MERGED Maciel, the Legion, the Vatican and the Money

  • Thread starter Thread starter anode
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
momor said:
What is it that you question about the reporting? The facts regarding Fr. Maciel are well documented elsewhere and Pope Benedict did ‘retire’ him after he became pope. I think the reporting is actually pretty positive toward Pope BXVI. It’s Pope JPII and others close to him that are being questioned.
Click to expand...
I question just how much JPII actually knew. The NCR report seems to imply he was directly involved, yet I do not buy that. JPII had an amazing affection for the young, the last thing he would want would be for the young to suffer if he could do something about it. People judge things of 30 years ago with a 2010 lens and 2010 sense of the Church and culture–they do not bother to think about the structure of the Church, nor about how the culture was at that time and how things like abuse were generally handled.
 
irishpatrick said:
**I question just how much JPII actually knew. **The NCR report seems to imply he was directly involved, yet I do not buy that. JPII had an amazing affection for the young, the last thing he would want would be for the young to suffer if he could do something about it. People judge things of 30 years ago with a 2010 lens and 2010 sense of the Church and culture–they do not bother to think about the structure of the Church, nor about how the culture was at that time and how things like abuse were generally handled.
Click to expand...
I question that as well. It cannot be denied that the build up and explosion of the abuse crisis in the US happened during his papacy. Was it lack of knowledge on his part? If so, that indicates a seriously broken system of communication among the hierarchy. I shudder to think it was known but kept from, ignored, or covered up by JPII. But what is happening now shows the past wisdom of the Church in requiring that 50 years pass before declaring someone a saint.
 
irishpatrick said:
Nonsense. Those Priests were expected to remain celibate after they had fallen and were so-called healed of their problems. The truth is, in most of those cases we have now learned that people are easily healed of those sorts of perversions. A Catholic in pew who sins by using a condom is expected to cease using the condom and turn back to Christ. Those Priests are no different, not then, and not now. They were not defrocked because it was thought they were healed, or could be healed and that they would then remain celibate as they had vowed.
Click to expand...
They were expected to remain celibate - are you serious? I guess those mental health experts had “cured” pedophilia before had they? This is also a criminal matter, not simply a breaking of vows; did mental health experts also substitute for law enforcement? How does that compare to traditional (as in handed down from earliest times) handling of these matters in the Church? The more I participate in these discussions the more I realize this problem is not about some few people who sinned or made mistakes - the problem is widespread spiritual blindness sorely in need of healing.

BTW you still have not addressed why the Church changed from traditional defrocking to relying on mental health experts; but then again, maybe I really don’t want to see you attempt that one…
 
momor said:
I question that as well. It cannot be denied that the build up and explosion of the abuse crisis in the US happened during his papacy. Was it lack of knowledge on his part? If so, that indicates a seriously broken system of communication among the hierarchy. I shudder to think it was known but kept from, ignored, or covered up by JPII. But what is happening now shows the past wisdom of the Church in requiring that 50 years pass before declaring someone a saint.
Click to expand...
That is actually not quite true. The number of abuses peaked in 1980-81, and then they started to come down sharply until in the early to mid-90s they were quite low. That all happened during the first half of JPII’s Pontificate. Let us not forget that JPII was installed in 1978, just two years before the peak abuse happened, and then the abuses started to plummet. The question really should be: what did JPII do behind the scenes to bring the abuse back down? If people want to try to bash JPII, then they should look at the actual numbers as given in the John Jay report.

Go here for more:

jfpblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/some-rational-perspective-regarding-catholic-priests-sexual-abuse/
 
seekerz said:
They were expected to remain celibate - are you serious? I guess those mental health experts had “cured” pedophilia before had they? This is also a criminal matter, not simply a breaking of vows; did mental health experts also substitute for law enforcement? How does that compare to traditional (as in handed down from earliest times) handling of these matters in the Church? The more I participate in these discussions the more I realize this problem is not about some few people who sinned or made mistakes - the problem is widespread spiritual blindness sorely in need of healing.

BTW you still have not addressed why the Church changed from traditional defrocking to relying on mental health experts; but then again, maybe I really don’t want to see you attempt that one…
Click to expand...
Your clear hatred of the Church blinds you to the many times I have explained this to you, or else you just simply refuse to hear as I said before.

The faith is perfect, the people in the Church are NOT. Yes, those mental health professionals did in fact release many of those Priests back to ministry, and during those days the western culture (from which Priests, and Bishops come from) were taught that mental health professionals were always to be listened to, that they knew more than the rest of us about the state of a given person’s mental health. In other words, if a MHP said a Priest is fine to return, than he was returned. Today that would be handled far differently because we have learned that MHP often have no more clue than you or I, and the victims and the Church have been seriously wounded thanks to the reports of those MHPs.

MHPs do not replace the law. Yet, in most cases there were never any charges of any kind filed, and in most cases no legal reports of any kind were made. In fact, many of the victims did not report the abuses until 20,30 and even 40 years later, long after any chance for the Church or police to do any meaningful investigations (some of the accused Priests were dead or quite old and there were few or no witnesses).

Today, we are called to believe the words of a victim stating something happened to them 30 years ago, when there is no way to prove or disprove what they say, and there are hundreds of millions of dollars being paid on simple verbal accounts from people who claim to be victims. Never before have I ever seen such a properance of guilt placed on any institution with so little real evidence. It is basically all hearsay, and much of it is 30 year old hearsay.

As for the defrocking issue. I answered that. If the Church is convinced that a Priest is healed and has fully repented, then it will not defrock the Priests. Just as if a lay Catholics gets an abortion, they too can be forgiven.
 
To all,

Thanks for the chats. I have spent waaaay too much time here today. I am outa here for the weekend and will likely return some time next week, unless I come to my senses and leave for much longer.

Thanks again, God bless, and take advantage of Divine Mercy Sunday. 🙂
 
Oh boy. I just wrote a long post advocating peace and harmony, and lost it–the post, that is.

Calm down everyone, and consider the following:

In a nutshell:

The NCR article does not blame either Ratzinger-Benedict or JPII. It lays out its well-researched facts. The writer interviewed many ex-seminarians, some currently priests in and out of the Legion, and many others, in the US, Mexico and Rome. This is part I of a two-part article. The interviewees are very specific in their descriptions of Maciel’s bribes and influence. He targeted three people especially:

Sodano, then Secy of State, now dean;

Sollano, then head of the Cong. of Consecr. Institutes and Soc of Apostolic Life, which oversaw the Legion;

…and Msgr. Dziwicz, a personal friend of JPII, his personal sec’y who had his own bedroom in the Apostolic Palace. Apparently, Maciel spent a lot of time and effort on the Dziwicz.

…with envelopes stuffed with cash for their ‘private charities’, opulent Xmas gift baskets, filled with prized Spanish hams (yes, a great $$$ delicacy) and fine wines; lavish parties, including one for Sodano when he became cardinal.

RATZINGER REFUSED THE CASH. He was not fooled by all of this.

However, some of the blame comes uncomfortably close to JPII.

HOWEVER, consider the following:

JPII had supported the Legion, but now he was* old and ailing–*not only in body but in mind–he had Parkinson’s Disease, which affects both movement and mentation. Look at the picture at the top of the article–that was JP in 2000–he died in 2005. He didn’t want to hear about the Legion, which he had so championed, with its dozens of ordinations at a time–and Msgr. Dziwicz didn’t want to tell JP how nice Maciel had been to him.

JPII could hardly have been blamed for not moving against Maciel.

It is true, I believe, that Ratzinger should have moved faster in the Milwaukee case, and been more involved in the Munich case, but by 2001, he was moving with decision and vigor. However, Maciel was protected by powerful friends in the Vatican and the pope was ill. Ratzinger couldn’t act until he became pope.

I do think that all of this does raise the question of how long an ailing, elderly pope should be expected to continue–another question.

The final verdict on the Legion is still out–it’s being investigated. However, Southern Catholic College, a Legion college, closed yesterday. No money.
 
Investigative reporting is different then an just op-ed piece in a journal or newspaper. When you start naming names you better have credible reports, documentation and witnesses or else you will be sued for libel. I don’t believe the NCR would leave themselves legally liable in such a situation if they didn’t have the correct facts.
 
The future Pope Benedict XVI refused to touch the Legionaries’ money when other cardinals were apparently stuffing their pockets for “charitable causes” – and he also ignored John Paul’s wishes and moved against Maciel, to the fury of the latter’s allies, who included Sodano and the late Pope’s secretary, Mgr Stanislaw Dziwisz, now Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow.

The Vatican has also responded VATICAN: BENEDICT XVI ADVANCED CASE AGAINST MACIEL - Spokesman Refutes Accusations Made in German Press
 
AfarGirl said:
The future Pope Benedict XVI refused to touch the Legionaries’ money when other cardinals were apparently stuffing their pockets for “charitable causes” – and he also ignored John Paul’s wishes and moved against Maciel, to the fury of the latter’s allies, who included Sodano and the late Pope’s secretary, Mgr Stanislaw Dziwisz, now Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow.

The Vatican has also responded VATICAN: BENEDICT XVI ADVANCED CASE AGAINST MACIEL - Spokesman Refutes Accusations Made in German Press
Click to expand...
No one is including Ratzinger in Maciel’s gravy train. This is clearly stated in Part I of the two-part article.

BUT another one reportedly on the receiving end of Maciel’s largess is—Archbishop Rode, who became head of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in 1997. This is the congregation that oversees the Legion of Christ. But Archbishop Rode is said to have received a* lot* from Maciel, including a trip to Cancun, after he attended a Legion-sponsored congress in Atlanta, which included Jeb Bush. It should be possible to confirm the Cancun bit. This means that Rode was on the receiving end of favors from someone whose order he was supposed to oversee!
 
Knowing I will be pounced on, I couldn’t help but wonder who; between NCR and Maciel, has done the most harm to the Church over time.

On the assumption that there is some truth to NCR’s report (and I do not consider it necessarily reliable in all respects) there is no serious question that Maciel also did some very good things as well as some very bad things. Not sure whether NCR has overbalanced its harm with good, and am inclined to doubt it.

Maybe Maciel did all that stuff and was a serious sinner. I guess, in time, we’ll see. But it does seem like his organization generated a lot of vocations as well as some worthy enterprises.

One might remember that even Gollum was the proximate cause of something good.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Knowing I will be pounced on, I couldn’t help but wonder who; between NCR and Maciel, has done the most harm to the Church over time.

On the assumption that there is some truth to NCR’s report (and I do not consider it necessarily reliable in all respects) there is no serious question that Maciel also did some very good things as well as some very bad things. Not sure whether NCR has overbalanced its harm with good, and am inclined to doubt it.

Maybe Maciel did all that stuff and was a serious sinner. I guess, in time, we’ll see. But it does seem like his organization generated a lot of vocations as well as some worthy enterprises.

One might remember that even Gollum was the proximate cause of something good.
Click to expand...
Gollum was a character in a novel. He wasn’t real.

The end does not justify the means.

There were few with whom he came into contact that Maciel didn’t damage. He is alleged to have molested 30 seminarians–vocations lost for the most part and many of those lives destroyed. He damaged the cardinals that he tempted; his children-two of his sons made sure the third was never alone with him; those benefactors whose money he stole–many of the LC institutions will be closed, I am sure. What family would send their son to one of those schools? All of those priests and brothers, even honorable ones, --discredited. If these religious want to leave, where will they go? Many orders probably won’t want to have them.
 
Maciel did a tremendous amount of damage, and now knowledge of all that sin is harming the thousands who trusted him and gave him money.

As for Ratzinger, I’m glad he took no money from Fr. Maciel, though if he thought it was wrong, did he say anything to the Cardinals who took so much of it? I hope so.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t think you understood the book, or why some novels stand the test of time.
Click to expand...
The Lord of the Rings is not relevant to this discussion.

It is interesting that Cardinal Ratzinger undertook the investigation of Maciel and, indirectly, of his order. * Cardinal Rode*, the head of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which oversees Marciel’s order, apparently wasn’t part of the investigation. It’s hard to believe, in a small town like the Vatican, that Cardinal Ratzinger, a very astute man, didn’t know what was going on with Maciel and his pets in the curia.

Believe be, Maciel did* immense* damage. It will take a long time for the church to realize all the damage done and recover from it.
 
anode said:
The Lord of the Rings is not relevant to this discussion.

It is interesting that Cardinal Ratzinger undertook the investigation of Maciel and, indirectly, of his order. * Cardinal Rode*, the head of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which oversees Marciel’s order, apparently wasn’t part of the investigation. It’s hard to believe, in a small town like the Vatican, that Cardinal Ratzinger, a very astute man, didn’t know what was going on with Maciel and his pets in the curia.

Believe be, Maciel did* immense* damage. It will take a long time for the church to realize all the damage done and recover from it.
Click to expand...
Some novels contain principles that are instructive, and that’s why they stand the test of time.

The above kind of sounds like you are blaming the Pope for Maciel’s wrongdoing; an absolutely unproved assumption. It really does amaze me how, in our tattletale, tabloid era, people do not seem to recognize that there truly are sinners among us; all of us, really; that sin is destructive but that (as little as we, in our smug self-righteousness have faith in it) God does bring good from evil. But it can be more entertaining, certainly, to focus on the evil and try to spread it among the innocent as widely as we can, particularly if one of the innocent has called upon us to be better than we are.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Some novels contain principles that are instructive, and that’s why they stand the test of time.

The above kind of sounds like you are blaming the Pope for Maciel’s wrongdoing; an absolutely unproved assumption. It really does amaze me how, in our tattletale, tabloid era, people do not seem to recognize that there truly are sinners among us; all of us, really; that sin is destructive but that (as little as we, in our smug self-righteousness have faith in it) God does bring good from evil. But it can be more entertaining, certainly, to focus on the evil and try to spread it among the innocent as widely as we can, particularly if one of the innocent has called upon us to be better than we are.
Click to expand...
I am not blaming the pope, not Benedict, anyway. I think that he was on to Maciel early on, but could do nothing because of Maciel’s influential friends in the Vatican: Lodano, who received many gifts, favors and money; Sollano, apparently the same, who died in 1994; and Msgr., now Cardinal, Dziwicz, personal secretary to JPII, whom Maciel assiduously courted. Dziwicz was a close friend of JPII, from Poland, who lived in the Apostolic Palace, the official papal residence. He had the pope’s ear, and Maciel had his. JPII was very impressed with the large ordinations of LC staged in Rome, with lots of LC priests and seminarians. As JPII aged, he did not appear to be very receptive to Ratzinger’s comments or concern about Maciel. JPII appointed the LC head of Jerusalem’s Notre Dame Center and blessed Maciel. Ratzinger began the investigation of Maciel before JPII died and censured him as pope.

But Maciel flourished under the aging JPII. That was the problem. And Maciel and the Legion did grave destruction to the church, to vocations, to seminarians, and to the *reputation *of the church. Anti-Catholics couldn’t have dreamt up a better scenario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top