How do those "invitations" work?

This important query came in (deep in a combox) so I thought I'd highlight it. Most of us laymen are clueless about Vatican machinery, so perhaps when Pete surfaces he can give an answer.

I have followed this blog since March and appreciate everyone's input on this scandal. I have a question that I hope someone can shed light on. When the 2006 Communique came out and Maciel was invited to live a private life of prayer and penance, the Vatican obviously had enough evidence to sanction him this way. Why wouldn't they also at that point "invite" the Legion to apologize to the victims and make restitution to them. It seems to me that it should have been done immediately, at that point, and that the Vatican should have included that in the Communique (or if not officially in the Communique, unofficially highly recommended it). We are all appalled that it hasn't happened yet but why wouldn't the Vatican have made that a requirement as part of the Communique in 2006? I am not familiar with how these things work but it seems in the Diocese's around our country the Bishops have been more proactive in recognizing the victims of sexual abuse (maybe not in the beginning but certainly more so in the last several years). Perhaps this has already been covered but it is bothering me so I thought I would ask.

Additionally, this may go beyond canon law and enter the realm of legal accountability. I think that years of enduring a General Church Scandal may have shed some light on how the hierarchy sees the nightmare of sexual allegations, and how defensive chanceries, at least, tend to be in protecting their assets.

UPDATE: Essential information from a member of REGAIN. The timeline is critical to understanding the interplay between various Vatican offices and the Legion:

I think it important to understand the circumstances of the Communique of May, 2006:

 

ReGAIN members in the United States began to hear rumors about some disciplinary action against Maciel back in May of 2006. The rumors came from several different sources and locations and merited further investigation. One member contacted Gerald Renner to relate to him the content of the "chatter." At that time nothing specific was known, only that there was talk that some decision regarding Maciel had been made. This made sense, since some ReGAIN members had been in Rome during Holy Week, just one month earlier and had met with Martha Wegan, the canon lawyer who was charged with bringing the canonical case of confessional absolution of accomplices in sexual sins against Maciel with the Holy See. This canonical case dealt exclusively with the accusations of sexual by Maciel of minors under his care in the Legion. She stated categorically "the Vatican already knows who they believe, and now only has to figure out what to do."

 

Upon hearing this information, Renner contacted John Allen, a well-known journalist, who at the time, still had offices in Rome. Allen shook down his contacts and within a couple of days, was ready to go public. He published an article with the information he had gotten which stated that Maciel had been disciplined by the Vatican. Within 36 hours, the Vatican Press Office released the now famous Communique. There was never an official statement made by any Vatican Congregation, dicastry or agency. Only the Press Office statement exists. Just one year earlier, in the summer of 2005, the Vatican Secretary of State wrote a letter stating that there was no canonical process against the found of the Legion of Christ. Legion officials faxed this letter to every major news outlet, Catholic and secular, in the United States at 4:45 pm on a Friday. There was no way for those of us who knew the real truth to counter that letter, which turned out to be a total lie by a very highly placed Vatican official -- one who we should have been able to trust.

 

It is reasonable to infer that the Vatican never intended to go public with this information about Maciel. And the Legion certainly was not about to do so. The disciplinary action was imposed, to the best of our knowlege, some time in the month of April, 2006. 

Comments

[Pete Vere]

"This letter hurts the Legion and Regnum Christi more than if it had not been written."

It doesn't matter about the LC/RC as an institution. Having said that, it helps individuals within the LC/RC, regardless of the leadership's motives for putting it out.

Suppose I'm right and the glass is half full. It's an important step forward as the LC/RC concedes several points they danced around (or openly denied) in the past.

On the other hand, suppose Giselle and others are right, and this is the latest LC/RC spin. They've still been forced to concede several points they danced around or openly denied in the past. Meaning those inside the LC/RC who still only rely on LC/RC sources must now face certain facts.

Either way, despite the LC/RC spin, and regardless of their intention, the cause of truth is served.

[Still RC - For Now, Anyway]

"Now, the primary problem as I said above, is that the RC has existed as a tool of the Legion. Only when that is acknowledged and dealt with can RC's move forward to separate and regroup. Back to the 12-step analogy, that's Step One (admitting to the problem). Not just saying MM was a problem, there are some inherent flaws or whatever, but admitting: we were tools of the Legion and have to rethink this "vocation." "

Agreed. It's not a matter of eradicating MM from RC. It's a matter of separating the membership of RC from any influence, be it spiritual or otherwise, from the LC. I've mentioned before there are gifts and talents that the members bring to the Church - we can discuss, even disagree on, whether there should be any new "organization" associated with this separation or whether they should go back and serve their parishes individually. But there needs to be a separation. And it needs to be aided by the Holy See due to the current institutional structure of RC.

The fact that we are actually hearing, even informally, about members who are stepping back, members who are angry, and even sections which might be, practically speaking, only a fraction of what they were one year ago, tells me there might be hope for many members of RC to recognize the need for separation and do so. There are "die hards" to be sure (we have many in my section) who may go down with the Titanic, but I think a critical mass will accept the need to separate.

[Don]

According to exlcblog, there are actually three directorates in the US, and this letter was signed by two of the three. So what is the significance of this?

If Alvaro had signed it, it would take on the significance of an official announcement, with an intended international audience.

If all three directors had signed it, it would communicate that the US hierarchy was unified in addressing this problem.

If one territorial director had signed it, it would indicate that it was intended specifically for his own territory, but it certainly would have gotten the attention of the rest of the US and Canada members.

But with only two of the three territories represented, one is left wondering what is the significance of the missing signature. Is it because the remaining director is not in agreement with the letter (either because it goes too far or not far enough in his opinion) or that he doesn't think that his territory is concerned about this?

[Still RC - For Now, Anyway]

Don, unless I missed a key e-mail somewhere there are only two directorates - one in Atlanta and the other in NY. These were created in 2004 when the changes were made following the General Chapter (the one at which MM stepped down as the General Director). It was at this time that Fr. Bannon stepped aside as Territorial Director for all of the US (and parts of Canada) and the territory was divided into two with Scott Reilly named director of the Atlanta territory and, Fr. Joseph Burke(sp?) for the New York territory. Not sure when Fr. Julio Marti took over from him.

I can't recall how the territories are divided up but together they should include the entire US and a part of Canada (can't recall which part). If there is a Western Territory somewhere this would be the first I've heard of it.

[Pete Vere]

Don, I have a few more basic questions:

- What is the third directorate?

- What geographical region does it cover?

- Who is the director for this region?

[Don]

I don't know the answer to that. According to Still RC there are only two territories, but exlcblog says there are three. Since Atlanta and New York are both east coast, I assumed that the remaining one must handle the west. If there really only two then my questions above are moot.

[Pete Vere]

Perhaps the third territory is in Canada? Quebec?

[Anonymous]

"It is reasonable to infer that the Vatican never intended to go public with this information about Maciel. And the Legion certainly was not about to do so."

What does this mean, if true? Did the Vatican (and Legion) just hope it would quietly go away once Maciel was off the radar? I sure hope not.

My question is this: exactly WHAT has made all this information about Maciel come out NOW? The Legion has known (admittedly!) about his womanizing for years. The Vatican has known about his sexual molestation (and probably his womanizing, too!) for years. What is the significance of the timing of the release of all of this information? At first, I thought it was perhaps that some of the children were blackmailing the Legion for money (I wouldn't blame them if they did), and that the Legion had finally had enough. But I don't think we have any evidence to indicate that was the case.

So.....why February 2009?

[Pete Vere]

Better add Germany to the list of territories:

http://www.zenit.org/article-18482?l=german

[MnM]

I am still inside RC for now too. My pressing question is whether the Pete Vere posting lately is really the Pete Vere that I used to read? I'm confused. The letter doesn't help anyone on the inside. You should know that with cult behavior the truth is often offered. They draw you in with the spin on the truth. When RC members speak with their LC and RC leaders, that is when they strike you with the guilt trip for choosing to leave. If you aren't strong enough, you will fall for the internal spin. I have experienced it personally. This methodology is so intrinsic, even the LC's don't recognize when they are spinning. It is the only "speak" they have ever known.

[LC]

The Subdivision into Territories

In order to facilitate the government of the institutes of consecrated life, religious orders or congregations are subdivided into provinces. Each province has a set of several houses of the institute which are managed by the same provincial superior. In the Legion of Christ, these provinces are called territories. The territorial directors depend directly on the general director and manage their territory both in matters of religious life and in matters of the Legion’s apostolates.

The Regnum Christi Movement is intimately associated with the Legion of Christ. The major directors of the Legion of Christ are also the directors of Regnum Christi. The members of the Movement are Catholic laypeople and diocesan priests who wish to enrich themselves with its charism, live their baptismal commitments more intensely in their own state of life, and transmit Christian charity.

At present, the Legion of Christ has 11 territories.

http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/articulos/categoria_secc.phtml?lc=se-238_ca-845_ci-855&width=1280&height=1024

[Pete Vere]

MnM wrote: "I am still inside RC for now too. My pressing question is whether the Pete Vere posting lately is really the Pete Vere that I used to read? I'm confused. The letter doesn't help anyone on the inside."

If you're on the inside and you don't find this letter helpful - because you feel it ought to go further, and is still steeped in Maciel's methodology - then that's a good sign. It means you've stopped drinking the kool-aid and begun to think for critically.

In which case, if you feel this strongly that it's more of the usual and that the LC are just trying to maintain control over you, I would ask you the same question I asked Still RC - Why are you still in?

I'm not saying there's no good reason for staying in (perhaps you have a son who is a LC seminarian and you want to keep the channels of communication open), only that you should think about the question and know what the reasons are, and be able to articulate them.

On the other hand, I'm in touch with people who have friends or family who won't believe anything that does not come from a LC/RC source. And for them this letter is a real eye-opener.

[MnM]

"On the other hand, I'm in touch with people who have friends or family who won't believe anything that does not come from a LC/RC source. And for them this letter is a real eye-opener.

That makes sense. I have "friends" entrenched deeply in RC who will take advice only from LC's. You are correct in your thinking that at the very least it puts a seed in their minds. I do think it will take a watermelon for many.

I haven't left because I have a dilemma that is similar to the one you suggested. Fear runs rampant with those involved in this organization.

[HH]

For years now, the LC has fostered fear. But the more we let that fear stop us from acting, the more power we give them over us.

[MnM]

HH. Easily suggested if you do not have children involved.

[gregorbo]

MnM--is/are the child/children involved in your case under legal age?

[HH]

You are the parent of your underaged children. Please please please, you and you alone are responsible. If they feel you have taken away their friends, etc, they will get over it. Will they get over having their hearts and minds twisted by this cult?
I am sick in the heart at parents who will not act to take their minor children out of the apostolic school, when these parents know the truth.

[MnM]

gregorbo. Yes. My four children attend an LC school. They range in age from PreK to 8th grade. All LC schools require that the children and their parents sign a contract which gives them power to expel the children on the basis of unfavourable behavior from either the children or the parents. The PTB have an immense amount of power and will not hesitate to use it against dissenters.

[MnM]

You should know that the PTB of the LC schools read the blogs.

[HH]

Get your kids out of that school now. You are responsible for their upbringing. They would be better off anywhere. Public schools are not the enemy. They do not pretend to be what they are not. LC schools are wolves in sheep's clothing. What more evidence do you need? Save your kids now. Now is better than later.

[Pete Vere]

MnM,

I know this is a personal question, so please don't feel the need to respond here, but given the strong concerns about the LC/RC that you have expressed here, and given the fear you express about speaking out, why would you re-enroll your children in a LC school?

I mention this because both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law are quite clear: parents are the primary educators of their children, meaning the responsibility for a child's Christian education falls primarily to the parents. Therefore, as a Catholic parent you should never fear asking hard questions and seeking answers about your child's education. If you think your children's Christian education may be compromised, you have both a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION before God to act in your child's best interest.

In fact, this is one of your primary responsibilities as one who has chosen the vocation of marriage and parent. To validly marry, canon 1055 states, a potential spouse must be open to the "procreation and EDUCATION of children." As an ecclesiastical judge, I have judged marriages invalid where a spouse was open to the procreation part, but could care less about the child's upbringing, saying to the other party: "You wanted the children, you look after them."

[gregorbo]

Thanks, Pete, for articulating some of the very things I would have with MnM.

I understand his/her position, I think, quite viscerally--since I myself was a principal of a nominal RC/LC school (not an apostolic school, just a start-up by RC parents as a "private" non-Diocesan "Catholic" school.

At the point at which my wife and I could no longer work for or support the school, we had to make a decision, as three of our four children were school age and attending the school and we both worked there and so depended for our livelihoods on the good will of the RC folks who owned and ran it.

So, I negotiated a separation from the school at the completion of the year that was designed to make our departure as smooth as possible.

But what we faced as a family was daunting: we left the state with no where to go and no new jobs. Thankfully, we had family that took us in for an entire summer so we could start over. It was extremely difficult.

But, we made it. And looking back, I'm glad we made the decision to leave when we did. Hard as it was, everything since has been nothing but better than what we went through at that school.

So, MnM--it is possible to get your kids out and embark on a new path. It will be difficult--but it can be done.

[Anonymous]

MnM,

I can easily imagine a situation in which you have other very strong considerations for keeping your kids where they are----as in, your paycheck is based on a family member's employment with same school. Let's just say I have experienced something similar.

In the end, I had to do what was best for my children. I am not--nor ever have been--RC, and I am not a kool-aide-drinking sort of person, having lived through some other really screwed-up Catholic groups in my time. BUT I still second-guessed my decision-making. Even though I KNEW the decision we were making was best for our children, some niggling part of my brain kept telling me, "But there is so much GOOD happening in that school!" I guess that's the power of a cult.

We have seen such changes for the better in our children since removing them from that school. Even family members have noted their relief that the kids are back to themselves. There is a great sense of peace in knowing you have done the right thing by your children.

I will keep you in my prayers.

[MnM]

Thank you Pete and Gregorbo for your gentle responses and wise advice. My spouse and I have already determined that our children will leave the school at the end of the year. Circumstances beyond our control prevent us from doing so earlier. The oldest children have been informed of the MM misdeeds and are receiving new spiritual direction from their parents. It is important that this dialogue is presented here for the parents unaware of the spiritual damage that they may be inflicting on their children.

[MnM]

Thank you Anonymous!