Among the undercurrents of Church journalism over the past week is a clear desire among news providers to connect dots within the Church—sometimes where the case for neither a connection nor a dot can be made. An article in the Los Angeles Times yesterday hearkened back to the shameful story of Fr. Marciel Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Many persons of integrity—having heard nothing but good of Fr. Maciel and the work done by the Legionaries—accepted with great difficulty the horrifying details of his double life. But Los Angeles Times writer Tim Rutten went a step further yesterday, placing First Things founder Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in the mix of those who doubted the initial accusations.
What’s interesting about all of this is that a list of Maciel’s most vociferous defenders reads like a who’s who of the conservative Catholic intellectuals who, in recent years, have insisted that Catholicism and membership in the Democratic Party are all but incompatible. Among Maciel’s defenders have been the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, whose journal, First Things, is a bible for conservative Catholics; William Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, who refused to accept an award from Notre Dame because it invited President Obama to speak at its commencement; former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, now a talk-show host and commentator; and Deal Hudson, President George W. Bush’s Catholic liaison.
While all have since disavowed approval of Maciel’s personal character, Rutten draws particular attention to a claim Fr. Neuhaus made in March 2002 and later qualified:
In fact, when the Vatican ordered Maciel into retirement, Neuhaus—who earlier had written that he knew the man’s innocence as “a moral certainty”—told the New York Times: “It wouldn’t be the first time that an innocent and indeed holy person was unfairly treated by church authority.”
Not exactly. Neuhaus noted later that “moral certitude, it should be noted, is a very high degree of probability that justifies action but is short of certitude described as absolute, mathematical, or metaphysical.” Further, he acknowledged it was reasonable to believe the allegations against Maciel, given the circumstantial evidence:
I do not know all that the CDF and the Holy Father know and am not privy to the considerations that led to their decision. It is reasonable to believe that they concluded that Fr. Maciel did do something very seriously wrong. To censure publicly, toward the end of his life, the founder of a large and growing religious community is an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented, measure in Catholic history. Moreover, because the only public and actionable charges against Fr. Maciel had to do with sexual abuse, the clear implication is that that was the reason for the censure. In view of the public knowledge of the charges, it is not plausible that he was censured for some other and unknown reason.
In short, Fr. Neuhaus went along with the evidence as it became available. But Tim Rutten persists:
Do Bennett, Glendon, Donohue and Hudson still agree with Neuhaus? The resolution of the Legionaries of Christ case will be a test not only for Benedict but also for those conservative American intellectuals who have yet to explain how they came to give such unstinting support to a malevolent sexual predator.
Rutten’s query is an odd one; If we assume Rutten is aware of Fr. Neuhaus’ passing over a year ago, we might respond with a “yes,” since Bennett, Glendon, Donohue and Hudson all agree with Neuhaus that evidence—not presumption—seems to show, regrettably, that Maciel was guilty. And as for the list of conservative names Rutten recounts, it should be expected that orthodox Catholics in public life would support a group like the Legionaries, given its efforts to engage lay Catholics and to stand against the secularization of culture. Despite Rutten’s snide suggestion, there is no evidence these individuals support the Legionaries because of the “malevolent sexual predator” once in their midst—a nonsensical claim that can hardly be presumed to be made in good faith. Nor is there a reasonable claim that any public figure outside the Legion has argued for Maciel’s innocence once the evidence emerged. Indeed, Fr. Neuhaus offered hope for the Legion when it seemed its founder’s name had been blackened indelibly:
The future of the Legion and Regnum Christi cannot depend on the innocence or guilt of Fr. Maciel. Founder and charism may not be entirely separable, but they can be clearly distinguished.
The months and years ahead must be a time of profound self-examination, reform, and renewal. Earnestly and confidently I pray, and invite all to pray, that the magnificent apostolates of the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi will continue to flourish in the service of Christ and his Church.
April 1st, 2010 | 2:56 pm
The first paragragh quoted from the LA Times contains two glaring errors. Didn’t Father Neuhaus remain a registered Democrat (as he pointed out in FT one issue in the past couple of years), regardless of the current problems he had with the Democratic Party, and didn’t Mary Ann Glendon turn down that award because President Obama was given an award she felt was inappropriate, not because he was an invited speaker?
April 1st, 2010 | 3:25 pm
I relied upon Father Neuhaus’s original assessment of Maciel to the point of giving money to a school connected with the Legion. Gradually it became clearer and clearer that John Paul had grossly misjudged Maciel, who was perhaps the biggest fraud in the entire history of the Church. It is deeply disturbing that a pope should fail so gravely in spiritual discernment. And if John Paul failed in that discernment, where else did he (and Neuhaus ) fail)? – and I speak as one basically sympathetic with both men.
April 1st, 2010 | 4:16 pm
I would hope by now that people would see that the tendency within the church to circle the wagons is not much better than the tendency in media to throw people to the wolves. Both are mired in excesses of virtue that become vices and vicious.
April 1st, 2010 | 5:36 pm
James Stephens – you’re right about Mary Anne Glendon and the award. She was pretty clear about that, as I recall. To be more specific, she pointed out that the giving of the award clearly violated the bishops 2004 document, “On Catholics in Public Life,” and she also didn’t want to be included as a kind of “counterweight” to Obama. She observed, correctly, that a commencement is not the right kind of forum for a debate, and she realized, I take it, that she would be used by the University as a kind of damage control – and she wanted no part of that.
April 2nd, 2010 | 9:33 am
I thank FT for giving the link to what Neuhaus actually wrote. But it shows, contrary to the article’s thrust, that he was completely duped, and precisely because we *can* connect the dots within the Roman Catholic Church. Neuhaus believed the Legion and the hierarchy had to know more evidence than he did, which was true, but he also thought that they wouldn’t cover up the evidence, which was wrong. Neuhaus said,
” It counts as evidence that priests in the Legion whom I know very well and who, over many years, have a detailed knowledge of Fr. Maciel and the Legion say that the charges are diametrically opposed to everything they know for certain. It counts as evidence that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and others who have looked into the matter say that the charges are completely without merit. It counts as evidence that Pope John Paul II, who almost certainly is aware of the charges, has strongly, consistently, and publicly praised Fr. Maciel and the Legion. Much of what we know we take on trust. I trust these people. The suggestion that they are either deliberately deceiving or are duped is totally implausible.”
April 2nd, 2010 | 11:15 am
Eric Rasmusen – you quote Neuhaus “It counts as evidence that priests in the Legion whom I know very well and who, over many years, have a detailed knowledge of Fr. Maciel and the Legion say that the charges are diametrically opposed to everything they know for certain.”
I never communicated with Neuhaus but I was one of those priests in the Legion (1962 – 1982) who had a detailed knowledge of Maciel and said that (most of) the charges are diametrically opposed to everything I knew for certain. Difficult to believe in the light of what we now know. But true. It hurts to admit we were all duped. Hence I, for one, am hesitant to blame others for “not knowing.” Just relived it all writing my memoir about my time with Maciel.
April 3rd, 2010 | 3:42 am
Well, now it looks like Obama’s speech at Notre Dam is the least that the pious Catholics have to worry about.
Dealing with a clergy and pope steeped in accusations of pedophilia and coverup makes Obama look like a saint.
I would hope that if the Pope wanted to speak at Notre Dam those same pious folks would protest against someone who turned the other way when children were being sexually molested by priests.
April 5th, 2010 | 3:13 pm
One more time, William Donohue has inserted HIMSELF into a contraversy. Someone has to tell this man it isn’t about him. The harm he does to the Catholic Church with his stupid self-fulfilling, bias, bully remarks cause more harm to our church than any of the scandals.
April 7th, 2010 | 10:30 am
For a reasoned but damning look at Maciel and the enormously wealthy Legion I suggest a look at this
article in NCR about this man.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence-vatican
April 21st, 2010 | 1:11 am
Oh please, anyone who reads F. Neuhaus’s defense of Maciel in FT can clearly see that he was just as blinded by the LC/RC mafia as were many leading Catholics. The pathetic part is that Neuhaus claimed he read over testimony and had a “moral certainty” that Maciel was innocent. Nonsense! Read the testimony of the 9 seminarians, released in 1997, and there is no doubt they were telling the truth. Also, Neuhaus never interviewed the seminarians. Sloppy.
April 27th, 2010 | 10:47 am
Belief, we have been taught, is in the will. Those who backed Maciel CHOSE to believe him and CHOSE not to believe his accusers.
The apologists have often used weasel words to the effect that they did not know “for certain” of Maciel’s scandles. To me these words indicate they suspected but CHOSE to ignore their instincts, no doubt based in part on his theology, and their mistrust of anything except the logic of schoolmen.
April 27th, 2010 | 10:55 pm
That Maciel was in direct violation of his vows is now clear. That he was a serial abuser is also now clear. That he bought off a large number of influential individuals in the Curia is also now clear. What is not clear is the widening circle of people who are linked to him by accepting bribes that were, by all reports, untraceable. These individuals have violated a sacred trust that the Church placed upon them; they should be identified and sent into ignominious “retirement” to contemplate their sins and clear the way for effective, moral, and responsible leadership. The laity deserves nothing less, and should demand that nothing less be done.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact