Analysis: Who Was Father Maciel's Moderator?

As the scandal-drama surrounding the late Fr. Marcial Maciel unfolds, more and more pointed questions are rising to the surface. Former Legionary priest James Farfaglia, for example, raises a series of such pertinent questions on his blog.

New questions arose in my mind recently as I studied an online dossier of "censored" documents, which purports to include lengthy excerpts of the constitutions of the Legionaries of Christ. Father Maciel, who served as the Legion's director general uninterruptedly for decades, mandated that the constitutions not be disclosed to the public and, therefore, few people outside the Legion have any clue what they contain (c.f., 254.2 and 417. §2 & 3).

A careful analysis of the rules which Fr. Maciel put in force yields many remarkable details, such as the fact that he exempted himself from the, now-abrogated, "private vow" in which every temporally or perpetually professed member of the order solemnly promises never to criticize other Legionaries, especially superiors.

What really caught my eye, though, was the section which mandates that a "monitor of the general director" must be appointed who will closely observe and "concern himself with the external aspects of the life of the director general, such as his dress, his diet, and his expenditures."

(I'm pretty sure, by the way, that the whole "expenditure" thing would fall squarely into the category of Father Maciel's now-verified, long-term habit of squandering Legionary money [i.e., benefactor donations] on frivolities such as trans-Atlantic flights on the Concorde, posh hotels, luxury cruises, succulent gourmet meals and, at least in his later years, of supplying an affluent upkeep for at least one child he fathered [it seems as though there may be others]).

According to the official description of the "moderator of the general director," it seems clear that the duties envisioned by the Legion of Christ constitutions was not something akin to those of a confessor or spiritual director, which would concern the internal forum of the conscience and, therefore, would entail a confidential relationship with the subject (Maciel) which could not be revealed to another under pain of serious sin. Rather, the moderator called for by the Legionary constitutions could be likened to a kind of "ombudsman," whose job it would be to help identify and correct problems with Maciel's externally discernible lifestyle (i.e., not in the internal forum).

I hadn't known that the Legionary constitutions required that someone be officially appointed to monitor Father Maciel's activities. But after checking with a few former Legionary priests and religious about this, and after their review of these documents and verification that they are indeed accurate, several intriguing new questions arise, such as:

1) Who exactly was Father Maciel's moderator? The constitutions require that this role be fulfilled by a Legionary priest, appointed by the general chapter, who is " a very spiritual man, with at least ten years of profession in the Congregation, who is at least forty years old, of balanced temperament, gentle and understanding of spirit, faithful and loving of the superiors, with a practical sense, and whose capacity of reserve, discretion, prudence and sensitivity are well-proven and recognized." If this requirement was fulfilled (the term is for 12 years), there will be records of it, which the apostolic visitators to the Legion of Christ will surely want to study.

2) Did the Legion's general chapters ever actually appoint a priest to fulfill this constitutionally mandated role as moderator of Father Maciel's activities? If so, who was he (they), when was he appointed, and what were his findings? Presumably, the Church's apostolic visitation process will, in due course, obtain and evaluate any documents that pertain to the issue of the monitor of the general director.

3) If the Legion did in fact observe this requirement, then how did the moderator fulfill his mandate to moderate, as the order's regulations stipulate, "all things related to the spiritual perfection and personal obligations of the director general, dialoguing with him about these things . . . [and to] concern himself with external aspects of the life of the director general, such as his dress, his diet, and his expenditures"? What, if anything, did he report about this?

Clearly, the frauds perpetrated by Fr. Maciel against the members of his own religious order, as well as the Church, his victims, etc., involved activities that would have, should have, could have been observed — and, one would assume, reported — by a genuinely dedicated, sagacious, honest, man of probity who had been formally entrusted with the task of "moderating" the general director.

So, again, it must be asked: Was there ever such a moderator? And if so, who was he? And if no one was ever appointed to this position, why wasn't it done?

If there was such a moderator, and if he performed his duties to observe Father Maciel's personal life and give advice or admonishment based on what he observed, did he report what must have been an endless series of strange anomalies in the director's travels, activities, and personal habits? If he reported them to the general chapter, why was no action ever taken?

After all, the general impression given is that everyone in the Legion — everyone — was caught completely by surprise when the scandal revelations began tumbling out. No one seems to have had even the slightest inkling of what this man was doing in his free time.

One section of the dossier I mention above, goes to the very heart of the sickness of secrecy at work here. It reads:

576. If the person chosen for this post [of moderator] exposes or criticizes aspects of the life of the director general, he should be removed from his post. In such a case, the council general, at the request of the director general, shall proceed to appoint, by deliberative vote, another to take his place, from a group of three proposed by the director general.

In other words, the Legion's internal laws required that a moderator be appointed to watch closely over Father Maciel's personal life — something that, if it had been carried out according to the LC constitutions, could have spared the Legion, Regnum Christi, and the Church as a whole all the Maciel-induced misery this scandal has engendered.

But those same laws stipulate that if the moderator were to "expose or criticize" any problems he might find, he would be summarily canned.

Huh? Given the Sword-of-Damocles position into which the constitutions encumber the moderator, what good could he be to the order? What beneficial purpose could he serve?

This disjunction in the LC constitutons would seem to explain why the official Legionary requirement of putting such a moderator in place may simply have been ignored. But if it was not ignored, and the order's general chapter did, in fact, appoint a priest to do what the constitutions call for, then let's hope that the appropriate apostolic visitator will have ample opportunity to discuss this issue in detail with that man.

(Read more of my previous commentary on this issue.)

An Impossible Magic Trick

At first, this video clip looked kind of cheesy and lame, but it turned out to be quite amazing. I have no idea how they did this trick, but it is impressive!

Nancy Pelosi says: "I'm a fan of disruptors"

Oh, reeeeeeally?

Congressman Kevin Brady Explains the Health Care Bill

Look Who's Discriminating Now

Belmont Abbey College is under attack for its refusal to offer medical coverage for abortion.

Last week, thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal government took a giant leap toward encroaching on the religious liberty of Catholics. Reuben Daniels Jr., director of the EEOC District Office in Charlotte, N.C, ruled that a small Catholic college discriminated against female employees by refusing to cover prescription contraceptives in its health insurance plan. With health-care reform looming before the country, this ruling is a bad omen for people of faith.

— by Patrick J. Reilly, The Wall Street Journal —

In 2007, eight faculty members filed a complaint against Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, N.C., claiming that the school's decision to exclude prescription contraceptives from its health-care plan was discriminatory against women. "As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church," said the college's president, William Thierfelder, at the time.

In March the commission informed the college that the investigation of its employee health insurance plan had been closed with no finding of wrongdoing. Inexplicably, the case was reopened, and now the college is charged with violating federal law. If Belmont Abbey doesn't back down, the EEOC will recommend court remedies.

The ruling against the college is certainly consistent with the commission's published guidance on "pregnancy discrimination." The EEOC has found that contraceptive coverage is mandated by the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (even though the law concerns pregnant women and does not, by strict interpretation, consider discrimination against all women of childbearing potential). North Carolina also has made its position clear with a law requiring employers to cover employees' contraceptive expenses if other prescription drugs are insured.

The difference, however, between the EEOC's guidance and the North Carolina law is that the latter exempts religious employers such as a Catholic college, whereas the commission fails to consider that the tenets of a faith may preclude an institution from offering such benefits.

And that's the rub: Increasingly it is clear to Catholics and other religious groups that without very clear exemptions for religious employers—and conscience protections for individual doctors, nurses, pharmacists—federal health-care laws and guidelines could severely restrict religious freedom in the U.S. . . . (continue reading)

N.B. If you would like to make a donation of any amount to help Belmont Abbey College protect its Catholic identity in the face of pressure like this, please donate securely online to the new "Chancellor's Fund."

All Aboard With the Steaming Priest

Father Jay Finelli, pastor of Holy Ghost Parish in Tiverton, Rhode Island, explains in this video how he blows off a little steam with this unique hobby.

Also, check out this nice profile piece on Father Finelli in the diocesan paper.

Lego Spinal Tap: "These Go to 11"

If you have seen and "get" This Is Spinal Tap, this will make complete sense to you. If you haven't, it won't. (But your Lego-playing kids will like it, regardless.)

Disgusted by the Notre Dame Scandal? Then Rally Around Belmont Abbey College

Belmont Abbey College is under fierce attack right now because it will not offer health-care coverage for abortion and contraception. In other words, it's being persecuted for being faithful to its Catholic identity. If this bothers you (it bothers me), then show your support by contributing generously to the new "Chancellor's Fund," which has been set up to help the school protect its Catholic identity. Donate securely here.

Belmont Abbey College is nestled in the plush green rolling hills of Belmont, North Carolina. The campus could provide the backdrop for a film depicting the idyllic Catholic College. Founded by and still served by Benedictine Monks, it provides a visual witness to the beauty of the Benedictine mission of “work and prayer” and the Order’s significant role in helping to birth the great European Universities out of the Monasteries of the Middle Ages. The Monastery on campus is a symbol of the dynamic Catholic Faith, life and culture which characterizes this Catholic College.

— By Deacon Keith Fournier, Catholic Online —

What is more appealing than even its beauty is Belmont Abbey’s dedication to handing on the fullness of Catholic faith, thought and culture to their student body. It has an overt commitment to teaching the fullness of the Catholic Christian faith and infusing in its graduates a Catholic worldview. The President of the College, Dr. Bill Thierfelder, is right out of Central casting. With a background in athletics and Sports medicine, he has dedicated his academic leadership to promoting a truly Catholic, fully human, virtue centered lifestyle on campus.

When I first met him I was struck by his height and his gregarious manner. He could have just stepped off the basketball court. As I listened to him speak, it became clear that this was a man who understands the fullness of the Catholic vision for the human person, the family and the social order. He also takes seriously the essential role of the Catholic academy in training the new missionaries for the New Evangelization of every segment of the contemporary culture. Finally, he has the courage required of a Catholic leader.

In 2007, a faculty member discovered that under the College’s existing Health Insurance Plan, anti-life and anti-family products and procedures were potentially covered, including abortion, contraception and sterilization. The College, a Catholic institution committed to the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the sanctity of life, removed the provisions. President Thierfelder explained this action in a letter he sent to students, faculty and friends of the College with this refreshingly clear statement:

“The teaching of the Catholic Church on this moral issue is clear. The responsibility of the College as a Catholic College sponsored by the monks of Belmont Abbey to follow Church teaching is equally clear. There was no other course of action possible if we were to operate in fidelity to our mission and to our identity as a Catholic College.” He was absolutely correct. Belmont Abbey College was just being Catholic! . . . ( continue reading)

"I Won't Back Down," by Tom Petty:

Well, I won't back down, no I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I wont back down

Gonna stand my ground, won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin me down
Gonna stand my ground, and I won't back down

Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won't back down.

Well I know what's right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin me around
But Ill stand my ground and I won't back down

Hey, baby, there ain't no easy way out
Hey, I will stand my ground
And I won't back down
No, I won't back down

Fun Poll: How Is America Going to End?

From Josh Levin and Chris Wilson at Slate.com:

For the last week, I've considered many possible scenarios for America's downfall: the rise of a climate strongman, the emergence of a transnational class of superhumans, secession by the country's leading maple syrup producer, and others. At the same time, the Slate hive mind has been cranking away, analyzing the likelihood of various end-of-America scenarios with our "Choose Your Own Apocalypse" interactive feature.

Your task was simple: Browse through a list of 144 potential apocalypses and choose up to five that seem most likely to wipe the United States off the map. As of Wednesday night, 60,020 readers had submitted their visions of the end of America. Many of those participants came from outside the U.S.—a healthy 15 percent of the people who viewed the feature came via this Russian site. Our 60,000 "Choose Your Own Apocalypse" submissions included votes for 255,496 individual scenarios. We've tallied the ballots and analyzed the data. Out of the 144 scenarios in the apocalypse grid, here are the five you believe are the biggest threat to America's continued existence:

The most popular scenario—"Loose Nukes," chosen by 10.5 percent of Slate readers—combines modern and old-fashioned anxieties. "Taliban fighters wrest nuclear weapons from a destabilized Pakistan.

Or al-Qaida acquires a small arsenal of nukes from a disintegrating Russia," the scenario description embedded in "Choose Your Own Apocalypse" reads. "The nonstate actors launch against the United States in an attack exponentially worse than 9/11." The presence of terrorists at the top of the charts indicates that we're still smarting from al-Qaida's 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon—perhaps the most recent event that raised momentary doubts about the country's continued existence. The fact that we envision those terrorists hitting us with nukes indicates that we have the same fears as the World War II generation. In the last 65 years, nothing has come along to supplant the scariness of a mushroom cloud.

While "Israel-Arab War" (picked by 7.6 percent of users) represents another worry that's generations old, the "Peak Oil" (9.3 percent) and "China Unloads U.S. Treasurys" (8.2 percent) scenarios are new apocalyptic visions. Peak Oil—"Petroleum production reaches terminal decline.

Oil becomes too expensive to extract, and alternative energies can't maintain our fossil-fuel-dependent lifestyle"—is the hobbyhorse of widely read collapsists James Howard Kunstler and Dmitry Orlov. It's the scenario of choice for the modern doomsayer who thinks Western civilization has industrialized its way to destruction. Fears of an economic collapse triggered by China pulling out from the American economy are a symptom of both our worries over the current economic crisis and anxiety over America's place in the world.

The scenario I'm most surprised to see in the top five is . . . (continue reading)

Techno Apologetics: The "Sola Scriptura" Baptists-Can't-Dance Mix

I had totally forgotten about this little techno tidbit. Whoever cooked this up describes it this way:

These clips are taken from various debates that Protestant Reformed Baptist Elder Dr. James White has done with Catholic apologists: Art Sippo, Justification, 1991; Patrick Madrid, Sola Scriptura . . .

By the way, the "Sola Scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy!" line that Mr. White quotes contemptuously in this montage (actually, I think he may have quoted it contemptuously in our 1993 Sola Scriptura debate in Chula Vista, CA) is something I have been saying for years. You'll also hear a little bit of Gerry Matatics thrown in there.

And if you're interested in hearing the full debate I had with James White (oh, how I wish it had been video-taped), called "Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?", you can download it here. Be sure to check out my follow-up article on that most excellent debate called "The White Man's Burden."

You too, like St. Lawrence, Can Laugh In the Face of Death

St. Lawrence, pray for us! (I'm pretty sure that we're gonna need it.)

Courtesy of Father Steve at Da Mihi Animas.

New Allegations Against Fr. Marcial Maciel Surface in Mexican Press

The left-leaning Mexican daily newspaper, La Jornada, is reporting an explosive new set of paternity allegations against the late Father Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

Earlier this year, the religious order was rocked to its foundations by revelations of its founder's fraudulent double life (see my February 3, 2009 commentary on this). New allegations surfaced today in a La Jornada article, which I have translated from the original Spanish and excerpted below:

Three More Children of Marcial Maciel Claim Inheritance Rights

Mexican lawyer José Bonilla Sada has made it known that three [additional] children, born in Mexico, will contest the Legionaries of Christ [claiming] that they should recognize their existence and their rights as heirs to the goods of the religious order's founder.

The litigant, who has as his assistant one Joaquín Aguilar — a victim of sexual abuse committed by ex-priest Nicholas Aguilar — said that he is confident that there is sufficient proof to demonstrate that even the late Pope John Paul II, along with the Legion, knew of the existence of Maciel's three other children, now adults, who were legally recognized by their father but whose names will be kept confidential.

Some months ago, the order founded by the late priest, [who was] accused of sexual abuse against minors, admitted the existence of one of his daughters. Her name, according to Bonilla's account on his blog http://conlajusticia.wordpress.com, is Norma Hilda. She lives in Madrid, Spain, where, along with her mother of the same name, she obtained a non-work related residence visa.

Originally from Guerrero [Mexico], she is approximately 23 years old and maintains a comfortable lifestyle level, such that she does not have to work; she lives in a luxury apartment building and also has other income [rents] from the same building in which she lives. They were acquired by Marcial Maciel with money from benefactors of the congregation.

It was precisely because of this blog that the late priest's three children contacted José Bonilla to represent them; after which they furnished him with a series of documents that verify their relationship to Maciel: photographs showing that they had met with John Paul II, all kinds of letters, and recordings of high-level leaders in the Legion of Christ discussing this issue.

The litigant maintains that the calligraphic [i.e., handwriting] evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the letters were written by Maciel's own hand, and that his children can be subjected to DNA testing to demonstrate their blood relationship [with him].

At present, the lawyer is studying [the evidence] and composing a civil law suit, in which it would be determined that his clients have inheritance rights, although he admits that before coming to that point he hopes to reach a settlement with the Legion of Christ.

"I suppose," said Bonilla, "that he [Maciel] did leave them money. Our team is working on this, and some informants have have told us that it is a significant amount. One must remember that the Legion surrounded and was for [i.e. at the disposal of] the founder; practically speaking, everything was his.

He indicated that the deceased [priest's] children seek their existence be acknowledged and, eventually, they are contemplating making known [publicly] the life they had at their father's side, in the sense of how it developed, which is to say, what he counseled them, what he taught them, and that they have rights of inheritance. (link to original La Jornada article in Spanish)

Developing . . .

Paying People To Die in Oregon

From The Daily Mail:

His body ravaged by cancer, lumberjack David Prueitt barely had the strength to raise the cup to his lips.

In it was a mix of apple sauce and dozens of crushed barbiturate pills, legally prescribed by the 42-year-old's doctor to end his life. Within minutes, the drugs had started to take effect, the terminally-ill man slipping into unconsciousness as his wife sat by his side.

If all had gone to plan, David would have quickly and peacefully passed away, his breathing becoming more labored until it eventually stopped altogether.

But it did not happen like that. Instead, after three days in a deep coma, David suddenly woke up. 'Honey?' he said to his wife. "What the hell happened? Why am I not dead?"

For another 13 days, coherent but racked with pain, David survived before finally succumbing to the disease and dying naturally in his home near Portland, Oregon's most populous city.

In that time he would be transformed from just another death to be recorded under Oregon's policy of assisted suicide into a figurehead for opponents of the U.S. state's deeply controversial Death With Dignity Act.

"He took five times the amount of barbiturates that should kill somebody and he still didn't die," his older brother Steve told the Daily Mail this week. . . .

This may seem far away, but following right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy's victory in the House of Lords, the Oregon experience is suddenly starting to ring alarm bells in Britain.

The 46-year-old multiple sclerosis sufferer successfully argued that it was a breach of her human rights not to know whether her husband would be prosecuted if he helped her to die overseas — in Switzerland, through Dignitas — in the event that her condition worsened.

Going further than anyone expected, the Law Lords ordered Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to spell out exactly when - or, possibly, if - action would be taken against someone who helps a friend or relative to take their own life. Opponents of assisted suicide are deeply worried that this may lead to effective legalization.

The right-to-die lobby is already pointing to the Oregon model as a possible blueprint for Britain. Former human rights lawyer Lord Joffe is one of the movement's foremost proponents and his opinion is unequivocal. He says that assisted dying 'clearly works' in Oregon. And given that, he asks, how can anyone think that assisted dying would not also work in the UK. . .

But perhaps most worrying of all, say critics, is the trend for other treatment to be denied to those who are terminally ill. Instead of being given the medicines that might prolong their lives, they are being offered £30 to cover the cost of drugs that will end their days in a matter of hours.

To better answer the questions, it is first necessary to understand how Oregon's Death With Dignity Act has worked since it was passed in 1997. So far, 401 patients have been assisted to their deaths. The majority of those were aged between 55 and 84, white and well-educated. Eighty per cent were cancer sufferers.

The most frequently mentioned motives for ending their lives were loss of autonomy, a decreasing ability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable, and a loss of dignity.

Under the terms of the act, those requesting a prescription for lethal medication must be over 18, a resident of Oregon, mentally capable and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. They must also be able to administer the medication themselves.. . . (continue reading) — special thanks to my friend, Father Bud!

The Prophet of Hyde Park (Secrets of a Streetcorner Apologist)

One brisk, gray afternoon in London, I stood on a corner of Hyde Park with one of Frank Sheed's old friends.

"That's the spot where he used to stand and preach," she said with a wistful smile. Now an elderly widow, in the 1940s and 1950s she had worked in the London Catholic Evidence Guild with Frank and his wife, Maisie.

It was easy to imagine the scene: a portly, smiling, middle-aged fellow, who looked a lot like W.C. Fields, evangelizing anyone who stopped in front of his speaker's platform.

— By Patrick Madrid —

Over afternoon tea, Sheed's friend described what it was like to watch Frank manage the crowd. He worked on hecklers and skeptics and scoffers the way a chiropractor works on a bad back-probing, searching for the tensed-up muscle, finding it, and going to work on it with precision. He massaged the minds of his audiences, breaking down hardened prejudices against Catholicism, kneading the "God does not exist!" arguments until they crumbled, and showing atheists the folly of their denials. He made countless converts on the stump.

Frank Sheed was one of the 20th-century's greatest apologists. Some-especially those who knew him personally and saw him in action-say he was the greatest Catholic apologist of the last 100 years, maybe longer. One thing is certain: Few people of any era have been endowed with his unique, powerful combination of gifts-including a rare talent for expressing complex theological concepts, such as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union, in words that were understandable and compelling to the average reader. His style was clear and luminous; it had the power to persuade as well as to inform.

Sheed was also an accomplished speaker. He preached the Catholic faith under the open sky to any and all who would listen-often in unforgiving and even hostile locations, such as New York's Time Square and London's Hyde Park (stomping ground of Communist firebrands, Protestant preachers, and agitators for every kind of cause and "-ism").

He believed the Catholic faith to his core, and that belief impelled him to share the gospel with all those around him. For many of us, his "taking it to the streets" approach to Christianity might seem extreme or fanatical. But it shouldn't. Frank Sheed understood that for Christians, public testimony about Christ should be the norm. "You are the light of the world," Christ told us. "A city set on a hill cannot . . . (continue reading)

Try to Imagine a "Nationwide Katrina Event." It Could Happen.

A few months ago, I read Dr. William Forstchen's new novel, One Second After, in which he describes in Tom Clancey-esque style what could happen if the United States were crippled by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) caused by a "rogue nation" like North Korea or Iran detonating a nuclear warhead in the atmosphere over the United States.

His thesis is as chilling as it is simple: A container ship parked out in international waters in the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific or the Atlantic could launch a cheap but effective Scud-type missile with a cheap but effective nuke payload (according to the info he presents, it wouldn't have to be a significantly large one) up into the atmosphere above the U.S., where it detonates. Boom. The resulting EMP would be enough to take down our nation's electrical grid. And if that happened, he argues, the U.S. would be hurled back into the 18th century, technologically speaking, and daily life here would become a true nightmare with folks just trying to find (or steal) enough food to say alive. Check it out.