Breaking: Abp. Chaput, other Legion visitors appointed by Vatican (full details added)

Sandro Magister reports - an extremely reliable source:

Last March, the announcement; July 15th, the go-ahead. The apostolic visitors of the Legion of Christ will interview the priests and religious of the congregation founded by the Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, in shock because of the admitted evil conduct of their very own founder, sanctioned in 2006 for sexual abuse, and now, a year after his death, discovered to have had a lover and a daughter in Spain.

The long-awaited names:

– Ricardo Watti Urquidi, Bishop of Tepic, Mexico, in charge of Mexico and Central America, where the Legion has 44 houses, 250 priests and 115-120 religious seminarians; (bottom right)

– Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, in charge of the United States and Canada, where the Legion has 24 houses, 130 priests and 260 religious seminarians; (bottom left)

– Giuseppe Versaldi, Bishop of Alessandria, in charge of Italy, Israel, the Philippines, and South Korea, where the Legion has 16 houses, 200 priests and 420 religious seminarians. (in Italy 13, 168 and 418 respectively); (upper middle)

– Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, Archbishop of Concepción, Chile, in charge of Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela, where the Legion has 20 houses, 122 priests and 122 religious seminarians; (upper right)

– Ricardo Blázquez Pérez, Bishop of Bilbao, Spain, in charge of Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Holland, Poland, Austria and Hungary, where the Legion has 20 houses, 105 priest, and 160 religious seminarians. (upper left)

More details:

The investiture of the five visitors took place on Saturday morning, June 27th in the Vatican, at a meeting with Cardinals Tarcisio Bertone, William J. Levada, Franc Rodé and Stanislaw Rylko. The five were give a letter containing the conclusions for the investigation of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith which lead to Maciel’s being sanctioned in 2006. Each prelate was given a travel budget of 10,000 Euros.

They are to submit their first report to the Vatican by fall of this year.

update: these rumors have been percolating in Spanish-language press for some time, in El Universal on June 27, and June 28, and InfoCatolica (picking up on Magister's piece) today. 

I would say that it is unqualified good news that Archbishop Chaput has been chosen to oversee the Legion visitation in the United States. AmP readers who have been following this story will remember that I reported back in early May that Abp. Chaput would be the Vatican pick. His personal experience of formation in religious life especially qualifies him to examine Legion policy.

Two things to watch for: finances. The Hartford Courant recently posted an article on the relatives of a deceased woman challenging the donation of her estate (upwards of $7.5 million) to the Legion in the U.S. 

Second: defections. I'm tracking numerous reports of individual (and groups of) priests, seminarians and consecrated people actively seeking ways to the leave the Legion and incorporate into dioceses, seminaries and other Catholic institutions. More of these will happen depending on what the Vatican investigation reveals.

Neither of these situations is being helped (from the Legion side of things) by new details which have emerged about Maciel's not double life, but "triple." Especially concerning is the insistence of these sources that current leaders in the movement were aware of Maciel's sins before they leaked to the public or lower members within the Legion.

update 2: I should be clear that I do not agree with everything claimed in the link above ("new details which have emerged about Maciel's not double life, but "triple""), but merely with the claims that Maciel used Legion money to fund his affair(s?) and that this activity was known to associates who still hold active roles in the movement.

update 3: CNA confirms/clarifies: "Sources at the Holy See confirmed to CNA the accuracy of Magister’s report and said a public announcement would be made on July 15. Sources also said that contrary to the article, Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko was not present at the meeting."

My exhaustive coverage of this story, as the first large Catholic internet portal to break the news, can be found here.

Cardinal O'Malley forces Caritas to make the right call

The news broke last week, but I was traveling at the time. It appears to be good news. 

Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe reports:

Caritas Christi Health Care, the financially challenged Catholic hospital system founded by the Archdiocese of Boston, is abruptly ending its joint venture with a Missouri-based health insurer at the insistence of Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, who has decided that the relationship represented too much of an entanglement between Catholic hospitals and abortion providers.

The dramatic development, just days before the joint venture was scheduled to start providing care to low-income residents as part of the state's efforts to establish near universal health coverage here, is a vindication of sorts for a variety of very conservative Catholic critics of the cardinal, who have been arguing angrily and loudly that it would be "evil" for Caritas to partner with a health provider that covers abortion services.

The development is also a setback for Caritas, because it represents the undoing of one of the most significant steps its new chief executive, Dr. Ralph de la Torre, had announced as part of his efforts to turn around the hospital system's finances. It was not immediately clear last night what the financial impact of the change is on Caritas, but the decision is a stark and public reminder from O'Malley to de la Torre and the general public that moral concerns will trump monetary concerns at the Catholic hospitals.

I don't quite agree with the tone of the above treatment. I am somewhat aware of the criticisms Cardinal O'Malley has been receiving during this process, but just because some people have been too vigorous in their approach does not mean that the fundamental motivation of others is not a good one. It's in fact a Catholic one: we won't allow our hospitals to become accessories to abortions. Period.

AmP has been following the Caritas Christi situation for some time. First on March 12: "What is Caritas Christi up to?" and "An update on Caritas-Centene". Then on May 26: "Will the Boston Archdiocese really allow abortion referrals?" And finally on June 9: "Boston Archdiocese-affiliate health-care to offer abortion coverage" (when it looked like the deal would go through). On June 11th there was a report that Caritas was trying to work out a deal that would address the stated concerns about abortion referrals. Phil Lawler also wrote an in-depth history of the situation which is very helpful if you want more details.

At this point, I think two things are necessary: First, support of Cardinal O'Malley, who I believe is trying his best to do the right thing in a difficult situation. Second, vigilance about the details of the new plan, many of which are given in Paulson's full article treatment in the Boston Globe. There is some concern that Catholic involvement with abortions will still find its way in to the new operating procedures. The case of Caritas Christi is, sadly, the first instance of what is sure to become a more widespread problem as the health care industry reorganizes, often times collapsing Catholic and secular hospitals in with one another.

If anyone has incisive analysis of the current state of affairs, as well as action items and ideas for how the Catholic community can assist in working out an acceptable solution, I'll be happy to take a look and perhaps present them on AmP.

L'Osservatore Romano issues fawning tribute to Michael Jackson?

What the heck is going on with L'Osservatore Romano these days? Who is commissioning these embarrassing articles, and who is allowing them to go to print?! 

Zenit reports on the latest debacle:

Michael Jackson will never die "in the imagination of [his] fans," the Vatican's semi-official newspaper said after news spread of the pop star's death.

Marcello Filotei wrote this Friday in L'Osservatore Romano, comparing the death of the 50-year-old "King of Pop" to that of Elvis Presley.

Jackson died Friday of cardiac arrest at a Los Angelus hospital.

Noting how Jackson was a "child prodigy" with an "extraordinary soul voice," Filotei acknowledged the pop star's many successes, such as his megahit 1982 album "Thriller," "known even by those unfamiliar with this genre of music." The album continues to rank as the best-selling album of all time.

The writer acknowledged elements of the singer's life that drew wide criticism, such as his many plastic surgeries that changed his appearance radically, his increasingly pale complexion, and the allegations of pedophilia in 1993 and 2005. Jackson settled out of court in 1993, and was found not guilty of all charges in 2005.

"But no accusation, however serious or shameful, is enough to tarnish his myth among his millions of fans throughout the entire world," wrote Filotei.

Imagine how strange it would be to see such an editorial in your parish newspaper. Well, the above piece is appearing in the "parish newspaper" of the universal Church. That last line of Filotei's, in particular, sends the wrong message by falling into the current hysterical, cult-of-personality ethos that Jackson's death has inspired among many.

Jackson, it should be noted, from all outside accounts, lived a tortured existence and the circumstances of his death should prompt an outpouring of fervent prayers for his soul, not these gushing, hollywood-esque bon mots about how his "myth" will survive "serious and shameful" accusations. All the artistic success in the world, we must realize, is a basket of straw if your personal life was a spiritual, human wreck.

I really dig Michael Jackson's music, but as a Catholic, I don't have to buy into the myth that great art makes a great man. Michael Jackson's best chance to "never die" is the mercy of Christ, not his best-selling record.

Huh? CNS fails to fairly report USCCB's "support D'Arcy" statement

Something important happened at the US bishops' combined meeting last week, which we are just hearing about today: "the USCCB expressed their solidarity for Bishop John M. D’Arcy ... in particular for his care and concern for the University of Notre Dame, which resides in his diocese."

It's an important move because there had previously been a calculated attempt by some liberal Catholics to discredit the dozens and dozens of bishops who spoke out about the Notre Dame scandal, claiming in effect that these vocal bishops represented a "minority" position, out of step with the "majority" of US bishops.

The USCCB released this statement of support:

"The bishops of the United States express our appreciation and support for our brother bishop, the Most Reverend John D'Arcy. We affirm his pastoral concern for Notre Dame University, his solicitude for its Catholic identity, and his loving care for all those the Lord has given him to sanctify, to teach and to shepherd."

Now, how do you think Catholic News Service - the USCCB's own news agency, reported this story?

First, with out-dated numbers: "More than 50 bishops voiced their disapproval of Notre Dame's invitation to Obama and decision to give him an honorary degree." 

In fact, my list (when I stopped counting) had 75+ bishops named. These are not obscure or new numbers, and I wasn't the only one to compile such a list. This is lazy reporting by the CNS author, Nancy Frazier O'Brien. And it's convenient that the number she decides upon is, oh, about 40% of the actual number (by my conservative standards - I only counted active US bishops, for instance).

Second, with dissenting, minority views: "But two bishops interviewed at the San Antonio meeting by the National Catholic Reporter said they see a need for dialogue with U.S. Catholic university presidents about this issue and left open the possibility of revisions to "Catholics in Political Life."

Isn't it fascinating how, when a "minority" of bishops take a position against Notre Dame's invitation, they are dismissed as a minority, but when the majority of US bishops (or at least, the public voice of the bishops in committee) take a position for Bishop D'Arcy, it is then the minority position that is given space and even the last word (seriously - two bishops?! And in the National Catholic Reporter? This is our her go-to source for information!).

Really, it's impossible to win with rules of engagement like this, especially when Catholic News Service seems to have more of an affinity with the National Catholic Reporter than the US Bishops executive committee.

Third, just to really drive this point home, O'Brien says: "The statement made no direct reference ... to a recent call by the board of directors of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) for the bishops to revisit their 2004 statement, "Catholics in Political Life."

That was an attempt by liberal Catholics to simply change the 2004 statement and so avoid the (legitimate) conclusion made by D'Arcy that Notre Dame and (hence, by inference) many other Catholic institutions are currently operating in violation of what it says.

But back to the point: O'Brien has full awareness of this challenge made by the ACCU, and feels free to make negative points about what statements don't say or respond to, and yet ... she does not bring up the context I mention above, namely, that liberal Catholics have been attempting to marginalize the vocal opposition of dozens of bishops to the Notre Dame invitation. Therefore, in the full picture, the bishops are responding against this attempt to marginalize Bishop D'Arcy by releasing a statement in support of him. Why support Bishop D'Arcy, in other words, unless he was in fact being attacked by some?

So who is left expressing a dissenting viewpoint at this point in the game? Well, two bishops, picked-up by the National Catholic Reporter ... and given selective play by O'Brien in the Catholic News Service.

Related: I'm not the only person to note these endemic issues with CNS's reporting. 

In an effort to be fair myself, CNS does plenty of good reporting - but it's frustrating to see how often it really drops the ball on some of the most important current stories, especially ones that involve Catholic interaction with the culture-at-large. I'm not asking that we all think the same on these issues, I'm asking that more than one way of thinking be fairly presented to the readers of CNS.

"Christopher West’s Work is 'Completely Sound' says Dr. Janet Smith"

More on the ongoing debate I have covered here and here, from Dr. Janet Smith:

Christopher West’s interview on ABC’s Nightline has sparked some terrific discussion on the Internet. An impressive amount of the interaction is intelligent and illuminating, even some of that which is seriously wrong. One of the better responses is that by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers and the follow-up comments to his blog.

Here, I want to offer a brief, partial, response to Prof. David Schindler’s assessment of West’s work. The fact that Nightline got a lot wrong about West’s work is not surprising. In fact, it is surprising how much it got right. Those of us who work with the media know that potential martyrdom awaits us at the hands of an editor. West has likely been suffering a kind of crucifixion over the past week. What is puzzling is that an influential scholar chose this moment to issue a sweeping, negative critique of West in such a public forum. I have great respect for the work and thought of Schindler and realize that it must be difficult to be on the receiving end of criticisms of the work of one of their most high profile graduates. I wish, however, he had found another occasion to express his reservations about West’s work. (Catholic Exchange)

More on West: Schindler says his credibility "a problem for the Church"

Last week's post on West generated 250+ comments. Clearly this topic is on AmP readers' minds.

I was sent this a couple days ago and think it might move the debate forward:

"David L. Schindler, provost and dean of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at Catholic University of America, has written a response to what he says are fundamental errors in Christopher West's interpretation of Pope John Paul II's theology of the body."

For those who want to inform themselves about this issue thoroughly, do read the whole text.

Abp. Burke: Catholics "could not have voted for [Obama] with a clear conscience"

Quote of the Day from Kathryn Jean Lopez's interview with Archbishop Raymond Burke. Pay close attention:

LOPEZ: You seemed to make very clear that Catholic voters collaborated with evil when they voted for Obama. If you’re Catholic and did, do you have to confess this now that Mexico City, embryo-destructive funding, among other things, have happened?
ARCHBISHOP BURKE: If a Catholic knowingly and deliberately votes for a person who is in favor of the most grievous violations of the natural moral law, then he has formally cooperated in a grave evil and must confess his serious sin. Since President Obama clearly announced, during the election campaign, his anti-life and anti-family agenda, a Catholic who knew his agenda regarding, for example, procured abortion, embryonic-stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage, could not have voted for him with a clear conscience.

Archbishop Burke minces no words: in his estimation, a Catholic who voted for Obama could not have done so with a clear conscience.

Note also how Archbishop Burke evaluates Obama as not only anti-life, but also anti-family because of his positions on same-sex marriage.

On a related note, Fr. James Schall, SJ unpacks Archbishop Burke's keynote address which he gave last Friday at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Fr. Cutie exposed by Mexican tabloids, scandalizes the Church

This story broke earlier this week but I only cover it now to point out the predictable feeding-frenzy occurring in the mainstream media.

Yes, Fr. Cutie (really, the irony) messed-up big time:

"Before God - full of love and mercy - I ask for the forgiveness of those who may be hurt or saddened by my actions. Since I entered the seminary at the age of 18, the priesthood has brought me great joy. The commitment that I made to serve God will remain intact. I am grateful for the love and support I have received today from so many in our community, especially my parishioners and the supporters of the radio stations who have demonstrated great compassion and understanding toward me as a human being. I ask for your continued prayers and support."

What his Archbishop had to say:

"I am deeply saddened by the news surrounding Father Alberto Cutié. I apologize on behalf of the Church in Miami to the parishioners of Saint Francis de Sales Parish, where he serves as administrator, to the listeners and supporters of Radio Paz and Radio Peace, and to the entire Archdiocese.

Father Cutié made a promise of celibacy and all priests are expected to fulfill that promise with the help of God.

Father Cutié's actions cannot be condoned despite the good works he has done as a priest. I ask for everyone's prayers at this time. Scandals such as this offer an occasion for the Church on all levels to examine our consciences regarding the integrity of our commitments to the Lord and to his Church."

What ... the mainstream media had to say:

Oh please, like we didn't see that suggestion coming. But, of course, the answer to violating the vows of celibacy ... is to observe the vows of celibacy. Not to toss them out! That's why the public improprieties of Fr. Cutie constitute such a grave scandal - they diminish the witness of the Church to the world.

Yes, we ought to pray for Fr. Cutie, but let's also re-double our prayers for the noble young men (and women) who are faithfully living lives of celibacy as they study to become priests (and professed women religious).

Let us also pray for those who have already taken on the vow of celibacy that they remain faithful to it and thereby provide the world with a wonderful (and so needed) witness!

[photo: UK Daily Mail]

Albacete: on Abortion/Torture, Catholic Church "only coherent position in debate"

Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete is a priest-scientist and one of the leaders of the movement Communion and Liberation in the United States.

In his column of yesterday, Msgr. Albacete makes an excellent point which I think is very topical to several ongoing AmP debates:

"The only coherent position in the debate about these two issues [of abortion and torture] is that of the Catholic Church. On the one hand, religious conservatives tend to be more open to the possibility of approving torture in special circumstances, while the secularists concede no such possibility of compromise. Only those who embrace the position of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church condemn equally both abortion and torture in all cases. Other Catholics (many serving in Congress and in the Obama Administration) follow the secularist arguments condemning torture but defending abortion rights. The President, who professes an abstract "middle ground" on abortion, unequivocally condemns torture in all circumstances.

... For the Catholic Church, faith is the origin of the moral judgment, but faith is not separate from reason. It can and should be verified by a rightly understood reason in all human beings. The Catholic Bishops are still searching for effective ways to make this argument.

I take that line as a commission: let us help the bishops discover effective ways to make this argument in the public forum, with confidence and charity. I think we typically have more trouble with the former.

{update: I knew this would be to open another can of worms. So let me clarify:

What I specifically agree with in this article is this: Those who think torture is intrinsically wrong evacuate their justification of tolerating abortion when they seek to universally outlaw torture.

In other words, how can Obama (and secularists) "unequivocally condemn torture in all circumstances" and yet posit an "abstract 'middle ground' on abortion" which tolerates its practice (and even expands access to it)?

The only way I can see reconciling the two positions is to frankly acknowledge that Obama and secularists don't really think abortion is wrong. Because if they did, they would treat it like torture and universally outlaw it.

I'm surprised to have to make this point, but it's amazing how often one will still hear something like: "Obama agrees with us that abortion is a tragedy, but he just can't see a way of preventing a woman from choosing it."

That's what I was going for. I think the torture debate is important, but let's not miss how it provides a devastating contrast when it comes to our ongoing debate about the fundamental right to life of our citizens.}

L'Osservatore Romano's baffling take on Obama, and Winters' misleading take

George Neumayr writing for Catholic World Report:

"L’Osservatore Romano’s sympathetic front-page editorial by Giuseppe Fiorentino about Barack Obama’s first 100 days is baffling (full text available here). On every contested issue related to the natural moral law, Obama is advancing dangerous policies. Yet this editorial blithely says that even “on ethical issues…Obama doesn’t seem to have confirmed the radical changes he had aired.”

Yes, he has. [find out how here.]

... It is more than a little disturbing that an editorial as ignorant as this one could appear in the Pope’s newspaper. At the very moment orthodox Catholics in America are reeling from Notre Dame's honoring of Obama, they wake up to find this editorial softpedaling his record. Et tu, L'Osservatore Romano?"

On a related issue, I've been accused at times of having a political bias which effects my reporting of Catholic news, and especially Obama news. "Liberal" Catholics will often accuse "conservative" Catholics of loving the GOP more than the Catholic Church, or at least paying attention to the former more when it comes to political issues.

What I always try to bring the discussion back to, when accused of this, are the facts of reality: what a given politician is actually saying and doing. This is an objective measure which I hope guides my reporting and should guide all of our critical thinking on these issues. Otherwise how are we to apply the teachings of the Church when we cannot even accurately assess the record of the person we are examining?

Michael Sean Winters is particularly guilty of unfairly condemning "conservative" Catholics as partisan, when in fact they are trying to be faithful. I find this deeply ironic, considering, as I've pointed out several times before, and will now point out again below, Winters' own reading of current issues is more often guided by political/ideological affiliation than the reality of what, well, a given politician has actually said and done.

For instance, see what Jack Smith of The Catholic Key blog (run by the staff of the newspaper for the Diocese of Kansas City) said yesterday about Winters' claims.

I'm not going to quote him because it is the volume of details that Smith reveals which matters most here (as in the Neumayr article above). In other words, taking the time to do the research and the background reading is important, because otherwise we'll be taken in by what the "experts" are trying to make us believe. Or, for that matter, what Winters wants us to believe.

Commentary: What Bishop D'Arcy's Statement Means

Now that you've had a chance to read Bishop D'Arcy's statement, here are some reasons why it represents an extremely significant development in the Notre Dame situation.

1. Bishop D'Arcy makes it clear that Fr. Jenkins completely brought this on himself. Jenkins failed to notify D'Arcy of the invitation until after it had been issued (therefore Jenkins never sought approval or advice from his own local bishop), he attempted to engage Bishop Olmsted in canonical debate, involved D'Arcy in this debate by cc'ing him in on the letter (deciding too late to include D'Arcy in the process) and has asked for D'Arcy's response. At the same time, Jenkins took his arguments to the Notre Dame board of trustees and saw to it that they were published on the national scene, essentially putting D'Arcy in a position to where he had to respond.
2. D'Arcy has shared his letter with other bishops. While acting on his own authority, he is not alone in his opinions (indeed, 42 bishops have spoken out so far), among bishops or the faithful.
3. D'Arcy's language is definitive: "the meaning of the sentence ... is clear" "the statements which Father Jenkins has made ... are simply wrong." "I consider [the matter] closed." "The failure to consult the local bishop ... the lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake." In other words, there is no room for authentic debate on this topic. The only response Fr. Jenkins is being invited to is obedience and reparation.
4. D'Arcy wastes no time pointing how pathetically poor the defense offered by Fr. Jenkins is in reality. Fr. Jenkins, implies D'Arcy, has completely ignored "fundamental, canonical and theological principal[s]"; has failed to consult with "any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s church", to say nothing about how Fr. Jenkin's negligently bypassed the local bishop's "pastoral responsibility to teach" which is "central to the university’s relationship to the church." (this last point is a biggie, I think.)
5. Finally, this line of D'Arcy's should send a chill up Fr. Jenkin's spine: "I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama." D'Arcy continues with this straightforward and urgent demand: "Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this [substantial and true, and not illusory] healing is to take place." Fr. Jenkins is being held to his word.

Indeed, I could go on, but I think the picture is becoming clear: the ball is in Fr. Jenkin's court.

It's time to fly back to South Bend and face the music.

Breaking: Bishop D'Arcy says Jenkins "simply wrong" about Obama invitation defense

You can only push a good bishop so far, you can only stretch the truth so much (underlining mine):

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an honorary degree of law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement “Catholics in Political Life” (USCCB) did not apply in this matter. Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response.

In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.

Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct. I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

[For Bishop D'Arcy's six devestating points, click here. He continues:]

In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter.

The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.

That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue.
I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Most Reverend
John M. D’Arcy

Read my comments here.

(and once again, AmP Twitter carried this story a full hour ago.)

Report: ND President Jenkins in DC meeting with Obama (+analysis)

Joseph Lawler writing for AmSpec passes along a fascinating report:

"At Off the Record, Phil Lawler (my dad) is passing along a report that he has from a reliable source: ND President Fr. John Jenkins is in Washington, D.C. today for an unannounced meeting at the White House. This is still merely a rumor, but indeed FlightAware shows the ND jet flying to Dulles this morning."

Joe goes on to note that, despite the criticism of 42 bishops (and counting), Fr. Jenkins is digging in his heels, claiming he and others are "tremendously proud" to honor Obama (source).

As for the backlash to the announcement of Obama's invitation, which has included over 325,000 individuals signing a petition protest, Jenkins says: "it's unfortunate that the great event of President Obama coming to this campus has been a little clouded by that controversy."

... a little clouded?! This is easily the biggest scandal to hit Notre Dame in years, if not in its long history. To say the event has been "a little clouded" is simply a sentence out of la-la land.

Whatever Fr. Jenkins is saying in public, it's clear that internally Notre Dame is in severe conflict - this is quickly becoming an identity crisis for the institution, a struggle for the soul and reputation of the university. And Fr. Jenkin's fiddling isn't helping put out any of the fires.

And, surprise-surprise, I think it's going to get worse. I've been alerted to at least one other significant detail of the visit in particular which, if confirmed, will further strain the situation. Let's call it the "georgetown policy."

So if Fr. Jenkins is in DC to meet with Obama, what are they doing? My guess would be damage control. They are probably putting their heads together and trying to figure out some solution to what is fast becoming a watershed moment in the relations between the Obama administration and Catholic America.

Let's hope, work and pray for a peaceful (and satisfying) abatement to the waters.

Towards that end, we should recall that the top-down decision making pursued so far by Obama/Jenkins simply isn't working. Fr. Jenkins owes Notre Dame - and Obama owes American Catholics - a just solution which respects the contributions and concerns of those 42 bishops and 325,000 signers.

update: Notre Dame's student newspaper is claiming that the University spokesman is denying reports that Fr. Jenkins met Obama in Washington today. Can anyone lend clarity pro/con?

update 2: Why Fr. Jenkins is in DC (according to one source).

Cardinal Pell says "Choice, not condoms, make the difference with AIDS"

Choice is only a bad thing when we abuse it for bad decisions (for instance, when we choose abortion).

"Choice, not condoms, will make the difference with AIDS" is a good way of re-framing the question, according to Cardinal Pell. Because a mountain of rubber won't solve the world's problems (my words).

Curing disease is a wonderful thing. But converting hearts and lives? Now that's even better.

CUA Law's Commencement Speaker Approves of ND's Obama Invitation

Selective dissonance?

Catholic University of America President Rev. David M. O’Connell thinks that Notre Dame made a mistake by inviting President Barack Obama to deliver a speak at commencement exercises next month.

Mark Shields, the political columnist who will be addressing graduates as commencement speaker at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law next month, disagrees.

Shield’s syndicated column, published after the University announced him as speaker, goes against the stated opinions of O’Connell and several members of the board of trustees, including chairman Bishop William E. Lori.

“As a proud graduate of Notre Dame and, frankly, as an admirer of Father Jenkins, I am not a disinterested bystander in this controversy,” writes Shields. “My university likes to think of itself, not immodestly, as the place where the Catholic Church does its thinking. But the current rhubarb is already conspicuous for generating — mostly off the campus — more heat than light.”

“The reality is that Roe v. Wade is not going to be overthrown,” he continued. (CUA student-run Tower blog)

Yes, defeatism is generally a feature of enlightened discourse.

/sarcasm.

Video: Hadley Arkes debates Doug Kmiec

From Moral Accountability:

The Matthew J. Ryan Center at Villanova University has posted the video recordings of the Cicero Podium Debate between Professor Hadley Arkes (Amherst College) and Professor Douglas Kmiec (Pepperdine Law School). This event took place on February 13, 2009.

Part I:


Part II:

I hope to have a chance to watch some of it later this evening.

Between Wuerl and Burke, who is right on Communion?

My father Canon Lawyer Ed Peters attempts an adjudication:

I often tell my students, the answer to a canonical question is seldom found in a single canon.

Two prominent American prelates, Abp. Donald Wuerl of Washington DC and Abp. Raymond Burke of the Apostolic Signatura, are the lead figures in a significant disagreement over admitting certain pro-abortion Catholic politicians to holy Communion.

Wuerl basically believes that, under Canon 916, Catholics, including pro-abortion politicians, should determine their own eligibility for reception of Communion.

Burke argues that, beyond Canon 916, Canon 915 requires ministers of holy Communion to withhold the Eucharist from some pro-abortion politicians if they don't refrain from approaching on their own.

Both sides can't be right, and I suspect that the more compelling case is made by reading the two canons together instead of reading one to the exclusion of the other.

He sorts it out here.

Former Mayor Williams withdraws application after "Internet blogs" voice cocern

A gratifying, but odd, Associated Press update (underlining mine):

"Former Mayor Anthony Williams withdrew his application to join the Order of Malta after members of the Catholic service society complained he shouldn't be allowed to join because he supports abortion rights and protections for gay unions. Williams's critics used Internet blogs to voice their concerns, but order president Noreen Falcone said anonymous postings with incomplete information were unfair to Williams and his sponsors."

1) Yes ... I was one of those critical blogs.
2) Yes ... Williams was totally unacceptable.
3) ... Has anyone heard of a non-Internet blog?!
4) ... well, of course anonymous postings are going to contain misinformation. But what about the on-the-record bloggers? Where they wrong, too? Obviously not. So be willing to take one on the chin when you deserve it.

Ruse: "Randall Terry Is Not the Spokesman for Catholic Orthodoxy"

Randall Terry is a bit persona non grata on AmP after setting-up Archbishop Burke last week.

Austin Ruse attempts to separate good from bad when it comes to this divisive character:

First things first: Randall Terry is a very talented guy. I am told he is a riveting speaker. He is utterly fearless. And he has a remarkable ability to project himself and his convictions into the mainstream press.

... [but] Randall Terry cannot be allowed to represent himself as the voice of Catholic orthodoxy. The press in its essential anti-Catholicism would much rather quote someone like Randall Terry than more responsible people like George Weigel or George Rutler or Michael Novak or Robert Royal or Jody Bottum or any one of dozens of important voices. The press love it that the P.T. Barnum of the pro-life movement is now front and center in defending the Catholic Church. (CNA)

"Condoms sometimes needed, Portuguese bishop says"

Dissent?

A Portuguese bishop has said that people with AIDS must use condoms to prevent the spread of the disease, apparently contradicting Pope Benedict XVI, who said the distribution of condoms could endanger public health.

Speaking to journalists, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Porto Manuel Clemente said condoms in such cases are "not only recommendable, they can be ethically obligatory."

... He added that the people giving the pope advice "should be more learned." (AP)

Bishop Olmsted tells Fr. Jenkins Obama invitation "public act of disobedience to US Bishops"

Here is a screen capture of the letter that the Bishop of Phoenix Thomas Olmsted sent to Notre Dame President Father Jenkins yesterday (on the Feast of the Annunciation) and has now permitted to be published today:

These are very strong words from Bishop Olmsted, especially these two lines:

"It is a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States."

"I pray that you come to see the grave mistake of your decision, and the way it undercuts the Church's proclamation of the Gospel of Life in our day."

Mike Phelan, Director of Marriage and Respect Life for the Diocese of Phoenix, introduced the letter this way:

"Due to the fact that the invitation by Notre Dame’s president, Fr. John Jenkins, to President Barack Obama to give the commencement speech at Notre Dame’s May graduation is a public act causing widespread public scandal due to the US President’s clear support of policies which fail to protect and even attack innocent human life, Bishop Olmsted has given permission to release the attached email text publicly."

And now you have it, too. My comprehensive coverage of the Notre Dame scandal is available here.

Welcome, new readers, don't forget to follow my Twitter updates and join the AmP Facebook Fanpage.

Flash: Abp. Burke clarifies he was misled about Communion interview agenda

I was worried about something like this happening. Looks like Randall Terry lied to Archbishop Burke about how his interview would be used, and Burke has issued a statement today to clarify:

ROME, Italy - In response to the March 25, 2009 press conference of Mr. Randall Terry in Washington, D.C., the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke, Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis and Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, issued the following statement:

“Recently, Mr. Randall Terry and some of his associates visited me in Rome and asked to videotape an interview with me to share with pro-life workers for the purpose of their encouragement. The interview was conducted on March 2, 2009.

“Sadly, Mr. Terry has used the videotape for another purpose which I find most objectionable.

“First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.

“Second, I was never informed that the videotape would become part of a press conference.

“Third, I gave the interview as a Bishop from the United States to encourage those engaged in the respect life apostolate, not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

“Fourth, I was never informed that the videotape would be used as part of a campaign of severe criticism of certain fellow bishops regarding the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.

“If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it.

“I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.”

Once again, this situation could have been avoided if Abp. Burke's assistants had done their homework. (News flash, people: USE GOOGLE.) After all, Terry advertised this DC press conference several days in advance ... and yet no one in Rome apparently took notice of the things Terry was claiming (Second news flash, people: USE GOOGLE to keep tabs on what the media is saying about your boss). Rome shouldn't be the last one to know.

I was surprised that Abp. Burke had consented to giving Terry an interview, but I naively presumed that Abp. Burke knew what he was getting into, and was aware of Terry's hardcore approach to pro-life activism.

That said, Abp. Burke is not taking back his words. He is taking back the way they were used by Terry.

update: Michael Sean Winters pounces on the opportunity to snipe Abp. Burke: "... the Archbishop does not retract the statements he made in the interview but he does voice regret at the way the interview is being used. That is what passes, in this age of moral relativism, for an apology."

No sir, yours is what passes, in this age of liberal journalism, for an attack.

Ph/t: Whispers.

Front-group Catholics United slips into attacking Bishop D'Arcy

I have zero patience for Catholics United.

It's a front organization that abuses the name "Catholic" for anti-life interests, and is moreover funded by pro-abortion advocates like the billionaire George Soros, as others have exposed.

So I wasn't surprised to find out that their executive director Chris Korzen issued a press release today welcoming ND's decision to invite Obama.

It's not hard for Catholics United to think of ways to criticize orthodox Catholics of exploiting the faith for political ends ... because that's exactly what Korzen and company do. The difference is Korzen and co. (falsely and hypocritically) claim the other side is doing it.

So how do you prove which side is disingenuous? Simple enough: you wait for one side to slip.

And Korzen and co. just did.

Here's some of what he said:

As a Catholic, I am deeply disappointed by the knee-jerk opposition to Notre Dame’s decision to confer an honorary degree on President Obama and invite him to give the 2009 commencement address. President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame will be nothing short of an honor for all Catholics.

Attacking Notre Dame is simply disingenuous and reflects a larger pattern of manipulation of the Catholic faith for political advantage.

Regrettably, the individuals leading the charge against Notre Dame are partisan operatives who routinely use a single-issue analysis to divorce the Catholic faith from its longstanding commitment to social justice and the sanctity of all human life.

Dan Gilgoff of US News & World Report thinks Korzen and co. were unprepared for the ND backlash, and (my take:) in their rush to inject their unique style of rhetorical-spin into the debate, made a misstep. Gilgoff asks:

The White House and liberal Catholic groups appear to have been caught off guard by the furor over President Obama's forthcoming appearance at Notre Dame. Catholics United, a progressive Catholic group with close ties to the White House, has just released a defense of Notre Dame and Obama's appearance there.

... [but did Korzen mean to] include the Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who has blasted Notre Dame for hosting Obama [as a "partisan operative"]?

Until now, the new breed of progressive Catholic groups has been careful to avoid attacking the Catholic hierarchy, lest it appear that they're at odds with their own church. On Notre Dame, it looks like they're coming into conflict with church officials. Another sign of an action plan developed hurriedly, at the last-minute?

Actually, this is not the first time Catholics United has run afoul of the clear teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, especially on life issues. Alternately, having helped deliver the Catholic vote to Obama in last November's election, complacency might have brought with it sloppiness. Lying, after all, takes longer than truth-telling.

Nevertheless I would submit that duplicity on the scale practiced by Korzen and co. simply cannot stand up to sustained scrutiny. So yes, please Chris, continue sending out those press releases.

(And for once, perhaps Doug Kmiec made the smart move and decided to remain silent on this one.)

Archbishop of Toronto calls for Legion overhaul, "may be wise for some to leave"

Sent in by a reader:

Tonight’s episode of Catholic Focus explores two controversial topics in a riveting and candid interview with the Archbishop of Toronto. Catholic Focus: State of the Church features Archbishop Thomas Collins speaking openly about the Bishops Richard Williamson fiasco, the Vatican’s need to overview its communications strategy and the prospects of dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X.

Then the conversation moves into the recent revelations about Fr. Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ who fathered an illegitimate child, misappropriated funds and appears to have some culpability in earlier claims of sexual abuse of young seminarians.

Archbishop Collins is forthright and persuasive in the interview, calling for an overhaul of the Legionaires and frankly admitting it may be wise for some priests and seminarians to leave the order.

Catholic Focus: State of the Church airs Tuesday, March 24th at 7pm and 11pm ET, with an encore presentation Saturday, March 28th at the same times.

[Source: Salt & Light Blog.]

I'll be unavailable to watch but hopefully someone else can provide us with a transcript.

update: on the Salt and Light TV website you can watch a live stream of their programming.

The episode will also be archived for viewing in the Catholic Focus section of their website by Thursday.

Fr. Jenkins responds to criticism

In a Notre Dame Observer interview:

Jenkins made clear the University is not honoring the president for his stances on these issues, but for his leadership.

"The invitation of President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Jenkins said.

These "crucial differences" in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue. (More.)

I'll respond later.

ND to also give Mary Ann Glendon Laetare Medal

Take with one hand, wink with the other (underlining mine):

Mary Ann Glendon, former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, will receive the University of Notre Dame’s 2009 Laetare Medal. She will receive the medal, the oldest and most prestigious honor given to American Catholics, during the University’s 164th University Commencement ceremony May 17 (Sunday).

“Both as a public intellectual and as a diplomat, Mary Ann Glendon has impressively served our Church and our country,” said Notre Dame’s president, Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. “She is an articulate and compelling expositor of Catholic social teaching who exemplifies our University’s most cherished values and deserves its highest praise.” (ND Press Release)

It's going to be an interesting stage up there with Obama. Having served on the President's Council for Bioethics, Glendon probably won't claim abortion is above her pay grade. Ironic of Fr. Jenkin's to say that Catholic social teaching is Notre Dame's "most cherished value."

Ralph McInerny: " Notre Dame has forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic university"

I've said before that I think The Catholic Thing is one of the best-kept Catholic secrets on the Internet. Today they have published one of their most important pieces to date, an essay by the renowned Ralph McInerny, who has been a member of the Notre Dame faculty for over 50 years.

McInerny pulls absolutely no punches in this essay. In fact, it's one of the best modern examples of disdain being used in an appropriate way I have comes across. McInerny has disdain for the decision-makers at Notre Dame who have forfeited their Catholic identity and mission for secular acceptance:

The University of Notre Dame has officially and with much self-satisfaction invited President Barack Obama to address its 2009 graduates and to receive an honorary law degree. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is a deliberate thumbing of the collective nose at the Roman Catholic Church to which Notre Dame purports to be faithful. Faithful? Tell it to Julian the Apostate.

... the invitation to Barack Obama is far from being the usual effort of the university to get into warm contact with the power figures of the day. It is an unequivocal abandonment of any pretense at being a Catholic university. And it is in sad continuity with decades of waffling that have led with seeming inevitability to it.

... ... now we have come to the point where the University of Notre Dame is publicly excluding itself from allegiance to and acceptance of one of the most fundamental of Christian moral truths, mentioned explicitly in the Didache and again and again over the centuries. Abortion is an essentially evil act, both from the viewpoint of natural morality and from the explicit teaching the Church. There is no way in which an individual, a politician or an institution can finesse that fact.

By inviting Barack Obama as commencement speaker, Notre Dame is telling the nation that the teaching of the Catholic church on this fundamental matter can be ignored. Lip service may be paid to the teaching on abortion, but it is no impediment to upward mobility, to the truly vulgar lust to be welcomed into secular society, whether on the part of individuals or institutions.

By inviting Barack Obama to be the 2009 commencement speaker, Notre Dame has forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic university. It invites an official rebuke. May it come.

I am told we can expect other high-respected past and current members of the Notre Dame faculty to similarly strongly speak-out in the days ahead.

ND students submit letter asking Fr. Jenkins to challenge Obama

Notre Dame student Patrick Brown, from the AmP comment threads:

As a current student at the Our Lady's University, I can honestly say that many of us here are genuinely conflicted about Fr. Jenkins' decision to invite President Obama to speak at commencement this year.

On the one hand, we must respect the office of President of the United States, and it is an honor for our beloved campus to host the leader of the free world.

Of course, there is a substantial population, like myself, who can not and will not tolerate the Notre Dame imprimatur being given to someone whose views on the sanctity of life are so dramatically at odds with the position of the Church and the university.

Myself and eight other students, with more co-signing literally by the hour, have submitted a letter to Fr. Jenkins, asking to make a public, vocal statement that the university strongly disapproves with the President's actions. I invite you to read it on our Web site here.

God bless all of you who still wish the best for a university that was and hopefully will still remain one of the premier Catholic institutions in America.

On Facebook, I have found three active groups reacting to the news of Obama's invitation, at 9PM EST:

• Against: Protest Obama as Notre Dame's 2009 Commencement Speaker (418 members)
• For: We Will Be Honored to Have President Obama at Notre Dame (327 members)
• Against: Tell Notre Dame to Un-Invite President Obama (190 members)

update: David Gibson makes that case that Notre Dame students follow the national voting trends:

In a mock election before last year's real election, the Democratic ticket won 52.6 percent of the vote followed by the Republican ticket of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, which won 41.1 percent of the vote. A total of 2,692 undergraduates and graduate students voted.

Only 7.7% of them chose abortion as their most important issue (41.5% chose the economy).

So much for a discernibly distinctive Catholic character.

My full coverage of this developing story is being compiled here.

Diogenes defends Bp. Morlino's firing of feminist pastoral assistant

I covered this story as it was happening earlier in the week.

Diogenes completely obliterates the NCR-style whining that went on in the wake of the bishop's decision.

Or as he puts it: "How about a little reality therapy?"

Ahhh... deep breaths. That's better.

Text/Video: Cardinal Pell on the New English Mass Translation

The UK Catholic Herald has "omnicoverage" today on the story I highlighted and commented on yesterday ("S. Africa protest over new Catholic Mass translation").

Video of Cardinal Pell on the issue:



Polished article: "'Nothing is being thrust upon anyone': Cardinal George Pell talks to Luke Coppen about the new English Mass translation, the SSPX and being a 'lightning rod' in the Church". {Also a full transcript of the interview.}

And they're even on Twitter and Facebook.

Folks, that's how it's done nowadays. Good show!

Secretariat of State responsible for post-editing of papal comments?

So it seems. CNS blog explaining how what the pope said on the airplane ... well, changed, by the time his comments were published by the Vatican:

Even allowing for translation differences, the pope didn’t speak of a “risk.” He said what he said.

The Vatican made some other changes, too. For example, the pope said you couldn’t resolve the problem of AIDS only with money, explaining that assistance programs require a “soul” and spiritual help as well.

But in the official Vatican version, “money” was, strangely, replaced by the phrase “advertising slogans.”

Asked about the discrepancies, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the tape is normally transcribed and then the text passes through the Secretariat of State for slight editing — to put it into good Italian if there are discontinuous expressions. But modifying the meaning of what the pope said is not supposed to be done, he said.

Father Lombardi said he would have to verify what happened in this case and correct it if necessary.

This, of course, is exactly what I predicted yesterday would happen.

So why does the Secretariat of State get to oversee simple transcription tasks instead of the Vatican Press Office? Evidently because they like exercising editorial control over what the Pope says ... which I don't necessarily have a problem with in theory, but how it's being practiced now just makes a complete mess of things.

Do the homework, please!

More on Condoms

Some follow-up links to the story we've been covering the last couple days:

• The Cathoholic: Condoms, the Pope & Africa
• NRO: Benedict Has It Right (good article)
• Kathryn Jean Lopez: Media coverage of papal comments on AIDS in Africa is March madness.
• Whispers: Damage Control, PopeTrip Edition
• Off the Record: African wife-beaters urged to practice "safe-sox"

Was Pope Benedict misquoted on condoms in Africa? Maybe not.

Damian Thompson proposes that he was:

The Vatican has just published its transcript of the Pope's comments about AIDS in Africa and it turns out he said that condoms risk making the problem worse.

Maybe it doesn't make much difference, but the English-speaking press had the Pope saying that it "even aggravates the problems". Not quite the same resonance; not as headline-worthy.

The CNS blog meanwhile reports on a clarification issued by Vatican spokesman Fr. Lombardi, this after CNS's own John Thavis claimed Pope Benedict to have said the distribution of condoms "only increases the problem of AIDS."

... now, this is not the end of the story. Here's why:

The Vatican press office has royally flubbed its handling of these situations before.

I remember breathing a sigh of relief last year during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to the United States that nothing went wrong, because things did go wrong in 2003 during the pope's in-flight interview on his way to Brazil. The Vatican press office's solution was to issue a toned-down version of the pope's remarks about Mexican lawmakers the next day.

The Vatican press office might have decided to apply that same solution today. Especially since, from what I've seen, Fr. Lombardi has not specifically claimed that the mainstream media's reporting of the pope's words was in fact erroneous.

One thing we can be sure about: because the Vatican has denied claims made by the mainstream media about what the pope actually said, you can bet that the mainstream media sources are going to go back to their audio/video recordings of the interview and double-check what he said.

So be prepared - possibly - for an audio or video clip of the Pope, well, misspeaking.

Then again, this could just be media bias. Time will tell. Stay tuned. And be aware of the history, too.

update: Ruth Gledhill agrees about the comments (though I don't agree with her about condoms).

update 2: sure enough.... "It looks like some idiot in the Vatican press office tampered with the Pope's quotes. Time for sackings"

Papal comment on condoms and AIDS sparks criticism

Back in October, when the Pope's visit to Africa was first announced, I predicted three things I believed would make their way into the mainstream media's talking points about the trip. I'll repeat my second prediction:

• "The Church's prohibition against condoms is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis (false)"

Sure enough, on the airplane to Africa yesterday, this was one of the first questions asked of the pope, if the Church's approach to HIV/AIDS is "unrealistic and ineffective". Here's how the pope responded:

"It is my belief believe that the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS is in fact the Catholic Church and her institutions. ... The problem of HIV/AIDS cannot be overcome with mere slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanisation of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with the suffering, a readiness - even through personal sacrifice - to stand by those who suffer".

And now, the deluge of outcry which I predicted:

• Reuters: Vatican defends pope condoms stand, criticism mounts
• CNN Commentary from Roland S. Martin: Pope wrong on condoms
• Background from the CDC: How Effective Are Latex Condoms in Preventing HIV?

Unfortunately I don't have the time at present to pursue the topic - hopefully I will later this evening.

But here's my quick punch-list of facts that people always seem to miss on this issue:

• In cases of rape, one can still "defend" oneself by using barrier-method contraception, so the Church isn't condemning exploited people to a deadly disease as well as sexual battery.
• The Church's teaching on the immorality of contraception is not dictated by scientific claims that condoms don't actually prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS - it's far deeper.
• The only people who listen to the Church's teaching against contraception are faithful, practicing Catholics, so one must wonder how much "progress" the Pope can be accused of holding back when just faithful, practicing Catholics are the ones listening to him.
• Following the last point, it's pretty clear that the secularist solution of throwing condoms at the HIV/AIDS scourge isn't working, and that an alternative solution which addresses the fundamental anthropological and cultural causes of HIV/AIDS transmission is required. The secularist solution is simply more science and medical technology, which isn't enough. {update: The city I live in is some proof of that}

George Pitcher at the UK Telegraph also mounts a defense, but again, I haven't had the chance to read it.

Blowup in Madison: Bp. Morlino Dismisses Feminist Pastoral Associate

Madison, WI is what I'd call a "battleground diocese": a conservative Bishop overseeing a diverse Catholic community which includes a fierce strain of dissenting instigators.

The problem with being on the front lines, of course, is that you get attacked frequently. That's the case here.

Right now some dissidents are trying to claim that Ruth Kolpack, a pastoral associate at St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Beloit WI, is a martyr because Bishop Robert Morlino dismissed her.

The anti-hierarchical spin machine is in full-tilt right now, with National Catholic Reporter leading the charge.

Here's an example of a dissenting Catholic blog introducing a call to organize protests:

"Make Your Voice Heard: This is like what happen to the choir directors last year and why I stopped going to church the lying and not being truthful of the real reason of wanting to get rid of the more Liberal wing of the church. Anyway, I hope those who live near enough to make their voice heard will speak up in this woman’s defense." [errors in original]

Meanwhile, here's (what I understand to be) a staff memo from Call to Action:

Please write to the Papal Nuncio today! See address at right.

Support Ruth and the more than 30,000 other Catholic lay ministers in our country who can be fired at any time by a priest or bishop without due process!

We are pursuing options for Ruth but in the meantime, our canon lawyer has encouraged us to send hundreds of letters to the Papal Nuncio, the Vatican's Representative in the U.S. He keeps files of the letters he receives and passes the information along to the Vatican. In the long term, this raises the issue of church worker justice in the eyes of the Vatican. Please see the information at right for his address.

If you live in Wisconsin, please consider joining CTA/Madison at local protest vigils this weekend to show your support for Ruth and the thousands of men and women like her who give their lives to our church. (Local Catholic Reporter)

This sort of activity has a long history in Madison, as Fr. Z covered in October of last year.

So what's happening in this latest episode? Here's some local reporting:

The firing came in a meeting with Bishop Robert Morlino. Kolpack said Morlino asked her to renounce her master’s thesis, make a profession of faith and take a loyalty oath.

... Morlino was in Janesville on Saturday for an unrelated meeting. About 45 people came to meet him to protest the firing.
The protesters held placards that said “Hear Ruth out!” and “Who would Jesus fire?”
Morlino walked up to the group and offered to talk to them later in the day.
“You don’t know the whole story,” Morlino said.
“I’m certainly sorry we have division in the church, but there it is,” the bishop said. “… If anyone is willing to talk respectfully at 3:30, I’ll be there.”
Several people interrupted Morlino as he spoke, although there was no shouting.
“You weren’t respectful to her,” someone called out.
Kolpack was present but did not participate in the protest.

...Kolpack said her thesis discussed the evil that can come of blind obedience. She said she can understand how that could be a red flag for the bishop.
“But if he would’ve read the whole paper, he would’ve understood it... he didn’t give it a chance,” she said.
The thesis also criticizes the church’s language of worship, which refers to God with words such as “he” or “Father.”
Kolpack said that’s harmful.
“I’m concerned about women, about young girls, who grow up in a patriarchal, male-dominated society. What does it do to their self-esteem?” she said.
Kolpack said she came to these beliefs as she studied feminist and liberation theology at St. Francis Seminary, where she earned her master’s degree in divinity in 2003. She said that 2003 thesis was never a problem, until now.

...Kolpack responded: “The pope speaks infallibly in matters of faith and morals. Bishop Morlino is not infallible. … The Holy Spirit speaks through everyone.”
As a representative of the church, if he would publicly display disregard for church teachings, that would be grounds for dismissal, King said.
Morlino did meet with protesters for about 15 minutes but said he could not get into personnel matters, protester Jim Andrews said.
Morlino said the issue was less about the thesis and more about “a certain mentality in the way of teaching,” Andrews said.
Morlino did agree to meet with St. Thomas parishioners at some future date, Andrews said. (GazetteXtra) [More from Beliot Daily News]

I think it's pretty clear that we don't know the whole story yet. The diocese is claiming her civil and canonical rights were not violated:

"You can be assured that the canonical and civil rights of each individual have been upheld absolutely. The Church takes this very seriously. I cannot make statements regarding Ms. Kolpack [director of communications of the Diocese], as they could injure her good reputation. The statement went on to say that church personnel "must uphold the faith and morals of the church" ... through what they publicly teach and claim to believe, what they associate themselves with, and by their actions."

Scanning the National Catholic Reporter coverage, here is one perhaps revealing paragraph:

"She's been through four priests, and we always knew she would be there. She's the heart and soul behind everything that goes on. Our priest is only 40 percent, so she was responsible for sacramental work as well. People converted and were brought back to the Catholic faith were crying because their friend was dismissed. Five- and six-year-olds were crying because they lost their teacher."

First of all, she better not have been doing "sacramental work" (according to the technical terminology). Something like that ought to get you fired. Second, as you can see from this excerpt, NCR is playing up the "sob story" card big-time. I mean, crying five-year-olds?!

My primary observation at this point is one of reactions. I think one's reaction in these situations should be to support the bishop's decision while charitable enquiring into his thinking. As the reporting points out, Morlino is perfectly willing to discuss it with them.

The reaction of these Madison dissenters, however, is to blow up and plan mass protests.

... which makes me think that this is all they really wanted to do in the first place.

Vatican backtracks on brazilian excommunications?

There is now an attempt to explain the Church's reaction to this difficult situation (blogged before here):

A senior Vatican official has criticized the excommunication of a Brazilian woman whose nine-year-old daughter had an abortion after being raped, as well as the medical team who performed it.

... "Unfortunately the credibility of our teaching took a blow as it appeared, in the eyes of many, to be insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy."

... Brazilian bishops said Thursday the excommunication of the mother and doctors of the girl, who was pregnant with twins and allegedly raped by her stepfather, was wrong and would not be applied.

The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil decided that the child's mother acted "under pressure from the doctors" who said the girl would die if she carried the babies to term.

... Dimas Lara Barbosa, the body's secretary-general, told reporters the mother therefore could not be excommunicated. "We must take the circumstances into consideration," he said.

As for the doctors, there was no clear case that they should be expelled from the church either, he said, contrary to the position taken by Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who announced the excommunications.

Barbosa said only doctors who "systematically" conduct abortions are thrown out of the church. (Agence France-Presse)

Explaining why the Church does something is never a bad idea. In the meantime, we'll have to see what happens. It's always better for the Church to be an active voice in the debate, otherwise the enemies of the Church will be happy to create their own narrative. And you can guess what that will look like - we've all seen it before.

Text: Pure Fashion Director Brenda Sharmon Responds

Brenda Sharman, Pure Fashion National Director, responds to the discussion generated by my March 11 story, "Modesty back in fashion as economy worsens?":

Hello to everyone who has commented on the Pure Fashion story in USA Today. I was notified that there was a discussion on the story and I'm happy to jump in and clarify a few points.

Point #1. Jayne O'Donnell, the reporter with USA Today is a wonderful woman with a kind heart for young girls and I so appreciate her taking the time to write this story. It's been a pleasure to get to know her over the past 9 months. During that time we discussed the history of Pure Fashion, the fact that Pure Fashion started in Challenge clubs, and then developed into it's own Apostolate.

Point #2. I never said or implied that we have broken away from Regnum Christi. Pure Fashion is a service of Regnum Christi and I too am a member of Regnum Christi. Regarding the choice of words in the USA Today article, I don't know why those words were chosen...but I'll bet that it was just a quick way to summarize that we grew out of Challenge clubs into our own program. It was obviously not the complete history spelled out, but there was no deceptive intent. Pure Fashion and I are proud to be affiliated with Regnum Christi. As of January 2009, we are now offering affiliation to Parishes, schools or Churches that would like to offer the program, so we expect a great deal of growth in the next few years and many more organizations outside of Regnum Christi who will be offering the formation program and the end of the year event...the modesty fashion show... Our culture needs as many programs as possible to support our teens in living lives of virtue!

If anyone has questions about Pure Fashion, please feel free to e-mail me directly at brendasharman [at] purefashion.com . I have always been open, transparent and available to answer questions and will continue to do so. God bless you all... I've got to get back to work, there is a lot to do!

Your Sister in Christ, Brenda.

Becket Fund President calls CT Bill "Doubly unconstitutional"

In response to the story I covered over the weekend about a breathtakingly anti-Catholic CT bill:

"This bill is doubly unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional underthe First Amendment even if it applied to all churches. but the fact thatit applies to only one church - the Catholic Church - makes itunconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment besides. This is truly amonstrosity."

-- Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, President, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Latest Legion Leads

While new English-language reports on the Legion situation are almost non-existent (with the exception of this flawed Hartford Courant piece), the Spanish and Italian presses are still rolling.
One thing I'm consistently hearing is the strong possibility of appointing an "apostolic visitor" to supervise the Legion instead of dissolving it. This might explain the Vatican's silence, if they are actively pursuing behind-the-scenes fix. And obviously it would be better to go public with the solution if they already have this apostolic visitor chosen.

(What have you heard for/against this rumor?)

One attitude I hope we see gradually rooted out is expressed well in this reflection forwarded to me from an RC member in response to Fr. Groeschel's message (underlining mine):

There have been so many questions in my heart - but I can't doubt the call God put on my heart to join Regnum Christi - and I can't doubt what I have seen of the Holy Spirit working through so many good people: priests, Consecrated, and laity. I also don't deny that I am a sinner myself.

Great Scott - I hope this individual is not seriously comparing their sins to Maciel's! What a lack of spiritual and moral formation is displayed by such a comment. And what an opportunity to grow in both.

Two other notable contributions:

• "Legion of Christ's Lenten journey towards Truth" by an anonymous LC employee
• Kevin Keiser's riposte to Father Orsi's post: "Yes, we need (some) sordid details"

What are the Knights of Malta Thinking?

My wager would be "they aren't":

Former Washington, D.C. mayor Anthony Williams is currently undergoing formation in the order of the Knights of Malta, one of the Catholic Church's oldest and most prestigious organizations, despite his record of supporting unlimited abortion and same-sex "marriage." (LifeSiteNews)

I am told that the Washington Times will be doing a story on this today. Members of the Knights of Malta aren't happy .... understandably.

If you wish to (charitably) express your displeasure about this decision, contact:

Joe Dempsey
Executive Director
Sovereign Military Order of Malta
jdempsey@smom.org
(202) 331-2494

"Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church"

This is a tough one:

The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. (TIME)

Cardinal Re responds to the backlash:

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for Bishops, told La Stampa, an Italian daily newspaper, that the case was sad, but that “the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated.” (NYT)

Not surprisingly, both TIME and the NYT fail to report an important detail: did Archbishop Sobrinho formally excommunicate the parties who procured the abortion? You see, under Canon Law, anyone who procures the abortion is automatically excommunicated - no special intervention of the bishop is necessary.

So yes, this is a tough case - and it puts the Church in the worst possible light. But the fact of the matter remains that there were two innocents destroyed here. And added to the first grave wrong of the rape, is the second grave wrong of this double murder.

Expect the individuals who disagree with the Church's stance of defending innocent life to take as much advantage of this situation as possible, especially in Brazil. It's the closest they can ever get to a "winning argument." And they are masters of using the leverage provided by "hard cases."

Of course, nothing should be hard about defending the innocent.

update: LifeSiteNews gets all the important points on this story right.

Stonehill Catholic college stops condom-distributing senior

Friday is crazy Catholic news day at AmP. Last week it was the Dante's Inferno Computer Game.

This week it's the self-appointed contraception fairy....

Frustrated that her college does not distribute birth control, Stonehill College senior Katie Freitas decided she would do it herself.

After collecting hundreds of free condoms from two family-planning agencies, she and about 20 classmates placed boxes of the contraceptives in student dormitories across the Easton campus last month.

But when administrators at the Catholic school learned of the effort, they quickly intervened and collected the condoms, citing the college's ban against distributing birth control on campus.

... Freitas said she will continue to hang a bag of condoms on her dormitory door, although McGovern warned otherwise. (Boston Globe)

A bag of condoms on your dorm door? Now that's classy. That's going to send boys the right message.

Flash: FOCA may not be so far away

I've been among those who doubted that the Freedom of Choice Act stood much of a chance being introduced into Congress. I thought the preventative actions already taken would be a serious deterrent.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler and Sen. Barbara Boxer, however, may have other plans:

Leading pro-life advocates have been criticized by the mainstream media for organizing an active opposition to the radical Freedom of Choice Act because the bill has yet to be filed in Congress. However, a leading pro-abortion Congressman calls FOCA a top priority and says the bill is coming soon.
A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who is chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee that could consider the bill, says the bill is forthcoming.
FOCA "is among the congressman's priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later," Ilan Kayatsky told the St. Louis Post Dispatch {full article here}.
"We expect it to be more or less the same bill with some minor tweaks," Kayatsky said. He indicated he expects pro-abortion Sen. Barbara Boxer to introduce a companion bill shortly. (LifeNews)

I hate last-minute Friday news bombs.

NCReporter pro-abortion Young Voices author could face penalty

While I was away last week, little miss Kate Childs Graham published an article in the National Catholic Reporter entitled "I am a pro-choice Catholic."

I called the first entry of this Young Voices feature, "168 words of forgettable."

Well, Graham's new entry is "704 words of actionable", says my father Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

Graham published her essay justifying the abandonment of unborn innocents to prenatal slaughter in a widely accessible, indeed internationally accessible, medium. I think that her remarks, considered specifically and generally, "gravely injure good morals" and thus constitute the kind of abuse of the instruments of social communication that renders one liable to a "just penalty" under canon law (1983 CIC 1369).

Finally, and this is what distinguishes Graham's essay from the typical pro-abortion Catholic palaver, by her own words, she vitiates several defenses that might have been raised for such conduct, defenses based on say, one's ignorance of Church teaching, or because one acted without sufficient deliberation (e.g., 1983 CIC 1323-1324). I can scarcely conclude other than that Graham is daring the bishops to do something about her.

And really, if the bishops don't think they have a case, all they have to do is keep reading her....

Graham writing on Academic freedom on Catholic campuses:

"Many administrations at Catholic colleges and universities have similarly succumbed to the pressure of the Catholic right or the bishops."

"My hope is that other administrations at Catholic colleges and universities will follow Fordham’s lead and refuse to succumb to the pressures of the bishops and the Catholic right. Only then will students be able to freely think, be, create, form and grow."

Graham writing on the Catholic support of Proposition 8:

About a month before Proposition 8 passed in California Nov. 4, taking away an array of human rights, and the U.S. bishops decided to team up with the Knights of Columbus to make the “preservation of marriage” one of its key focuses for the next five years, my partner, Ariana, and I made our commitment to one another.

Our marriage was not "legal" by terms of the District of Columbia or the institutional Catholic church. Yet, in our eyes and in the eyes of our friends and family, our union is indeed holy.

That's right - her "partner" Ariana. Graham's title for this essay? "Our Journey to holy union."

So Graham is a gay, absolute-primacy-of-conscience, anti-Church-hierarchy, pro-abortion zealot?

... what a refreshing change from the National Catholic Reporter's Old Voices. Oh wait.

New Legion Thread

Before the previous thread passes 1,000 comments, I'm starting a new one. For fresh discussion:

• Damian Thompson: Is it time to dissolve the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi?:

"The Vatican is taking far too long to sort out the crisis caused by the collapse of the Legionaries of Christ and their lay arm, Regnum Christi, following the revelation that their supposedly saint-like founder, Fr Marcial Maciel, led a double life. Why has Pope Benedict XVI said nothing?"

• Fr. Benedict Groeschel: This Is Not the Legion of Anybody Except of Christ:

"Now: "You all need reform!" We ALL need reform! When do we need it? Every single day, no matter what goes on. Send anybody around to me who says, "They need reform!" and I'll tell them, "Wake up, smarty!" Our Divine Savior says, "The time has come, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news." And that is something that must go on every single day."

(.... I'm tracking down other developments at the moment, so please stay tuned in the meantime.)

Breaking: Abp. Naumann responds to Sebelius appointment/Brownback endorsement

John Norton at Our Sunday Visitor has an excellent, timely interview with Abp. Naumann on Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Brownback, etc. Some pull quotes follow.

On Sebelius' claims of a "pro-life" record:

Archbishop Naumann: I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. It’s true that abortion dropped during her term as governor but I don’t think she really had anything to do with it, although she likes to take credit for it. And in fact, during that time she vetoed measures that could have helped prevent abortion.

On Obama's choice to pick Sebelius, and Sen Brownback's going along with it:

I personally find it offensive that he would choose a pro-legalized-abortion Catholic to head this office. I think, as I interpret Sen. [Sam ] Brownback’s and Sen. [Pat] Roberts’ support of sorts for the nomination — it’s simply saying we elected President Obama with the positions he took. We can’t expect that he’s going to appoint someone to these cabinet positions that do not share his views. And in a sense I can understand that. When there is a pro-life president, we resent if there is an effort to try to prevent the president from appointing people who share his vision. So, I can understand why they might acquiesce, I guess, is the best way to put it, to her appointment.

Finally, as a bonus, what he thinks of the organization Catholics United:

Archbishop Naumann: I don’t think they have much impact and I don’t pay much attention to them personally. And I think from what you just read, they’re either not very honest or they’re not very competent in the research that they do.

Actually, they're both: competent and dishonest. They know what they are doing.

Also, on a related note, Matt Bowman has an excellent article in the American Spectator today:

But the most intriguing component of Sebelius's nomination is her Catholicism. Not that Catholic abortion supporters are rare -- see Obama's failed nominee to HHS, Tom Daschle. But Sebelius is significant as an attempt by Obama to foment a civil war within Catholicism to neutralize its pro-life efforts.

Like a shrewd general, Obama is using Catholics themselves as his ground troops.
Two dozen prominent Obama supporters quickly launched a letter supporting Sebelius, and claiming that they are Catholic and pro-life. The letter's signers are the same liberal Obama Pro-Lifers from his presidential campaign, led by Professor Doug Kmiec and the Soros-funded group "Catholics United."

The first step to responding to these sorts of attacks is to realize that one is being attacked. Kmiec, Sebelius, et al. are making a concerted effort to destroy the connection between being Catholic and pro-life.

The Curious Case of Kathleen Sebelius

That Kathleen Sebelius has been appointed as Department of Health and Human Services secretary by Barack Obama is no surprise.

(Sebelius' pro-abortion record is clear. Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council says she is "arguably the most pro-abortion governor in the nation." Austin Ruse has said that she "never met an abortion she didn't support including partial birth abortions.")

That many "identity-Catholics" should support Sebelius' appointment is little surprise to me. These "id-Catholics" include the likes of Doug Kmiec, Nicholas Cafardi and Lisa Sowle Cahill, representing Catholic universities such as Boston College, CUA, Georgetown, etc. And shame on them all, they might have chosen to remain silent and thereby retained a bit more integrity than Catholics United, which has perfected the art of twisting and abusing the name "Catholic" for political gain.

(The American Life League has a petition up to stop Sebelius' appointment, by the way, if you are looking for a way to register your complaint with Obama's choice to nominate an abortion extremist.)

That pro-life figures such as Senator Sam Brownback should also support her appointment, however, has been a great surprise to many, for instance, pro-life blogger/activist Jill Stanek. It wouldn't be unfair to describe the reaction of the pro-life community as "stunned."

So what's going on here? Politics.

Brownback and Sebelius are home-state rivals from Kansas: she the pro-abortion governor, he one of their two pro-life senators. Speculation has been going for months that in 2010 Sebellius and Brownback could well collide for an elected office: either Sebellius challenging Brownback for his senate seat or Brownback trying to become Kansas governor.

Brownback, therefore, can be personally relieved that it appears Sebelius will be "kicked upstairs" by this HHS nomination (presuming that all goes well). It saves him two worries.

Unfortunately, Brownback's decision to support the Sebelius nomination, from the outside, reads like this editorial:

Maybe Brownback, who is running for governor of Kansas in 2010, calculated the odds and saw he will gain more by earning respect from the state's moderates than by staying in the good graces of the single-issue anti-abortion groups who are so riled up about Sebelius's nomination.

Now, I don't quite agree with this assessment. I'd say Brownback is trying to think outside the box by recognizing common ground in someone he doesn't have the possibility of defeating directly. These are tough times for the pro-life movement, and even if Sebelius were defeated during the nomination process, her replacement could easily be just as bad.

That said, he didn't have to say anything. I think he weighed his options and made his choice. Now he has to deal with the justified anger of his pro-life collaborators over the choice he made.

update: this added wrinkle makes Brownback's choice more clear (underlining added):

“Sebelius is term limited and can't run for governor again and Brownback is honoring his term limits pledge in the Senate, so there is no Brownback versus Sebelius fight to avoid. Brownback does however ensure his Senate seat stays red and pro-life if Sebelius is in Washington. {from "KS" in the comment box.}

Brownback is doing a very simple thing it seems to me: if Sebelius had stayed in KS she could have come after his senate seat when he had to leave it (having promised to term-limit himself). At the same time, her governor's chair would be coming free and he can now run for it, perhaps with the added appearance of "bipartisanship" provided by his support for her HHS nomination.

Politics.

update 2: it's also my understanding that, contrary to this report, Sen. Brownback has not decided at this point whether he will vote for Sebelius during the confirmation process.

update 3: scratch update 2....

[Brwonback] wavered yesterday, at first saying through a spokesman that he wasn't going to say whether he favored or opposed her.

Then, at 6 p.m., his spokesman called and said Brownback would back her after all. That came after learning from me that political opponents were starting to take shots at Brownback. (source.)

Wow.

More Martino Gutsiness in PA

I'm pressed for time today, but Diane is covering the latest acts of bishop Joseph Martino in Scranton.

Friday Maciel Thread

Because the last post on this subject is approaching 500 comments - let's start fresh here, with a firm amendment to clearly speak the truth with charity, so that our comments inform and encourage others.

Report: Kerry didn't receive Communion at Ash Wednesday Mass

My friend Eric passes along some reliable heresay, which I paraphrase:

During Ash Wednesday Mass, at St. Joseph's on Capitol Hill, I was sitting two pews behind [Senator John] Kerry. He left before Communion, right after Cardinal McCarick's sermon and getting his ashes.

There are two reasons I could see for Kerry's choice: 1) He knew he shouldn't present himself for Communion so he didn't, or 2) he had another meeting and just wanted to get his ashes.

Option 2) Seems very plausible to me. I know when I was at Mass yesterday, I sat next to a young woman who promptly disappeared after recieving her ashes.

Option 1), on the other hand, sets up an interesting third-way solution to the problem of pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion - just don't try to receive! I mean - sure, by all means, come to Mass - but don't present yourself for Communion.

Plenty of the rest of us have to do this from time to time.

Update: Holocaust-denier Bp. Williams apologizes for comments

Zenit:

Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly excommunicated member of the Society of St. Pius X, apologized today for statements in which he denied the extent of the Holocaust.

In a statement published on his return to London on Wednesday after being expelled by the government of Argentina, the prelate explained that "the Holy Father and my superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy."

... Bishop Williamson continued, "Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them."

The prelate said that on Swedish television he only gave the "opinion [...] of a non-historian," a perspective "formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available, and rarely expressed in public since."

However, he recognized, "the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused."

He added, "To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize."

AP video of a reporter trying to confront Bp. Williams as he left Buenos Aires:

Related links:

• Reuters: Holocaust-denying bishop makes apology
• CNS: Bishop Williamson says he regrets remarks denying Holocaust
• CNA: Bishop Williamson expresses ‘regret’ for Holocaust comments’ effects
• NYT: Bishop Apologizes for Statements on the Holocaust

Abp. O'Brien says Legion "stifles the free will of its members and lacks transparency"

Still no official statement from the Legion today.

Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, however, has become the first bishop to comment about the Maciel scandal, in an interview with his Archdiocesan newspaper The Catholic Review. I'll quote the first part of the article in full:

Concerned that the Legion of Christ stifles the free will of its members and lacks transparency, Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien told the religious order’s director general that he cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone join the Legion or Regnum Christi, its affiliated lay movement.

In the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the Legion of Christ is affiliated with Woodmont Academy in Cooksville. Regnum Christi is also active in several parishes.

The archbishop’s action came in the wake of revelations that Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, fathered a daughter while serving as leader of the international religious order.

Pope Benedict XVI had previously removed the Mexican priest from public ministry in 2006, asking him to lead a life of prayer and penance after Father Maciel faced allegations of sexual abuse of seminarians and financial irregularities.

“It seems to me and many others that this was a man with an entrepreneurial genius who, by systematic deception and duplicity, used our faith to manipulate others for his own selfish ends,” Archbishop O’Brien told The Catholic Review in a telephone interview following his Feb. 20 Rome meeting with Father Alvaro Corcuera, director general of the Legion.

“Father Maciel deserves our prayers, as every Christian who dies does, that he’ll be forgiven and we leave the final judgment to God as to what his life and death amounted to,” Archbishop O’Brien said.

Saying that the Legion’s founder “leaves many victims in his wake,” the archbishop called for the “full disclosure of his activities and those who are complicit in them or knew of them and of those who are still refusing to offer disclosure.”

He added that the finances of the order should be opened to “objective scrutiny.”

Archbishop O’Brien said he has grave concerns that the Legion fosters a “cult of personality” focused on Father Maciel.

“While it’s difficult to get a hold of official documents,” Archbishop O’Brien said, “it’s clear that from the first moment a person joins the Legion, efforts seem to be made to program each one and to gain full control of his behavior, of all information he receives, of his thinking and emotions.”

The archbishop said many members who leave the order suffer “deep psychological distress for dependency and need prolonged counseling akin to deprogramming.”

Saying that “I know that there are good priests in the movement” and acknowledging that Legion members are in full accord with the theological teachings of the church, the archbishop also said some of the practices of the movement are unhealthy.

“This is not about orthodoxy,” he said. “It is about respect for human dignity for each of its members.”

The archbishop noted that he has heard reports that the movement claims that the first duty of a Legionary is to love the Legion.

Such policies subject a person’s use of reason not to one’s own judgment, Archbishop O’Brien said, but to a spiritual director.

“It’s been said that the founder is alone called ‘nuestro padre’ (‘our father’) and that no one else can have that title,” Archbishop O’Brien said. “All are bound to identify with him in his spirit, his mind, his mission and in his life. This would suggest that the very basis of the Legion movement should be reviewed from start to finish.”

The second part of the article adds some scattered comments from Jim Fair, the US spokesman for the Legion.

Last June Archbishop O'Brien demanded that the Legion become more transparent or he would expel them from ministry in his archdiocese. At the time, O'Brien's "initial hand was stayed by Vatican intercession" and at last check-up (in August), the Legion appeared to be complying.

update: more on Abp. O'Brien's dealings with the Legion in this June 12th, 2008 interview with John Allen.

NCRegister editor responds to questions regarding Maciel scandal silence

In the midst of the Maciel scandal breaking, a former writer for the (Legion-owned)Register published a lengthy piece in First Things demanding that the Register end its silence on the issue, saying:

"A good Catholic newspaper must not shy away from the truth. But it would frankly make the newspaper look absurd if the whole Catholic world is discussing Fr. Maciel and the Register’s pages largely ignore the whole matter."

Today, in answer to a letter to the editor, the Register responds:

Our publisher, Father Owen Kearns, knew of Father Raymond’s concerns when he wrote in his publisher’s note for the Feb. 22 issue, “I’m also grateful for those who have expressed their indignation and their hurt. I know that it comes from their love for the Church we all love so well, and which the Register is dedicated to serving.”

... The paper covered the Holy See’s 2006 communiqué regarding Father Marcial Maciel with a wire service news story. Father Owen Kearns wisely limited any defense of Father Maciel to two pieces bylined by himself, one in 2001 and another in 2006. We have told Father Raymond repeatedly that the Register fully intends to correct the record on that coverage as soon as we can do so accurately.

The Register is dedicated to follow this story in as responsible a way as possible. This will mean, for the most part, relying on journalism produced independently of the Register to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.

At the Register, our mission is to form and inform Catholics. We are more than a newspaper — we have a mission to bring readers closer to the Church. But we are also a newspaper, and accuracy is our fundamental value.

We will keep readers informed about this situation in a way that is accurate, above all, and in keeping with our mission to form and inform.

Bishop tells outspoken CA priest to "cool it" on Obama sermons

Incendiary:

"San Diego Bishop Robert Brom has asked an outspoken Escondido priest to tone down his fierce criticism of the Obama Administration, prompting supporters of the priest to launch a letter-writing campaign to the bishop on his behalf.

On Feb. 11, California Catholic Daily reprinted an article – “100 Days or End of Days?” -- from the parish bulletin of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Escondido written by Pastor Richard Perozich. In the article, Fr. Perozich warned that “evil has acceded to power” in the Obama Administration. (To see the article behind the controversy, Click Here.)

Sources at St. Mary’s told California Catholic Daily that a family from the parish-administered St. Mary’s School had complained to the chancery about the article. An intermediary, acting on behalf of Bishop Brom, then contacted Fr. Perozich by telephone, sources said, and told him to “cool it.” Aside from that single complaint, sources said, “the overwhelming opinion of parishioners has been favorable.” (California Catholic Daily)

I have some personal experience of Fr. Perozich's energetic ministry style. While I don't agree with everything he said in his letter (I only had time to skim it), I think what is at issue is not so much what he said, but that he said it - people are not used to hearing their priests vocally "naming names" in this manner. Also, an important note: this is what Fr. Perozich said in a homily - he published it in his parish bulletin.

Still, the problem with impassioned rhetorical language about these issues is that such statements tend to come across as irrational, thus doing a disservice to the principled versions of these sentiments.

The Legion: What is happening behind the scenes?

The short answer, of course, is that we don't know.

Unofficially, from the background chatter I'm hearing, I'd wager a few bets. These hypotheses do not entail any sort of privileged knowledge on my part, just connecting the dots.

First, some sort of "serious clarification" is in the works, but has been delayed, perhaps because they are waiting for the Vatican to "sign off" on it. When will it be released? That's really anyone's guess.

Second, the General Director of the Legion, Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, is talking to the Holy See, and at least some communication is happening with Pope Benedict, although not necessarily directly.

Third, some sort of Vatican visitation of the Legion is going to take place. There remains some question where this will be official or unofficial. It will take a look at Legion operating practice - though it is unclear how broad or deep a mandate this visitation will receive, or who will undertake it.

Fourth, a careful look at the Legion norms will occur, specifically in regards to how they incorporate the writings, "witness" and charism of their founder, Marcial Maciel. It's my speculation that some serious effort will be made to bring them fully into line with canonical norms if they are not.

Fifth, individual members of the Legion and Regnum Christi are re-evaluating their relationship to the movement. Many people have told me they are leaving, some have commented (directly and indirectly) that they never intend to leave, others have not yet decided, and say they are waiting to see how the leadership handles this crisis.

The Sixth, and least knowable, thing happening involves the Legion leadership. Besides the single public statement of Fr. Alvaro, scattered reports of his internal addresses to members, a few odd comments from low-level Legion priests, and a handful of public comments made by Legion spokesman (notable for their problematic nature), we don't have any sort of handle on what the superiors of the Legion are doing.

Illumination on any of these points would be appreciated.

Michael Sean Winters, step away from the Code....

Michael Sean Winters, whom I enjoy disagreeing with, decided he would play canon lawyer for a day:

"The second point upon which we must be clear is that the "No Communion" policy is a radical innovation that should be resisted. First, it requires applying the canons in ways that are novel and dubious. Canon law is a pastoral instrument and recognizes that it should be applied with gentleness not vengeance."

A real canon lawyer (and my father, in fact), points out Winters' double-standard:

Ironically, it does not seem to occur to Winters that he quite willing to substitute his opinion on how canon 915 should be applied for that of actual pastors like Abp. Raymond Burke (a prelate whose credentials in canon law dwarf mine and, I'm guessing, Winters'). Burke offers a powerful, and I suggest compelling, case for the application of Canon 915 in the face of the metastasizing scandal of the prominent pro-abortion Catholic politician. Has Winters read it?

Of course not, but that doesn't mean Winters can't have an opinion.

Open thread: What approval does the Legion *now* enjoy?

As we wait for the Legion's promised "serious clarification" statement, I'll continue to select what I find to be compelling comments which will provide a starting point for further discussion.

Today's comments originate from someone claiming to be a Legionary priest, who says:

I am an active LC priest, dismayed by the silence and passivity of many of my brothers. Outrage at this entire situation and our hapless leaders' response to it is the ONLY acceptable position.

I find particularly dismaying our superiors' reliance on the argument that runs something like this: "We know all is well in the LC because the Pope has tols us how much he esteems us and Cardinal Whoseewhatzit and Cardinal Whatzhisname have been visiting our centers saying how wonderful we are."

How could that type of reasoning convince anyone? Least of all those of us who lived through the LC's halcyon years under Pope JPII?

Fr. Maciel was praised publically and privately by the Pope and other Vatican officials time and time again during the 80s and 90s when he was actually living the double life we now recognize with horror. The Pope said lots of nice things about us then when the Founder was in the act of duping us all.

How could anyone's praise or approval of us now be a sign that all is well? We've already seen that Popes and Cardinals can be fooled and manipulated. We already know that the LC does its best to show them only what the LC wants them to see.

The only thing that can save the LC is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Full disclosure, full transparency and full renunciation of its policy of deception.

It doesn't matter who approves of us or disapproves of us if we are not truthful with ourselves.

I'll add a point to these thoughts. Fr. Alvaro has claimed that the Legion and/or Rome only recently discovered the fact that Maciel had a daughter twenty-two years ago. This means that all the previous conversations Fr. Alvaro claimed to have had with Cardinals, and Pope Benedict, and all the encouragement he claims to have received from them, were given without their knowing about the full extent of Maciel's deception.

One must then wonder how the Vatican is re-evaluating the status of Maciel and his inner circle in the light of this "recent" discovery.

A revealing question to ask: how many bishops and cardinals have spoken publicly encouraging the Legion to carry on with business as usual after this news was made public?!

Find me one.

And if indeed not one has thrown their hat in with the Legion, what are we to make of all these claims that "the Vatican" completely endorses their current activity? If these Cardinals and Pope Benedict are so eager to support the Legion, why has not a one of them said so in public?

(Also of interest: A Jesuit studying to become a priest compares Ignatian Obedience and the Legionaries.)

Published: RC director encourages members to offer "spiritual bouquets"

Someone has created a website to offer "Spiritual Bouquets" for LC priests and RC consecrated members. I'm told it began as a Facebook group and crossed-over onto a full website. The individual who registered the website lives in Connecticut, near where the Legionaries of Christ are based in the United States.

This email was sent by a national-level director of Regnum Christi to their women members:

Many of you have told me about the beautiful initiatives of individuals and local sections and cities to support your local legionaries, consecrated, and the Church as a whole during this difficult time. Thank you for your love for Christ and the Church!

One city decided to start a website to gather a spiritual bouquet in gratitude for the vocations of the Legionaries of Christ, and Consecrated members. It is http://www.spiritualbouquet.net/. I wanted to share it with you in case you’d like to participate, and in any case, to encourage you to pray for the perseverance of all priests, consecrated and religious, and for Our Church. Below is a message from the organizers:

“Let us join the thousands of other Regnum Christi Members from around the world by offering up a spiritual bouquet for the Holy Catholic Church and especially for the Legionaries of Christ and the Consecrated Men and Women of Regnum Christi in gratitude for their vocations and as a means for their perseverance in faith.

You can include the number of Masses, Rosaries, Holy Hours and sacrifices that you would like to offer up on the website. The website will keep a runny tally of all the prayers and sacrifices offered. (This is a continuous spiritual bouquet so you can later go back and offer more if you would like.)

The spiritual bouquet will then be sent to Pope Benedict XVI, Fr. Alvaro and the Legionaries of Christ priests and Consecrated Men and Women of Regnum Christi so they could see the continuous number of prayers and sacrifices offered for them and the whole Catholic Church.

Not our will, but God’s Will be done. Let us entrust this into the hands of Our Mother.”

God Bless, you are all in my prayers.

Yours in Christ and the Movement,

[name]

Note how "movement-centric" this innitiative is, with no mention of those outside the movement who have suffered, beginning with Maciel's own victims. This is how the petition reads:

"Considering the painful times that we suffer together as the Mystical Body of Christ and a Regnum Christi family, please join in gathering and assembling spiritual flowers. This spiritual bouquet of prayers and sacrifices will be offered especially for the Legionaries of Christ and the Consecrated Men and Women of Regnum Christi in gratitude for their vocations and as a means of perseverance in faith. Not our will but God's Will be done."

The website also contains a quotation from a speech Pope Benedict XVI made during his visit last year to the United States. I will quote a line from this speech (that appears on the website):

Charisms are bestowed by the Holy Spirit, who inspires founders and foundresses, and shapes congregations with a subsequent spiritual heritage."

Maciel certainly left a heritage.

update: from "Dominus Flevit" in the comments:

The spiritual bouquet is quite revealing. The immediate, overriding concern of the LC leadership is clearly the retention of its priests and RC consecrated members ("perseverance").

The leadership realizes what the Deep Denial crowd does not: A significant number of LC priests are likely to head for the exits over the next several years, if not sooner. Some of them (Fr. Berg?) may even make noisy exits. That in turn will shake what remains of the faith RC members have in the Movement.

This catastrophe could be averted with a thorough and credible housecleaning, including identification and removal of all LCs who knew or should have known of Maciel's double life. Sadly, the LC leadership doesn't look capable of taking the steps necessary to salvage credibility.

The Maciel dilemma from two vantage points

Marjorie Campbell:

"No one knows what stirs in the dark, lonely heart of a human being, especially driven people like Fr. Maciel – many of whom share their worst worries and battles in confession and spiritual direction. While I am disappointed, deeply disappointed, in Fr. Maciel’s disordered decision making, and an apparently disordered management that allowed Fr. Maciel to disregard rules of discipline, I am no more surprised by Fr. Maciel’s paternity than I was surprised by the dark and empty spirituality of Mother Teresa."

... Which is not to say that the Legion does not have a lot of explaining – and apologizing – to do with several categories of people: the victims of abuse by Fr. Maciel; the RC members and former members of the Legion forced out for expressing concerns about Fr. Maciel; Fr. Maciel’s daughter and her mother; the Legion’s supporters who contributed dollars to form priests, not support the Founder’s secret family; the Legion's enthusiasts at the Vatican who, at times, went to great lengths in defense of Fr. Maciel. This is a short list. It is my sincere hope and prayer that the Legion will make the longer list, systematically acquiring and sharing information and expressing a sincere sorrow for any failures of the organization itself that contributed to Father’s harms. The Legion can, and should, survive this challenge by shining light upon their information and process, and offering regret and transparency for the darknesses which veiled the sins of their founder."

Diogenes:

"The fact of the matter is that Maciel was publicly accused of specific sexual crimes, and that out of personal moral cowardice he enlisted honorable men and women to mortgage their own reputations in defense of his lie. The lie was the lie of Maciel's personal sanctity, which Maciel knew to be a myth, and which the fact of his bastard child (putting aside the more squalid accusations) proves that he knew. To the villainy of sacrificing the reputations of others, Maciel added the grotesque and blasphemous claim that the Holy See's sanctions were an answer to his own prayer to share more deeply in the passion of Christ, as an innocent victim made to bear the burden of false judgment in reparation for the sins of mankind. The Legion cannot share Catholic reverence for the Passion and fail to repudiate Maciel's cynicism in portraying himself as the Suffering Servant."

... When I speak of the Legion's duty of revilement, I do not mean they should issue so many pages of rhetorical denunciation of Maciel's sexual iniquities. What is required is an unambiguous admission that Maciel deceitfully made use of holy things and holy words in order to dupe honest and pious persons into taking false positions -- sometimes slandering others in the process -- in order to reinforce the legend of his own sanctity. Since Maciel's treachery was sacrilegious in its means and in its effect, he should posthumously be repudiated as a model of priesthood and of Christian life."

A reaction to Austin Ruse's defense of the Legion

Many AmP readers have asked me to link to Austin Ruse's defense of the Legion which he published last Friday in The Catholic Thing. I have linked to it and, in the interest of forthright discussion, I will bring up several points that strike me after reading it.

I have great respect for Mr. Ruse and his work for C-FAM (which I have promoted often on this blog), and intend with these comments only respond to the arguments he makes for the Legion.

Ruse: "There are souls in Heaven because of the charism of the Legion of Christ and of Regnum Christi."

AmP: This is an imprecise (and even misleading) statement. Obviously, souls are in heaven ultimately by the grace of God. The question at hand is what role did or did not this "charism" play in their salvation? What role can Maciel's spiritual insights and writings play in their lives? It also begs the question to assert that Maciel's charism was "revealed to him by God" - how do we know that it was? The mere fact that Ruse must say "there will be more saints because, and now perhaps in spite, of [Maciel]" should raise concern: charisms, after all, do not assist people towards heaven despite themselves!

Ruse: "The inevitable braying in the media and in the blogosphere is deafening."

AmP: I am happy, of course, to see my name excluded from this list. Dismissing, however, the "braying" does nothing to respond to the sensible criticisms that have also surfaced. If Ruse is attempting to highlight the most visible responses to this crisis, he has excluded several of the important ones (Ed Peters and George Weigel, for instance).

Ruse: "Under the guise of a letter to a friend, which in friendly fashion he released to the blogs, Germaine Grisez calls for an investigation, but assumes the Legion must be dissolved."

AmP: Dr. Grisez's choice to release an open letter was an entirely friendly thing to do if he had serious doubts about the Legion's own internal communication structure, which - after sustained observation - appears highly insular and inefficient. The best way for Legion members to see his suggestions, frankly, was to post them on the internet. Second, Grisez does not "assume" the Legion must be dissolved, he argues for that conclusion saying it is the best way to serve the continuing common good of its members.

Ruse: "Old clubs are being pulled out to beat the Legion."

AmP: 1) Admittedly, there are always people who want to club the Church. But in this case, it's not pulling out clubs to point out LC/RC problems that have been pointed out before. The last two "clubs" are true, 20/20 vision would seem to tell us. And therefore, individuals should be thanked for their courage in pointing these problems out rather than dismissed as having ulterior purposes. 2) On the contrary, Maciel did attract the attention of several popes, including the current pope, who banished him to a life of private prayer and penance. 3) Of course there should be no "glee" in watching the Legion suffer, but there should be relief that issues plaguing it might ultimately be addressed through this painful process. Purification is rarely easy, after all.

Ruse: "[Maciel's] failings do not nullify all the good that [The Legionaries] have done and will do for the Church and for the Kingdom of God."

AmP: True, but the question remains - will they continue to do these good things (or did they perform these good works) for the Church as/because they were Legionaries? Was Maciel's direction essential to their good works? Or rather, is Maciel's ongoing influence, in fact, known to be detrimental to the Legionaries own common good and the good of the universal Church? Might the definitive revelation of Maciel's misdeeds bring about the necessary emancipation of its members from the structure of sin he created to protect himself and further his misdeeds?

Ruse: "When I think of the Legion and Regnum Christi I think of Father Thomas Berg, a faithful Legionary priest who runs a bioethics think tank that is on the cutting edge of public discourse."

AmP: This is an exceedingly odd first choice for Ruse's list of LC/RC shining lights, considering Fr. Berg has actually been very active in working outside the LC/RC structure to assist other members in the movement. And just look at Fr. Berg's own advice to RC members: "If you still find the letters of the founder helpful in prayer, feel free to use them. But it is certainly OK to leave them aside. Remember that in many ways, the spirit and charism we have lived is Pauline. Continue to nourish your spirit on the letters of St. Paul." (So much for exclusively embracing the founder's charism.)

Fr. Berg also goes on to demand from the Legion superiors "nothing less than full transparency regarding the case of Fr. Maciel. Demand that Fr. Alvaro seek an independent third party investigation (perhaps in the form of a temporary review board or Visitation team from the holy see) into uncovering any Legionaries who may have been accomplices to Maciel. Demand that a similar body guide Legionary leadership in introducing any needed reforms into the internal culture, methods and religious discipline of the Legion."

In other words, if Fr. Berg is someone whom Mr. Ruse first thinks of when he thinks of the Legion, it might be good to take seriously what Fr. Berg's own advice has been to the movement in light of the Maciel news (and incredibly inadequate official Legionary reaction). Fr. Berg's reaction, after all, is very different from Mr. Ruse's, and more pragmatic.

Ruse: "[To members:] Remember the good and holy priests and all the members of the movement who are the charism. Ignore the idle chatter. Hew close to the charism. Either it is false and will die, or it is true and will be your guide to Heaven."

AmP: 1) I didn't realize a charism is its membership. If this is true then Mr. Ruse should not object to the Legion dissolving or at least seriously revisiting its foundation. 2) I agree - ignore the idle chatter ... but don't ignore the pure-intentioned advice of the prudent and concerned. 3) If we are using an organic metaphor ("hew close"), I'd say it is better for the movement to lop itself off from the decaying branch of Maciel and re-graft itself firmly into the One Church of Christ (by appealing to Rome publicly), perhaps through a new and living branch. 4) This last line puzzles me. I would say: if this charism is "false", God has issued an invitation and an opportunity for it to be renewed, so that it might be a better guide to Heaven. I would submit that this attitude of "abandonment to providence" (as an alternative excluding personal action, discernment and sacrifice) which Ruse seems to espouse is somewhat culpable for this sorry state of affairs in which many Legionaries now find themselves. If there is one thing which characterizes this crisis, it is the inaction of individuals of authority and responsibility who could have prevented it had they the courage. Please God, let us learn from their mistakes.

Magister: "The Legion Is in Disarray. Betrayed by its Founder"

Noted Vatican analyst Sandro Magister picks up on the Maciel scandal:

"New revelations about the second life of Fr. Marcial Maciel. He was not only guilty of sexual abuse, but also had a lover and a daughter. The Legionaries of Christ are in danger of collapse. Some are calling for an apostolic visitor. Or for direct intervention by the pope"

Read Magister's column here.

Most of what Magister says I've already published at some point. A few of his observations:

[Fr. Corcuera's] authority has been deeply shaken. Fr. Corcuera was always extremely close to the founder. The latter's misconduct inevitably reflects back on him, and on other leaders in the congregation. In part for reasons of personal conduct, therefore, the congregation of the Legionaries of Christ no longer seems to be capable of managing its own recovery. Some of the priests who are highly respected in the congregation – Thomas Berg, Richard Gill, and Thomas Williams – see no solution other than an authoritative intervention by the Holy See.

... In order to overcome the latest resistance, in 2006, it took a direct order from Benedict XVI to require Fr. Maciel to retire to a penitential life. The secretary of state at the time, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, defended the founder of the Legionaries to the end.

Magister's covering of this story is significant because he is widely read inside the Vatican.

Former writer demands better reporting from NCRegister on Maciel

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza, a longtime writer for the National Catholic Register, has published an extensive outlining of how the same newspaper's reporting on the Maciel scandal has been woefully inadequate and goes on to demand that they face up to their collective journalistic obligations:

"Even at this late date, [the Register] has never reported the full extent of the accusations against Fr. Maciel. Worse still, it published what was false. Even if we once thought it to be true, we now know it to be false. Ordinary Christian morality demands of that the newspaper correct what it published. Fundamental journalistic ethics demands the same. Simple justice demands it.

... A good Catholic newspaper must not shy away from the truth. But it would frankly make the newspaper look absurd if the whole Catholic world is discussing Fr. Maciel and the Register’s pages largely ignore the whole matter.

Moreover, the odd way in which the news was made public, with rumors and leaks and vague statements from superiors, indicates that the Legion of Christ itself either cannot be or will not be a reliable source of information on this matter. The National Catholic Register might be able to do in part what the Legion of Christ seems unable to do.

[Read the entire piece in First Things.]

{update: for online newsies, Catholic.net is also run by the Legionaries of Christ/Regnum Christi, and similarly has nothing to say about the Maciel scandal, from what I can tell.}

What the head of the Legion is saying to members

This Sunday I was invited to attend a Sunday Mass of healing celebrated by Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, the General Director of the Legionaries of Christ (and direct successor to Marcial Maciel) at a local Catholic parish.

I have published my observations here.

I have also published the widely-distributed thoughts of a Regnum Christi member who was in attendance.

Taken together, they provide both an internal and third-party view of what Fr. Alvaro is saying about the Maciel situation.

This information is especially helpful because public, official statements by the Legionaries have - up to this point - been very scant.

Fr. Alvaro often speaks of the Legionary as a family. I publish this with a hope that the promises he has made within the family will also be abided by outside the family.

update: welcome, UK Telegraph readers. Complete information about the Maciel scandal here.

Maciel admission timed for SSPX controversy?

Many people have been asking what prompted the Legionaries to choose this time for publicly acknowledging the veracity of allegations against their founder Maciel.

Joan Desmond, a widely-published Catholic journalist, is hearing a consistent answer:

Contacts in Rome, who sought to protect their sources during this sensitive time and would not go on the record, report that the on-going controversy over Bishop Williamson - one of the four schismatic bishops whose excommunication was lifted by the pope, but who still denies the existence of the Holocaust ... continues unabated and has made it difficult to work out an intervention by the Vatican. Only the Americans in the Legion have broken ranks in a noticeable way, attracted the public support of prominent Catholics, and appear committed to commencing a thorough house cleaning of the Legion, followed, possibly, by the "re-forming" of the order with new superiors in place.

My contacts assert that the convergence of these two big news events--the outrage prompted by the Bishop Willliamson affair, followed shortly afterwards by the new revelations regarding Father Maciel's "double life" -- was no accident: the order's superiors and their ecclesial allies took advantage of the crisis surrounding Bishop Williamson to minimize the impact of the new disclosures regarding Maciel. The Mexican superiors, I'm told, believe the present tempest will blow over and the Legion will pull itself together and go on as before. (The Cathoholic - updated 3:30pm)

It certainly seems that amidst the hubbub surrounding the SSPX story, coverage of the Maciel scandal has been slim-to-none, except for the notable exceptions chronicled on these pages.

update: welcome, New Advent readers. Complete coverage of the Maciel scndal here.

CNS reporter gushes over Maciel's legacy in Mexico

Catholic News Service has finally published something regarding the Maciel scandal: a glowing report of Maciel's legacy in his hometown of Cojita, Mexico.

And when I mean glowing, I do mean glowing. Only two paragraphs talk at all about what Maciel did, the second and the last. Here's one paragraph:

So when allegations of sexual abuse of young men surfaced against the priest and, more recently, the acknowledgment by the Legionaries of Christ that their founder fathered a child, many in Cotija failed to allow the news to negatively color their views of the late Father Marcial Maciel Degollado.

Let's be clear: these are "allegations" of sexual abuse of young men only in the sense that we do not know which ones are true. Some of them are true.

There are 49 words in the above paragraph. The other ~800 are devoted to praise.

The article ends this way:

"I think that God should be the final judge," said Rosa Maria Rangel, who runs a cheese store. She added that few in Cotija held negative opinions of Father Maciel, prompting one young employee to object. When asked why she held a negative opinion, Leobardo Medina, 26, responded, "For what he did."

Again, we need to be clear: no one is claiming to know definitively the final state of Maciel's soul. We are only, in fact, just learning the full extent of his grave earthly sins. It shouldn't be surprising that a man as powerful as Maciel, who was synonymous with the Church to the people who knew him, and about whom these allegations only recently were admitted to as being true in any form ... should end up having "few negative opinions" among the general populace at this point.

Finally, Leobardo (why the masculine word ending if she is a woman?) has it right: one can hold a negative opinion about Maciel "For what he did." We can have negative opinions about people known to have gravely sinned against and injured their fellow men and women.

Let's review what Maciel did:

• Broke his priestly vows in having a sexual relationship with a woman, whom he conceived a child with
• Evidently misused Legionary funds - monies given to him in trust by the Church
• Sexually abused young boys in his charge, over an extended period of time
• Betrayed his fellow Legionary brothers and consecrated lay women through his actions
• Deceived the members of the movement whenever he did any of the above things

Any man who does these sorts of things, and dies without ever publicly repenting or seeing to the good of the order he left behind, would give me cause to form a negative opinion about him.

(Oh, and by the by - the story's author, David Agren, has written for Regnum Christi. I mean, you'd think that factoid would be worth a disclosure, would you not?)

Dr. Grisez's Comment on Fr. Berg's Letter {AmP exclusive}

Dr. Germain Grisez, Flynn Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount Saint Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland, has published his official comment on Fr. Thomas Berg's letter to Regnum Christi members.

Dr. Grisez asks that this comment, published first here on AmP, be widely distributed.

Important links:

• Dr. Grisez's new comment on Fr. Thomas Berg's letter
• Fr. Berg's original letter to Regnum Christi members
• Dr. Grisez's first open letter to the Legionaries of Christ (which has been widely distributed and quoted at-length in EWTN's interview of two Legionary priests.)
• George Weigel has also called for Vatican intervention in this matter
• My complete coverage of the Maciel scandal is available here

Posted: Fr. Thomas Berg's Letter to Regnum Christi

Several blogs have broken the embargo that Fr. Berg requested be kept on the private letter he wrote to pastorally assist Regnum Christi members.

I will now post it in hopes that it reaches more of its intended audience. It's very instructive for us as well. Fr. Berg, it will be remembered, also published a shorter, public statement last Friday.

It was very brave of him to send this. He is clearly motivated out of a deep concern for his Regnum Christi family, beyond all else:

To my beloved Regnum Christi Family

A personal note from Fr. Thomas Berg, LC offering guidance and warmest companionship in the midst of this intense suffering.

Dear everyone—

Christ's peace.

I write to you this Sunday morning with my heart in my hand. I know personally that so many of our priests, section directors, have been working for hours on end, meeting with groups of RC, first to break the horrible news and then to accompany them, often themselves reduced to the point of tears. Then there have been the endless follow—up phone calls, private conversations. Believe me, we have all been trying to do everything possible to reach out to all of you personally.

But my heart aches because our best efforts have not been enough. I want to reach out to you as a brother and friend this morning and try to assure you, if nothing else, that we are here. I know further efforts are underway to attempt to respond more adequately and formally to the confusion you all feel, not to mention the hurt and betrayal. I beg you, in the midst of such pain and hurt, please bear with your directors.

At the same time, however, I also beg you forgiveness for the disastrous response which this crisis has received from our upper LC leadership. There is no other way to say it: in so many respects, Legionary superiors have failed, and failed miserably to respond adequately to this crisis, and not surprisingly, have engendered in many of you and understandable lack of confidence. Those are the facts and your reaction is natural and reasonable. With all my heart, on their behalf, I apologize. Our superiors are human instruments; I know in their hearts they have trying to do the right thing, under inhuman pressure. Please understand that.

I am not making any excuses, however, for the fumbled media responses (which I believe have been too often unfairly attributed to Jim Fair our communications director who needs your prayers and has earned a very high place in heaven for what he has had to endure this week), for the appearances of being less than forthcoming, for the lack of information, for the confusion of messaging. For that, there is no excuse in a way, and tragically is largely due to the ineptness of many of those in leadership positions to respond with expertise and diligence in a crisis management situation like this.

But it is more than just crisis management. The thing I am most pained about—I share this as a brother—is the near absence of but fleeting suggestions of sorrow, and of apologizing for the harm done, both to alleged victims of Maciel, and, frankly, to all of you. I am deeply, deeply sorry, and I personally apologize with my heart in my hand to each and every one of you.

I understand your feelings of betrayal. For twenty-three years I have loved and tried to follow Christ in the Legion. I can say before God, in spite of my many human frailties, I have been faithful. I have also, more than many of you to be honest, gone out on limb after limb, trying to defend Maciel. I have lived my priesthood always with that cloud hanging over me, always having to essentially apologize for being a Legionary. You feel betrayed? You feel rage? I can only say that the rage, and raw emotions that I have felt these past days (the hardest days of my entire life, emotions like I have never experienced) are only a glimpse of the unspeakable hell that victims of priest sexual abuse must go through. My thoughts and my heart have been so often with them these days…

I know that many of your are utterly confused about what you are feeling and about where we go from here. In no particular order, let me offer my advice and counsel as follows:

1. Most of you are going through the stages of mourning. Understand that and know what that means. This is a very useful site.

2. Keep talking to your section directors. Let them know how you feel. Let them know if you are satisfied with their response to you.

3. Many of you might find it to be a wonderfully freeing and healing experience to offer acts of reparation for those suffering the effects of priestly sexual abuse. You might also find it healing to reach out to persons who, in any way, have found themselves hurt by their experiences with the Legion or RC.

4. For your own spiritual needs right now:

a. Remember you are free to speak with anyone, inside or outside the Movement about your pain, your reactions to this tragic news, and for ease of conscience to speak to whomever you believe can best help you at this time. I would encourage you to reach out to and find guidance from priests whose holiness and sound judgment you trust, whether Legionaries or not.

b. Your spiritual experiences—even when they came through the letters of the Founder—are valid, and real. God was working through those instruments. The sad revelations about Maciel do not change that. Try to thank God for the past, and sing his praises for the way he has done in your lives through RC. Prayer of thankfulness will help you. Prayer of thanksgiving for this deliverance he has given us now, and for the purification which we are undergoing will also be very helpful.

c. If you still find the letters of the founder helpful in prayer, feel free to use them. But it is certainly OK to leave them aside. Remember that in many ways, the spirit and charism we have lived is Pauline. Continue to nourish your spirit on the letters of St. Paul.

d. In your meditation, go back to the bedrock truths of your life and ponder them serenely before God and let him use that meditation to soothe your hearts: the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Redemption, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, your Baptism, your call to a more deeply committed Christian life, and a loving meditation ("Mary meditated on all these things in here heart") of all the wonders God has done in your life.

e. I also recommend using The Better Part by Fr. Bartunek, and any other spiritual writings be Legionary priests. You might find those helpful. Your section directors should also be able to point you in the direction of other sources on which to nourish your souls. Share your ideas with each other.

Finally, I encourage you to speak to Legionary leadership, and even in the form of petition letters, demand nothing less than full transparency regarding the case of Fr. Maciel. Demand that Fr. Alvaro seek an independent third party investigation (perhaps in the form of a temporary review board or Visitation team from the holy see) into uncovering any Legionaries who may have been accomplices to Maciel. Demand that a similar body guide Legionary leadership in introducing any needed reforms into the internal culture, methods and religious discipline of the Legion.

And remember: "Entrust your life to the Lord, and He will act."

Let's pray for each other. With all my love, gratitude to all of you for your fidelity.

In Jesus,
Fr. Thomas Berg, LC

If you are looking for the face of the future of the movement - look to Fr. Berg.

Update: Argentine seminary ousts Holocaust-denying bishop

Progress:

Roman Catholic bishop whose denials of the Holocaust led to Vatican demands he recant has been removed as the head of an Argentine seminary.

The ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X said in a statement e-mailed Monday to The Associated Press that it has dismissed British Bishop Richard Williamson as director of its seminary in La Reja, outside Buenos Aires.

"The statements from Monsignor Williamson do not in any way reflect the position of our congregation," said Father Christian Bouchacourt, the society's South American superior. "A Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical authority except on matters concerning faith and morality. Our brotherhood does not claim any authority over other questions." (AP)

Related:

• NYT: Bishop Who Denied Holocaust Ousted
• CNA: Pope Benedict and German Chancellor discuss Holocaust comments (also AP)
• AP: Jewish group optimistic about Vatican-Jewish ties

Maybe this one can be quietly put to bed soon.

Analysis: How do Maciel and the Legionary charism relate?

Canon Lawyer Edward Peters (my father) asks the question that, if Maciel was in fact a criminal, then how is one to understand his charism?

I think it's the most important question of practical theology one can ask in this situation. The claim is being made by Legionary leaders that Maciel's charism, because it has the approval of a Vatican dicastery, no longer relies on Maciel's own person:

"... setting aside questions about what exactly the Legion's "charism" is, Legion spokesmen are invoking the ecclesiastical approval of their charism in the same terms that one sees used to defend the celebration of sacraments by grave sinners, that is, as if dicastery approval of a charism worked ex opere operato to guarantee the authenticity and spiritual fecundity of a given charism. I ask, says who?

For those not familiar with the term ex opere operato, in this case, Peters is claiming that Legionary leaders are saying their charism was transmitted intact regardless of the personal virtue of Maciel (just like the Church teaches sacraments convey grace to the recipient regardless of the minister's personal virtue). However, a charism is not a sacrament, so the question remains open to debate, a debate which Peters takes up next:

"Notwithstanding some authors who think that Roman approval of a religious institute enjoys the certitude of (one level or another) of infallibility, the better opinion is, I think, that ecclesiastical approval of a religious institute's charism is not protected by any level of infallibility. See Avery Dulles, Magisterium (2007) at 78."

That's Cardinal Avery Dulles, the renown theologian, so his opinion holds some serious weight.

Why is this question of Maciel and the Legionary charism important for moving forward? Peters:

"[if Church approval of a charism is not infallible, this] would let us explore the question of the Legion's future with a frankness that would be harder to muster if one feared impugning a determination made by the Church's magisterium."

Here again, the Vatican could provide us clarity. In the meantime, serious debate is welcome.

update: Peter Vere, another canon lawyer, has published his thoughts on these (and related) topics in an interview over at the Life After RC blog. I found several of his points to be helpful.

Vatican leaves door open for Legionary intervention

The substance of this CNA article is that the Vatican is not considering "immediate" action in the wake of the Legionaries' crisis, but the anonymous official does leave the door open:

The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, headed by Cardinal Franc Rodé, is not considering an immediate intervention in the crisis generated by the recent announcement that the deceased founder of the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi, Fr. Marcial Maciel, led a double life and fathered a child in the 1980s.

Cardinal Rode appears a great friend of the Legion. More:

An official from the Congregation who spoke with Catholic News Agency explained Saturday morning that the dicastery – usually known by its short, inaccurate older name, the Congregation for Religious – has no immediate plans to intervene in the Legion of Christ. However, the official said that intervention could happen in the future in “case of necessity.”

Well - I think we are there...

The official explained that the dicastery usually intervenes in religious congregations in two circumstances: when it is requested by the organization itself, or when the internal crisis of an organization is perceived by the Holy See as “impossible to solve by internal means.”

Interesting that the Legion has evidently not asked for an intervention itself, and George Weigel's piece lays out a strong argument that the Legion cannot solve this problem by internal means.

Interesting:

Finally, the official highlighted that the fact that the dicastery is not announcing an intervention “in no way implies a lack of sense of the gravity of the issue.”

“It just means that any step should be decided according to the principles of charity, prudence and justice, moved by the well being of those affected and the common good of the Church, and not in a rush to respond to short-sighted pressure.”

First of all, it's good that the official wishes to convey an appreciation of the gravity of the issue, because up until this point, no official Legionary spokesperson has done so.

Second, the pressures facing the Legion are far more than "short-sighted." I would argue that what has been short-sighted is the response of the Legion to this crisis. At minimum, it would appear to me that the members of Regnum Christi and the Legion are not being well served by their leadership in the short-term, and frankly, that's where they are living.

George Weigel calls for Vatican intervention in Legionary scandal

George Weigel has published an important letter in First Things calling for specific, immediate action to be taken by the Vatican. He finds the official Legionary response, up to this point, to be completely inadequate.

He asks how the good of Legionary members can be saved:

It can only be saved if there is full, public disclosure of Fr. Maciel’s perfidies and if there is a root-and-branch examination of possible complicity in those perfidies within the Legion of Christ. That examination must be combined with a brutally frank analysis of the institutional culture in which those perfidies and that complicity unfolded. Only after that kind of moral and institutional audit has been conducted, and has been seen publicly to be a clean audit, can the Legion of Christ, and the broader Church, face the questions of the Legion’s future

How should this be done specifically? In concrete terms:

... as the flailings and failures of the past ten days have made clear, that audit cannot be conducted by the Legion leadership, which is likely beset by a maelstrom of internal and external pressures. It must be mandated by the pope, and it must be conducted by someone responsible to the pope alone—not responsible to the relevant parts of the Vatican bureaucracy, not responsible to the cardinal secretary of state, but responsible to the pope alone. There is simply no other way open to an accounting that will be both scrupulously honest and publicly credible.

To take an image from corporate law, the Legion of Christ must be immediately put into receivership: A personal delegate, appointed by the pope, must be empowered to take over the governance of the Legion of Christ and to conduct the moral and institutional audit required. The papal delegate would be instructed to report his findings, both interim and final, to the pope alone, and he would be instructed to make recommendations (again, to the pope alone) addressing the possible futures, including dissolution or dissolution-and-reconstitution, of the Legion.

Weigel goes on to respond to the questions that his proposal may raise.

Weigel is by far the most prominant Catholic intellectual and Church expert to call for a Vatican intervention in the internal affairs of the Legionaries.

More as I find it....

Update: Holocaust denier Bp. Williamson will review evidence

The Associated Press:

A bishop who faces a Vatican demand to recant his denial of the Holocaust said he would correct himself if he is satisfied by the evidence, but insisted that examining it "will take time," a German magazine reported Saturday.

Richard Williamson is one of four bishops from the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X whose excommunication was lifted by the Vatican last month. The decision sparked outrage because Williamson had said in a television interview he did not believe any Jews were gassed during the Holocaust.

On Wednesday, the Vatican demanded that Williamson recant his denial before he can be admitted as a bishop into the Roman Catholic Church.

Williamson made clear he does not plan to comply immediately, and rejected a suggestion that he might visit the Auschwitz death camp, the weekly Der Spiegel reported.

"Since I see that there are many honest and intelligent people who think differently, I must look again at the historical evidence," the British bishop was quoted as saying.

"It is about historical evidence, not about emotions," he added, according to the report. "And if I find this evidence, I will correct myself. But that will take time."

Yeah, Google searches can take lots of time, especially when they turn up 28 million hits.

Noted: Zenit picks up two Legionary letters

Just to keep abreast of the situation, the Legionaries' premier international news service Zenit has copied Fr. Berg {update - link fixed} and Fr. Alvaro's (the superior of the congregation's) letters. It still surprises me that there has been no official follow-up from the Legion answering the questions that are still unanswered.

One report of the LC timeline

An AmP reader anonymously contributes their understanding of the LC timeline:

"... at the meeting our section director held this week, he explained that several months ago, the investigation was completed & facts about the affair verified, and at that point, Fr. Alvaro informed the Vatican immediately, received their response ("Tell your people"), & began the process of personally telling his priests about the situation. This process was slow, b/c he really desired to follow the person-to-person methodology we have always had, and which he found to be most fatherly.

This process was fast-forwarded last weekend, when it became clear that the news was about to become public, and he wanted to ensure that all LCs & RC members were informed before it came out in the media. Immediately, the method changed from top-to-individual to phone tree: the many remaining priests & seminarians were informed through the hierarchical structure; section directors informed RC group leaders who called team leaders who personally called all their team members. So TBTG, we all knew before it hit the media (barring a few out-of-towners and/or missed assignments, I'm sure).

Former LC/RC Spokesman for North America apologizes

Jay Dunlap was hired by the Legionaries of Christ in 1998 to respond to the first public allegations of Maciel abuse published in the Hartford Courant and later the National Catholic Reporter:

It is now clear that Father Maciel did in fact abuse his power and abuse young people in his charge. I personally apologize to his victims and to anyone who was misinformed by statements I made, in this forum and in others. How awful for victims to be taken from their families as children, suffer such abuse, and then to be disbelieved!

This paragraph threw me for a loop (underlining mine):

Last month, Cardinal Franc Rode, prefect of the Vatican office that oversees religious congregations like the Legionaries, appeared in several Latin American countries encouraging Legionaries and Regnum Christi members to carry on their service to the Church. He did so fully aware of what Father Maciel had done and what the Legionary leadership was doing in response.

Wait - hold on a second. Cardinal Rode knew what Father Maciel had done? If the cardinal knew a month ago, how did the Legionaries just find out about it? It still seems like we are dealing with conflicting timelines.

More:

The Holy See has the extremely difficult task of trying to keep numerous Legionary institutions from collapsing.

I trust the Holy See realizes that it cannot fulfill this task by only working behind the scenes. Some public statement is necessary.

Conclusion:

The survival of these institutions and the good work they have done depends now upon the sustenance of the Holy Spirit, if the organization can be purged of any elements of the culture of deception which enabled Father Maciel to get away with so much for so long. That purging appears to be underway.

Appears? What information is this based on? I would agree that the most recent statements of Legionary priests have been an improvement upon the ones being made at first, but the leadership of the LC is still maintaining a stony silence.

Despite all my questions, I found this to be a good apology.

An update on the SSPX situation

I blogged extensively on this controversy here. Today, two signs of hope:

• {SSPX is coming around...} Commonweal: Has the purge begun?:

"Not only has the SSPX started removing questionable texts on Jews from their websites, but word is now that clergy who refuse to adopt a new line are also getting the boot. Rorate Caeli cites Italian sources reporting that Father Floriano Abrahamowicz, the SSPX priest responsible for Northeast Italy, was expelled today.

This could get ugly. But it certainly seems to signal that the schismatic Traditionalists of the SSPX may be getting serious about “cleaning” up their act. Could Williamson’s “recantation” be next? And what would Pope Benedict XVI do then?"

{Of problems to have, dealing with a contrite Williamson doesn't strike me as a particularly bad one.}

• {The Vatican is getting it ...} Catholic Culture: Vatican spokesman admits publicity gaffes:

"... Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, conceded that the Holy See has not handle public relations effectively ... [he said] “I think we still have to create a communications culture inside the Curia, where each dicastery communicates by itself, not necessarily thinking of going through the press room or issuing an explanatory note when the issue is complex.”

The director of the Holy See Press Office took aim at Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos and others who were involved in the decision to lift the SSPX bishops’ excommunications. “They didn't take the views of the other bishops enough into account,” he said. “One thing that's certain is that the pope didn't know [about Bishop Williamson’s denial of the Holocaust’s extent]. If someone should have known, it was Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.”

{This is some sign, at least, that those responsible for communicating the pope's message realize that the current modus operandi isn't working. Let's hope the lessons learned from this debacle sink in - deeply.}

OSV's John Norton interviews Legionary Fr. Thomas Williams

Fr. Thomas Williams, LC is the dean of theology for the Legion's pontifical university in Rome.

Excerpts:

Father Williams: We have already begun moving [Maciel's] pictures from the walls. Regarding his writing, it is more complicated since they represent an integral part of the charism of the order, which the Church has approved as authentic.

OSV: On a related note, for the purposes of carrying on the charism of the Legion, how does the congregation do that considering the founder apparently led a double life? How can his teachings on the charism be reliable?

Father Williams: We have the assurance of the Church's magisterium to rely on. A number of cardinals have stepped forward to encourage us to remain strong and keep moving forward, despite the tremendous difficulties.

{snip}

OSV: Is there any consideration at all to dissolve the congregation and refound?

Father Williams: None whatsoever.

Read the full interview here.

As I mentioned earlier, he will be appearing on EWTN tomorrow night at 8pm.

Maciel Meltdown: Day 2

The latest (from newsest --> oldest):

• 4pm - Two LC priests to appear on EWTN this Friday
• 12pm - Fr. Paolo Scarafoni, spokesperson of the Legion in Rome:

"We cannot deny the existence of these facts but we cannot go into detail as we respect the privacy of those involved... We have learnt recently of certain aspects of his life that are very hard to understand, aspects of his life that are not appropriate to the life of a priest." (source)

• Andrew Sullivan picks up my reporting, but gets all the interpretation wrong, as I explain
• Whispers posts on the recent developments and fills in some of the backstory
• Associated Press, briefly: "Spokesman Jim Fair ... declined to comment Wednesday about claims on blogs that Maciel fathered a daughter ... The order's Rome headquarters declined to comment."
• UK blogger Damian Thompson: "The question for this wealthy and well-connected order is: what next? And no one seems to know the answer."
• Reuters covered the story this morning: "News reports and blogs in the Catholic media have said that Maciel, a Mexican, had lived a double life for many years and members of the order had been told privately that he had an affair and fathered at least one child."

This post will be updated throughout the day. Stay tuned.

Yesterday's comprehensive coverage of this story can be viewed here (scroll down the page).

The other story: Pope Benedict and the SSPX

My intensive coverage of the Maciel situation put all other stories on the back burner in the past 48 hours.

But there is something else important happening: the ongoing controversy surrounding Pope Benedict, the SSPX, and Bishop Richard Williamson.

It's another complicated situation, so I'll try to summarize and shed some lights on where things stand now:

Liberal Catholic theologian Hermann Haering's call for the pope to step down, I think, is preposterous.

Things got more serious when German Chancellor Angela Merkel rebuked Pope Benedict and asked him to "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial and that there must be positive relations with the Jewish community overall."

The pope's brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger, shot back: "[the pope] doesn’t need me to defend him. But it angers me how unjust and badly informed the people who are attacking him are."

I'd of course, agree with Fr. Ratzinger. Of course Pope Benedict supports positive relations with the Jews. He's been working for that his entire ecclesiastical and papal career!

So how did we get here? Two things: a) bias against the Church and b) admittedly poor handling by the Vatican. This is not the first time the Vatican has badly bungled the handling of a delicate situation, and it is frustrating - to say the least - that this still regularly happens.

Vatican expert Sandro Magister explains: