Comments on: Connecting the Dots on Maciel

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:55:58 +0000

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.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:47:04 +0000

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.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:11:30 +0000

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.

By: Northcountry1

Northcountry1 — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:30:15 +0000

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

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:13:13 +0000

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.

By: Norris Hall

Norris Hall — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:42:26 +0000

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.

By: The Monk

The Monk — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:15:42 +0000

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.

By: Eric Rasmusen

Eric Rasmusen — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:33:56 +0000

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.”

By: Joe Z

Joe Z — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:36:47 +0000

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.

By: Liam

Liam — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:16:47 +0000

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.