Most Helpful Posts

Helpful Articles

Blog powered by Typepad

Comment Policy

  • All constructive comments will be accepted.
    Commenting anonymously is certainly permitted as long as it adds to the understanding of this topic. The point of this site is to foster love for Christ, while analyzing the place of Regnum Christi in the Church. (Please know that no one will be able to track your comments -- neither the readers nor the webmaster. We all understand the hesitancy in speaking about this experience and the fallout that can accrue. All comments will only bear the information you choose to reveal.)

« The "disembodied charism" | Main | New LC statistics »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lookee here....Vatican personnel are distancing John Paul II from Maciel, and also claiming that "there was no document in {John Paul II's} personal records that tied him to knowledge of anything" (i.e, as in anything related to reports of Maciel's sexual abuse and dubious history)

Gotta run now, by my first impression is that this PR effort needs a load of parsing (i.e., "JP II's personal records"? -- so if there was no information of Maciel in JP II's briefcase or personal files, this means he never heard anything or knew about Maciel behavior? Are Vatican spokesmen playing word games and semantic fake-left-go-right? )

Frank, in a large organization, if there are enough "filters" between the rank and file and the "CEO", it is possible to keep the CEO in the dark about most things.

One thing I just thought of also was that fact that JPII came into the Vatican as an outsider, just as our current Pope, and would not have had access to nearly as much knowledge as a Cardinal who had already been living in Rome for a number of years. Look at the difference between what happened when Benedict took office--he had insider knowledge from his previous position and acted quickly. Maybe he didn't do as much as we would have liked, but he made it quite clear that Maciel was no longer going to be able to hide his true colors any more.

Hey, I was just thinking - and I'm sorry to hijack - does anyone think there would be a market for a blog about our RC LC experiences, but where you would have to leave your real name? Nevermind, I suppose people would find that too scary. When I left, I shamefully gave the old "sorry I have family obligations and can no longer help out in RC." But the reality is I think the Legion is just plain crazy on every level.

We’re often so anonymous. Might as well be silent sometimes. Certainly, progress has been made here - a place for us to go and heal and know that we are not insane and I'm thankful. And certainly the LC and RC knows we exist. Certainly some of us have used our real names, and it probably didn't change anything. I'd tell you mine (I'm serious), but I have a career to think about... what if my employer sees this...I could go on.

I guess it's too bad that we’re dismissed as "those bitter angry people on that blog" and no one knows that, really, I have probably passed you at Mass or at school or wherever every day for years. You like me, and think I am a nice person, and respect my opinions. You should probably know how I really feel.

Looking at the "Cassandra Jones" timeline Maciel's reinstatement was set in motion 2 weeks before the election of John's election and was granted 3 months after. Co-incidently the 2 popes they ran circles around will be canonized together. Hope the old guard are as far away that day as Maciel was when his grand uncle was canonized.

I know exactly how you feel, Wish I could tell you. I have often thought the same. It is telling of the negative experience that we still feel worried about what LegRegs could do to us if we used our names. I mostly worry about negative consequences for my children.

And I agree, you and I might pass each other at mass or in the community. Maybe you're suspicious of me, because you don't know I left when you did, and vice versa. Maybe that would be a start, to publish a list of the people who have left RC. Not with comments or opinions, just volunteer our names. That way, we could choose to connect with others, not on a blog but in real life.

Slawomir Oder says no; but legionaries said Yes.
There was a link between JP2 and MM. In spanish:

MM was a liar and a hypocrite. Plus he was under-cover for the CIA. JP II had the whole Church to worry about, and MM was just one of the millions passing by, with attendants whispering what he needed to know at that moment in his hears. Baby talk. The higher the information goes, the more stripped down it becomes.

Genevieve seeds Nicole Winfield, and the resulting juicy item becomes fodder for ruminating here.

The LC compiles all those random moments MM and JPII happened to be in proximity to each other and used it for branding, as if it meant more than what it did, a random ceremony in 40 years of random ceremonies, where MM was present at only a handful.

Which brings us back to fodder for Winfield and the cycle goes on. What else is new? Who can see clearly anymore?

**** it adds nothing to the discussion to blame the messenger (Nicole Winfield)

Do we have any evidence MM was undercover for the CIA? For what purpose could the CIA possibly need a drug-addicted sociopathic sexually-abusive swindler?

From VLV:
Slawomir Oder does not metion that, according to the Catechism (CIC 1853) there is such a thing as a sin of omission, and the sin of scandal by omission (CIC 2284) The responsibility of not only protecting, but also of promoting Marcial Maciel is very grave and has caused much scandal in the Church: "Was the investigation in the cause for canonization conducted properly considering that there was so much actual evidence in the Church?"

IF John Paul II really did not know anything, it would make him very irresponsible given his unprecedented gestures [towards Maciel], without having investigated the person.... he had to have known."

Wish I could tell you, maybe one day I will in Atlanta, I am in Atlanta and I would be glad to talk to you. Maybe Giselle could give us the information for the discussion group we used to have where we did use our names.

If what popes say is unreliable why should we trust what they say about anything? Who should we hold accountable, the personal secretary? What does he gain by exonerating JPII and then retreating into the shadows? Who are these mysterious advisors who can mislead pontiffs with impunity. And how long has this been going on? What other important things have popes been glibly misinformed about so that they misled many people into abuse and confusion? Does anyone care? Sometimes the Universal Church - at least in this respect - feels like a Dystopia. As far as soon to be St JPII, I intend to pray to him with the spirit of Cordelia. I will love him as a child of the Church should love a saint of the Church, no more no less. I hope it pleases him. I will be pretty suspicious about the role of officious papal advisors misleading current popes until they restore our confidence that their words are reliable. Even when vocations, money, and reputations are at stake.

I personally believe that Maciel somehow was able to deceive all the Popes in his lifetime. All the way from the beginning of the Legion, to the 90's each Pope had a quite a lot in their plates. Just consider how the Church was persecuted in Mexico in the 1940's, World War, the Cold War, the Church being persecuted on the Eastern Block, Vietnam, Ali Acga, Theology of Liberation, Post Conciliar Crisis.

By the time John Paul becomes Pope, he sees some light in the Legion. Maciel offers to organize his first trip, and from all places to Mexico, at the time still in a solid stance against the Church. John Paul saw that as an opportunity to address the Theology of Liberation and as a in your face statement to the Communist government in Poland.

Let us not forget that Wotyjla saw many priest accused of sodomy and pedophilia by the Nazis and countless attacks of the same sort orchestrated by the USSR.

I think that we might need to understand this background to see how he saw the Legion and Maciel, plus Maciel used his influences in the Vatican to fuel these good impressions. Maciel offered to help organize a trip that was a key step for Mexico-Vatican relations, and the ultimate defeat of communism in Poland, and basically the collapse of the USSR.

The Legionaries represented the perfect balance of not too liberal nor too traditionalist. A congregation seemingly growing while the rest seemed to wither away. Not was it only growing, but attracting young and dynamic people, opening seminaries where the Church was losing ground. Their movement was attracting plenty of young people, and families alike. (You know the typical BS the Legion fed us for years)

I am almost sure that John Paul saw this as a sign, and anyone insinuating the least negative comment about Maciel might be seen as hostile.

Sadly, proofs never seemed to have reached the Holy Father. I doubt he had access to the DNA records of Maciel illegitimate Daughter or anything of the sort. Maybe claims, but used to Nazi and Communist defamation he might have equally dismissed them.

Not only was Maciel able to dupe people in the Curia, but also modern Martyrs like Cardinal Van Nguyen. I remember back in 2002 when accusations began to resurface, Maciel made sure every legionary saw the post cards sent by many in the Church offering support to Maciel. One of them was precisely Van Nguyen. He wrote something like "Father Maciel remember that Saints must suffer".

Should John Paul have known about this monster, I think he should have. Problem here is that with many problems around, plus a filtered stack of information, and his advance age, I find him unable to have had the full side of the story. He could have asked for more, but do you think a person with that background and who saw how much good the Legion helped to do, would doubt for an instant about their founder.

It took a Ratzinger Pope, who had full and direct information about the case to remove him. Some speculate that someone at the Vatican might have tipped Maciel off about Ratzinger or someone in the Congregation for the Faith beginning to do something about the case, prompting Maciel to decline his position as General Director.

At first the Legionaries (including Maciel) thought Razinger was the best thing that could have happened to the Legion. Boy were we wrong. And even after the Pope removed Maciel, we made them look like manipulated Pilate and meek silent Jesus.

A true and diabolical monster he was.

This of course is the same spin provided by the group that received money from Maciel, set up priveledged access to the Holy Father for Regnum Christi and the Legion, set up the Papal calendar that included appointments with Maciel, gave the Legion responsibilities and honors, allowed the praise, suppressed the investigations, abused critics, cultivated syconphants, etc.... Maciel was so dissipated in his later years I doubt he could have done all of the mischief in regards to the Holy Father. So who did the mischief? Who is benefitting by all of this vapid misdirection?

Bigtex, that is very question I have been asking myself for a long time. Who and why would covered up for Maciel. Who in the Legion covered up for Maciel and colaborated in his crimes. The visitation looked very promising. Unfortunately De Paolis endeavors seemed to be lukewarm at best. It does feel as if obvious names might pop up both Curia (Sodano, maybe Diwitz), and Legionary (Devlin, Coates, Garza).

We have not seen sufficient proof, and as to why haven't we heard of culprits eludes my mind.

@Hope: the most disturbing tell-tale is the total LACK of curiosity from anyone in the Movement concerning the possible collaboration. It matches the extraordinary lack of sincere concern about the victims of MM, and the similar lack of concern about the scandal to the wider Church and John Paul II's reputation, for that matter.

This again ties into the ludicrous claim that the Legion has a mission to form leaders, because if they cannot understand these basic things, how could they form a CEO (or CIO or CFO) about how to ethically manage their responsibilities and their image? Heck, even the father of a family would have to do better!

I see some objective negligence in JPII about the MM affair. I also see the subjective mitigating aspects: his prejudices, his way of governing, the LC PR machinery around him, and above all his two gatekeepers (Dziwisz and Sodano) who kept him away from the darker sides of MM and the LC. These two eminent cardinals keep their mouths shot and we just keep wondering about this whole issue and thinking JP doesn't deserve to be made a saint. We are not obliged to have devotion to him though.

Isn't there evidence of dizwiz being a beneficiary of the legion? Didn't he celebrate his cardinal ordination party at their house in Rome? Or am i confusing him with someone else? There is no doubt that he had testimonies of the victims delivered to him by hand.

I think that JP chose not to believe accusations and chose not to act on them. Is it credible that he was so very protected from the media, from gossiping cardinals or bishops? He must have known about the accusations somehow or another.

Both Dziwisz and Sodano. They had each, a big party at their building in Rome...

I find John Allen's idea that canonization is the most democratic of all processes in the Church rather attractive... JPII may have made his mistakes in governance... but he was duped by Maciel as many of us were.

Critics (including LARC) may say what they wish (first amendment), but the throngs of pilgrims on Sunday will surely make a compelling statement... and vastly more numerous than Ms. Winfield and Giselle.

@Jorge: thanks for reminding us that there is power in numbers (which bolstered the Legion's image for years). For all that, truth is not decided by the majority -- otherwise Christianity would have been stamped out of existence in the first century.

"Look at the fruit" can apply to anyone who has a large following, evidently, but I wouldn't hang my hat on such claims. I assume JP2 is in heaven, but have only made the point that the continuing existence of the Legion remains a blot on the record. And they don't seem to care. That's all.

I don't see anything particularly democratic about the process. What is that even based on? How are the numbers measured? Who determines a simple majority or what kind of majority is needed to cross the line? To do so would require a process the Church doesn't even use and generally shuns.

Regarding JPII's knowledge of the accusations against Maciel. There is no question he had heard them. Why he didn't act on them is the point we don't know or why no authority in the Vatican did not act. JPII invited Maciel over for lunch or dinner sometimes more than once a week. They were good friends. Maciel even came out of hiding with his wives and kids to meet with JPII when the Vatican called.

The strategy to minimize JPII's involvement with Maciel is not honest and doesn't help JPII's cause. There were reasons why he didn't believe the accusations, but why not just send out a private investigator to get more intel?

To punish those who might have steered JPII the wrong way would mean having to punish Sodano, Dziwisz and a whole slew of top brass people. In the military, mistakes are punished by losing rank, priveleges, salary, etc. By not acting the Catholic church's mission becomes handicapped b/c the rules of the Gospel don't apply to the leaders and this lack of coherence is painfully obvious.

Who is guarding the guardians?

Fr Oder, the postulator, was hired by and worked for JP2. Isn't this a conflict of interest? He said in an interview that he discovered nothing new in his investigation. But in fact, there are a lot of un-answered questions. Just an example: in November/December 2004, at the time of MM’s 60th anniversary, letters from JP2 praised MM, while at the same time Benedict re-launched the investigation against him. Why was the investigation stalled for 4 years? Did Benedict act alone or did he clear this with JP2, who was ill at that time? Who wrote these letters of support of MM, in the name of JP2, while the investigation was going on? Dziwisz? There is nothing more annoying than arrogant Polish clerics, like Oder and Dziwisz, who seem to think the world is only populated with stupid servile peasants.
And lets face it, Allen is protecting his base. The fact is that the process of canonization was made less democratic in 1983, when the office of prompter of faith (“devil advocate”) was removed from the code of canon law to allow the lightning speed beatification/canonization of JP2’s pet gurus, like Escriva, to counter the perceived threat of Liberation Theology (agree with Hope’s comments). The hope is that these cult like, deceptive influences that infiltrated the in the Church under JP2, will be corrected.
Sad to say, but for me, JP2's canonization is used by all those that were around him to cover their own tracks.

A sincere question for all of you: why hasn't Wienfield (and others) gone after Sodano and Dizwiz and their involvement (or maybe she has and I missed the articles). I truly doubt that JP II never heard anything about the accusations...but I do believe that because of his background in dealing first with Nazi Germany, then Communist Russia, he had such a "survival" and protectful attitude toward all priests...then with the exodus of many priests and nuns in the 70s (still happening when he became pope) that he sought to save all that he could, and then finally the LCs are right before his eyes with all their "fruits.." since no serious amounts of accusations came out in the Church until around 2001-2002, that even 1997's accusations against the legion for him couldn't be possible. I really wish we could have been flies on the wall, because it seems to me that Sodano/Dziwich would be like the Rasputins in the ears of Czar Nicholas (John Paul II).. Not the perfect analogy but similar in some aspects...folks this is my take on it. And by the way, just because there were throngs of people pushing for "santo subito" of JP II doesn't make it democratic. There is nothing really democratic about it at all. Finally, prudence does tell me that any leader of the Church, especially Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, much more time needs to pass before they are considered as servants of God/venerable etc... their role in the Church is much more complex than say someone like St Bernadette.

The comments to this entry are closed.