A reader writes about Maciel

Question: Why is this such a huge deal? Why all the sturm und drang?

JPII forcibly covered for him which is not exactly an endorsement of “innocence.” (I’m not suggesting JPII was motivated by malice, but he has a history of covering for a number of buddies while turning away from victims – he had his reasons)

B16 already forcibly put him out to pasture with the correlated command to keep his mouth shut, which pretty much eliminates (imo) any claims of Maciel being the “innocent victim, unjustly accused.”

I realize the LC/RC is a large organization, but if it’s NOT a personality cult, then Maciel being portrayed truthfully shouldn’t damage it, certainly not if they hire Mahoney’s PR flacks; and if it IS a personality cult, then Maciel’s being portrayed truthfully should be WELCOMED BY ALL.

What is this allergy to being portrayed truthfully? Do we really prefer lies that much? At least about priests?

My childish impression thus far is that the priesthood is not a fairy-tale, put there to make us feel better. I see them as men with an ambition and call to live a sacrifice; some of them make it. And I still say if you’re going to love someone, you need to love all of them, not just those bits you find most pleasant, or only those traits which confirm your own prejudices.

One of the things I’ve noticed about the Internet is that it seems to inhibit a natural process that takes place whenever people interact face to face (I also think the invention of the printing press sparked something similar). What I mean is this: we will say things to one another over the Net that almost no normal person would say face to face. The polemics of the 16th century seem to have unleashed a similar tidal wave of epistolary nastiness. My question is: why? And I suspect it has something to do with the fact that we are built in such a way that we naturally respond with bonds of trust when face to face in ways which we do not when we are separated by the windshield of the computer monitor. (Mind you, this is all private speculation on my part).

One of the things sociopaths seem to do is exploit those natural bonds of trust. And one of the things we tend to do is allow it to happen. That’s why there’s a commandment against bearing false witness: because it is a *huge* temptation when one of My Tribe is being threatened. Very few people get up in the morning and thing “Who can I victimize today?” But lots of people get up and think, “I’ve known Fr. Beloved for years and there *must* be a reasonable explanation for that phone call I got yesterday from the outraged mother. Surely, this must be the work of a gold-digger or an enemy of the Church.” And so the process begins by which you convince yourself (against the bleats of conscience) that it’s Not Like it Looks. And besides, you’ve been blessed by the good he’s done. And besides you are doing God’s work and it must be protected from damaging stuff that’s, surely, not what it seems to be.

In Maciel’s case, there are complicating factors in that the same guy who was victimizing people was also creating the structures of accountability (so-called) that structured the LCs to protect his sins. So there is an institutional factor involved that is not necessarily there in other cases such as, say, a high school teacher or a Cub scout den leader. That’s part of the sturm und drang, I think. The LCs are, in their very institutional structure, compromised. The LCs were built, by Maciel, to guard and facilitate his perversion. That’s why the institution goes on issuing Happy Talk bulletins long after his death: it was designed to do so by him.

That doesn’t mean the LCs institution is irredeemable. But it does mean that much of the leadership (don’t ask me who cuz I don’t know anything about the internal workings of it) will need to go and a thorough review of how business is conducted. What the chances of this are I have no idea. I fancy it will be a lot smaller by the time it’s done as disgusted members leave. But, in a funny way, it may well wind up vastly healthier for all that, because the people who stay will (if they throw the rascals out) be there because they want to redeem and heal it and do what they signed on to do.

I agree with you that love requires loving the whole person. Maciel was not a devil. He was a wicked man. If it comes to that, so am I. I don’t understand the idea that everything his followers do is now therefore worthless, simply because they innocently trusted him. I don’t even understand the idea that all his own good works are now null and void. I suspect the popular tendency to say such things is a residuum of Calvinism in our culture that believes sin, not Christ, is the truth about the human person. That certainly would explain the deep fear many (particularly in LC leadership) seem to have about full disclosure.

But I suspect full disclosure is what they will get, willy nilly. As Jesus says, there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed. Thank God.