Catholic author and canon lawyer Pete Vere has been a long-time friend to ReGAIN, an organization of ex Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi (LC/RC) members. Over the past five years Pete has spoken out publicly against several LC/RC practices, acted as canonical consultant to ReGAIN members, and in 2005 he spoke at the ReGAIN international conference in Atlanta. These actions have sometimes put him at odds with his peers within the canon law profession. He is also co-author of the bestselling canon law question & answer books, Suprised by Canon Law and Surprised by Canon Law II With the recent revelation of Fr. Maciel’s mistress and daughter, several canon lawyers are now proposing different solutions to the problems surrounding the LC/RC. Some are even calling for the RC/LC to be disbanded completely. In this interview Genevieve Kineke, previously a member of Regnum Christi and presently a board member of ReGAIN asks Pete his opinion on how the LC/RC should proceed.
Kineke: To begin, what do you make of the recent revelation that Fr. Maciel fathered a daughter while in his mid-to-late 60's?
Vere: I don’t want to go into it too deeply, as Fr. Maciel is no longer with us, but for me it’s confirmation he had a problem with sexual vice. For the record, I was not too shocked as I had long ago accepted that even more serious allegations against him of sexual impropriety were most likely true. If it was simply a matter of Fr. Maciel, I think we could leave it in the past and move on. However, the question affects the current practices of the LC/RC. One of the most important lessons I learned as a canon lawyer during the Church’s recent sexual misconduct crisis is that an abuser’s primary motivation is access to victims. A sexual abuser desires this access over all else. This means the abuser will groom victims and their parents or guardians, seeking the most vulnerable and weeding out those who could easily resist or draw attention to the abuser’s actions. The abuser will take similar action to avoid, discredit or marginalise those with the power to cut off the abuser’s access to children. Applied to the current situation, canonists are left with several questions. For instance, how many of Fr. Maciel’s practices within the LC/RC were put in place to help members grow in holiness, and how many were put into place to facilitate and cover up his sexual misconduct? One example is the secret vows prohibiting members from criticizing a superior within the LC. Thankfully this has now been done away with at the request of the Holy See. But one can see how a sexual abuser could manipulate such a vow to prevent his sins from coming to light. Or as my friend Fr. Frank Morrisey, one of the Church's foremost experts on religious law, likes to say: "Canon law exists because we have enough trouble keeping the three traditional vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. We don't need any extras."
Kineke: Many of your peers within the canon law profession are asking the same question. In light of this question, some are calling for the complete suppression of the LC/RC. Yet you have voiced disagreement with this approach. Why?
Vere: Fr. Maciel is no longer a danger to the Movement or the Church. As noted by current Legion superiors, Fr. Maciel is dead and has been judged by God. We can only pray he made his peace with Our Lord before passing on. That being said, it’s his influence over the Movement while he was still alive that we need to be concerned about. The LC have a couple thousand priests and seminarians; and thousands of more lay members belong to the RC. The vast majority are faithful Catholics acting in good faith. They joined up knowing that the LC/RC was approved by the Church. They are shocked and heartbroken by recent revelations. This puts them in an extremely vulnerable state - mentally, spiritually, and emotionally. I feel it would simply do more damage in the long term if the Church threw all these people by the curb without allowing them reasonable opportunity to reform from within.
Kineke: So do you disagree that Rome needs to step in here and appoint someone from outside the LC/RC to look at the movement’s current organization and practices of the LC/RC?
Vere: No. In fact I’m on record as saying the LC/RC cannot carry out the necessary reform on their own, that Rome needs to step in here and oversee the reform, and that a trusted individual from outside of the LC/RC should oversee the process.
Kineke: What do you mean then when you say the LC/RC should be given opportunity to “reform from within”? How does your position differ from that of your colleague Dr. Edward Peters?
Vere: To answer your first question, “opportunity to reform from within” means that the LC/RC be given the opportunity to demonstrate their good faith in attempting to fix the institutional weaknesses. These are the practices that allowed Fr. Maciel’s double-life to arise in the first place and go on for so long. The charism of the LC/RC is one of service to the Church; it is not one of sexual misconduct and bearing children out of wedlock. Such behavior is grossly sinful, meaning that such a charism is not possible. Which is why, I feel, the LC/RC found it so difficult for so long to face the truth about Fr. Maciel. But now that the truth is out in the open, members of the LC/RC should be afforded the opportunity to act upon the truth and – with the assistance of the Church – make the necessary institutional corrections. Which brings me to your second question. When Dr. Peters first came out and said the LC/RC needed to be shut down, I thought he meant completely. If we use the analogy of a badly-infected computer, I thought Dr. Peters was saying this thing is too badly infected, we need to chuck the computer. My concern was what do we do with the thousands of current members – most of whom acted in good faith? Dr. Peters subsequently clarified his position as shut down the Movement and reconstitute it with new leadership, a new founder, a new structure and a new charism. I find this approach much more realistic. It’s analogous to a virus that has infected the software so badly that we need to reformat the hard-drive and install a new operating system. Like Dr. Peters, I recognize that the virus has so badly infected the computer that it will take more than my anti-virus software and limited computers skills to fix. But before wiping out the hard-drive, which means not being able to recover old software and files that I still use, I want to take the computer into the shop and see if the experts can repair the damage, remove malignant software, patch security weaknesses, and update the operating system. This way I minimize the loss of important files and software. Reform may not be possible, but we don't know unless we allow the LC/RC to try - with outside supervision from the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities, of course. Should reform fail, then I would agree with Dr. Peters that the LC/RC be reconstituted or permanently suppressed. But as long LC/RC show good faith, I think the initial attempt should be through reform. Of course reform is not possible overnight; it will take time, not to mention prayer and discernment. And the LC/RC also need to be given some breathing time right now make sense of the pain they feel, and overcome their initial shock. Hopefully in coming months the LC/RC will put forward a plan for reform. Such a plan must include a careful examination of each of the LC/RC’s current practices.
Kineke: Could you name some of these practices that you feel are in need of re-examination?
Vere: The first one has already been dealt with by Rome. I’m talking about the secret vows – or the one not to speak critically about the LC/RC, Fr. Maciel or the Movement’s superiors, to those outside of the Movement. This was a big concern for me as canon lawyer because these types of vows can often be used to prevent members from exercising their legitimate canonical rights within the Church. If a person has a grievance with his religious superior, he must be free to approach the Church hierarchy – especially if it concerns the good of the Church. In fact the current crisis demonstrates the importance of respecting these canonical rights. One wonders – and please keep in mind I don’t have the answer to this question – whether Fr. Maciel’s sexual vices might have come to light sooner and been dealt with effectively had the membership felt more comfortable coming forward with pertinent information. Having said that, other things that need to be carefully scrutinized are the Movement’s recruiting practices, the accountability of superiors to members and the wider Church community, apostolates within individual dioceses (several vicar generals and chancellors have told me their bishops had no clue the LC/RC were operating in their dioceses), the relationship with former members, and I could go on.
Kineke: What about Fr. Maciel’s status as founder? There is some talk of renouncing him as founder, but can a movement continue without its founder?
Vere: I’m on record as saying no. It’s a matter of fact that Fr. Maciel founded the Movement. For better or for worse, you cannot change facts because new facts have come to light, unless the new facts disprove the old facts. Fathering a child late in life and out-of-wedlock and serious allegations of sexual misconduct do not disprove that Fr. Maciel founded the LC/RC. However, there are some other known facts about the founding of the LC/RC movement. These are not new facts – they have been known for some time – there simply has not been much emphasis placed upon them. One of these facts is that Fr. Maciel’s great-uncle, Bishop Rafael Guízar Valencia, was instrumental in helping to found the Movement. Bishop Valencia is a canonized saint within the Church. His was a life of proven holiness serving the poor. He suffered great persecution for Christ and was driven from his diocese during the Mexican Civil War. He was subsequently beatified by Pope John Paul II and canonized by Pope Benedict XVI. Saint Guízar Valencia lived many of the heroic virtues that rank-and-file LC/RC members attempt to emulate in their daily lives as Catholic. Surely he is interceding in Heaven on their behalf, comforting their tears during this difficult time. The LC/RC would do well to implore his intercession as they contemplate their future.
Kineke: By putting emphasis on it now only under these dire circumstances -- especially after a 60 year history and given all the books and letters written to date -- wouldn't this be received as an attempt to rewrite history? How could people take it as anything other than grasping at any association that would give them legitimacy, or a chance to "save face?"
Vere: To some it would be seen as a clear repudiation of Fr. Maciel's toxic influence. To others it would be seen as attempting to save face, or rewriting the history of their Movement, or both. So switching icons alone is not enough. Were the LC/RC to reinvent themselves under the patronage of Saint Guizar Valencia -- and please keep in that such a possibility is merely speculation on my part, only the Holy Spirit knows how this will unfold -- people will be watching closely, many rather suspiciously. So the LC/RC will have to prove itself by emulating the Catholic spirit and example of Saint Guizar Valencia. If the LC/RC bear good fruit, then suspicions would drop over time. But if the current dysfunctions continue, and the LC/RC show themselves resistant to institutional reform, then no saint can rescue the situation. In short, after 60 years of history, nobody is going to believe overnight changes, come the following morning. However, that doesn't mean change isn't possible. Which is why to be believable, Saint Guízar Valencia cannot simply become an excuse for the LC/RC to continue 'business as usual.' Of course all this is speculation at the moment.
Kineke: You mention the charism of the Legion, but consider this quote from a site established by one diocesan Office of Vocations: "[E]ach Religious Community has a charism—a purpose or mission, and a spirit defined by the Community’s founder." With the mission of Fr. Maciel so compromised [ref. comment above on abuser's motivations] to reform the group now puts the cart before the horse: We have a congregation -- Let's find a mission. One almost pictures them creating a "charism by committee," which is not only backwards but highly unusual. Who's to say everyone will like it -- will they vote?
Vere: I wish I could be a little more forthcoming in my answer, but I simply don't know. In fact this whole question of the LC/RC's charism is one with which I have struggled the most since first being clued in to the various allegations against Fr. Maciel. Indeed, the LC/RC must have a special charism to be a distinct Movement within the Church. Normally one's charism is passed down by the founder. But that charism has become so clouded with the actions of Fr. Maciel that it is difficult to discern at the moment. I do believe it's there since I see some of the good fruits of the rank-and-file members of the Movement. However, there are still too many questions to be asked of the leadership, specifically how they allowed Fr. Maciel to get away with so much for so long. Does the charism bypass the founder and go right to the members? It's possible. The Holy Spirit, after all, is not bound by human constructs. It is also possible for institutes to change their charism as new situations arise. Thus a nursing order might take on some nursing students and eventually evolve into a teaching order. Or a contemplative order invited to found monasteries in mission territories may embrace a new charism as a missionary order. But even under these circumstances, the new charism evolves over time. Can a charism change abruptly because of a scandal concerning the founder? It's possible. Certainly, this is one of the questions LC/RC members must ask themselves if they are sincere about reforming their Movement. Yes their stated charism is to serve the Church, but so is the charism of every other Catholic Movement and Institute. So what makes LC/RC service to the Church unique? And more importantly, how does the Movement carry out this charism now that Fr. Maciel's true character have become increasingly duplicitous, and his motives increasingly questionable? There are not easy questions. And speaking about this topic, my colleague Dr. Peters has put together an excellent blog entry attempting to answer these questions. You can read it here.
Kineke: Speaking of the future, besides an examination of current LC/RC practices, what are some things the LC/RC need to survive the future?
Vere: First, a full apology and restitution to Fr. Maciel’s victims. All of them. This includes those who found themselves estranged from the movement for sounding the alarm, as well as those who left quietly. In dealing with their own pain, current LC/RC members have used the analogy of children who discover their father is living a double-life, keeping another family on the side in luxury, while the first family lives in poverty under a hard rule. To carry this analogy a step further, not all children from this first family still live in the family home. Some have run away after suspecting their father’s duplicity, while others were thrown out after raising concerns about their father. They may no longer live in the family home, but they are still members of the family – albeit estranged members now. They probably won’t want to move back home, but at least get back on talking terms and perhaps even visiting terms. To a certain extent, I fall into this category. I was never a formal member of the LC/RC movement but I corroborated with several canonists who were. Some of them stopped talking to me after I became convinced of the allegations put forward by ReGAIN and spoke out publicly about it. I would love to be in touch with these colleagues again. If you’re reading this interview, please drop me an email. There’s no hard feelings on my part. I understand what you’re going through and am praying for you. The LC/RC also need to apologize to former members who were hurt by Fr. Maciel’s actions and the subsequent coverup, even though the majority who defended Fr. Maciel did so in good faith. In the past, the LC/RC tended to dismiss any criticism of the Movement as an attack by the enemies of the Church, even when the criticism was legitimate, and voiced by concerned friends - both in and out of the Movement. Not every criticism of the LC/RC was an attack; in fact, many of the criticisms were constructive, put forward in charity after prayer and discernment. Fortunately, we’re seeing more and more apologies from current superiors and high-profile members of the LC/RC movement. I feel most of these apologies are sincere and heartfelt, and would ask our side to resist the temptation to parse these apologies for hidden meanings. Let’s keep in mind that current members are just being hit by the news, are feeling shell-shocked, emotionally fragile and disappointed spiritually. We cannot expect a perfectly-worded apology from those who are still trying to make sense of this. What's meaningful is a sincere and heartfelt apology. There is also the matter of restitution. It is not sufficient, as one LC priest reportedly said, to say the actions were Fr. Maciel’s and not those of the LC, and the victims have already gotten help elsewhere. Christian charity demands better from us – especially when one’s movement bears His name. So while such overtures might be rejected, the LC/RC should nevertheless offer to help former members and victims of Fr. Maciel receive any counseling or other necessary assistance. Another way of bringing about restitution would be for the LC/RC to revoke its settlement extracted from ReGAIN, which prohibits the organization – if I understand correctly – from publicly criticizing Fr. Maciel and current LC/RC practices. Perhaps the LC/RC could even reimburse the $40,000 in legal fees ReGAIN spent defending itself. Such a gesture would go a long way in showing good faith and a sincere commitment to reform. There is also the situation with the consecrated women, who renew their promises annually with no possibility of a permanent state within the Movement. This strikes me as the ecclesiological equivalent of living together before marriage. They must be assured of greater canonical protection so that the Movement doesn’t simply abandon them in their later years. And at the other end of the life spectrum, the LC/RC should begin its reform with a careful examination of how it conducts apostolate among young people. Youth should not be severed from their families during their formative years, and those who are living apart from their families should be encouraged to maintain regular, open and honest communication.
Kineke: What can we as concerned Catholics do to help former and current LC/RC members?
Vere: The most important thing we can do is pray. The second most important thing we can do is let LC/RC members know we are praying for them, that we sympathize with their pain and what they are experiencing. It is especially important that charity be shown by those who are former members of the Movement. Keep in mind the reasons for which one was initially drawn to the Movement, which had to do with deepening one's faith and service to Christ. Nobody joined to become complicit in Fr. Maciel's sins. And keep in mind that not every former member left overnight. Some did, yes. But for most it was a steady process of discernment, of building up the spiritual fortitude and attempting to make sense of what was going on, before actually making the decision to leave. To those who are left behind, the news of Fr. Maciel's double-life came as an abrupt shock. So the rest of us need to show the same charity and pastoral sensitivity to those who remain within the Movement, as we do to the victims. On this note, I happened to be talking to a key organizer within ReGAIN shortly after the story of Fr. Maciel's daughter broke. He told me about someone saying to him: "I guess you're happy now that you're getting what you wanted." My friend's response was as follows: "Nobody can be happy with what happened. We can simply be relieved that the truth is now out, and act to prevent injustices in the future." This is so true. Our response as Catholics should never be to kick another person when he is down - especially when that person is suffering and spiritually fragile. Rather, we must be there to give them a hand up, whatever support we can offer, and help them find the help necessary to heal, reform and continue.
