Join Debra Murphy February 26 through March 5, 2010, for the Catholic Writers Conference Online, organized by the Catholic Writers Guild. Debra will be leading a five-day workshop, “Ten Commandments for Catholic Fiction Writers”, in which she will share some of the insights and resources she’s gleaned from several decades of reading, writing, editing, and publishing Catholic fiction.

There will be a number of workshops and pitch sessions—opportunities to pitch your work, fiction and non-fiction, to editors. Everything is conducted online, so you never have to leave the comfort of your home. Best of all, registration is FREE.

Continue reading

First published last winter in Second Spring Journal, Debra’s article, “A Christian looks at the fiction of Ian McEwan”, is now available online at CatholicExchange.

Here’s how the article begins:

Two things need to be gotten out of the way before anyone attempts to address the fiction of English novelist Ian McEwan in a disapproving vein: First, he is one of the most acclaimed writers of our time; Second, unless your name happens to be, oh, John Updike, it is almost certain that McEwan is a better writer than you are.

In other words, one had best proceed with some humility, and I do. Rightly regarded as one of the finest stylists in the English language—McEwan’s prose is as perfectly calibrated as a Swiss watch, or a time bomb―his Booker Prize win in 1998, though for one of his fluffier little books, Amsterdam, was nonetheless not entirely misplaced. Sentence for sentence, it simply doesn’t get much better.

For the rest of the article, click here.

Continue reading

I will once again be participating in the Southern Oregon Book & Author Fair on Saturday, November 21 in the 2nd floor ballroom of the Ashland Springs Hotel in beautiful downtown. Ashland. I’ll be signing and selling copies of The Mystery of Things, chatting with my fellow regional authors and book lovers, and generally enjoying a day of bookish kanoodling.

Though this is (if memory serves) my fourth time round with the book fair, it will be the first time as an Ashlander, which has allowed me to participate more with behind-the-scenes preparations. Specifically, I’ve been building the book fair’s new website, which is where you should go for more info if you’re thinking of attending!

With something like sixty authors in attendance, It will be a great way to start your Christmas shopping for all those book lovers among your friends and family!

Continue reading

Many thanks to those who have commented on previous posts, especially the former LC/RC members. Several of the comments provide lengthy and disturbing examples of attempts to impose a “false conscience” in a group situation, in blatant violation of Christian morality and canon law, and with the apparent intent to mislead “outsiders”, even the hierarchy.

As I have been proposing in this series, these types of uncanonical practices are, alas, hardly exclusive to the Legionaries or Regnum Christi. They flourish in other movements as well and carry the same potential for serious abuse. Even when the abuse does not reach the extreme of covering sexual crimes, the damage done to individual Christians—to their faith, conscience, and trust in the goodness of God—can be severe. The fact that the patterns of abuse can go on for years, without ecclesial intervention (whether because of ignorance, or indecision, or turning a blind eye because “so much good is being done”), extends the damage to the whole Church.

The crux of the problem of the creation of “false conscience” in abusive movements is the attempt to impose a model of religious obedience that in any given situation trumps all other considerations, including the Church’s own standards for operating set down in canon law,  obligations due legitimate authority “outside” the movement, whether ecclesial or secular, and even Church teachings and the plain meaning of the Gospel. In a manner reminiscent of war criminals excusing their behavior with the “I was just obeying orders”, abusive spiritual leaders will often misappropriate and exaggerate concepts of religious obedience for their own ends—e.g., by taking literally the Ignatian dictum that one should “be a corpse in the hands of his superiors.” In so doing, abusive organizations put their members in the absurd and spiritually damaging situation of being made to feel guilty for doing good or for refusing to do evil; for following one’s conscience, even when one’s conscience is in accord with the teachings of Christ and the Church. Like Cardinal Newman, who in spite of all his learning and wisdom was troubled by the deeply ingrained “false conscience” that the pope was the Antichrist—this, for years after he knew on every rational and theological level that it was nonsense—it may take years for the victim of an abusive organization to free himself emotionally and spiritually from the truly evil notion that one can do no evil as long as it is commanded by a superior and is intended for the futherance of an organization which aims to “save souls”.

As a reminder that the Legionaries are far from being the only group accused of this kind of warped and warping formation, I’d like to share a friend’s story told me some years ago, which occured in a different movement.

A well-educated cradle Catholic who had undergone an intense “reversion” experience, my young friend joined a Catholic lay organization with canonical status and an evangelistic mission. Eventually he took a paid position at the organization’s headquarters. This involved uprooting his young family to another state; but though initially excited to be given the privilege of earning a living, however modest, while working “for the Church”, the young man quickly discovered, however, that in this new ecclesial movement, twelve and fourteen hour work days, six and even seven days a week were the norm. The young man’s work was largely oriented towards recruitment and fundraising activities, and the long hours were intersperse with lengthy chapel prayers and retreats, led by the group’s Founder, whose primary purpose at the pulpit seemed to be to stir his followers to increasing levels of commitment and obedience to “the charism of the Founder”. At all times, what “was good for the organization” was equated with what was good for the Church.

Whatever the Founder’s “charism”, however, far from inducing a joyous or prayerful Christian atmosphere in the organization, the Founder’s temperament, even at the lectern, was so angry, negative and paranoid in tone that work became a living Purgatory—this, while the Founder waxed thoughtful, meditative, pious, and self-deprecating among visiting prelates or long-distance members on retreat. According to my young friend, the “cognitive dissonance” he experienced on a daily basis was acute.

Moreover, as the young man (and others who worked at the center) soon learned, the Founder’s strict Catholic faith did not prevent him from”playing hard ball”, as he liked to put it, both within the organization, in his treatment of underlings, and in business dealings with members or vendors in the local and wider Catholic community. This “hard ball” was excused by comments like, “even the saints had faults”, or “if you think this is tough, try the Legionaries or Opus Dei”, or by a constant name-dropping of all the ecclesial higher-ups who supported the organization’s mission, but who (of course) had no idea how things were run on the ground. (Visiting clergy and hierarchy were kept busy doing promotional video shoots and steered clear of potential contacts with lower-rung members who could not be trusted to be discreet.)

According to the young man, the Founder once claimed that “24 hours of a member’s day belong to the organization”. He made the message stick by putting  families “under obedience” to send their children to certain schools, or to live in the neighborhood of his choice. The primary role of spouses and families, according to the Founder, was to “free up the member for his vocation”, primarily by not complaining when wife and children never saw their husband/father. Single or married, all members were admonished never to discuss group issues with “outsiders”, even their parish priests in the confessional.

Eventually, the Founder began choosing members’ “spiritual advisors” for them, and often this person, usually a layman, was also the member’s work supervisor. As may be imagined, our young man began to feel as if a noose were tightening around his neck, and that of his entire family, and began to question whether the organization was as much “of the Holy Spirit” as he had originally thought. When the young man discovered, much to his Founder’s chagrin, what was in the code of canon law about how ecclesial movements should be run, or how the volunteers under his supervision should be treated, he began to see the handwriting on the wall. In this troubled state of mind he prayed for guidance, for some “sign” as to what he should do, especially since he had learned to be afraid, given the Founder’s tendency to make public Judases out of anyone who crossed him, of what would happen if he tried to leave. In desperation, the young man began a nine-day novena to the Divine Mercy.

While this was taking place, the young man had been set to work on an advertising insert for the organization, to be placed in a widely circulated Catholic newspaper. Part of a very expensive media campaign, the group’s Founder was very excited about the fundraising possibllities from the insert, and was expecting a large return on the organization’s investment. But in the course of his work, the young man had been warned by the advertising specialist who was printing the insert, and who had much experience with Catholic media campaigns, that such inserts rarely produced enough even to cover expenses. The young man informed the leader of the advertiser’s warning, both in person and in a written memo, and the potential for failure was discussed in meetings with the Founder and several of the administrative staff; but the leader overuled all objections, so convinced was he that God was going to bless the group with a great fundraising success.

The media insert did indeed turn out to be a miserable failure in terms of fundraising, and the organization was suddenly faced with thousands of dollars of debt, some of it owed to the newspaper, some of it to the advertiser who had printed the piece. Rather than accept the consequences of his executive decision, however, the Founder tried to blame the failure on his staff’s lack of faith and negative attitude. Then he ordered my young friend to write a letter, in the young man’s name, not the Founder’s, stating that the advertiser—the very man who had warned them all of the likelihood of failure if fundraising was the objective— had given him “positive assurances” that the organization would at least get back its investment on the project. My young friend, who believed that the Founder was intending the proposed letter as a preliminary to refusing to pay what was owed, and possibly even to setting him up as a “fall guy” if things devolved into legal action, reminded the Founder that not only was what he was suggesting a lie, but that the advertiser was himself a good Catholic and conscientious business man with a young family to support, and shouldn’t be out thousands of dollars because of the organization’s actions.

Notwithstanding, the Founder insisted that the letter he was asking for was all “standard business practice” and that the young man should be able to write the letter in good conscience. (The Founder, by the way, had recently made himself the young man’s “spiritual adviser” as well as his boss.)

This confrontation took place on the last day of our young man’s novena to the Divine Mercy. As dreadful as it was, he was almost relieved to receive so clear a sign as to the nature of his situation, and whether something was terribly wrong in that organization, and he realized he needed to figure out how to get out of there as soon as possible. He refused to write the letter, of course, and told the Founder, who was not pleased, that if he felt that was the truth in his conscience, he would have to write the letter himself. (He never did, as far as my young friend knew, nor did he ever find out what went down with the advertising debt.)

I don’t want to make this episode sound like it was a simple matter of conscience for our young group member, because by his account, it was excruciating, a true dark night of the soul. He was only able to “do the numbers” finally about the organization because a situation had arisen with a (to him) crystal clear moral resolution, whatever his Founder’s insistence that it was an ordinary business matter, or that it was spiritual pride on his part to insist on his own discernment over that of the Founder of an organization that enjoyed so much ecclesial support. But by this time my young friend had already given several years of his (and his family’s) life to the organization, and the pressure subsequently put on him, before he could finally extricate himself, was intense. It included variations on shunning, the back-chatted circulation of calumnies, and even the suggestion on the part of a priest attached to the group that the young man needed an exorcism to dispel a spirit of rebellion. (This same priest, who reported directly to the Founder, had a disturbing tendency to ask my young friend, during their confessions/conferences, whether “we are still in the seal of the confessional”. On at least one occasion my friend heard the Founder repeat something to him that he had only told the priest, and in what he thought had been the context of confession.)

After that, the young man told me, he was in so much spiritual pain that the next time he went to Mass, when he remembered that his Founder (and the too-compliant priest) went to Communion every day,  he could barely summon the will to go to Commuunion himself, and the Body of Christ tasted like ashes on his tongue.

(Some of my readers may recognize part of this from my novel: the young man’s story made such an impression on me that I ended up using it in a fictionalized form. I mean, who could make this stuff up?)

I’m not sure what religion this is, but anyone who thinks that it is in this manner that souls will be led to a salvific encounter with Christ are tragically mistaken. Moreover, movements such as these, however much they tout their spiritual success, tend to display a pattern of revolving-door memberships, a small cadre (“Gideon’s Army”) of no-matter-what devotés, and a trail behind them littered with spiritual and psychological casualties—ex-members who are too battered or frightened to raise the general alarm, and wouldn’t know how to do so even if they had the will for it. The problem is, too many of our young people and laity, even priests, are simply not well formed enough (outside the hothouse environment of the movement itself) to discern the difference between true religious obedience and the abnegation of one’s personal spiritual or moral duty when a “superior” comes between.

I’d like to close with another quote from Cardinal Newman, this from his Idea of a University, in which he argues, among other things, for the importance of education and true intellectual and spiritual formation for Catholic laymen—something which was in short supply in the Church of his day, and is still, if today’s confusion over the Maciel scandal and abusive practices in various Catholic movements is any indication:

It were well if none remained boys all their lives; but what more common than the sight of grown men, talking on political or moral or religious subjects, in that offhand, idle way, which we signify by the word unreal? “That they simply do not know what they are talking about” is the spontaneous silent remark of any man of sense who hears them. Hence such persons have no difficulty in contradicting themselves in successive sentences, without being conscious of it. Hence others, whose defect in intellectual training is more latent, have their most unfortunate crotchets, as they are called, or hobbies, which deprive them of the influence which their estimable qualities would otherwise secure. Hence others can never look straight before them, never see the point, and have no difficulties in the most difficult subjects. Others are hopelessly obstinate and prejudiced, and, after they have been driven from their opinions, return to them the next moment without even an attempt to explain why. Others are so intemperate and intractable that there is no greater calamity for a good cause than that they should get hold of it.

Continue reading

Most Catholics know they need to educate themselves about their faith; but surely one of the major lessons to be learned from the Maciel scandal and the various controversies over practices in the LC/RC and other new ecclesial movements is that we should also make the effort to familiarize ourselves with Canon Law. One of the best introductions to that challenging subject is Pete Vere’s two-volume Surprised by Canon Law. Hoping to get some clarification on canon law as it relates to the crisis in the LC/RC, I put the following questions to Pete, and he has very kindly responded with his usual charity, thoroughness, and good sense:

Murphy: The new ecclesial movements that have developed in the last fifty years have been a great gift to the Church, particularly, I think, for lay people seeking a greater sense of community with other Catholics with whom they share a spiritual sensibility or sense of personal vocation. But the downside, because these are indeed “new” movements,  has been a certain “Wild West” atmosphere; enthusiasm, immaturity,  charismatic leadership, and a belief that the group (or leader) has received a special grace from God have also occasioned problematic practices, disciplines, devotions, and attitudes surprisingly resistant, at times, to legitimate ecclesial oversight. What do you think has enabled this within the context of canon law?

Vere: This is something the Church has witnessed throughout her history. New movements have always arisen in response to different situations facing the Church. As new needs arise, so too do new movements. For example, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic were contemporaries responding to the lukewarmness that had set into Medieval Catholic society.

The 20th Century saw an onslaught of secularism and atheism within society. The Church was not immune from the effects of what was happening in society. This is seen, for example, by the number of pro-abortion Catholic politicians as well as Catholics who practice contraception. Thus several new movements arose to present clear, orthodox Catholic teaching in a world that would prefer to ignore God.

Canon law has historically been more reactive than proactive in some aspects of its response. Canonists cannot predict what new charism or canonical structures the Holy Spirit will introduce to the Church. As one of my professors once joked, the Holy Spirit keeps canon lawyers in business. Whenever we finally have everything sorted into nice neat categories, He comes along and introduces something new. For example, the Franciscans and Dominicans broke the previous practice of incardinating – that is, tying their members – to a specific monastery. It was through these two orders that the idea of incardination to a religious order, rather than a geographical location, was introduced.

Likewise, Opus Dei introduced the structure of personal prelature. In Canada, the Companions of the Cross form seminarians in parishes, rather than in the seminary. All of these structures were innovative ideas at the time, based upon the charism of the movement through which the Holy Spirit inspired a structure previously unforseen by canon law.

On the other hand, not all new ideas are healthy. Some are quite dangerous to the spiritual welfare of the individual, and must be rooted out. Canon law affords the competent Church authorities the power to discern what is from God and worth keeping, and what is problematical and poses a danger to the faithful.

Murphy: What canon law is presently in place relevant to the new ecclesial movements, and do you think they are sufficient for the problems at hand?

Vere: Canon laws have different levels of approval, so that a new movement’s charism is continuously tested, and re-examined in light of the Church and her needs. For example, a movement will generally start as a private association of the faithful, which means the membership retains hold of the group’s possession should the group fail. From there it may receive approval as a public association of the faithful, where its possessions become the property of the Church in case the Church needs to intervene. Once a certain stability and membership is reached, if the group wishes for a deeper relationship between members, it may become an institute of consecrated life (religious order, secular institute, or society of apostolic life) of diocesan rite. And once another stability and level of membership is attained, it can then become an institute of consecrated life of pontifical rite. In Surprised by Canon Law II, my co-author and I devote an entire chapter to explaining the processes and various differences between these different types of structure within the Church. Suffice to say, at each level the Church is investigating and re-evaluating the movement’s charism.

Having said that, there are some warning signs that a movement is either not from God, or seriously troubled. These warning signs are not law in the strict sense of legislation, but more common sense based upon the Church’s historical experience with new movements. With the help of one of my former professors who specializes in canon law as it applies to religious life, I’ve assembled the warning signs into an essay published here.

Murphy: Was anything lacking in canon law, or lacking in the implementation of canon law, that would allow (for example) a group as large and lauded as the LC/RC to  reach such a crisis point? In your view, are there any additions to canon law regarding ecclesial movement which you think might be appropriate?

Vere: I don’t think there was something lack in the law so much as lacking in the application of the law. The allegations against Fr. Maciel and criticism of certain aspects of LC/RC go back decades. However, everyone was looking at some of the discrepancies in the testimony of Fr. Maciel’s initial accusers. This happens when someone is victim to abuse, psychologists have told me. Victims of abuse apparently think with a different part of their brain, so their experience does not always come out in the correct chronology, or certain details get fragmented and confused. Not being a psychologist I don’t understand the details. Nor do I have access to the details of Rome’s first investigation. However, it is too easy in these situations to simply dismiss the accusation as false, which may be what happened. Today, especially after the recent sexual misconduct crisis to hit the Church, I think we have a better understanding of the victim’s psychology.

Also, people were looking at the good fruits of the LC/RC — lots of vocations to the priesthood, schools, tens of thousands of orthodox Catholic laity — and saying how could any of this negative stuff be true? Unfortunately, abusers aren’t concerned with orthodoxy or heterodoxy. They’re concerned with gaining, protecting and concealing access to victims. They will play whatever role helps them to gain and maintain this access. And an abuser will groom both his victims and other adults around him to prevent his abuse from coming to light.

Murphy: As you know, immense pressure (by way of promises, vows, admonitions to secretiveness vis-a-vis “outsiders who don’t understand our vocation” has been put on group members to “put up and shut up.”  Those who do find the occasion or courage to pose objections, even about uncanonical practices, have been shunned or vilified. I have  talked to a number of people from different groups who felt themselves  completely isolated, with no one to turn to. What recourse does a  faithful Catholic, troubled by doings in their own organization, have within the Church?

Vere: First of all, pray. Second, you can always approach the Church hierarchy with your concerns. For most people, this would be diocesan authorities — including the bishop, vicar general, episcopal vicar or judicial vicar. You can also approach your parish priest if this is happening on a local level. This is why these rights exist in canon law. If an apostolate or movement is truly Catholic, it should never fear recourse to the Church hierarchy.

Third, laity need to instruct themselves on their rights within the Church, so that when something like this happens they know where to turn and how to vindicate their rights. This is one of the reasons my co-author and I wrote Surprised by Canon Law, volumes one and two, to help laity better understand their rights within the Church.

Murphy: How much formation do diocesan priests receive about the issues surrounding new ecclesial movements? Do you think it is sufficient?

Vere: I don’t know if seminaries keep records of this or where one would obtain them, so I cannot answer the question with any certitude. However, I imagine it would depend on where the diocesan priest received his formation, as well when he received his formation. Certainly, in a post-Vatican II Church that has seen an increase in the number of new movements, it would make sense for seminary formation to provide future priests with training on this subject.

Murphy: Some groups which have developed uncanonical practices, such as unregulated vows and the imposition of confessors and spiritual directors who are also the penitent’s superior in the exterior forum,  have notwithstanding received all sorts of hierarchical support, from the ad hoc mentoring of specific bishops and cardinals, to official  recognition as Associations of Christ’s Faithful or Pontifical  Institutes. Indeed, the leadership in those organizations will often  point to that very support as a sort of “Good Housekeeping Seal” when  members complain that their situation is irregular or abusive. It’s  possible that the hierarchy does not always know the gory details,  since the questionable practices are likely not written down in the  group’s institutes, and some leaders are very canny about keeping  visiting hierarchy away from any but the most “loyal” members; but that’s hard to believe with a group which has endured as much long, drawn-out controvers as LC/RC. What do you think is going on with this, and how is it to be remedied so as to prevent this kind of  organizational meltdown?

Vere: One of my former canon law professors, who had dealt with a lot of these types of crisis to hit the Church, use to say: “The Church can usually avoid trouble when she follows her own rules. It’s when she fails to follow her own rules that she finds herself in trouble with the secular authorities and the laity.” This demonstrates why it is important to always be open and honest in one’s dealings with competent Church authorities. No founder or superior within a movement is above the law that binds all Catholics, or the obligation to submit to competent ecclesiastical authority.

Murphy: The admission of Fr. Maciel’s “double life” was made public by the  LC almost two weeks ago, and yet we have heard nothing, or next to nothing, from the Vatican about it. Why, do you think, and what may we expect?

Vere: I don’t know Rome’s game plan, other than what has been reported in some Catholic media— namely, that Rome does not have any immediate plans to intervene directly. However, if the situation worsens or the LC/RC request it, I imagine Rome would intervene and take charge of the situation. However, Rome will often take a “wait and see” approach. It will wait to see whether the LC/RC can resolve the controversy internally, and make the necessary reforms on its own. If this fails, or if bishops join the chorus of those calling for a serious reform of the movement, then I would not be surprised if Rome steps in.

Murphy: A priest friend of mine, who was also a scholar of Church history,  once commented that it had taken four hundred years for the great  renewal launched by the Council of Trent to settle out, as it were,  and become fully developed in the Church. Could we be looking at  something like that here, with the Second Vatican Council and the new  ecclesial movements? If so, given our current age of instant communications and the internet, and the Church’s historical tendency  to “grind slowly, but exceedingly fine,” as the saying goes, what are  the implications for the full integration of the new ecclesial  movements, or at least preventing the kinds of scandals we’ve seen the  last few years?

Vere: The average of age of any new religious order or institute of consecrated life that takes root is 400 years. So the time-frame of 400 years is certainly not without some significance. As the Church moves forward, certain lay movements will take root and carry out the mandate of the Second Vatican Council. Others will wither on the vine. What are the full implications for the Church? In the short term, these movements have helped reinvigorate the faith of the Catholic faithful in a culture that is increasingly hostile to Christ’s message. In the longer term, I’m not sure. History will have to play itself out, just as it did during previous epochs of the Church.

With regards to the LC/RC, who knows where this will end up? Certainly the Church will still be with us in the future— this is Christ’s promise to His apostles: “I am with you always.” But there is no guarantee that any individual movement or institute of consecrated life will survive along with the Church. Having said that, I think the LC/RC can survive this if they turn their focus to Christ and undertake a fundamental reform of the movement.

Murphy: As a final question, you’re not alone in calling for a reform or reconstitution of the LC/RC movement. What would you recommend?

Vere: With every passing day, this controversy has become more and more complicated. I sometimes think this is the way of the devil; he complicates the simple message of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus I recommend — and please keep in mind I am only one lay canonist located in the far reaches of the Church’s geography — a return to simplicity for the LC/RC.

To begin, the focus of the LC/RC response should be on Fr. Maciel’s victims. Not only is this the right thing to do, given that the victims have been doubly-victimized — first through their abuse at the hands of Fr. Maciel, and secondly by being branded publicly as liars by good people (acting in good faith) when the victims came forward with the truth. Thus there is an obligation in justice to acknowledge what was done to them and make restitution.

The victims are the primary concern of most people watching this from the outside. The victims are the ones with whom most people identify and sympathize. Thus any response from the LC/RC that does not put Fr. Maciel’s victims first will not be well-received by orthodox Catholics outside the LC/RC (and even many within the movement) as well as the world at large.

The second thing the LC/RC movement must do is apologize to the victims. The apology should be short, plainspoken, identify clearly the wrong done to them, and apologize for it. People become suspicious when apologies are overly complicated or couched in attempts to defend, justify or explain away what was done wrong. Admit the wrong. Apologize for the wrong. Don’t offer excuses.

The third thing, of course, is to offer prayer and restitution for the victims. And fourth, the movement needs to undertake a thorough reform, overseen by an outside party appointed by the Holy See, to purge itself of the practices that allowed this to happen. This reform should be open and transparent. In order to restore trust among Catholic faithful, the RC/LC need to tell us what they are doing to reform the movement and prevent similar occurrences in the future, and they need to follow through.

In the end, this is an extremely painful moment for the LC/RC. However, it is also a great opportunity for the movement to show a Christ-like example. A sincere apology to victims and a commitment to reform the movement will allow the LC/RC to move forward at the service of Christ and the Church.

God calls us as concerned friends of the LC/RC to play a very delicate role. Like an alcoholic in the gutter who recognizes he needs help, we cannot kick them while they are down. As Christians we don’t laugh at the drunk in the gutter, we try and help him. Thus we must offer our RC/LC brothers and sisters the support they need during this difficult time.

But we must also hold them accountable to a Christian standard and not allow them to fall back into the old patterns of behavior that allowed this scandal to happen. In other words, after rescuing the drunk from the gutter you don’t drop him off at the nearest bar or allow him to blame others for his alcoholism. You pray for him and you help him seek the treatment he needs.

This is true charity for souls. This is what Christ is calling us to do.

Continue reading

While I’m working on the next installment on my series on the Maciel scandal and cult-ish tendencies in some new ecclesial movements, here are some relevant recent links:

• Sandro Magister of la chiesa: “The Legion is in Disarray. Betrayed by its Founder.”
• John Haldane of The Scotsman: “Time for ‘God’s Rottweiler’ to show his bark–and his bite”
• Fr. Raymond de Souza at First Things: “The Legion and The National Catholic Register“
• Raymond Arroyo on EWTN’s Seen and Unseen: “Deception and the Possibility of Reform“
• Steve Skojec, ex-RC member: “Why Bad Trees Bear Good Fruit“
• Exlcblog: “LC/RC Talking Points”

Continue reading

As I suggested in part 7, beyond the immediate victims of an abusive Group or Founder, consideration must be given to the predicament of that far larger group of good people who find themselves “second-hand” victims of an organization afflicted with cultish attributes—those ordinary priests, consecrated and laity who do the bulk of the “praying, paying, and obeying”, as the old saying goes, in a new ecclesial movement. What breaks the heart is that these second-hand victims are invariably among the most idealistic in the Church, the most generous in spirit and fervent in faith. Indeed, it is their very virtues of idealism, generosity and fervor, coupled as they often are with youth, inexperience, and spiritual and/or psychological immaturity, that render so many of these good Catholics vulnerable to groups promising an inside line on God’s will and the Church’s blessings.

A priest-friend once commented that it can take the Church centuries to integrate and “normalize” the kind of revolution/renewal in the liturgy, canon law, and religious life one saw after the Council of Trent. He predicted a similar time-frame for the Church with Vatican II and the new ecclesial movements. Well, centuries are a very long time and unfortunately we, who are still in these frontiers, the “Wild West” decades of the new ecclesial movements, are too often forced to learn the hard way that good intentions, fervor, and ostensible orthodoxy are not enough to protect us from serious abuses; that sometimes even the apparent blessing of the Church—that “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” granting some form of canonical status to a new movement—is not enough. Bishops, as we in America have had reason to learn in the last few decades, sometimes fall down on their job of protecting the faithful from wolves in shepherds’ clothing; nor even is papal support, as other commentators on the Maciel scandal have pointed out, among those “faith and morals” decisions which fall under the assurance of infallibility. As the history of the Church proves, when the laity rely solely on their immediate leadership to discern spirits and the signs of the times—when they truly do nothing but “pray, pay, and obey”—they are likely as not to be led astray.

I wrote in my previous post about the methods some groups use to control their members; but many who have never suffered this kind of experience still wonder how it is possible that so many good, intelligent people take so long (if ever) to recognize the manipulations and deceptions.

The flip answer is often, “brainwashing!” While that’s no doubt off the mark in most cases, there is one way at least in which the notion of “brainwashing” may be instructive: that is, in the propensity of imbalanced groups for “forming” their members in a manner which will eventually place them in a situation of “false conscience”:  where obedience to the group’s methods or leaders conflicts with fundamental principles of charity and the teachings of the Church. In this excruciating moral “double-bind,” a member will either resist thereby suffering feelings of guilt and confusion, as well as the displeasure of the the Group; or else submit his will and do what is asked of him, even though he knows it, in his heart of hearts, to be wrong. Either way, the person’s human and divinely bestowed dignity suffers tremendously, and that suffering can be acute.

In his classic Apologia pro vita sua, Cardinal Newman, relating the story of his conversion from childhood Evangelicalism to youthful Anglicanism and finally to Catholicism, describes his own struggles with a case of “false conscience” derived from absorbing contradictory theological notions at an early age:

Now I come to two other works, which produced a deep impression on me in the same autumn of 1816, when I was fifteen years old, each contrary to each, and planting in me the seeds of an intellectual inconsistency which disabled me for a long course of years. I read Joseph Milner’s Church History, and was nothing short of enamoured of the long extracts from St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and the other Fathers which I found there. I read them as being the religion of the primitive Christians: but simultaneously with Milner I read Newton on the Prophecies, and in consequence became most firmly convinced that the Pope was the Antichrist predicted by Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John. My imagination was stained by the effects of this doctrine up to the year 1843; it had been obliterated from my reason and judgment at an earlier date; but the thought remained upon me as a sort of false conscience. Hence came that conflict of mind, which so many have felt besides myself;—leading some men to make a compromise between two ideas, so inconsistent with each other,—driving others to beat out the one idea or the other from their minds,—and ending in my own case, after many years of intellectual unrest, in the gradual decay and extinction of one of them…

In new ecclesial movements exhibiting cult-like attributes, the double-bind situation of “false conscience” arises when a Group undertakes to form its members to accept, unconditionally and simultaneously, two potentially contradictory “absolutes” that go something like this:

1. The Church is the Body of Christ and the means by which Christ gives us the (“ordinary”) grace of salvation. It is our duty as Christians to obey the teachings of the Church in all matters of faith and morals.
2. The group (or the Founder, by way of his charism) is our group’s special (“extraordinary”) means of grace. By God’s will, it/he is the means given to us to fulfill our Christian vocation. Therefore it is our duty as members of the group to work tirelessly for the  Group/Leader; to trust that it/he has received special graces of discernment which we cannot share or even understand; to obey our Founder and Group superiors in all matters, even when we think they are wrong.

Now, number 1, of course, is the teaching of the Church herself; the sine qua non of Catholic ecclesiology and the basis for our moral system and the proper formation of conscience. But number 2 is an exaggeration of the Church’s understanding of the special (“extradordinary”) charisms an individual may receive from God by means of a community or form of spirituality. For those who believe they have a call, the practice of a certain spirituality within a specific community may indeed be their particular way of living out the universal Christian charism; but it is not sine qua non (required for salvation), and can never (should never attempt to) contradict or usurp the ordinary means of Grace or the Church’s universally established teachings on faith and morals.

To most of us, the notion that a Founder’s charism might give him (or his group) “special” permission in “special” circumstances (because of “all the good it does”) to keep a mistress, or abuse young men, or misuse funds, or cook the books, or lie (even to the Vatican and members of the Curia) to maintain appearances, or hide crimes and malfeasance from legitimate authority, or villify critics and ex-members, or insist that members receive spiritual direction only from “loyal” priests, or demand the kind of absolute obedience, reverence and freedom from criticism that not even the Pope could or should enjoy, is complete (and malignant) nonsense. Unfortunately, the more the group resembles a cult, whatever its originally Catholic mission, and whatever its canonical status (which is never “once and for all”, incapable of being withdrawn) the more the importance of the Group or Founder’s “charism” is exaggerated; even to the pointing of trumping, as it were, the Church’s teaching on its own nature.

The Group/Founder with an exaggerated, even Narcissistic, sense of its/his own grace and mission will accomplish this dangerous control of otherwise good Christian consciences by means of the methods mentioned in post 7. They/he will also do it by imposing the constant repetition of slogans and prayers referencing the Group’s or Founder’s charism; by ceaselessly assuring members that the approbation the Group/Founder has received from the hierarchy is sufficent cause for trust that everything the Group/Founder does or demands is “of the Holy Spirit”; by constantly referencing the “good fruits” achieved by the Group in terms of conversions, growth in membership, or support (especially financial) from famous or important Catholics. Every community meditation is on the glories of the Group/Founder, and how members should serve and be grateful to it/him; every homily is about the Group/Founder and the graces received from it/him.

Given the power of human concupiscence, with its temptations to lust, greed, pride, anger, or the desire for power, if this sort of overheated and imbalanced “spiritual formation” goes unchecked by legitimate ecclesial authority, disaster and scandal in some form is inevitable. It is also likely to overshadow, to say the least, all the “good fruits” for which members offered up countless prayers and sacrifices. The whole Church suffers.

Next: specific examples of how this “false conscience” operates in morally problematic situations.

Continue reading

Conscience

In a sex-abuse scandal such as the Maciel case, the nature of the abuse is clear and horrific, and its impact on the victims well-nigh immeasurable; but even when no obvious crime such as sexual abuse is present in an ecclesial movement or group afflicted by the “cult of personality,” there is too often another form of abuse present—far more subtle, to be sure, but touching one of those deep and mysterious places in the human heart where the human person encounters God: the conscience.

As a convert who came into the Church at the age of nineteen in large part because of the writings of Cardinal John Henry Newman, it was with pleasure that I noted that the section on conscience in the Catholic Catechism (part 3, article 6) opens with a quote by Newman from his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, written on the occasion of the Vatican I definition of papal infallibility. (In the Letter, Newman defended English Catholics, as only he could, against the familiar charge that they couldn’t in good conscience be good Catholics and loyal citizens of England at the same time.) Here’s the quote:

Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment . . . man has in his heart a law inscribed by God . . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.

The Catechism proceeds to describe, among other things, the necessity of judging according to one’s conscience and the necessity to form one’s conscience by means of the Word of God and the teachings of the Church. But there are two principles worth repeating in the context of this discussion:

1782. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” [Dignitatis Humanae, Pope John Paul II]

1789. Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it.
• The Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• Charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience…you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to …do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

In my novel, I relate a conversation between the protagonist and Lionel Krato [cf. part one of this series] about the nature of conscience, how it is properly formed, and its connection to Beauty. Here’s a relevant paragraph:

….It was the aesthetic element, he [Lionel] went on to explain, which had been neglected in these last utilitarian centuries, but was understood by the ancient philosophers and the Fathers of the Church. To them and to Lionel, Truth, Goodness and Beauty were one, a seamless garment, and where there was no appreciation for beauty there was liable to be little for truth or goodness either. Lionel then quoted Newman to the effect that Truth had two attributes: Power and Beauty. Real power, he added; power to attract, not to pressure or force. Force he said, quoting Simone Weil, turned persons into things, and was one of the sure signs of the diabolic. Or, to use the language of the police, Lionel said, forced entry is the sure sign of crime.

Beyond the sex-abuse charges against Fr. Maciel (some of which have been admitted by the LC to be true, though their nature and extent is as yet unclear), there is the issue of potential cover-ups. And connected to the issue of potential cover-ups, there is the fact that many ex-Legionaries and Regnum Christi members have spoken publicly about LC/RC practices which, given the nature of conscience and the statutes set up in the Code of Canon Law to protect its exercise among Christians, are disturbing: namely, practices which impose uncanonical restrictions on members’ exercise of conscience, spiritual direction and the Sacrament of Reconciliation; practices imposed ostensibly to maintain charity and unity, but which also serve, conveniently, to silence legitimate questions or challenges; practices which are intended to prevent outsiders from finding out what goes on within the organization; practices that intend to maintain a public persona, whatever the “inside” reality, of piety, holiness, success, and the production of “good fruit.”

Among the alleged practices: taking vows not only to obey Fr. Maciel, but also never even to criticise him; restricting (even prohibiting) members’ visits to non-LC/RC family and friends; shunning ex-members and attributing malicious or diabolic motives to critics and ex-members; discouraging or even forbidding members from seeking confession or spiritual direction from non-LC/RC priests; imposing spiritual directors and confessors on members, even with the spiritual director is also the member’s “boss” in some official capacity in the organization. (More of this, later.)

I could go on.

Some of this stuff, whenever true in any organization, is just plain vicious, un-Christian and manipulative; when it occurs in a Catholic association it also transgresses clear norms of Canon Law. For example, regarding 1) the rights of every Christian, lay or religious, in the exercise of their conscience, and 2) the proper way to manage ecclesial associations. For specific norms, check out the following canons:

• 212, 219-221, 223
• 305
• 325

The problem is, judging from personal experience and speaking with others from a variety of ecclesial movements (some well known, some not; some with canonical status, some not), these are not uncommon practices. If so, this latest scandal will not be the last connected to a new ecclesial movement.

Next: how these practices foster spiritual confusion, distress, and what Newman called a “false conscience.”

.

Continue reading

Before I post my next article, on “Conscience and False Conscience” in emergent ecclesial movements, I’d like to share a few relevant and important links on this difficult topic.

First, in January, before the news of the Maciel scandal broke, Vatican journalist John Allen wrote a piece which puts the LC/RC crisis in context, specifically the smaller but not wholly dissimilar crisis in the Lumen Dei movement: Benedict Careful about Catholic ‘new movements.”

Then there’s CNA news article: Vatican not considering ‘immediate’ action in wake of Legionaries’ crisis. (I confess I shake my head a little at this one, but it ain’t over, as they say, till it’s over.)

George Weigel’s controversial, but in my view on-the-money op-ed piece in First Things: “Saving What Can Be Saved.”

Similarly, Phil Lawler’s “The Legionaries after Maciel” and Germain Grisez’s Open Letter to Legionaries.

Continue reading

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.”

Continue reading