suspicious of how they operate. However, I hope that their founder is innocent of the charges but I do feel that the number of accusers who have come forward probably indicates that Maciel is guilty as charged.

More harm will come to the Church and to the Pontificate of Benedict if Catholics come to believe that the CDF actively halted an investigation of priest abuse because the priest in question was to powerful or too close to our previous pope.

The LC may survive and flourish if Marciel were to be found guilty. The LC may not be able to survive if the Marciel investigation is seen as supressed. The pontificate of Benedict may not recover from such an error in judgement.

[Patrick Rothwell]

Here is one possibility that "squares the circle." This is just a guess. Since there is no Prefect of the CDF until the summer, no one has the authority to close an investigation. Therefore, the investigators presented the report to either the Secretary of State who made the decision OR, the investigators presented the decision to the Pope, who then made the final decision and transmitted the decision to the Secretary of State for forwarding to the Legion.

[amy]

I also think that to the extent that anyone in the "general population" thinks about this matter, it registers, at this point, as "Vatican shuts down investigation of powerful head of religious movement." Hate to tell you, but it's not, "Head of religious movement exonerated." The conversation needs to continue until we know the truth, at least the truth which we, as outsiders, have the right to know.

[Brian]

"I'm sure all are familiar with what happened to the late Cardinal Bernadin."

I'm not sure at all of what you are getting at here. Cardinal Bernardin, it is well known, had the prospective accuser paid $800,000 I believe, to retract his allegations.

He also had the Chicago Gay Pride chorus sing at his funeral Mass. Cardinal Bernardin, in a lot of ways, God rest his soul, may be responsible for much of the homosexual bishops and priests we have in the Church today. Besides, he was a media favorite, and they knew of his "tendencies," so the national media was quick to exonerate him.

[Boniface McInnes]

"Loren's concern is certainly a serious one, although Fr. Neuhaus is hardly an objective observer when it comes to LC/RC."

And since the quote from Fr. Neuhaus has absolutely sod-all to do with the LC/RC, but rather with the nature of gossip in general, I don't understand how this is the least bit germane. Care to explain?

That said, while I obviously agree with and endorse Fr. Neuhaus' quote, I think Loren misapplies it here.

[amy]

Let us not get into Bernardin wars on this thread, please.

[Donegal Tom]

Refresh my memory, is the Legion of Christ the religious order whose priests do not sing the Mass?

[Giselle]

I'm still confused. If I am suspicious of how the Legion operates and want the investigation to proceed -- am I a heretic? apostate? cafeteria catholic? I didn't see "LC" when I passed through the line, and I tried to grab everything...

[WRY]

I guess we also have to believe that Pope Benedict knew about and at least tacitly agreed with the decision of the Secretariat of State, which of course draws him into the conspiracy to hide Maciel's sins and continue the rule of pederasty in the church that John Paul II so ardently fostered by promoting the LC. Right? Because the alternative is to believe that the statements being issued are correct.

[carol]

" John Allen is a respected journalist."

Respected by whom?

I don't respect anyone who writes for that heretical rag. Everyone who writes for it is somehow advocates the proabort/homosexual/lesbian agenda/USCCB/Democrat agenda. Allen is slightly less above board than the others.

If your asking me to believe that it's not a question of believability when a group that is known for fidelity to the magisterium and excludes dissenters, homosexuals, proaborts and apostates - -is being attacked by newspaper tied to dissenters, homosexuals, proaborts and aposates and their truths are equivocal - that's over the line of absurdity for me.

[Hugh O'Regan]

Giselle,

If you went through the line and tried to grab everything you most certainly are not a cafeteria Catholic. You may well be a heretic or apostate but as I have not read any of your other messages I cannot tell at this point. Now, understand the LC shouldn't be mandatory on 'the Catholic Line' and anyone who tells you that you must like or approve of the LC would be a heretic if not apostate.

As for myself, I am neither a heretic or apostate. I am however a Cafeteria Catholic and by that I mean that I am an Adult Catholic who accepts the dogmatic teachings of the Church and I quietly and sometimes not so quietly oppose some of our fallible teachings, interpretations and policies.

In otherwords, as an adult Catholic I make use of the Church Teaching on informed conscience in a very real way.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

What the hell is an adult Catholic? That is pretty condescending. I thought we were to strive to be childlike.

[Hugh O'Regan]

Carol,

The NCR is not an heretical rag. It is one of the few Catholic Newspapers that publishes real news. Granted, it does have a point of view and it often disagrees with the hierarchy but at least it publishes stories that are mostly filtered and suppressed in the official "Catholic Press"

[Hugh O'Regan]

Cheeky Lawyer:

As a child I thought and reacted like a child. As an adult I try to apply the principles of my faith as an adult.

I refuse to accept blind obedience as a Catholic value.

[Simon]

"I guess we also have to believe that Pope Benedict knew about and at least tacitly agreed with the decision of the Secretariat of State"

WRY -- No one familiar with how the Vatican operates (and I don't mean that as a criticism, just a comment on the Italian and curial culture) would assume that the Sec. of State's unsigned fax was passed up the chain for the Holy Father's personal review and approval. The opposite is almost certainly the case. This has all the ear marks of one faction (Sodano's) responding to a news report by trying to make an end run around the process.

Look: The best possible outcome to this thing would be a fair and relatively open process that reasonably assured anyone not in the fanatical anti-LC camp that the accusations are baseless or at least unprovable hearsay. I'm still hopeful of that. But frankly what we have right now is the worst possible outcome -- an apparent short circuiting of the process which only makes it look like the accused is hiding something.

[Simon]

Hugh O'Regan -- So either a person is an "adult Catholic" who "opposes some of our fallible teachings interpretations and policies" OR we "accept blind obedience as a Catholic value"? Thanks for the comic book ecclesiology. That goes along way toward explaining why Voice of the Faithful can't seem to connect with anyone not old enough to remember swooning over John F. Kennedy.

But I apologize for abetting the hijacking of this thread. While the crumbling remnants of Call to Action Catholicism no doubt want to bury the LCs, one need not be a dissenter to be concerned about the facts reported in the story Amy posted.

[Hugh O'Regan]

"But frankly what we have right now is the worst possible outcome -- an apparent short circuiting of the process which only makes it look like the accused is hiding something. "

Exactly, By-the-way, I am not in the fanatical anti-LC camp. I know enough about the Legion to be suspicious but not enough to be fanatical anti-LC yet.

[carol]

"As for myself, I am neither a heretic or apostate. I am however a Cafeteria Catholic and by that I mean that I am an Adult Catholic who accepts the dogmatic teachings of the Church and I quietly and sometimes not so quietly oppose some of our fallible teachings, interpretations and policies"

Hugh - look up the definition of heresy will you?

Now, I know you're suspicious of people like Fr. Neuhaus and the National Catholic Register, groups that declare fidelity to those teachings you quietly oppose - so - here's a news flash - - Chissiter, wearing a man's suit and a crew cut will be most happy to tell you the "facts" from "where she stands".

I'm sure it all has nothing to do with "the truth" they've been trying to sell you for decades.

[chris K]

IT WAS AS IT WAS....OR AS IT WAS STATED TO BE!

So sorry that the current facts don't quite fit into the desired schema of the "murky" minds here...because to my mind that is where the only "murkiness" lies. (Of course, the former facts about men either lying or asked to falsely accuse in the original prolonged investigation didn't seem to register in such minds either as reasonable doubt - sigh!).

On May 20, the Legionaries of Christ issued a news release stating that the "Holy See" had informed them that "at this time there is no canonical process underway regarding our Founder, Fr. Marcial Maciel, LC, nor will one be initiated." Subsequently, the Catholic News Service and other press agencies quoted the Vatican Press Office as confirming the statement.

This is exactly what the LCs said in the beginning, but somehow everyone got stuck or fixated on the CDF Press Office - guessing that they were supposed to be the office of the official communique to the LCs. They were only said to be contacted for backup for sources wanting to question the statement. And that's what they did, no more no less, in stating that there was not currently nor planned for the future a Canonical process. Now we have a new conspiracy...Sodano using undue influence and power (even though his office coordinates between Vatican offices - which he apparently did here) because he spoke for the CDF (without their knowledge?)! Hey, he may be Secretary of State but he ain't the pope! And THIS pope was personally knowledgable of this whole case - we've even had commenters surmising that then C. Ratzinger was on some death watch for his dear friend and opened this new investigation only a month before JPII's death since he knew it was near! He was just that anxious, according to such minds. What garbage thinking. Logically it would appear rather more that the plan was to have an even stronger office make the statement to the LCs - to let the world know of the Vatican's end to this ongoing and thoroughly investigated situation. I don't know how the public would see this as some Vatican shut down of an investigation. These newer complaints go back years...and since they had been "tabled" - probably because there was nothing there, to get it finished they made the effort to talk to everyone involved. This took place, apparently around 2 months ago. So now, if Mr. Allen or anyone here knows of sound proof or evidence of anything new that was overlooked or dismissed by the investigator, the latest investigation is evidentally over. ....unless we hear next that the pope, the one everyone has said was the one to seriously reopen the investigation, puts forth an angry reply to his Secretary of State for acting without his knowledge. Remember, the more recent complaints which newly involved the confessional came only AFTER the statute of limitations was up for anything more of the former complaint nature...and that is clever since that forced the Church to renew investigating since it involves Church rules that have no statute of limitations. So, as the books say....Prove It! If there are actual new facts, I'll review the new evidence with its proper weight attached to the rest of the lack of evidence and the tainted original bunch of accusers.

[Mike Petrik]

Hugh,
That style of Catholic can be a bit too convenient. In my experience most "Cafeteria Catholics" simply define all teachings with which they disagree as non-dogmatic and fallible. It is all about personal autonomy, power or both.

[carol mckinley]

"The NCR is not an heretical rag. It is one of the few Catholic Newspapers that publishes real news."

Hugh, my brother in Christ, you have been grossly misled.

[Hugh O'Regan]

Simon,

If you want to accept or promote 'blind obedience' as a Catholic Value that is up-to-you. I suspect that you reacted because the charge hit close to home.

[Mike Petrik]

Hugh,
Obedience only when one agrees is not obedience at all; and obedience when one disagrees or does not understand is not blind.

[Simon]

Um, not quite, Hugh. My point was precisely that those of us who hold the historic Christian faith, the fullness of which is found in the Catholic Church, do so because we believe it is true.

Your caricature of that belief as "blind obedience" is straight out of a Jack Chick Comic Book -- as if deep down we didn't really believe in all these Vatican "policies" but fearfully submit to the dictates of some stern authority figure.

A thoughtful and educated Catholic need not prefer Catholicism Lite, and in my experience rarely does.

[Hugh O'Regan]

Mike wrote:"
"That style of Catholic can be a bit too convenient. In my experience most "Cafeteria Catholics" simply define all teachings with which they disagree as non-dogmatic and fallible. It is all about personal autonomy, power or both."

It is convenient as a label against Catholics who after serious consideration serious investigation of Church Teaching and theological opinion come to a conscience decision that a particular fallible teaching is incorrect or misguided.

Catholics who in the past worked against the Church's support of slavery would have been called disidents, or Cafeteria Catholics. When in reality they were correct.

Catholics who worked for religious freedom would have, in the past, been called disidents, apostates or at best Cafeteria Catholics.

[Mike Petrik]

Hugh,
Your examples at least somewhat bely your claim of serious investigation. I suggest you do more research about the Church's historic "support" of slavery and Her view of Catholics who held slavery to be wrong. As for your second example, it is true that the Church historically did not place a high value on religious freedom, though Catholic Europe on the whole was more tolerant than Protestant Europe. That said, I do not believe that the Church ever considered Catholics who favored greater religious freedom to be dissidents or apostates.

[mark j]

Hi Hugh

I was poking around your website and couldn't help but notice that you have unilaterally declared that the Church's teaching on women's ordination, including Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, to be "fallible".

http://66.78.26.38/~sfbayco/magazine/html/woprohibition.html

http://66.78.26.38/~sfbayco/magazine/html/sfbwomen.htm

I would say that Mike hit the nail on the head. If it doesn't fit in with the secular-liberal agenda, then it must be "fallible".

[Benedetto]

Hugh, spokesperson for VOTF-San Francisco wrote: "The LC is a controversial Catholic Organization, their modes of operation are not above criticism and I am suspicious of how they operate."

Personally, I think "The VOTF is a controversial Catholic Organization, their modes of operation are not above criticism and I am suspicious of how they operate."

So there. Neener neener neener.

[Hugh O'Regan]

Mike:
At least you had the intellectual fortitude to admit that the Church for a long time was on the wrong side of the "Religious Freedom" issue.
I understand that because of the seriousness of the Slavery Issue quite a lot has been written in defense of the Church.
1) "She never really approved of the slave trade"
2) "She worked to make the lives of slaves easier.
etc. etc.

Partial truths but it cannot hide the fact that while individual Catholics and Catholic groups (dissidents) worked to change Church teaching on slavery. The official Church was often seen as supporting and jutifing slavery.
The Church even owned slaves. She gave Kings the right to make slaves. Those are historical facts. And that is why being an Adult Catholic means rejection of "blind obedience".

[carol mckinley]

"Hugh, spokesperson for VOTF-San Francisco wrote: "The LC is a controversial Catholic Organization, their modes of operation are not above criticism and I am suspicious of how they operate."

Well - well - ain't that something.

Just goes to prove my point all to well.

If you're loyal to the Magisterium - you best be watching out - somes of these folks are rising from the ranks of the disobedience and calling us pervs.

[carol]

The National Catholic Reporter - that prestigious journal of "truth" is helping them all out.

[Hugh O'Regan]

Mark:

You seem to have confused the meaning of "fallible" with "incorrect".

According to the understanding, a fallible teaching could in fact be just as correct as an "infallible" teaching.

You are correct however, that I personally do believe that the prohibition against the ordination of women is a fallible teaching.

[Cornelius AMDG]

Rod: "Deploying phony piety to shut down necessary discussion of a very important issue won't work anymore."

I don't mind the discussion on this thread at all, but why must you dismiss those who disagree as "phony"?

[Hugh O'Regan]

Beneditto,

Sorry, I didn't say that I was a spokesperson for VOTF San Francisco. However, your,
"So there. Neener neener neener." statement does prove my point of the difference between an Adult Catholic and a childlike one.

[amy]

This discussion could probably stop at this point. Carol has her own blog...you could go fight there, if you like.

[Benedetto]

Dear Hugh,

Why you changing you URL to various things? Just to encourage broader readings?
Or you don't want us to go back to www.votf-sf.org ?, which is what you used until after 5:22pm, and where your name is all over as "Editor."
Just a curious little boy.

[tcreek]

There is nothing unusual about how the Vatican released the statement about the investigation of Fr. Maciel. When a question is raised it is the Vatican press office that responds

The New York Times reported on May 22 that they contacted Rev. Ciro Benedettini, the vice director of the Vatican press office by telephone. Dr. Joaquín NAVARRO-VALLS is the director but many times Fr. Benedettini is the contact person.

The response of the press office was:

"There is no investigation now, and it is not foreseeable that there will be another investigation in the future."

This is now a non story except for those few who refuse to believe anyone but the accusers and the National catholic Reporter.

[RP Burke]

Cornelius AMDG:

Rod did not call anyone phony, but he did refer to a line of argument as phony. Big difference. Hate the sin, love the sinner, you know.

[RP Burke]

Amy:

... we, as outsiders, have the right to know ...

Actually, we are insiders, to the extent that LC/RC and we are part of the same institution.

[carol mckinley]

"This discussion could probably stop at this point. "

What? Just when we're finding out that those "suspicious" of Fr. Neuhaus, the National Catholic Register and L.C and inciting a riot against a group loyal to the Magisterium and a priest who won't let homosexuals and dissenters into his seminary belong to VOTF in San Francisco and get their "truth" from the heretics at the National Catholic Reporter who now implies that Cardinal Sodono is part of a conspiracy to cover up pedestry?

"You go, girl. Deploying phony piety to shut down necessary discussion of a very important issue won't work anymore. Good"

[Giselle]

This is the brilliance of the Legion. Look at the catfight. Always divisiveness in their wake, aligning anyone who prioritises the magisterium in their favour against those who want to minimise dogma.

Trick is: NCReporter and Benedict will align in this one to call them on the carpet, leaving the Register-loyals out in the cold.

Think outside the box, people. YKW has crafted something rather unique this time. Orthodoxy can be a mask for all sorts of shenanigans. I drank the kool-aid for years. I still love the Church and the pope, but realise that this was a masterful con-job. Now it's over. The rank and file of RC will have to decide between Maciel and Benedict, should the decision come down against the Legion. Shouldn't be hard ... should it? Where will the obedience be then?

[Jimmy Mac]

Carol, it's time for you to take your prozac and go to bed. You're obviously overly tired. Otherwise, why are you so nasty and unwilling to really engage Hugh in a rational dialog?

Shame on you. Having taken a quick look at your blogsite convinces me that you should continue to stay there rather than opine here.

Have a very nice loyal magisterial neocon day, though.

[carol mckinley]

Yes, Jimmie - Yes indeed - -I've hit the raw nerve when you start telling me I should be ashamed of outing the agenda to label we "loyal" "neocons" perverts.

Quite irrational and nasty not to want to include us in setting the record straight.

There was nothing rational about this dialog whatsoever when you were spinning the lies and insanity of VOTF and the National Catholic Reporter.

[Jimmy Mac]

Carol:

Who called you a pervert?

What lies and insanity of VOTF and NCR?

Attack is not the same as dialog, except, possibly on your blogsite.

[Hugh O'Regan]

Carol,

What a strange approach to debate you have. I posted my opinions on why the subject of the LC founder's sexual abuse charges may not yet have been laid to rest.

I never mentioned VOTF and VOTF has not, to my knowledge, weighed in or made any public comments on LC or on this on-again, off-again investigation of Fr. Maciel. I presented to you my opinion of the harm that might result if the Maciel investigation was brought to a premature halt.

Now it might gall you to think that an organization of lay Catholics might have the nerve to urge the hierarchy to support victims of clerical abuse and to point out that the real scandal was not the abusive priests but the bishops and archbishops who hid those priests and transferred them from parish to parish or diocese to diocese. To bad, live with it.

In any case I do not speak for VOTF. I never said that I did.

What I do not understand is why so many Catholics on this thread, liberal, main-stream or conservative, rejoice at a premature ending of an investigation when so many victims have come forward. We are not talking about 1 or 2 cases but many, many cases of sexual abuse.

Does not the health of the Catholic Church mean anything to you people?

[mark j]

I guess intelligent discourse has pretty much run its course when people starting throwing around the phrase "you people".

[amy]

oh, you people.

What I meant was, when a thread veers off-topic, and one of the parties engaged in the off-topic discussion has his or her own blog, it would just make much more sense to engage the discussion over there, and take it any direction you choose.

[carol mckinley]

"What lies and insanity of VOTF and NCR?"

Your honor, the defense rests!

[Nicole]

Giselle wrote:
This is the brilliance of the Legion. Look at the catfight. Always divisiveness in their wake, aligning anyone who prioritises the magisterium in their favour against those who want to minimise dogma.

OK, I know I usually don't have anything major to say here other than my personal experiences, but I just can't understand the continued generalizations. There is NOT always divisiveness in their wake.

Sorry, but I would hope people who have read these threads can at least recognize that some RC folks posting here have one, given some positive examples of things the Legion and RC are doing and two, that many of are are normal, devout Catholics loyal to the Church and the Holy Father hoping to grow in holiness through our vocation to Regnum Christi.

In Christ,
Nicole

[Giselle]

Nicole: I was RC for years. I was a part of all those apostolate you cited. I also knew that our main objective was to get the name out there and recruit. Familia: to recruit. ECyD: to recruit. CKNet: to recuit. Adoration for Vocations: to recruit. Then the press went bad so we didn't want the name out. Sotto voce: Challenge, Endow, ConQuest, YTM (hide the connexion)

I am still a loyal, orthodox, magisterium-loving Catholic. But I've connected the dots. RC engaged in apostolates for dubious ends. Every home-schooling group they joined became a power struggle. The elitism and us-vs-them mentality was not charitable and NOT everyone against them is a heretic.

Why is there this fear of an thorough investigation? Why is anyone who questions the integrity of Maciel a liberal or cafeteria catholic? Let the process run without name-calling.

[Tom]

The conversation needs to continue until we know the truth, at least the truth which we, as outsiders, have the right to know.

Well, maybe not this particular conversation....

[Nicole]

Giselle:
Why is there this fear of an thorough investigation? Why is anyone who questions the integrity of Maciel a liberal or cafeteria catholic? Let the process run without name-calling.

Can you please show me where I expressed a fear of an investigation or engaged in name-calling?

As for the apostolates, I have never been told that recruiting is a goal. What I have been told is that RC is a vocation, and like all vocations, not everyone is called. Yes, some might discover a vocation through one of the apostolates, but the mission, at least here in our section, is to bring Christ to the world.

For the record, I am not against an investigation and it seems like it would be better to have one now and disclose the results so the truth is known. I can't speak for other RC members, but I am not so naive to think it is impossible that there is some wrong-doing. The past charges were dismissed, but if there are new allegations, I would never be against an investigation.

In Christ,
Nicole

[Brian]

Giselle's comments are perhaps the most insightful I have read here recently. Of course, the VOTF people love to have us "fallen away" RCs "on their side" for a change, but ours is for a different reason. Some of them may be "generally concerned" with Father Maciel and some of the shenanigans that go on with the L of C and RC, but if they were truly concerned about sexual abuse in the priesthood, they would extricate themselves from the sodomite priests and bishops and lay men and women (NOT all of them, of course) who work for, and read, and support National Catholic Reporter. Of course, everyone recognizes that sexual perversion (homosexual acts) and the evidence all points to, this leading to sexual abuse with teenage boys and older. This is the root cause of this crisis, and if VOTF were seriously concerned about this, they would address it. But really, this is about L of C and orthodoxy.

On the other side, however, are the standard RC people, who think EVERYTHING in the order and the movement that occurs at the local and national level has been scrutinized and approved by Pope John Paul II. This is ridiculous, and this is when the "Kool-aid" comments begin to make sense. We have both faith and reason, without one conflicting the other. (Read Fides et Ratio). As for religious liberty--I did my master's thesis on this topic, and suffice to say that the current widely held understanding of "what was once condemned is now held up as a glorious positive doctrine" is in itself incorrect. In fact, the Catholic view, even with Dignitatis Humanae taken into account, still recognizes the Catholic confessional state as the ideal. Anything else is sometimes allowed "to keep the public order." Religious freedom is a very precise and narrow term theological that merely means one cannot coerce another person against his will to become Catholic. So those who think the infallibly held Syllabus of Errors has been overturned, are sadly mistaken. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the authentic Catholic teaching.

And Vatican II, that beloved Council that the NCR and VOTF types have never read, states in Lumen Gentium that Catholics must give a "religious assent of mind and will" to all doctrines and disciplines declared by the Church, even those not infallibly defined. Of course the teaching on women's ordination is infallible, as Cardinal Ratzinger explained, but even if it were not, according to Vatican II, one must assent anyway.

I assume that Hugh, as an "adult Catholic" does not have a degree in theology, so his understanding of dissent cannot be used as it is specifically outlined by Ratzinger on his document on the vocation of a Catholic theologian.

For the record, I am ex-RC, who does not hate RC or the movement or the L of C, but sees serious flaws with its approach. I moved on to authentic traditional Catholicism, with RC being a springboard for that. I have many Novus Ordo (Neocon) friends, however. More and more of them are beginning to explore and see the value of unadulterated traditional Catholicism, however.

[Brian]

Giselle said: "Every home-schooling group they joined became a power struggle. The elitism and us-vs-them mentality was not charitable and NOT everyone against them is a heretic."

The stories I could tell you on this one would make your hair curl, if it's not already curly.

Best friends no more. Split the group down the middle, then RC homeschoolers, most of them, bowed out of RC. This is EXACTLY our experience in the Upstate of SC.

And the remaining RC homechoolers (all two of them) still don't have a clue what happened nor why.

And we are still the "uncharitable" ones.

[Mike Petrik]

Hugh,
Determining whether a teaching is fallible or infallible presupposes that what is at issue is a "teaching" of the Church. That is the problem with your examples of religious freedom and slavery. While the Church has certainly not always acted well on these issues, Her actual *teachings* have not developed in an inconsistent way that could ever have produced genuine "dissent."
You are, of course, free to believe that the Church's teachings on womens' ordination are not infallible, such a view simply cannot logically be squared with the language of those teachings themselves. Face it; you don't like the teachings, so you conclude they are fallible.

[Nicole]

Brian, I can say sincerely that I believe what you are saying occured and I am sorry for that. Can you believe that in our section, these things are not happening? In our group there are many homeschoolers and also people who send their kids to the LC school, parish schools and public school.

There is a local Catholic homeschool group and as far as I know, the RC people aren't super involved, although one of my friends did help set up for Mass at the conference.

I have never come here and tried to question anyone's experiences. What seems to be missing, and maybe I'm wrong, is an acknowledgement that there may be some RC groups who are not as described in these generalizations.

Heck, I don't even like Kool-Aid.
Nicole

[Julia]

Somewhere, some place in the last month B16 talked about the necessity of being an "adult" Christian. I can't find it after 30 minutes searching, but I know he did talk about being an "adult" in faith.

so - what's wrong with that?

[Brian]

Nicole, And most of our homeschooling group doesn't even know or understand what I just outlined here, but it did, in fact, happen. It has happened many times elsewhere. Just tell your spiritual director you are becoming attracted to the Traditional Latin Mass and wonder if certain elements of Vatican II are a bit murky, then see what happens!!!

If anyone could identify which RC groups were truly RC, that would be a start. Hiding behind cute brand names rather than identifying one's self for what one represents is dishonest. It is sinful. It is NOT authentic. Authentic? Heard that word before? We should be authentic. Why continue to advertise events in the parish bulletin and in the diocesan newspaper without identifying they are RC-related and driven? Why, when a priest is invited to give a marriage retreat in the diocesan newspaper, are his initials, L.C., not following his name?

I know why. Do you? Is this authentic?

[Nicole]

Brian, we do advertise that we are RC. We had an open evening of reflection on Tuesday and at the bottom of the flyer it said, sponsored by the XXX women's section of Regnum Christi.

I also attend the Latin Mass sometimes and recently invited everyone to a Eucharistic Congress given by the order in town that is specifically dedicated to the Latin Mass. I sent the invite to my spiritual director along with everyone else. Some of us are going. Never heard anything negative. In fact, when this order came to town, our LC Priest mentioned them and said we were very blessed to have them here.

I don't know what else to say. I guess our experiences are polar opposites. I accept that your are real, do you accept mine?

Thanks for listening,
Nicole

[Giselle]

Nicole: having lived in various places while being a member of RC, I would say that there are different levels of integration of members, as well as different priorities for the priests. There are some cities that are intense, with the priests either visiting all the time or living there because the Movement wants growth. Other towns are not on their priority list, because there is not much they can do to advance The Cause. RC members such as yourselves are wonderful people (I say that sincerely) because you have not been bullied into compromising your integrity, for whatever reason. Wherever you are geographically, the Eye of Sauron has not fallen upon you. People may laugh, but those of us on the hotseat know another side to the Legion.

[Nicole]

Yes, it does seem like there are differences in areas. My area has a Legion school, two Priests, two brothers, two consecrated, numerous co-workers, etc.

I guess the thing I'm inferring, and that is problematic on email, is that some think we are being duped and eventually, the evil aims will become evident because it is assumed that the aims are always suspect. Is that totally off the mark?

There are bad people in many organizations. If they do something illegal, or in the case of a Church organization, immoral, they should face consequences. I believe most of the RC people I know would agree with me, even if the person is an RC person or LC Priest, including Fr. Maciel.

Nicole

[Simon]

Julia: B16 (as Cardinal Ratzinger) did indeed speak of the need for "adult faith" last month -- during the pre-conclave homily that caused so many heart attacks among the Catholic Lite crowd.

Here's what he said: "Being an adult means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties, a faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature."

Almost the exact opposite of what the VOTF/Call to Action gang thinks being an "adult" Christian means. What those poor folks really have, of course, is an adolescent faith -- assertively rebellious toward legitimate authority (sacred Tradition) but cravenly conformist to the faddish opinions of their (secular) peers.

[Jimmy Mac]

"What lies and insanity of Carol McKinley"

Your honor, the prosecution charges!

[WRY]

Brian, what do you mean by "unadulterated traditional Catholicism"?
I'm a solid believer in Vatican II and believe that it is "unadulterated Catholicism."
Do you? Just curious.

[Brian]

As long as Vatican II is understood "in light of Tradition" as our good Pope Benedict XVI said recently and has repeated often.

I believe the "positivist" interpretations of much of Vatican II, and its understanding the vast majority of the U.S. Church (including "conservative" and "orthodox" Catholics, priests and bishops) is NOT "in light of Tradition," since most of them have never read any encyclicals prior to 1965, Vatican I nor the Council of Trent. Even in so-called "orthodox" seminaries, Vatican II is overemphasized, philosophical instruction is extremely deficient (Vatican II, and all the way to Leo XIII, said that St. Thomas should be the basis for this--not a snippet to disregard). Vatican II plus the Bible is a good way to ignore organic development and Tradition. Reading the encyclicals of the past 200 years would situate one better to understand Vatican II "in light of Tradition," in my humble opinion.

Vatican II documents, especially Gaudium et Spes, are not without their theological problems. Our current pope has written as a theological commentator that Gaudium et Spes' theology was "semi-Pelagian."

Vatican II in light of Tradition is just fine with me.

[Hugh O'Regan]

Brian,
Your contention that most U.S. priests and bishops have never read any encyclicals prior to 1965 is nonsense. It is clear that your your use of "in light of tradition" is just a rationalization for your rejection of much of the spirit and direction of Vatican II.

Just because our new Pope Benedict used the term 'in light of tradition', it does not mean that his understanding of Vatican II or the role of Aquinas in theological thought and training is the same as yours.

Your attitude in regards to Vatican II and the understanding of most U.S. Bishops borders on the heritical.

1)"Vatican II is overemphasized," ???
2)"Vatican II plus the Bible is a good way to ignore organic development and Tradition." ???
3) "Vatican II documents, especially Gaudium et Spes, are not without their theological problems." ???

Perhaps you have not reached the level of formal heresy yet, but you are certainly travelling down that road.

Hugh

[landru_xlc]

LEGION PROPOGANDA

The LC communicates only what it wants people to know, and hides what they don't want to share.

Example: www.legionaryfacts.org Q&A about LC
Topic: The private vow not to criticize

Original LC Q&A
"10) Is it true that Legionaries vow never to speak against the Legion?
Legionaries, like brothers in any family, defend each other, encourage each other and look out for each other. They try to live out Christ's teachings. "

Note - the LC raise the question of a vow, and then do NOT even acknowledge that there is one!!!

New LC Answer (very lengthy, still misleading)
1) MM claims they are not secret. They were secret for many years and not to be discussed with "outsiders." He can now claim they are not because...
a) By fiat as director, he can now make them so.
b) Enough former members are around to inform people about them. The cat is out of the bag.

2) The answer is misleading:
a) NO text of the vow is given, because...
b) No mention of the "squeal clause" is given - a MAJOR part of the vow!

3) Because MM (until a few months ago) was head superior of the Legion, and every single Legion rule, norm, practice, etc. comes from him or another superior, the vow is, in effect, a vow not to criticize anything about the Legion.

I, (Name), promise and vow never to criticize any act of governance of the superior, nor his person, and to inform the superior if I am aware that anyone has broken this promise.

This is how the Legion "communicates" with people.

[rhys]

There are two things an informed person should read:

1. Christ is My Life - question #49, pages 72-73 deals with formation - to which Maciel responds, "To form a person, and especilaly a priest, you have to be very precise, like making a fine watch. Nothing can be missing; all the parts have to fit together and they must be put together properly for the mechanism to work."

2. Norms and constitutions - a long-tine secret document that fell into the hands of non-legionaries. The original is in Spanish but they are being translated into English and appear on the ReGain site - page one is offered here:

http://www.exlegionaries.com/xlegion/viewthread.php?tid=1014&page=1

If this is not robotics 101 - what on earth is?

[Hugh]

Landru:

If what you just posted is accurate then it is one more indication that LC is a cult or at least was a cult at the beginning. Maybe, like the Jesuits the LC will grow out of it.

Hugh

[landru]

Hugh,

Every fact I wrote is directly verifiable on the internet, except for the existence of the "squeal clause." I invite any RC or pro-LC reader to ask their favorite LC brother or priest about the vow, the squeal clause, and preferably, post a copy of the text, since it is "not a secret at all."

The Church cannot and should not tolerate cults, lying, deception within her. The LC will not "grow out of it" unless commanded to do so by Rome.

[Hugh]

Landru wrote:
The Church cannot and should not tolerate cults, lying, deception within her. The LC will not "grow out of it" unless commanded to do so by Rome.

On this I agree with you completely.

[Hugh]

NCR is Planning In depth Coverage of the Maciel Case in its June 3rd issue.
------------------------------------

In the meantime a clear chronology of the Maciel case and the on-again off-again investigation may be found on-line at
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/#one

[rhys]

I know Jason Berry is writing an article for NCReporter that is coming out very soon - perhaps his is part of the 3 June coverage.

Someone posted earlier they know Jason and respected his work. I concur. Greald Renner, his co-author in VOS is a very upstaning fellow as well.

Three years I knew nothing of the Legionaries of Christ and I wish that were still the case. There is no doubt in my mind it is a cult, and a pernicious one at that.

There is a latino saying that goes something lie this: "A lie will not last 100 years." I just don't have that much time to wait..