A crystallization of what is wrong with the LC response

I missed the import of these lines when I first read them in a Catholic News Service interview with Fr. Paolo Scarafoni, spokesman at the Legionaries’ headquarters in Rome:

Asked how the Legionaries came to know about [Maciel's child], Scarafoni said, “Frankly, I cannot say and it is not opportune to discuss this further, also because there are people involved” who deserve privacy.

{Is it truly concern for the child and her mother that is keeping them from discussing it? They need not give any details about them, they ought to give details about Maciel.}

The pain the Legionaries are experiencing now “is so great precisely because this is something we did not know before,” Scarafoni said. However, he said, “We are serene." ... "At the same time, he said, “there is much gratitude. Our gratitude to him remains very strong because we have received so much that is good from him. This is something we cannot and will not deny.”"

{Cannot and "will not"? Why such obstinate/defensive language? Why serenity that your founder lied to you? For most people, "acceptance" is not the first emotion one reaches when presented with new, shocking news. And why such focus on pain already experienced but so little concern for preventing further pain by listening to the council of concerned observers?}

Scarafoni said the Legion had no plans to apologize to any alleged abuse victims or offer them pastoral care. "They have surely found a way by now to receive adequate care," he said.

{This gets me the most. If ever the allegations of abuse victims should be re-visited, it is now, when Maciel's character has been definitely reveled as suspect. Why not even a second thought about these persons, when everything the Legion has presumed - and taught - about its founder's actions is being called into question?}

This won't do.