Every religious group (or business, corporation, family, agency, team…you name it) develops a certain “public persona” over time, and I would be hard put to name any that didn’t want that public face to be a positive or even (in the case of religious groups) holy one. Ideally, in a Catholic group, that “face” should reflect the image of Christ himself.

But beneath the public persona, every group has a private face, too—the image formed from all the things which only members of that group see. [N.B.: How much a given member sees, particularly in highly structured, hierarchical groups, may depend on his/her place in the group.] The private face, too, should reflect the image of Christ, and when it does not—when members see a repeated pattern of “private face” words and deeds belying “public face” words and deeds, we are looking at a diseased community.

In a truly healthy and holy group, I would submit—once again the word “transparency” leaps to mind”—there ought to be an overall consistency between the public and private faces of a group, particularly in terms of habitual approach, attitude, and methodology. This, even when certain things (say, for “reasons of national security,” or to protect the maturity level of a child) are occasionally better kept behind closed doors. I’m not talking about perfection here, which none of us will see in any group this side of the Beatific Vision, so much as a “habit of being”; but when there is a marked discrepancy between the public and private persona, there exists in the group an unacceptable level of dishonesty, of disrepect for human dignity, and of manipulation. As John Paul II taught us, this is the opposite of charity, of “love”; not “hate”, but use.

When the discrepancy is wholesale, we have a situation of outright hypocrisy, malfeasance, and abuse.

Sometimes the prettifying of a group’s “public face” may involve the tacit cooperation of friendly members of the hierarchy; at other times the hierarchy may not perceive the deception because vigorous pressure has been put on members to keep things mum, usually with the rationalization that “outsiders” (including priests and bishops and popes) “do not understand our vocation.” The hypocrisy, malfeasance, and abuse inherent in the present Maciel/LC situation are obvious on the personal level, of course, and may suggest the existence of some covering-up at high levels within and ourside of the organization; but that is not my main concern. It is my belief, rather, that any future investigation of the LC/RC (or any other ecclesial movement, for that matter) must include the question of public/private face in broader organizational matters; for in groups troubled by scandals like this it would be the exceptional organization that didn’t exhibit analogous patterns of masking all the way through the ranks, and for any number of reasons—say, to prevent disclosures about,

• practices which do not conform to the Code of Canon Law
• practices which blur the line that by Canon Law should separate the exterior and interior forums; the line between group discipline and private conscience and the choice of personal spiritual direction
• practices which would upset family members, if they knew about them
• practices and attitudes which, in effect, set up “parallel churches” and divide Catholics from the local parish communities
• teachings or language which suggest heterodox theological positions
• teachings which confuse Church-sanctioned spiritual teachings with the private political or social beliefs of the Founder
• practices and code language masking inappropriate forms of recruitment and fundraising
• inappropriate expenditures
• inappropriate or heterodox devotions and practices, particularly relating to an excessive veneration of and loyalty to the Founder or the Organization
• the extraction of “vows” or “promises” from recruits, sometimes at a too-early age, which by Canon Law should be under the regulation of the local bishop or the Vatican, but are not.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Here’s how I described, in my novel, the methods used to “mask” my fictional “Student Apostolate of North America.”

For the public view, Peter put his sweetest face forward as he made sure that no one nearby could prove an obstacle to his rule. His statements to the Archdiocese, to visiting prelates and Catholic journalists, remained moderate and submissive. He spoke in glowing terms of continuing his brother’s “important work.” He saved the meat of his new doctrine for the “inner circle.” Thus to outsiders and visitors Krato spoke in treacly terms of community, of faith, of charity. To the inner circle he spoke the language of combat and discipline, of leverage and pressure. He spoke the language of Power….

Unquestioning obedience quickly became the sole criterion for preferment at SANA. From the beginning Peter kept tabs on everyone by a stooge system worthy of a federal penitentiary or the Nixon White House. Having spent many years in English public schools and Canadian military academies, I am an old sweat at that particular game, and more than familiar with the techniques. For example, Peter sent everyone out “two by two,” whether to the grocery store, to class, or to the loo. Parents and guardians, such as they were, were surprised to find their sons coming home, on their increasingly infrequent visits, with at least one fellow SANA member invariably in tow. This measure was implemented primarily to prevent “imprudent disclosures” about the newly-reformed way of life at SANA House. The idea was that there would always be someone standing over your shoulder to hush you up if you spoke out of turn, or rat on you if you sneaked a smoke….

By the time I left, some members were making private “promises” of celibacy for increasingly extended periods of time, with a view to a possible permanent “Covenant.” Krato didn’t use the word “vow,” of course, because vows are governed by the Code of Canon Law and Archdiocesan oversight would interfere with his grace as Founder. Notwithstanding its non-canonical status, however, Peter managed to impose the concept of these promises with a feat of verbal gymnastics that I am unable to replicate, except to say that it communicated Krato’s belief that, if anything, such a promise would be “spiritually” if not “formally” even more binding on our souls than the vow of a cloistered religious.

To review methods and disciplines in other (real) groups, many of which are variations on a theme of manipulation known to cultish or abusive groups of every description, I recommend looking the sites of ex-LC/RC folks, such as ReGAIN and Life-after-RC.

For a good site on ways that “cults” are similar, and how to spot them, go here. It includes a contribution by canon lawyer Pete Vere.

Next time: The “false conscience.”