There are many excellent posts and articles being published right now on this ecclesial catastrophe, but I’d like to draw readers’ attention to a lively forum being hosted on Catholic Exchange (Part 1 and Part 2.) I’ve logged on to participate in the forum discussion on the topic, but would like to quote a portion of my post here, by way of introduction:

Thank you all for a lively and important discussion. I am encouraged that the revelations about Fr. Maciel’s double life are finally beginning to throw light on the larger question of what the revelations—the fact that they were covered up for so long, and that many who tried to get the word out earlier were dismissed or vilified—also reveal about the LC/RC “methodology”.

But I think there is a larger question still.

The fact is, whatever the motives, goodness and generosity of many many members, some of the darker sides to the LC/RC’s “methodology” would seem to resemble practices that can be studied (and have often been condemned) in groups ranging from overly controlling charismatic communities of the eighties, to Traditionalist societies, to parishes under the shadow of abusive priests, to polygamous sects, to the New Age cult that was founded last Tuesday in Big Sur.

The theologies and spiritualities of the various groups may be quite different, and the degree of personal damage suffered may range from faith-testing to completely toxic, but the techniques of manipulation and control are surprisingly similar. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

What this suggests to me is that if the promise of the new ecclesial movements is to be fulfilled, it is not enough for the Church to come to the rescue ad hoc, and worse yet, years after the fact, when so much damage has already been done. There need to be preventative measures in place—a Church-wide “methodology,” if you will, or protocol for spotting abusive situations in the making, and dealing with them before the reach the point of meltdown and scandal.

Just my $.02, but a good start might be a place (office, person, ombudsman) in every diocese or religious institute where Catholics can go to air concerns without fear of reprisal; can go to take counsel with a spiritually mature priest or laymen who is trained in Canon Law, who understands the Do’s and Dont’s of the Internal and External Forums, and who does not answer to the “locals”, whoever they may be. Such a person or office would be better able, it seems to me, to spot the emergence of troubling patterns in a parish, lay group, diocese, or religious institute; for finding ways to help the groups (and their leaders!) make adjustments earlier on, before they become entrenched “structures of sin.”

I’ll be posting more later today on the “structure of sin” concept in relation to dysfunctional ecclesial groups.