« Baby on the way! | Main | Review of the day »
May 18, 2006
Breaking
John Allen reports that the Vatican has ruled on the Maciel case:
Capping a decade-long on-again, off-again investigation of accusations of sexual abuse, the Vatican has asked Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, to observe a series of restrictions on his ministry.
In effect, Vatican sources told NCR this week, the action amounts to a finding that at least some of the accusations against the charismatic 86-year-old Mexican priest are well-founded.
Maciel has not been laicized, but the restrictions issued shortly before Easter by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith limit Maciel's public activity, such as his capacity to celebrate public Masses, to give lectures or other public presentations, and to give interviews for print or broadcast.
The restrictions have been approved by Pope Benedict XVI, and the Vatican is expected to issue a brief statement shortly.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
How will the NCR(egister) spin this one?
Posted by: Will Barrett at May 18, 2006 10:42:54 AM
I should have also added that this is profoundly sad news.
Posted by: Will Barrett at May 18, 2006 10:47:07 AM
Good riddance. This guy used the full weight of his organization to silence his critics and his victims. I wonder what they'll do at this website now?
Posted by: Ian at May 18, 2006 10:54:22 AM
Before the mud really starts flying, does anyone have insight into the meaning of these lines from the article, "One cardinal who serves on the congregation told NCR that, in his view, the material left little doubt as to the validity of the charges, though he said he was less clear how Maciel understood what he had done. Under canon law, intent and state of mind are sometimes taken into consideration in meting out punishment." It seems to suggest a diminished mental state (illness/drug use) for Maciel.
Posted by: ken at May 18, 2006 10:59:42 AM
That's what it sounds like to me, Ken. Also, if Maciel had scores of known subjects of his amorous designs, he could have had compulsions that he could not effectively control. Such compulsions would definitely play into a diminished state of mind. Of course, this is all speculation since we don't know what happened or why.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at May 18, 2006 11:06:47 AM
This is ultimately a harmful course of action. By not treating Maciel the way any other abusive cleric would be treated, the authorities are leaving room for speculation about the certainty of their conclusions.
If a cleric abused children, he needs to be stripped of any authority, laicized, and then turned over to civil authorities for prosecution.
There can be no healing in the community while there is equivocation in this matter.
Posted by: Barb N at May 18, 2006 11:24:21 AM
If the accusations are true, I think the Legionaries ought to be suppressed. Not every religious order was founded by a saint, but I don't know of any other that was founded by a monster. Useful things they have founded, like the National Catholic Register, can be continued, even under the same management, but the L of C name ought to be dropped.
Unless we're trying to argue that Maciel was insane in the Anglo-American legal sense of no longer knowing the difference between right and wrong, I don't believe there's such a thing as "compulsions he could not legally control." There can never be an excuse for sin, especially a "sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance."
Posted by: James Kabala at May 18, 2006 11:25:11 AM
If the accusations are true, I think the Legionaries ought to be suppressed.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but this sounds a bit like guilt by association...
Posted by: Sean Gallagher at May 18, 2006 11:30:28 AM
"St. Augustine said: 'God judged it better to bring good out of evil.'"
Even assuming the worst inferences being drawn regarding Fr. Maciel are true, I don't see how it logically follows that the L of C should be supressed.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at May 18, 2006 11:34:27 AM
Suppress the LofC? Isn't that a bit of an overreaction? Look, the LC has long been a bit of a mystery to me. I've known some LC priests, and despite liking them, I've seen aspects of their life that concerned me (mostly, things that I would chalk up to youthful exuberance leading to excessive pressure recruiting). But I don't know if this about Fr. Maciel is justification to suppress the order. Aside from their passionate defense of him (which I have nothing to suggest it was driven by anything other than love of their founder -- however blinded it might turn out to have been), has there been any suggestion that the problems are more widespread or systematic within the order? I haven't seen that -- the focuse was always on Fr. Maciel.
I mean, I wouldn't suppress the episcopacy just because at one point in time 80% of the world's bishops adhered to a heresy. I wouldn't suppress the papacy, because there have been bad popes. If there are reasons to suppress the order, ok, but is this really it?
Posted by: JACK at May 18, 2006 11:41:07 AM
Interestingly, I got wind several days ago that something was going on in regard to this case. Looks like the "wind" was at least somewhat correct...
Posted by: Matt C. Abbott at May 18, 2006 11:42:50 AM
I just think it's a practical matter. Every other religious order lionizes its founder. Either they're going to have to take an attitude of "We were founded in the 1950s; we can't admit by whom" or they're going to keep lionizing him unjustly. I think either one of those positions is unsustainable in the long run and ripe for mocking by enemies of the Church.
Posted by: James Kabala at May 18, 2006 11:49:51 AM
If this is the beginning of definitive word from Rome, then it is the answer to prayers.
Posted by: Tom Hoopes at May 18, 2006 11:50:33 AM
This is just a very sad thing...I've always thought there was something a little amiss about the group, but they certainly have many young people who love the Church...hopefully this event will usher in a springtime of renewal for the Legion and Regnum Christi, where they look at some of the problems in recruitment, formation and their statutes and clean them up a bit...they can certainly do a lot of good for the Church with the infrstracture they have put in place.
Posted by: Tom at May 18, 2006 11:52:54 AM
While I am saddened to read this, I think that we should not forget the VICTIMS in this. Diminished capacity or not, these individuals suffered at the hands of an abusive cleric. As to whether the L of C should be suppressed, I do not know. I do know that we should pray for the healing of the victims in this case, and, even pray for Maciel that he might know the depravity of his crimes and never abuse again.
Stephen
Posted by: Stephen at May 18, 2006 11:59:00 AM
I second Stephen's post.
And I agree with James that such a development would present a great practical challenge for the L of C.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at May 18, 2006 12:04:55 PM
Tom Hoopes: Which prayers are those?
Posted by: International Harvester at May 18, 2006 12:22:06 PM
This is very good news indeed, and it would never have happened under John Paul. Note also that the United States bishops elevated by Benedict to the most important pope all have one thing in common-- an exemplary record on dealing with sexual abuse (Laveda, Wuerl). We are lucky to have this pope at this point in history. As for suppression, I don't think this is necessary, but I do think the LCs are finished.
Posted by: Tony A at May 18, 2006 12:24:37 PM
Benedict knows how much this will hurt the Legion and the thousands of faithful Catholics associated with it. He therefore must have had incontrovertible proof to move him to act against Maciel. If there were any doubt, Benedict would have refrained from causing such pain.
Benedict also acted against the fraudulent Gino Lastiri, who also founded a religious order. Benedict did not laicize him, because the church’s statute of limitations (prescription) had expired, but Benedict did not want anyone to think that Lastiri was innocent. I presume that is the same rationale for the action against Maciel; it falls short of laicization, but is a public indication that the Pope thinks Maciel is guilty.
No one should rejoice in this; it is a necessity that justice be done, and the victims are vindicated, but it is sad nonetheless.
Father Richard Neuhaus at First Things said he was morally certain of Maciel’s innocence. Does he now think that the Pope has made a grievous mistake? Such a papal action is of course not infallible, but it is hard to imagine Benedict’s acting unless the evidence forced him to act.
Posted by: Lee Podles at May 18, 2006 12:27:04 PM
This makes no sense at all. If he's been found to be guilty, he should be laicized at the very least. If he's been found to be innocent, his name should be cleared. Either way, the "restrictions" are a scandal: either they poison his name and that of the Legionaries, or they add one more case to the big scandal. So I hope that either way, this is not the last Rome has to say in the matter.
Posted by: Abigail at May 18, 2006 12:28:08 PM
Canon law has both a statute of limitations and a provision that penalties must be reduced if the guilty party has diminished capacity (such as could be brought about by drug usage or mental illness).
While the Pope could act autocratically and violate canon law, and there would be no one to appeal to from his decision, popes do not really like to act autocratically, because it diminishes respect for canon law, and Benedict does not have an autocratic personality.
Posted by: Lee Podles at May 18, 2006 12:36:48 PM
It doesn't seem accurate to me to say that the Vatican has "ruled" on the Maciel case. They have restricted his ministry. This has happened to him before where control of the LC was taken away from him for 3 years and he was proven innocent.
The NCR is presuming he is guilty.
Posted by: BK at May 18, 2006 12:37:06 PM
I do hope there is more information forthcoming. As a Regnum Christi member, to me it is very serious. Personally, I would take this as I see it now, as a clear indicator that something is wrong. I do hope there is more clarity, but it doesn't look good and it is very, very sad as there are a lot of wonderful apostolates, schools, clubs, ministries, that may suffer because of this. But, those who want to serve Christ and His Church will be OK, because it is Christ we serve in the end, not Fr. Maciel. If I cannot build the kingdom as a member of Regnum Christi, that doesn't mean I will stop working.
God Bless,
Nicole
Posted by: nicole at May 18, 2006 12:37:57 PM
The LCs I know appear to be good and reverent. They do a lot of good work. But they do extend a lot of ... hyperdulia ... to their Founder, whom they call Nestro Padre. I've long been concerned about that, and their focus on recruitment. Again, they do good work and I have no problem with many of the disciplines they practice, similar to Opus Dei or some of the more traditional religious orders.
Suppression, no; reform, perhaps.
If we're going to suppress someone, let's suppress the Jesuits, whom the LCs appear to be emulating and improving upon.
Posted by: Pat at May 18, 2006 12:40:08 PM
God bless you, Nicole. The key is what you stated: "it is Christ we serve in the end, not Fr. Maciel". I hope all the good work continues, whether under the names of L of C and Regnum Christi or otherwise, and all the workers share your attitude.
Posted by: scotch meg at May 18, 2006 12:43:06 PM
