1956-59 Vatican Investigation Of Fr. Marcial Maciel Lc: Investigators Identity & Polidoro Controversy

New and Clear Historical Information re Main Investigators…

 

By LC 1950-60

 

An exLegionary from the 1950′ presents the facts regarding the Vatican 1956-59 Investigation of Fr. Maciel and the principal actors at that time. Light is shed on the controversial Polidoro letters

 

Note: see open discussion re this period on

REGAIN Ex Legionaries Forums » History of LC & RC » SEX ABUSE ‘WAR’ AND ‘BLESSING’ IN THE 50s

——————————————————

Dear Regain,

As you requested, I am sending you my answers to the questions regarding the Apostolic Visitation (investigation) conducted by the Vatican regarding Fr. Marcial Maciel from October 10th 1956 until (apparently) mid-February 1959. Allow me to also add a few other pieces of information.

Let me just preface this by saying there was a previous investigation. I will write about it on another occasion, but not for now. I will clarify then.

About your questions concerning the 1956-1959 Vatican investigation of Marcial Maciel I want to state the following:

VATICAN 1956 INVESTIGATORS’ NAMES & RELIGIOUS ORDER AFFILIATION

A prominent figure in the investigation was Father Arcadio Larraona (CMF); a Basque Claretian, Cordis Mariae Filius?, that is, a member of the Congregation of the Sons of the Heart of Mary, founded by the Catalonian priest Antonio Mara Claret (1807-1870). As we know, it is not unusual for members of different religious Congregations to work together under the direction of an appointed Vatican dicasterio [department] president [director] on Vatican projects. In Larraona’s case, he worked under Cardinal Valerio Valeri (in the 50s, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious).

[Editor’s note: Fr. Maciel cordially hated Larraona’s guts]

Cardinal Valeri appointed Fr. Larraona as director of the 1956-1959 investigation of the Rev. Marcial Maciel, Founder and Superior General of the Legion of Christ. Larraona, in turn, chose Italian Fr. Anastasio del Santissimo Rosario, Superior General of the Carmelite order, and Belgian Fr. Benjamin Lachaert, the Carmelite Superior General’s secretary, to be directly responsible for the Vatican visitation and inspection of the LC in Italy.
These Carmelites conducted the first part of the inspection, beginning on November 16th, 1956. They returned again on February 2nd, 1957 to ask us if there was anything we wanted to modify or add to our previous statements. I must say that by that time the psychological pressure on us had been increased by two Spanish Legionaries recruited from the Jesuit-run Comillas seminary, Fr. Antonio Lagoa LC and Fr. Rafael Arumi LC. These two superiors railed against “traitors� within our poor mother the Legion?, etc. So as far as I know/nobody changed his testimony.

I am not sure whether Josa Doma?nguez [brother of Federico Doma?nguez, one of the two Legionaries who initially brought their concerns to Vatican authorities]had the chance to be questioned this second time. Jose had been secretly sent to a convent in Naples during the first inspection, : THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE it was this same Bro. Josa Doma?nguez who had been ordered by Marcial Maciel to put in writing the text with therationale? for the doctrine? of the Forth (private) vow? of SILENCE, JUST TWENTY FIVE DAYS BEFORE the date (October 10th, 1956) when MM was to be expelled from Rome by the Vatican. Professor Josa Doma?nguez told Arturo Jurado PhD and me about the sending away in a face to face interview in San Diego in late March 2003. Arturo Jurado can confirm what I state. WHY TWENTY DAYS EARLIER? Cardinal Valerio Valeri had caught MM completely passed out from a drug overdose at the Roman Salvator Mundi Clinic in the month of April of the same year 1956, according to Juan Jose Vaca’s testimony. So both the articulation of the private vow, against criticizing a superior, and the sending away of Fr. Maciel’s ‘private secretary’ was a kind of pre-emptive strike by the master chess-player.

Monsignor Arcadio Larraona appointed Fr. Polidoro Van Vlieberghe, a Belgian Flemish Franciscan, as inspector for the LC houses in the Mexican province?. The two aforementioned Carmelite priests also visited the Apostolic School in Ontaneda, Santander, Spain.

Larraona also appointed Italian Monsignor Alfredo Bontempi in November 1956, not as an ‘inspector’, but rather as interim Rector of the Collegio Massimo, Via Aurelia 677, Rome, mother house and generalate of the Legion. Later, one rainy afternoon the same month, in the Collegio Massimo’s Aula Magna Conference Room, and in the presence of us students, Bontempi handed back this power to Fr. Antonio Lagoa LC, our CollegeRector?.
[See Vows of Silence, pages 180-184]

Regain Strategy Note
When discussing unfavorable facts, official Legion spokespersons will usually:

Attempt to discredit the opponent[curveball]

Throw in some extraneous unsubstantiated facts of their own [fastball]

State they have some [new] unsubstantiated evidence, e.g. spurious letters, in favor of their stance [slider]

This all plays out in the case of the 1956 investigation of Father Maciel, where the Legion defense inflates the importance of minor players such as Monsignors Bontempi and Polidoro and creates the existence of two dubious letters to buttress its case.

A TALE OF TWO LETTERS
CONTROVERSY re VATICAN INVESTIGATORS and the POLIDORO SAGA
As a Paradigm of Legion reactions to testimonial evidence.

Monsignor Bontempi was IN NO WAY, AT ANY TIME, a Vatican visitor.

IN THE USA
I formally make the above statement because just before Christmas 1996 Owen Kearns, LC apparently under the direction and personal guidance of Father Maciel took action. Through their legal representative, the super-expensive powerful Law firm of Kirkland and Ellis, Legion leaders presented to Mr. Eliot –The Hartford Courant lawyer — a package containing seventy pages. These documents included a pair of fabricated letters attributed to Fr. Polidoro Van Vlieberghe. The first one (undated, but intended to appear as written in 1959) was addressed to Monsignor Luis (Luigi) Raimondi, then Apostolic Delegate not Nuncio of the Vatican in Mexico. Here Fr. Van Vlieberghe purportedly states that Monsignor Alfredo Bontempi was -at that same time- the other Vatican visitor. ABSOLUTELY FALSE!-

[see Vows of Silence, page 181: A third priest, Monsignor Alfredo Bontempi, was an official observer of the seminary, the oversight for which he passed to Fr. Antonio Lagoa, LC.] He never met individually with the students; only in group.

IN MEXICO
In 1996 we (the ex-LC complainants) were not privy to the content of those two letters because it was never revealed to us by Renner and Berry. We understand that this was because of a confidentiality agreement between The Hartford Courant’s legal representative and the Marcial Maciel/Owen Kearns/Kirkland and Ellis party, regarding the contents of the respective documents.

Almost two years later, on August 16th 1998, I received a fax from Mexican reporter and TV host Ciro Gomez Leyva containing copies of the two alleged Polidoro Van Vlieberghe letters, together with an invitation to lunch. I personally had known Fr. Van Vlieberghe from contacts in 1959 and 1960. I was also very familiar with Maciel’s peculiar writing style: his overuse of adjectives to emphasize certain nouns; for example: Un amor PERSONAL a Cristo [a PERSONAL love for Christ]… or the frequent use of superlatives:educadísimos, i.e. highly educated, referring to LC students, etc. Another revealing clue to their fabrication were some of the common LC typing obsessions, such as the peculiar way of justifying? the right margin with two dashes etc. The content of the letters also appeared immediately suspicious to me. So I asked Ciro Gomez Leyva to please publish them as soon as possible. He said he had to consult with the person who had sent them to him, Don Federico Arreola, at that time a journalist with El Diario de Monterrey in northern Mexico. Arreola said he would consider the idea.

In a stubborn effort to convince Arreola to authorize publication, Jose Antonio Perez Olvera, Ciro Gomez Leyva, and I had breakfast with him at the Balmoral Cafe, Hotel Presidente Chapultepec Mexico City on February 20th, 2001. There I tried to convince Arreola to publish the letters. He replied that a person in Monterrey had given those letters to him privately, telling Arreola that they were being distributed to a select group of peopleunder the table, and that F. Arreola should not publish them. Consequently Arreola felt he had a moral obligation not to make them known. “What if we publish them? – I asked him- “Would you mind commenting publicly?” He again agreed to reconsider the matter. But he never did make them public.

FALSE LETTERS
Meanwhile, I had noticed an allusion to the letters on the Rick Salbato internet page [unitypublishing.com], describing how “a friend of Maciel and the LC” had read the content of those two letters. This anonymous person (the alleged friend of MM/LC), who signed with an “R”, had sent the letters to Salbato explaining to Salbato how we, the accusers, were evil exLC on whom the Vatican had a large (damaging) dossier, but that the Vatican –out of Christian charity– had wanted to keep it secret… I am sure I am not the only one who read that on Salbato’s page.

When the Polidoro letters were first brought into play by the defendant Legion it was alleged that Mons Polidoro was dead or dying. This was a ruse to prevent others from examining them more closely and questioning the ‘author’ re their authenticity. In late 2000, Arturo Jurado PhD and I, the two legal mandate holders of the LC complainant group since October 1998, discovered that Father, now His Excellency, Van Vlieberghe was still alive! As soon as we could we traveled to the Monastery of Our Lady of Luja?n located at Nunoa, in Santiago, Chile. There old Polidoro Van Vlieberghe, now a bishop, and still a member of the Franciscan Order, categorically told us at midday on Saturday, January 13th, 2001, those two letters are false. Arturo and I placed a phone call to journalist Gerald Renner from our hotel in Santiago the very afternoon we came back from the monastery in Nunoa. I also sent an e-mail to Mr. Renner that same afternoon after our visit, using Arturo’s e-mail. Mr. Renner called back to our hotel the next day about 2:30pm. By this time we had met personally with Fr. Carlos Salgado, OFM (Franciscan), with Sergio Novoa (Bishop Van Vlieberghe’s lawyer), and Juan Ruz, friend and assistant of the bishop. They all acknowledged, so they stated, that Monsignor Van Vlieberghe had told them before that the letters were false.

Since making those statements, under pressure from somewhere, Fr. Carlos Salgado has unfortunately denied what he had previously told us about the bishop tell- ing him the letters were false. Juan Ruz, questioned later by a female reporter, told her that he didn’t know. Sergio Novoa (lawyer and notary public!) and the bishop has as far as we knowremained silent…

NEVERTHELESS,
we have in our possession, in files deposited at a bank safe deposit box, letters from Fr. Camilo Maccise, until very recently Superior General of the Carmelite Order. There Fr. Maccise personally proves the LC assertions to be false regarding the identities of the Vatican investigators. This letter has an official stationary heading. It is duly signed, and shows the official seal of the Carmelite Order.
I gave Mr. Jason Berry a copy of Fr. C. Maccise’s letter two years ago, but -unless I am mistaken- I believe no reference is made to it in Vows of Silence. But I will send a scanned copy to you of the typed and signed letter by Fr. Camilo Maccise.

I want you to see and verify the two attachments I am presently sending to you:

First: the letter I sent to Fr. Camilo Maccise asking him to respond in charity and justice regarding the identities of the official Vatican investigators.

Second: the precise e-mail and attachment containing his formal official statement that I received from him, as a response to this personal request.

I was already in possession of another letter of his regarding this same painful matter. Years ago, while he was still Superior General of the Carmelite Order, he had sent me a letter to the same effect on official stationary, sealed and signed, via special mail.

[Letters on file in Mexico City; a copy of Fr. Camilo Maccise, OCD, Superior General’s letter on file at Regain]

Jose Barba Martin, PhD, one of the eight accusers of Fr. Maciel.

Father Alberto Athie interviewed by journalist Javier Sicilia regarding his indictment of Marcial Maciel

El caso Marcial Maciel y la búsqueda de la transparencia

 

By Javier Sicilia

 

Entrevista con Alberto Athié

 

Non avete paura…!

Juan Pablo II

La denuncia que hace poco realizó el padre Alberto Athié en los medios de comunicación sobre los supuestos abusos sexuales por parte del padre Marcial Maciel ha sido mal interpretado por algunos sectores de la Iglesia católica, al grado de que lo han acusado de mentiroso y resentido. Con el objeto de restablecer el diálogo y comprender los motivos eclesiales que llevaron a Alberto Athié a salir en los medios de comunicación, Javier Sicilia le hizo la siguiente entrevista. Las reflexiones que el padre Athié hace en esta entrevista son muy importantes para situar la problemática por la que atraviesa la Iglesia católica de cara a la posmodernidad y a la sucesión papal y para generar un diálogo que haga eco de las palabras con las que Juan Pablo II diol inicio de su pontificado: “¡No tengan miedo de la libertad de los hijos de Dios!�.
La denuncia que hiciste del caso Maciel, una denuncia que ha estado latente desde hace varios años, ha polarizado las cosas dentro de la Iglesia mexicana, al grado que te han acusado no sólo de resentimiento, sino de que mientes. Esta actitud no está ayudando mucho al diálogo de lo que debe ser la Iglesia frente al mundo. ¿Cómo restablecer ese diálogo? ¿Cómo hacerle entender a ciertos sectores de la Iglesia que tu posición, y la de muchos católicos frente a este asunto, no es un ataque a la Iglesia, sino una búsqueda de purificarla a la luz de la verdad evangélica?

Para poder responder esta pregunta y lo que ella implica se necesita comprender la historia de este asunto, pues pareciera que, o esta noticia es totalmente extemporánea y saltó de repente sin ningún antecedente o que es un invento, nacido del odio o del resentimiento para dañar al `padre Maciel y a la Iglesia.

En lo que a mi se refiere, porque el caso es muy complejo y extenso en términos de años, esta historia tiene hasta el momento dos fases. La primera que va de 1994 al 2001 y que consistió en escuchar la experiencia del padre Fernández Amenábar y buscar la manera de que se me escuchara en la comunidad eclesial; la segunda (finales del 2001 al presente) que consiste en abrir a la opinión pública el tema, dentro y fuera de la Iglesia, por considerar injusta y antievangélica la respuesta que he obtenido al interior de la comunidad eclesial.

Ante todo, quiero decir que mi intención con este asunto no es ni atacar a la Iglesia ni tampoco purificarla. Lo único que estoy buscando es que en la comunidad que Jesús fundó para servir a la dignidad evangélica de toda persona humana se busque la verdad y la justicia y no se haga, por ningún motivo, acepción de personas.

Antes de escuchar lo que me dijo el padre Fernández Amenábar respecto del padre. Maciel en 1994, yo no sabía absolutamente nada del asunto ni conocía a ninguno de los implicados en él. Incluso yo fui el primer desconcertado al escucharlo y hasta pensé que estaba enfermo psicológicamente y estaba proyectando una problemática personal en su fundador-superior. Pero, como he dicho, mi papel como asistente espiritual no es verificar si lo que se me dice es verdad o no, sino ayudar espiritualmente al encuentro con Cristo, a la conversión, al perdón a la reconciliación y a la retribución del daño, que fue lo que sucedió. El padre Fernández perdonó, pero también me dijo: “pido también justicia�.

Fue hasta la celebración de la misa de cuerpo presente del padre Fernández en Gayosso de Sullivan que conocí a otros exlegionarios y cuando terminé la misa me dijeron que querían hablarme. José Barba se reunió conmigo para hablarme de todo lo que había sucedido y que pensaban salir a los medios para denunciar públicamente porque no eran escuchados en la Iglesia.

Yo mismo le pedí que no sacaran al público esos datos hasta no agotar todas las instancias internas porque haría mucho daño; le pedí también que me diera los testimonios escritos, y les dije que yo se los haría llegar al Papa a través de un obispo amigo (Monseñor Carlos Talavera). En una ocasión hablé también sobre este asunto con un sacerdote encargado de las causas de canonización y me dijo que dejara una constancia de mi testimonio en el archivo reservado de la Curia de mi diócesis y que hablara con mi obispo al respecto. Esa idea se quedó en mi mente y estaba esperando la ocasión para hacerlo.

La ocasión se presentó cuando el tema salió en los medios. Fui entonces a ver al Cardenal Rivera para ayudarle a tener una información más completa, pues el propio Cardenal había dicho ante los medios que todo era un complot y que incluso le habían pagado al reportero de La Jornada para que sacara la noticia en México. Como yo tenía un testimonio de alguien que había afirmado que el padre Maciel había abusado de él, me interesaba que el Cardenal lo supiera para que estuviera informado, pero no quiso escucharme.

Que la reunión con el cardenal Rivera se dio en ese momento tengo un testigo indirecto, el Dr. Rodrigo Guerra, a quien se le puede preguntar, a quien, además, el Cardenal conoce. Él sabe muy bien que el Dr. Guerra no inventaría algo así. Me reuní con él antes, para preparar la reunión y, después, para comentarla . Le dije, entonces, que el Cardenal no quiso escucharme, que yo tenía una cuestión de conciencia y que tenía que buscar la forma de que la comunidad conociera lo que se me había dicho.

Que el Cardenal no tiene registrado nada en la Curia, por supuesto, si ni siquiera me dejó terminar: “No entendiste que todo es un complot, no hay nada más de qué hablar�, me dijo y se levantó de su asiento.

Los sacerdotes sabemos muy bien que nuestra primera instancia en todos los asuntos es nuestro obispo y por eso acudí a él, pero no me quiso escuchar.

Buscando la posibilidad de dialogar y ver la manera de afrontar este asunto dentro de la comunidad, también fui a ver al representante de los Padres Legionarios en México, pero me dijo que ellos no tenían dudas al respecto y que no aceptaban lo que había dicho el padre Fernández Amenábar.

No fue sino hasta 1998 o 99 que -al escuchar al Nuncio Apostólico, Justo Mullor, quejarse de que los exlegionarios habían publicado una carta abierta al Papa en una revista y le pedían una cita- le comenté lo que me había pasado y que quería dejar una constancia por escrito. Entonces me sugirió que escribiera a la Sagrada Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, encargada de esos casos; me sugirió, además, que le entregara personalmente la carta al cardenal Ratzinger contándole exclusivamente lo que me había pasado sin añadir juicios de valor al respecto. Hice lo que me indicó, pero no pude entregar la carta personalmente, sino a través de monseñor Talavera, quien me dijo que mi carta no tendría seguimiento, pues el cardenal Ratzinger le había respondido que no era prudente abrir el caso porque el padre Maciel era una persona muy querida del Papa y había ayudado mucho a la Iglesia.

Me quedé muy impactado con la respuesta del cardenal Ratzinger y no estuve de acuerdo en que el asunto terminara de esa manera. En toda esta fase, que duró de 1995 a 1999, nunca estuve de acuerdo en que se sacara al público el asunto hasta no agotar todas las instancias internas. Así me mantuve hasta el final con la intención de encontrar un espacio dentro de la comunidad para que nos escucháramos y buscáramos el perdón y la justicia.

Quiero, sin embargo, dejar claro que a lo largo de ese tiempo empecé poco a poco a experimentar en forma creciente el rechazo de mi obispo. Yo lo adjudico al conocimiento que tengo de este asunto y a algunos de los servicios que presté a la Conferencia del Episcopado, en particular a mis trabajos en las Comisiones de Pastoral Social y para la Paz y la Reconciliación en Chiapas, y a mi coordinación en la elaboración del material del documento Del encuentro con Jesucristo a la Solidaridad con Todos. En la Secretaría de la Conferencia existen documentos que se hicieron circular en mi contra, incluso en las Asambleas Episcopales, durante el proceso de elaboración de dicho documento.

Hasta aquí la primera fase. La segunda fase comienza cuando, después de que al retirárseme intempestivamente de todos mis servicios al Episcopado y de que se me condicionó de manera indebida a recibir un cargo –por lo que tuve que consultar a varios obispos y al Nuncio Mullor para ver qué hacía al respecto- rechacé dicho cargo y sostuve mi petición de pedir un tiempo sabático. Se me otorgó y después de participar en dos mesas de transición del gobierno electo de Vicente Fox, me vine a Chicago en donde actualmente me encuentro.

Fue aquí, en Chicago, donde recibí un correo electrónico de reporteros del National Catholic Reporter diciéndome que tenían toda la información al respecto y que me quedaban dos opciones: o aceptar una entrevista y dar mi opinión o no darla, lo que redundaría en que ellos tendrían que corregir su publicación a través de cartas a la Editorial. Después de la respuesta del cardenal Ratzinger a monseñor Talavera, de enterarme que no se me iba a llamar para dar mi testimonio y que, además, la petición de abrir un proceso canónico por parte de los exlegionarios se congelaba en la misma instancia, sin que esa instancia diera ninguna respuesta, acepté dar la entrevista que salió publicada en diciembre del 2001. Lo hice con el fin de que la opinión pública se enterara de todo lo que había pasado al respecto en lo que a mí correspondía. Mi decisión de agotar todas las instancias correspondientes para que se abriera el caso había llegado a su término.

Pero cuando me enteré de lo que había sucedido en Estados Unidos por encubrir a sacerdotes que habían abusado de niños en los últimos 25 años; cuando me enteré que para salvar la imagen de la Institución y el prestigio de sus ministros los obispos y cardenales responsables habían encubierto esos delitos; cuando supe que ese ocultamiento había costado que más de 3,000 sufrieran abusos sexuales y que un solo sacerdote abusara de más de 130 niño durante el tiempo en que lo estuvieron cambiando de parroquias, consideré esta situación intolerable y antievangélica.

Para concluir, podría decir que por mi parte y por parte de los exlegionarios que afirman haber sufrido abusos del padre Maciel, la disposición y la búsqueda de diálogo ha existido durante años y existe todavía. Todo esto con la única intención de que, primero, se aclare la verdad; segundo, que la autoridad emita un juicio conforme a derecho; tercero, que se busque aplicar la justicia correspondiente y, por último, que reconstruyamos la comunión a través del perdón y la reconciliación.

Se trata de poner en práctica dentro de la Iglesia lo que nos ha dicho el Papa en sus mensajes sobre la Paz. En ellos afirma que no hay paz sin justicia, justicia sin verdad, sin memoria histórica y sin perdón. Pero como en todo diálogo, tiene que haber espacios e instancias para ello. Eso es lo que falta hoy en la Santa Sede con respecto al caso del padre Maciel. Nosotros no estamos difamando a nadie, a tal grado no difamamos que propongo que el padre Maciel -que afirma no temer nada, incluso delante de Dios, porque es inocente- pida que se abra el proceso para que se aclare la verdad En el supuesto de que yo haya sido manipulado por el padre Fernández Amenábar y se descubra la mentira en la que supuestamente me envolvió, pediré perdón públicamente al padre Maciel y a toda la comunidad del grave error que cometí y pediré que se me aplique la sanción correspondiente. Diálogo es la búsqueda incondicional de la verdad, es también la decisión de que se aplique la justicia necesaria a quien sea y la disponibilidad total al reencuentro, al perdón y a la reconciliación. No hay nada que temer.

Lo que no podemos admitir bajo ninguna circunstancia es que prevalezca la imagen de la Institución o el prestigio de sus ministros por encima de la dignidad de las personas, de sus derechos fundamentales y de la justicia que les corresponde. No podemos admitir como cristianos que, por no provocar escándalos, terminemos en una injusticia todavía más grande como la que sucedió en los Estados Unidos. Esta horrible injusticia se descubrió, lamentablemente, no porque la Iglesia de los Estados Unidos lo haya querido, sino porque ahí existen medios de presión y sistemas de administración de justicia más eficaces que en nuestro país.

La deteriorada salud del Papa Juan Pablo II hace pensar en la inminencia de la sucesión papal. ¿En qué sentido el silenciamiento del caso Maciel en el Vaticano buscan influir en este proceso?

Yo admiro muchos aspectos de la enseñanza y del testimonio del Papa Juan Pablo II. Pero me preocupa un aspecto que ha venido enfatizándose durante su papado, en particular en este largo período final. Me refiero al papel que juega la autoridad de este Papa y nuestra relación hacia él como miembros de la Iglesia católica. Todo pareciera que el único criterio de verdad y de fidelidad a Cristo y a su Iglesia se redujera a la fidelidad al Papa Juan Pablo II y a su enseñanza. En lo personal percibo que esta excesiva concentración en la figura de Juan Pablo II ha sido contraproducente y ha llevado a varias consecuencias en la vida eclesial; incluso ha dado origen a toda una eclesiología que habría que analizar con detenimiento en algún momento.

Diría que desde hace ya varios años la última y definitiva palabra se hace o se dice en nombre del Papa Juan Pablo II. La fidelidad pública a él es el criterio de autenticidad, doctrinal y pastoral, de los miembros de la Iglesia. Bajo ese criterio se podría decir que cualquiera que cuestione o critique algún aspecto de esa autoridad está casi fuera de la comunión eclesial, incluso es visto como sospechoso: “¿Estás o no estás incondicionalmente con el Papa?� La pregunta de fondo es entonces: ¿En qué consiste la pertenencia a la Iglesia?

En términos paulinos diría que se ha ido incrementando un error eclesiológico que se dio en la Iglesia de Galacia, pero con una connotación nueva. Actualmente no se trata de grupos distintos que, como en Galacia, se adhirieron a diversos líderes representativos de Cristo (yo soy de Apolo, yo de Pablo, yo de Cefas) y por ende pusieron en cuestión el significado de la comunión –lo que llevó a Pablo a mantener la trascendencia de Cristo respecto de sus apóstoles-, sino de un solo grupo que se afirma cómo el único representativo de Cefas, quien, a su vez, es el único que representa a Cristo. Este modelo opera dentro de la Iglesia en todos los niveles bajo ese criterio.

A mí, cuando trabajé para la Conferencia Episcopal, me tocó ver en varias ocasiones la manera en que personas e indicaciones que venían directamente de la Secretaría de Estado en nombre del Papa se brincaban o sustituían la autoridad de la Conferencia y su papel dentro del país, así como de la Nunciatura. En particular cabe destacar el papel que estuvo jugando Monseñor Prigione en sus diversas visitas a México para encontrarse con personajes del gobierno, sin avisar ni a la Conferencia ni a la Nunciatura. A pesar de la petición explícita de la presidencia de la Conferencia Episcopal Mexicana (CEM ) de que no viniera y, si venía, por lo menos se les avisara, la respuesta fue contundente: “Monseñor Prigione irá cuántas veces se considere necesario para los asuntos que se le encomienden sin necesidad de consultar a nadie�. Por otro lado, me tocó ver cómo, desde México, un grupo de obispos y cardenales acudía (y creo que todavía acude) directamente a la Secretaría de Estado sin consultar a la Nunciatura.

En este sentido, si vemos lo que ha sucedido en el último período del papado, la discusión se ha centrado cada vez más en, si, debido a su estado de salud, el Papa es capaz o no de gobernar a la Iglesia. Quienes tienen el sentido del papado como un ministerio al servicio de Cristo y de su Iglesia, dicen que en cuanto el Papa no pueda gobernar debe ceder su lugar al que sigue, obvio. En cambio, para quienes han visto en Juan Pablo II al prototipo de Papa por excelencia, él deberá gobernar hasta el último día en el que Cristo decida tenerlo entre nosotros, pues corresponde a Cristo esta decisión y cualquier cuestionamiento a su misión hasta el final es visto no sólo como un insulto sino como una lucha por el poder.

Detrás de esta especie de respeto a la autoridad del Papa, se ha ido consolidando y posicionando un grupo que, en nombre de la absoluta e incondicional fidelidad a Juan Pablo II, prácticamente maneja todas las decisiones de gobierno. La preocupación principal de este grupo no es quién será el sucesor de Pedro sino cómo y quién va a darle continuidad al papado de Juan Pablo II. Por ello buscan colocar y apoyar a aquellos que, según ellos, reúnen los requisitos para dicha continuidad.

Podríamos decir, entonces, que la Iglesia católica está atravesando un momento en el que debe redefinir su modo de estar en el mundo y de anunciar la Buena Nueva. Esta redefinición implica la ruptura del modelo en el que la Iglesia cristalizó en Occidente: una jerarquía fuerte, un centralismo administrativo, una relación conflictiva con el Estado con el que hacía pactos o concordatos que redundaba en privilegios.

Otra de las consecuencias eclesiológicas de esta centralización en la figura del Papa Juan Pablo II es el énfasis en la autoridad jerárquica de la Iglesia, en particular la papal y, por ende, en la primacía de la institución, de su unicidad y uniformidad, todo ello en medio del complejo fenómeno de mundialización de la humanidad -que es la acelerada interrelación de las diversidades y contrastes- pero fuertemente condicionado por un único modelo tecnoeconómico que es la globalización.

A este respecto, la pregunta es, ¿hasta dónde la Iglesia está contribuyendo a la mundialización de la humanidad -y por ende a afirmar y construir una unidad que implique y asuma la diversidad, la diversificación y la superación de los contrastes injustos como dato teológico y soteriológico- o más bien está contribuyendo a la globalización de la misma, es decir, a la uniformización y univocidad del mundo bajo una única autoridad y un solo grupo fiel y representativo de la misma en todas partes? En este contexto, en el que la Iglesia se ha identificado tanto con Occidente, la gran cuestión de fondo será siempre esta: cuando anunciamos la Buena Nueva, ¿estamos difundiendo el Evangelio o la religiosidad colonialista que emana de la cultura occidental? Hoy más que nunca esta pregunta es absolutamente necesaria.

Pero también diría que, en lo que se refiere a Occidente, la Iglesia católica está empezando a pagar una deuda que tenía pendiente. Si durante casi todo el siglo XX aprendió a tomar distancia de los poderes políticos y asumió la doctrina y la lucha en favor de los derechos humanos contra los estados totalitarios, hoy le toca abrirse, como todas las instituciones, al tema de los derechos humanos y ser valorada también por su respeto y promoción incondicional a dichos derechos al interior de sí misma. En otras palabras, diría que la Iglesia está llamada a superar una especie de totalitarismo e impunidad religiosa para poder abrirse a un mundo cada vez más complejo, pero también más consciente de los derechos humanos de las personas y de la diversidad de culturas y formas de organización.

Hay que reconocer que se trata de un fenómeno nuevo en la historia de la autoridad de la Iglesia: rendir cuentas ante otras autoridades que ya no son despóticas, ante la comunidad eclesial, incluyendo la laical y, sobre todo, ante la conciencia de la humanidad.

En términos teológicos, hasta ahora la autoridad de la Iglesia en el mundo sólo rendía cuentas a Dios y dentro de ella; los obispos en la actualidad sólo le rinden cuentas al Papa, quien a su vez no le rinde cuentas a nadie más que a Dios. Esta mentalidad refleja todavía un concepto de soberanía absoluta por parte de la autoridad eclesiástica y papal.

Esto, en la materia que concierne a su ministerio lo podrían aceptar quienes se adhieren a esa doctrina, pero no quienes no la comparten y, mucho menos en materia de justicia y de derechos humanos, porque eso se puede prestar a la interpretación de que la Iglesia puede hablar a todos los poderes del mundo del respeto a los derechos humanos e incluso denunciar situaciones de violación a dichos derechos y hasta buscar derrocar poderes en nombre de dichos derechos, pero a ella nadie le puede pedir cuentas en esa materia porque ella sólo le rinde cuentas a Dios. Esto no puede ser.

Los casos de violación a religiosas en �frica por parte de sacerdotes y el que algunas de ellas hayan sido forzadas a abortar, los de abuso y violación a niños en Estados Unidos y en Oceanía y, en todos los casos, las conductas institucionalizadas de encubrimiento por parte de las autoridades eclesiásticas para salvaguardar la imagen de la Institución, el prestigio de sus ministros y evitar el escándalo, prenden un foco rojo en el tema de los derechos humanos al interior de la Iglesia. La manera en que se ha buscado resolver internamente este asunto se traduce hoy internamente en arbitrariedad e impunidad por parte de quienes detentan la autoridad, y externamente, en encubrimiento y complicidad de delitos graves frente a las autoridades civiles.

Si algo aprendí del magisterio del Papa Juan Pablo II es que la persona humana, todas y cada una, sin excepción, su dignidad y derechos fundamentales, están por encima de todas las estructuras, incluyendo las religiosas; y que las estructuras están al servicio de las personas. Ha llegado el momento en que las autoridades de la Iglesia católica, como las de todas las religiones del mundo, tendrán que rendir cuentas ante autoridades competentes, de violaciones a derechos humanos dentro de sus estructuras. La normatividad interna de la Iglesia se tendrá que ajustar, en materia de delitos, con las leyes civiles. ¿Cómo compaginar esto con la teología del sufrimiento y de la obediencia absoluta como signos del compartir la cruz y la obediencia de Cristo? Es un tema a profundizar.

¿Cómo está viviendo toda esta realidad la Iglesia mexicana? ¿Qué cambios se necesitan? ¿Cómo repercute todo esto en el proceso democratizador que vivimos?

La Iglesia mexicana vive todo esto, en parte, como lo están viviendo todas las iglesias en el mundo y, en parte, a su modo. No se vale apelar al barato nacionalismo mexicano que afirma que lo que pasa en el mundo no pasa en México y que nosotros tenemos nuestra propia y única historia. Las realidades de abuso sexual y de encubrimiento existen, en menor grado, pero el contexto sociocultural y jurídico en materia religiosa hace mucho más complejo y difícil hablar de estos temas y, sobre todo, canalizarlos pastoral y jurídicamente para encontrarles una solución adecuada.

Cabe resaltar que analizando lo que ha sucedido en México sobre el tema a través de los medios, lo que más impacta y escandaliza a muchas personas que tienen capacidad de influir en la sociedad es que se hable de estos temas y que se trate de analizarlos. No les importa si son ciertos o no y, en su caso, qué se puede hacer para resolverlos. Como ya lo mencioné en otro artículo, como estas cosas no deben ser entre los sacerdotes no pueden existir en la realidad y por tanto, por principio, aquella persona que hable de esto automáticamente está difamando, es un traidor y un conspirador. De ahí que, como ya ha sucedido, de lo que se trata finalmente es de controlar los medios (por presión o por autoridad económica o moral –incluyendo la de la Secretaría de Estado-) para que no saquen noticias que pueden escandalizar al pueblo mexicano.

¿Cómo entender que personas católicas con una fuerte formación moral y movimientos laicales comprometidos intransigentemente con el derecho a la vida, sin estudiar a fondo si hubo o no violación a la ley moral y un delito contra niñas y niños, fundándose en el consecuencialismo ético (condenado por el Papa en la Veritatis Splendor) y en la a-priorística teoría de la conspiración, acusen inmediatamente de difamación y de complot a miembros de la comunidad que apelan a un proceso canónico para que la autoridad defina en términos de justicia si hubieron o no violaciones de derechos humanos a niños y si se han violado otras normas civiles y canónicas?

En este sentido, la primacía de la Institución y de sus autoridades como algo intocable es mucho más fuerte, culturalmente hablando, en el pueblo mexicano. Pero esta cultura de la primacía de la Institución y de sus autoridades como algo intocable también la tienen las autoridades civiles por razones históricas. No hay que olvidar que, en toda nuestra historia, nunca hemos podido consolidar una democracia en nuestro país. Hemos tenido procesos democratizadores y hasta transiciones democráticas (las últimas: Madero principios del siglo XX y Fox finales del mismo y principios del XXI), pero nunca hemos podido consolidar una democracia como forma normal de vida de nuestra Nación. ¿Por qué?

Porque el problema de la democracia en México es, en primer lugar, un problema cultural y tiene mucho que ver con la manera en la que como mexicanos entendemos y ejercemos la autoridad (entre caudillos y caciques en palabras Krauze).

Construir y consolidar una cultura democrática en México, como lo descubrimos en el proceso de consulta para la elaboración del documento de los obispos, implica pasar de una cultura del derecho de Estado (es decir, de la primacía de las instituciones y poderes sobre las personas a quienes se les “otorgan� garantías, cfr. Artículo 1º de la Constitución) a una cultura del Estado de derecho en el que la primacía la tienen las personas y sus derechos, y en el que las instituciones y poderes están al servicio de las personas, reconocen sus derechos como inmanentes e inalienables y garantizan el ejercicio real de esos derechos.

Por eso, como una de las conclusiones a las que llegué después de la consulta para el documento fue que la democracia en México no se daría sin la Iglesia católica, una de las instituciones más fuertes y arraigadas en la cultura de las y los mexicanos, pero que tampoco se daría con la Iglesia católica como está, pues, culturalmente hablando, fortalece todavía la idea de la primacía de la Institución y de la autoridad sobre las personas y sus derechos fundamentales. Y esta tendencia se está acentuando más y más con la visión eclesiológica que hoy se está difundiendo como la única posible.

Esto lo vivimos plásticamente durante el proceso electoral cuando supimos que grupos que se consideraban los verdaderamente representativos de la autoridad del Papa Juan Pablo, estuvieron moviéndose aquí y en Roma para dar mensajes a través de los medios y para convencer a algunas autoridades y a la sociedad que México no estaba todavía preparado para la democracia y que no había que dar ninguna señal de la posibilidad real de un cambio político. Esta fue la lectura que le dieron a Mons. Sandri, quien la buscó aplicar en su breve y efímera presencia como Nuncio Apostólico en México, negándose a recibir a Fox y recibiendo oficialmente a Labastida, lo que resultó, políticamente hablando, un verdadero fracaso. La democratización en México es mucho más compleja que procesos electorales limpios y acuerdos entre poderes y partidos.

Termino citando en mis palabras una frase de Jean Meyer en su artículo sobre el sinarquismo en México: Hay que investigar más acerca de las dimensiones políticas de la religión y de las dimensiones religiosas de la política.

Questioning Fr. Neuhaus’ ‘Feathers of Scandal’ Defense of Fr. Maciel & RJN’s Reply

Regarding Pedophilia, Scandal Time III, the Legion & Fr. Maciel

 

By J. Paul Lennon, MA

 

As a Legionary of Christ member for 23 years –15 as priest- and presently as a mental health therapist, I have a couple of points to make: one about ‘Scandal III’, your article in First Things [August-September 2002]; the other about Father Maciel, Founder and Superior General ‘for life’ of the Legion of Christ. Because of your dim view of psychology and psychologists, and perhaps of ex-priests who have not followed your ‘fidelity, fidelity, fidelity’ precept, I hope you will not dismiss off-hand my person or my opinions.

 

REV NEUHAUS DEFENDS MACIEL -PART I

REGARDING PEDOPHILIA AND YOUR ‘SCANDAL TIME III’ ARTICLE

What is pedophilia?
Let me begin by saying that I agree with you that pedophilia is not a result of celibacy and that marriage does not solve pedophilia, or lust. However, I also believe that pedophilia and homosexuality are two different things. Definitions may help clarify this statement. My point is that your article is lacking in a real knowledge of the nature of pedophilia and gets off onto theological and philosophical tangents that distract from the issue.

Beginning in The No-Mercy Route you pick up on journalist Goodstein’s image of ‘seventy-year-old Father X’. The Father X. hypothesis is that here is this nice old priest who had one ‘slip’ many years ago, repented and never did it again. Now the bishops are going to sacrifice him to their ‘zero tolerance’ policy. You come back to this image several times to show just how unmerciful the bishops policy is. However, in this instance and in others throughout your article you seem to ignore the true nature of pedophilia, tend to minimize its gravity, and even sometimes appear to ‘blame the victim’.

At the same time you also seem to slide from the concepts of pedophilia and ephebophilia to homosexuality, placing them on some kind of a continuum of deviousness. You state that in the second installment (June/July) you noted how the ‘pedophilia’ crisis “was now recognized by almost everyone as a crisis created by adult men having sex of various sorts with adolescent and older teenage boys.” I, however, believe there is a consensus among psychologists and moralists that Pedophilia is a peculiar form of sexual abuse involving deception and/or an abuse of power, authority or status. The only difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia –which are essentially the sexual abuse of a minor-, is the age and development stage of the victim: before or after puberty, erection and ejaculation. In other words, whether the offender prefers younger or older minors, and how sexually responsive s/he needs them to be to achieve gratification. I may have overlooked your working definition of ‘pedophilia’. A generally accepted definition [Porter, E., Treating the Young Male Victim of Sexual Assault, Safer Society Press, 1991] would go something like:

‘Contacts or interactions between a minor and a person, usually at least five years older, when the minor is being used as an object of gratification for the more powerful individual’s sexual needs or desires.’

Yes, Father Neuhaus, there is such a thing as ‘no-contact abuse’. This would include contacts with exhibitionists and solicitation to sex, etc. In effect, the ‘sin’ is in the mind and heart of the beholder, as Jesus teaches. Let us remember: pedophilia is not about the actions of the minor but about the reactions and actions of the adult or older, more powerful individual.

The Father X hypothesis
I would consider the Father X benign simile quite devious, especially the way you keep building on what began as a hypothesis. The good Father X takes on a life of his own in your article. Now just let us suppose that Father X had ‘only one abusive incident with a minor, thirty years ago, that he had repented, that he has put his life back in order…’

That one offense was, nevertheless, very serious. Did he receive appropriate consequences and remedial treatment? Did he apologize to the victim? Did he make reparation as best he could? Did he take a serious look at his behavior and tendencies?
Do he, you and your readers realize that once is too much and that a victim can be scarred for life because of one invasion of boundaries, one -as you would put it- ‘impure touch’ of Christ’s little ones.
There is a kind of ‘clerical privilege’ that pervades the articles. It would seem you are saying: Let the victim get his therapy and seek healing while Fr. X gets back to the important business of touching the Body and Blood of Christ.
Are we saying that Fr. X. was caught only once? Could there have been other occasions when he was not caught? Were there other accusations and this the only one that stuck? A real pedophile is not content with a one time fix. Real pedophiles are ‘repeat offenders’.
Pedophiles are notoriously ‘slippery’ and usually respond with blanket denial when confronted. They will stonewall until they are convicted. Many offenses go undetected because the victim is silent or not believed. So offenders usually get a lot of ‘freebies’ before they are caught. How many ‘freebies’ did Father X. get?
Non-violent pedophiles usually need to lay elaborate plans and strategies in order to trap a victim. This is called ‘grooming’ and it can take weeks or months. So in this sense there is no real ‘one time only’. It is not a ‘slip’, like the impulsive pinching you described so well. It is more like a pinching you were thinking about for some time. One might consider it a premeditated accidentally-on-purpose slip.

REGARDING THE LEGION & FR. MACIEL

‘All that glitters is not gold’ regarding the Legion of Christ. Years of experience as a priest and now therapist have led me to be cautious. When someone or something is ‘too good to be true’, it usually is.

In your article you omitted mention of the sexual abuse allegations against Father Maciel, Founder and Superior General ‘for life’ of the Legion Christ for whom you have a predilection. I was fortunate never to have experienced any sexual abuse while in the Legion. However I did experience Father Maciel’s absolute power in governing, his harshness, his public humiliation, his sarcasm and ridicule when commenting on members’ and ‘outsider’s shortcomings. No one, who knows him closely, except his lackeys, would ever consider him ‘saint material’. I did not want to believe the stories when they first appeared. Not until I had heard the testimonies of his accusers –some of whom I had known personally and had no reason to doubt- did I start to believe that something like that could be true. From my point of view, sexual abuse would only be another form of the abuse of power I had come to associate with Father Maciel. You, in your trips to Rome, etc., have experienced the nice side of the Legion and Father Maciel. You are friendly to their cause. They ‘groomed’ you and now they ‘cultivate’ you. You are a benefit to them. You have succumbed to the ‘Master of Deceit’. But you cannot say you know either Father Maciel or the Legion in an intimate way and on a daily basis. You have not lived in community with him for a prolonged period of time. You are impressed by the appearances, by the results, by the glitter…

About the sexual abuse aspect, let me tell you a short story. In 1970, just after our ordination, a colleague of mine was sent as a new superior to the Apostolic School [junior seminary] in Ontaneda, Santander, Spain. Several boys approached him accusing one of the staff, another LC priest, of getting some of the little Spaniards into bed with him. The newly arrived superior knew that Maciel had previously sexually abused the abuser. As a blindly obedient religious, and according to his LC training, he immediately notified Father Maciel. ‘Our Father’ told the priest in question not to worry; that he would take care of everything. Within hours, the Territorial Director, Fr. Rafael Arumí, was dispatched from Salamanca to Ontaneda. The offending priest was summarily sent packing without any process. At that time the Legion was starting a new apostolate: the Mission Prelature in Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico. The offending priest was sent there. He remains there to this day…-if he is still alive…

Since originally drafting this letter to the editor some months ago I have learned that another serious epidemic of pedophilia struck the Apostolic School in Ontaneda, Santander, Spain in recent years, causing the instution to be closed down. This is one of the reasons others and I are concerned that Father Maciel, because of his influence in the Vatican, is getting off scot free and that, subsequently, sexual abuse is being condoned from generation to generation in the Legion. You do understand now how important it is for Father Maciel to totally deny the allegations and discredit his accusers! Otherwise, well-meaning people like you will, sooner or later, start to question…

I, for my part, will not consent with my silence to the continuous endangerment of innocent boys, no matter how apparently holy and worthy the cause.

Paul Lennon MA,

===================================================

FR. NEUHAUS’S RESPONSE TO ABOVE MESSAGE

Fr. Neuhaus graciously replied to this letter with a short note, quoted literally:


Dear Mr. Lennon,

I am familiar with, but not persuaded by, some of the standard distinctions employed in the discussion of sexual deviancies.

I appreciate your thoughts on the Legion and Fr. Maciel. Permit me to suggest, however, that you move with startling rapidity from “having no reason to doubt” that “something like this could be true” to the assumption that Fr. Maciel is guilty of the crimes and sins alleged by his accusers.

If you have not already, you might search the FIRST THINGS website for the article in which I explain why I do not believe the charges against Fr. Maciel.

Thank you for writing.

Cordially,

(The Rev.) Richard John Neuhaus”

========================================

This elicited a second letter to RJN, which was not posted through oversight but will soon appear.

jpl 9/10/04

History of the Accusations Against Marcial Maciel

El Legionario (excerpt)

 

By Alejandro Espinosa

 

Grijalbo, Mexico City, 2003, pp. 22ff

 

1945. When he was 25, in the year of 1945, accusations against the licentious life of Marcial Maciel began to arise; accusations that the Catholic Hierarchy has systematically ignored. Mr. De la Isla handed his preadolescent sons, Carlos, Francisco and Luis over to Maciel to become part of the new order. Luis, the youngest, left after only two years. Concerned about his son’s constant sadness, the father questioned him. When the boy confided to his father that he had been the victim of sexual abuse, the father took a taxi from Querétaro to Cuernavaca to make a complaint to Bishop Francisco González Arias, the very person who ordained Maciel. The bishop punished Maciel with a ‘suspensio a divinis’, i.e. withdrawal of priestly faculties, a censure Maciel never heeded, alleging that it was only a prohibition against hearing confessions; he never bothered to heed this prohibition either, and to this day has never bothered to resolve his canonical status. I will return to these facts in part 3.

1948. Two years after the students arrived at the University of Comillas, the rector, Fr. Francisco-Javier Baeza sj, and the spiritual director, Lucio Rodrigo sj, heard about Maciel’s devious conduct through spiritual direction and confession but they felt sworn to silence because of the seal of confession and confidentiality. Worried, nevertheless, by the influence he could have on their students, they prudently advised him to reform his behavior.

The university authorities felt a moral obligation to find canonical ways to curtail Maciel’s bad influence. Maciel rose to the challenge. Instead of feeling trapped he thought up the best defense: three seminarians from Comillas, theology students about to be ordained, had just come over to join his band; they would be a great help to his order. The reality of the desertion of Comillas students to join the new order was going to be his trump card against the accusations, if they ever reached the Holy See. He would say the Jesuits were against him because his work had enthused the students to such a degree that they had gone over to his side; that Maciel was stealing vocations from the Jesuits. Thus, the ‘defamations’ regarding his drug addictions and sexual deviations would only prove the Jesuits resentment [‘we have worked all day under the sun and, ‘behold’, here this laborer comes at the eleventh hour…’]. That is why they would defame and back-stab him before the authorities of the Holy See.

The falsity of such an explanation was obvious. The students at Comillas were not Jesuit seminarians but rather seminarians for the diocesan clergy. So the Jesuits never complained of robbery or betrayal, nor were they moved by resentment. On the contrary, they proved their support by allowing Maciel’s students to continue their studies at the Jesuit-run Gregorian University in Rome. In this way Maciel created the myth of Jesuit animosity against his work. Father Lucio Rodrigo was simply a Jesuit teacher who, as a individual and from a sense of duty, sent a letter to the Vatican criticizing Maciel, not his order. But that document was intercepted by the postmaster in Comillas, bribed by Maciel, and never got to Rome. Gabriel Cortés �vila, a young Legionary student at the time, witnessed the bribe. He saw Maciel pay the postmaster off for passing him the incoming and outgoing mail for Comillas. This way he could review at his ease all the correspondence between Fathers Baeza and Rodrigo with the Vatican. This practice, of course, was common law in the Legion. The superior checked the outgoing and incoming mail of all the religious, except the Superior General. We never received a closed letter, nor could we close the letters we sent to our family.

Maciel used the supposed opposition of the Jesuits to his advantage, ignoring the reality. The Jesuits were not interested in recruiting the men that joined the Legion. Au contraire, their mission had been to recruit vocations in Latin America, train them in their universities and send them back to the diocesan priesthood. This was their strategy to resolve the lack of priestly vocations in a Mexico, still devastated by Calles anti-Catholic persecution.

Maciel always held that his enemies were constantly at his back, like a malevolent shadow, trying to poison him. His vices did not allow him to acknowledge that loving wings protected his children, adolescents and youth, educating them with magnanimous care. His self-imposed amnesia led him to believe that everything depended on him and he owed nothing to others. Later a blanket of obscurity would envelop the past. Once he had power he would create a smoke screen behind which the hardworking Fathers Lucio and the rector of Comillas University, Francisco-Javier Baeza, would disappear into oblivion. Did the Vatican ever learn about the accusations? Marcial Maciel refers in his letters on several occasions (May 1947, May 1953 and October 1953) to accusations and defamation against him, without ever describing the nature of the accusations or the names of his accusers.

1954. New accusations from his disciples forced the Vatican to supervise the conduct of the Founder more closely. But it was not until after Cardinal Valerio Valeri found him in Rome’s Salvator Mundi hospital frothing at the mouth from a morphine overdose did the Pro Secretary of the Holy Office, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, order an investigation. As a result of this on Thursday October 11, 1956, Maciel was exiled from Rome and deposed from his position as Superior General. But by then he had powerful allies in the Roman Curia: Cardinals Clemente Micara, vicar of the diocese of Rome, Guiseppe Pizardo, Prefect of the Congregation for Seminaries and Universities and Chancellor of the Gregorian Pontifical University, and Nicola Canali, Vatican Governor. All exercised their influence to block the proceedings and allow Maciel to come back to Rome two and half years later without a canonical definition of the case.

1963. The writer. A year after leaving the Legion in August, 1962, I could not find peace of conscience. I felt I was obligated to alert the authorities to the abuses, to denounce the illicit actions. On the one hand, I never considered approaching civil authorities, which I have never trusted. When people asked me about why I left my priestly vocation my excuse was the heavy burden of celibacy, although I inwardly reproached myself for this lie. I began to seek spiritual help. I approached the Episcopal office of the diocese of Mexico. I spoke of the problem several times in confession. The invariable advice was to ‘leave it all in the hands of God’ and his justice. This advice gradually frustrated me to the extent that I began to withdraw from clergy and Church until, five years later, I lost my faith.

1976. Juan José Vaca. Depressed by his sinful relationship with Maciel, he left the Legion in 1976 and entered the diocese of Rockville Center on Long Island, New York. As an active priest, in 1976 he made a statement following canonical protocol, through official channels and the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, regarding the experiences that tortured his soul. He went as far as to ask for a leave of absence from the priesthood.

He swore that Maciel began abusing him in 1949, when he, Vaca, was 13 years old. The assault not only attacked his body but also damaged his immature psyche, too tender to resist the attack. He showed his bishop, Msgr. John R. McGann, the 12-page letter addressed to Maciel, which he stated he handed to Maciel, explaining the reasons why he was leaving the Legion. For thirteen years, full of anguish and confusion, he had been Maciel’s ‘concubine under obedience’. ‘What you did contradicts the faith of the Church and the Order […] Numerous nights you abused my innocence; nights not only of lost sleep but of danger to my mental health.’ [I thought] This was the reason Vaca looked haggard during the day, falling asleep during his acts of piety in community.

-‘You sleep like a horse, on your feet!- Maciel would joke, amid the cascade of laughter of the community. Juan José was in no position to explain the reason he was so tired.

Despite the seriousness of his allegations, the Vatican did not respond. He never even received a bureaucratic response when his complaint was lodged according to Vatican protocol: his bishop sent the letter by diplomatic courier to the Vatican. By that time Maciel had become a friend of Pope John Paul II. The Pope must have heard by then the accusatory rumors of ex-legionaries trying to open an investigation, or, at least, trying to alert authorities to the sexual deviations of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. It was to no avail. Maciel’s power was firmly established and the Holy See appeared to prefer to protect his image.

1976. Félix Alarcón. The priest Félix Alarcón Hoyos, born in Madrid, Spain, joined the Legion at an early age, 16, in 1949. He left the Legion in 1966, already an ordained priest, and he joined the diocese of Rockville Center, New York, which would later welcome Juan José Vaca. In 1976 a letter from Félix was sent in the same diplomatic briefcase, corroborating Vaca’s accusations. Félix had been the most assiduous servant of the Superior General; and the most efficient, as personal secretary, narcotics supplier, letter writer, carrying out many other administrative tasks that lightened Maciel’s burden. It is natural that his close collaboration allowed him to witness Maciel’s double life. In 1978 Bishop Mc Gann transferred him to the diocese of Naples, Florida, where he retired in 2001 in excellent standing. The Vatican did not answer his letter either, as is always the case regarding the powerful Maciel. It did, however, send a receipt of both letters to the diocese of Rockville Center. But it never initiated an investigation or tried to contact the accusers. It was as if the 1956-58 investigation had bolted the doors against further ‘calumnies’.

1983. Juan José Vaca made another attempt with all the means at his disposition in order to find inner peace. Receiving no response from the Church to his petitions, or any consolation for his troubled soul, he decided to leave the priesthood. In his petition for dispensation he wrote a shorter, seven-page letter, in which he stated he had not been properly trained for the obligations inherent to the priestly life. With great personal courage and humility he went as far as to say that the sexual abuse of which he was a victim had left him vulnerable to impure impulses to which he had fortunately never given in. The Vatican again did not answer his accusations but did grant him a dispensation from celibacy. He was thus later able to be married in the Church, and now teaches psychology at a college in Jamaica, New York. He has one daughter and is a practicing catholic.

1989. José Barba. This is the year José reconnected with Juan-Manuel Fernández Amenábar, a patient at the Sanatorio Español in Mexico City in 1990. Fernández-Amenábar was suffering from a stroke that affected his speech and lead to partial paralysis, and also from a spiritual illness that led him to lose his faith. These were the first contacts of men who were later to be called ‘conspirators’ by the official Legion of Christ. Barba left the Legion is 1962 weighed down by his own sufferings and those of others. José left the same year as I. There was no agreement between us regarding the time or the reason. We never talked about our difficulties while in the sacred precinct: it would have been against our Private Vow, and this would have led to our expulsion ipso facto, and, we believed, to a falling from grace.

Maciel held onto José two years in Mexico City with promises of a scholarship to a foreign university. I tried to dissuade my friend Barba on several occasions, as Maciel himself had told me he would string José along until José got tired of waiting. José eventually was able to register at Tufts University and got an MA in Romance Languages. Then he taught school while doing his doctorate in Latin American Studies at Harvard. He has had a brilliant career. At present he is a professor at the ITAM Institute in Mexico City, having previously been a respected professor at the Universidad de la Americas.

The conversations between Barba and Amenábar [as he was called in the Legion], for his part a retired chancellor of the Anahuac University, led them to compare notes. They came to the conclusion there was a pattern and they should take their case to Church authorities. Psychologist Francesca Tófano encouraged them. From this moment on they would only have to remember who else had been victims and let them know of their decision to denounce Marcial Maciel. Without any formal invitation, those of us who signed the accusation all joined in our plea for justice, not to vindicate ourselves but essentially to inform Holy Mother Church about this impostor.

Naturally, some of the accusers knew nothing about our intentions until Jason Berry came to Mexico to interview us, months after the death of Juan Manuel, and after conversations with canon lawyer Antonio Roqueñi and sociologist Alberto Athié.

1991. Juan-Manuel Fernández-Amenábar: For a very long time Amenábar hid his conflict with Maciel because of the prestigious positions and honors with which Maciel showered him as a way to win his silence.

He had become aware of my accusations against Maciel before the local Church authorities in Mexico City and he mentioned this when I visited him as principal of the Irish Institute in 1971. He did not want to talk to me. He pretended not to recognize me until I pronounced his name out loud several times, ‘Amenabár’ [which is what we used to call him in the Legion]. Then he smiled; he was still under the ‘brainwashing’ to which we were all subjected; but he had already begun to notice the contradictory ethics of his superior.

Amenábar was not the only one who had received my 1963 accusations with skepticism and even with disgust.

-‘Alejo, you’re just a miserable vulgar calumniator!- was how Mario Lucatero-�lvarez, the lawyer, responded. -‘and even worse; you’re a filthy swine!’

They didn’t know about the others. I felt disconsolate. I felt full of rage. Those who had been victims were still silent, impotent to reveal their abuse. We ourselves could not believe it -even after suffering such abuse- of a person whom we all considered a saint.

After leaving the Irish Institute, I noticed a dramatic change in Juan Manuel. While on that occasion he pretended not to recognize me, afterwards I came upon him playing dominoes in Chapultepec Park –maybe to take his mind off his troubles- and we talked like old friends about that mission where the ‘Love of Christ’ had joined our lives. We bumped into each other again around the end of the 70s. We met again, probably around 1978, at the home of Amparo and Julio Serrano, where Father Amenábar baptized their son, Manuelito, the youngest of their children. This was the last time I saw him until I visited him at the Sanatorio Espanol many years later: we never touched the issue of the accusation.

I had left Mexico City for the state of Tamaulipas and lost contact but I learned Amenábar had left the Legion in 1984, abadoning his position at the Anahuac and the priesthood. I understood his crisis: I myself had lived it to the point of losing my faith; the same thing happened to him. The friends who were close to him spoke of the terrible conflict caused by the sexual abuses of his superior. He immigrated to San Diego after getting married in Mexico City. Separated after five or six years of married life, he returned to Mexico City. In 1985 we heard the rumor spread by the official Legion about Juan Manuel having died in Houston, Texas, where he had gone to get his pacemaker replaced [he actually did have one]. The Legion thought that this way the people that knew him would stop asking about him, particularly those friends of the Legion who loved him, among whom he had prestige and influence, and who wanted to know why he left. They knew nothing of his interior struggle.

In 1991 he had suffered the thrombosis that prostrated him and led him to the Sanatorio Español where he would die five years later. A Father Alberto Athié visited the sick patient, trying to revive his faith and alleviate his suffering soul. It was hard for Amenábar to open up, not only because of the shame involved but also because of his lack of faith and rejection of priests who he felt had done him so much damage. Athié’s perseverance managed to pry open Amenábar’s tightly sealed soul to bleed the poison. [This had happened to all of us. We lacked the courage to reveal the shame that bound us]. Athié became Amenábar’s ally in his efforts to bring his complaint before Church authorities. Through it all, Amenábar found it very hard to forgive Maciel.

The one-time chancellor of the Anahuac University, suffering the consequences of a stroke, worked hard on his rehabilitation with the help of Dr. Gabriela Quintero-Calleja who watched his progress in language and movements. That is when he began to write a serious accusation against Marciel Maciel regarding the sexual abuse suffered during his childhood and adolescence.

At the end of his life he made Athié promise that he would make his accusations known by all possible means and that, thought he wanted to forgive his perpetrator, he also demanded justice. With the hope that Athié would be his spokesperson he ‘feel asleep in the Lord’ around lunch time on February 5, 1995, in unclear circumstances. Athié celebrated the funeral Mass in the Hospital chapel and he referred to the harm done by Maciel –without mentioning his name- to the deceased. His homily reached its peak when he repeated Amenábar’s phrase: Let there be pardon, but let there be justice! I do not share the other aspects of Amenábar’s idyllic passing. I see too many sinister machinations around Juan Manuel’ death by Legionaries under strict order of their boss, Marcial Maciel.

Athié himself was aware of the climate of fear among those who dared accuse the founder, even before he knew the players personally. He stated to the National Catholic Reporter that ‘Amenábar was very vigorous in his rejection of Maciel. He refused to forgive him.’ From this point on Athié became the voice of Amenábar before authorities, even when his zeal led to Cardinal Rivera-Carrera demoting him from his position, while asseverating: ‘It is a conspiracy against Father Maciel. There is nothing more to say!’ He forbade Athié to bring up the issue again. The final repercussion of the denunciation against Maciel before the Cardinal Primate of Mexico was ‘I was sidelined from my position in the Church’, as Athié said to the Chicago Catholic Theological Union. Although he was never officially dismissed, he kept finding barriers wherever he went. There was a silent message. His involvement in this issue sealed his fate. He had held a position contrary to the cardinal and the majority of bishops aligned with the Church’s strong man.

1994. Contact begins. José Barba called me on the phone. Obviously, in his talks with Amenábar they had decided to alert the Church to the danger of this ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. Then wanted me to give my testimony too about the abuses. I became overwhelmed once more with hopelessness and anger, and I refused. José was patient and just kept in contact. A few months later I learned of the case of children who were abused in the 80s at the Legion’s Instituto Cumbres. I never heard about in the press at the time it happened. The Maciel theme was taboo then, thanks to the protection of several powerful newspaper owners, alumni of his schools and universities. But I became aware of the terrible suffering of Elsa Hemkes, the mother of one of the young boys, in her efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice, and how she lost her fortune to lawyers and court costs. This experience revived the memory of my own experience and awakened my soul.

A lady friend of one of the abused children and lawyer José Antonio Pérez-Olvera mediated to reach Jason Berry, the reporter. At that point, without believing that Church authorities would pay attention –I already knew how useless that would be: ‘leave it all in God’s hands’, and without any faith in civil authorities either, I began to write the nucleus of the my forgotten history, as a catharsis, to encourage my companions.

José Barba and other companions visited Juan Manuel at the Sanatorio and they told me about his condition. I got the idea of visiting him the next time I went to Mexico City. The first time I saw him was in October 1994 and afterwards I visited him periodically, bringing him medications from the States that were hard to get in Mexico. I was close to his physical suffering, the pacemaker he had installed in Houston. But above all I became aware of the incurable uneasiness which made him depressed and which would not let him rest as long as he remained silent.

1995. Cardinal Daly’s Letter. Soon after this we heard about the valiant declaration of Cardinal Cahil Daly, Primate of Ireland, stating he would not cover up for priests who had committed sexual abuse. On February the 5th 1995 we sent him a letter through a well-trusted friend. The plan was that this person would hand deliver it to Cardinal Daly, or return it to us. In this letter we expressed our concerns in a moderate tone. He never answered our letter while Primate of Ireland; nor afterwards. We learned his answer through Berry who, almost two years later, called him to check about the letter. The cardinal’s secretary responded that ‘His Eminence had received the letter, but that, because it was such a delicate subject….’

1996. Accidentally, without a conspiracy or anything like it, Jason Berry tracked down several of the first ten accusers. Despondent as we were because of the same lack of response, he had to find us one by one, helping us rise from our individual ruins of formerly chosen souls. Gerald Renner, his colleague, knew about Juan José Vaca’s accusation and he interviewed him in New York. He shared the results with Berry and asked him to fly to Mexico to gather further information. To his surprise, Berry told him he already knew about the problem. In August Berry arrive to interview us. José Antonio Pérez-Olvera, José Barba-Martín and I went to the appointment and told him about other victims he could contact. Many names were mentioned and Berry conducted the corresponding interviews. I gave him the name of Father Félix Alarcón-Hoyos, then living in Naples, Florida. The phone interview was unusual in the sense that, even though he was still a priest, after he confirmed our revelations regarding drug-addiction and pedophilia, Félix added his own confessions about his experiences over several years as Marcial Maciel’s secretary, personal valet, concubine and drug supplier. Most worthy of note is a letter, hand-written after the publication of the Hartford Courant’s August 4th 1997 article, where the priest reveals his profound and prolonged pain: ‘He must ask our forgiveness on his knees begging us to forgive him as Christians’. In another paragraph he refers to the investigation in Rome carried out by the Carmelite Superior General, Anastasio Ballestrero [del Santísimo Rosario], and by his assistant, Father Benjamin Lachaert: ‘We all lied during the Apostolic Visitation so as to save him; so small was our world and so limited our options. My greatest suffering, due to our iron discipline, was the psychological torture of not being able to talk about this with anybody […] The horrible spiritual distortion presented to us as if it were the God’s Plan when it was its opposite, the brainwashing, and the curse on anyone who dared think for himself […]’.

[El Legionario, pages 22-32; to be continued]

The Hartford Courant, 1997. Head of Worldwide Catholic Order Accused of History of Abuse

By Gerald Renner and Jason Berry

 

The Hartford Courant/February 23, 1997

 

After decades of silence, nine men have come forward to accuse the head of an international Roman Catholic order of sexually abusing them when they were boys and young men training to be priests.

The men, in interviews in the United States and Mexico, said the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, molested them in Spain and Italy during the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s. Several said Maciel told them he had permission from Pope Pius XII to seek them out sexually for relief of physical pain.

Those making the allegations include a priest, guidance counselor, professor, engineer and lawyer. Some of the men, now in their 50s and 60s, wept during the interviews. All said the events still haunt them.

They said they are coming forward now because Pope John Paul II did not respond to letters from two priests sent through church channels in 1978 and 1989 seeking an investigation, and then praised Maciel in 1994 as an “efficacious guide to youth.”

“The pope has reprimanded Germans for lack of courage during the Nazi era. We are in a similar situation. For years we were silent. Then we tried to reach authorities in the church. This is a statement of conscience,” said Jose de J. Barba Martin, one of the men alleging the abuse.

Maciel, who is based in Rome and travels often to Mexico, declined requests for an interview. But the Legionaries issued a lengthy denial on his behalf.

“Each of these allegations is false. Father Maciel has never engaged in sexual relations of any sort with any seminarian or novice, nor has he engaged in any of the other improprieties alleged,” stated the Rev. Owen Kearns, the Legionaries’ U.S. spokesman, based in Orange, Conn. His 19-page statement and other documents were provided by the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland and Ellis, a Chicago law firm.

The Legion statement describes Maciel, now 76, as the target of a conspiracy by men with “personal vendettas against him” to “fabricate these devastating charges” and destroy his standing.

The chief Vatican spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, did not respond to repeated Courant requests by telephone, letter and fax for comment.

None of Maciel’s accusers has filed legal action or sought financial compensation from the Legionaries or the Catholic Church. Many of them remain loyal Catholics and said they are not blaming the religious order or the Catholic Church. They said all they seek is accountability by church authorities for what they said was Maciel’s sexual misconduct.

Founded by Maciel in Mexico in 1941, the Legionaries of Christ is one of the fastest-growing religious orders in the Roman Catholic Church, recruiting boys as young as 10. It reports it has 350 priests and 2,000 seminarians — double the number of a decade ago — in 18 countries.

The Legion’s U.S. headquarters are in Orange. It has a seminary in Cheshire, where about 200 young men are enrolled for the last two years of high school and a two-year novitiate program. Neither school is implicated in the accusations involving Maciel. The order specializes in education. Besides its seminaries, it runs prep schools in Latin America, Europe and the United States, a university in Mexico City and schools for the poor in Mexico. Kearns said the order also carries out food distribution programs and promotes urban and rural development in Latin America.

The Courant learned of the sexual abuse allegations against Maciel after publishing articles last year about the order’s buying two national Catholic weekly newspapers — the National Catholic Register and Twin Circle. The stories went into the Legion’s fund-raising tactics and strict discipline in its seminary training. Three men said they had to flee novitiate training in a seminary in New Castle, N.Y., when their requests to leave were ignored.

Eight of the men making the accusations of sexual abuse, including a priest in Florida, are Mexicans and Mexican Americans who are professionally successful. The ninth was a Spanish-born former Legionary priest and university president who dictated a deathbed statement in 1995 accusing Maciel of molesting him as a youth. Among those who say that Maciel abused them are two men who helped to establish the order in the United States.

One is the Rev. Felix Alarcon, 63, of Venice, Fla., who opened the Legion’s first U.S. base in the Woodmont section of Milford, Conn., in 1965. The other is a former priest, Juan Vaca, 59, of Holbrook, N.Y., who was president of the Legionaries in the United States from 1971 to 1976.

In response, the Legion’s law firm produced letters from four Mexican laymen — two who work for the order in Mexico and one who had worked for Maciel’s brother — who say that the accusers tried to enlist them in a scheme to discredit Maciel with false accusations.

“They are lying in a pitiful way out of loyalty to Father Maciel,” said Barba, 57, a Harvard-educated literary scholar at one of Mexico’s leading universities, the Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico. Barba said that Maciel sexually abused him as a teenage seminarian in Rome in July 1955.

Only hours before publication, after The Courant told Maciel’s law firm it would publish the article today, the law firm notified The Courant that a 10th man who had alleged abuse by Maciel retracted earlier statements. Those statements were made in an interview in November and a detailed sworn affadavit he had given in January.

Miguel Diaz Rivera, 62, of Oaxaca in south central Mexico, said in a second affadavit signed 15 days ago that he had been encouraged by former Legionaries to make the allegations. A professor and former Legionary priest, Diaz now denies knowledge of sexual misconduct by Maciel.

Most of the other accusers had provided affadavits in support of their allegations against Maciel. None of the others has been retracted.

Maciel weathered a Vatican investigation between 1956 and 1958, during which he was suspended from his duties as head of the Legion. The record of the investigation presumably lies in secret Vatican archives.

James F. Basile, an attorney with the Legion’s law firm, said Maciel was reinstated after being cleared of accusations that he abused drugs, misused money and engaged in other improprieties — which did not include sexual misconduct.

The men making the allegations of sexual abuse today say they were not among those who complained about Maciel in the 1950s. In fact, they said, they were young seminarians at the time who hotly defended the order’s superior general, whom they were taught to call “Nuestro Padre” — Our Father.

The accusers said that Maciel molested more than 30 boys from the 1940s through at least the early 1960s. Several said he maintained a long-term sexual relationship with them.

Separate accounts of a similar sexual initiation went like this:Maciel would summon a boy to his room at night and be in his bed, writhing in apparent pain, and ask the boy to rub his stomach. The session would typically end in mutual masturbation. Alarcon, the priest in Florida, said Maciel took advantage of him “when I was very small and very young.”

The Courant spoke with Alarcon after he had been named by others as among those who were victimized as boys by Maciel. Alarcon confirmed the reports. Alarcon left the Legionaries in 1966 to become a parish priest in the Long Island, N.Y., Diocese of Rockville Centre. He has been detached from the diocese to minister among Hispanics in Florida.

Vaca, the former president of the Legionaries in the United States, entered the order at Maciel’s invitation when he was 10 years old in Mexico. He said the superior general began molesting him two years later when he was taken to a seminary in Spain. He said he endured a psychosexual relationship for a dozen years, into adulthood, that he is still struggling to understand.

In 1976 Vaca wrote a detailed letter to Maciel, with a list of 20 victims, which he says he hand-delivered to the Legion founder in Mexico City to explain why he was quitting the order. “Everything you did contradicts the beliefs of the church and the order,” Vaca wrote.

Maciel, he said, tried to persuade him to remain in the order, while refusing to confront his reasons for leaving. Kearns, the Legionaries’ spokesman, said in his statement that Vaca is seeking revenge because he was incompetent in his job and was being demoted. Vaca disputes that claim but acknowledges that despondency over years of abuse had affected his ministry. In 1978, Vaca said, he gave a copy of his 1976 letter to Bishop John R. McGann of Rockville Centre, Long Island, who had accepted him as a parish priest. He said McGann forwarded the letter, along with a corroborating letter from Alarcon and other documents, to the Vatican.

Monsignor John A. Alesandro, a diocesan canon lawyer who handled Vaca’s case for the bishop, confirmed that the documents were sent to Rome in 1978, as well as a 1989 letter from Vaca to Pope John Paul II, when he decided to leave the priesthood. “All I can say is that there are different levels where people are informed about this. It was our duty to get this stuff into the right hands. I don’t know why it was not acted on. . . . It’s a substantive allegation that should have been acted on,” the canon lawyer said. Alarcon said, “Nothing ever came of it. It’s amazing. . . . There are big people in Rome who are avoiding this.”

A spiritual army
The Mexicans making the allegations were known in the Legion as “the apostolic schoolboys,” because they had been trained in the order’s strict disciplinary ways from the time they were as young as 10. Americans and Irishmen who joined the Legion in late adolescence said in interviews that they felt like “second-class citizens” compared with Maciel’s favored “apostolic schoolboys.” They said they were unaware of the Mexicans’ allegations of abuse.

According to the official Legionaries’ history, Maciel started his religious order on Jan. 3, 1941, when he was a 20-year-old theology student and took charge of the schooling of a group of boys who were 12 and 13 years old.

That was after he had left two seminaries — in Vera Cruz, Mexico, in 1938 and a Jesuit-run seminary in Montezuma, New Mexico, in 1940 — for what the official history calls “misunderstandings” about his desire to start a religious order.

But one of Maciel’s uncles, Bishop Francesco Gonzalez Arias of Cuernavaca, Mexico, oversaw his training and ordained him a priest on Nov. 26, 1944. He was 24, a young age for a priest, especially one who had failed to finish training in two seminaries. The idea for a “spiritual army” came naturally to Maciel, who was born March 10, 1920, into a large family, originally from France. He grew up nurtured on war stories.

Four of his uncles were bishops and one was a general. The former Legionaries remember he had enthralled them with stories of how the general fought to defend the church during the Mexican Civil War, in which many members of the clergy were murdered. The war ended in 1920 but persecutions of priests continued into the 1930s, until an authoritarian one-party rule emerged.

Many Mexicans considered the church a spiritual refuge that had prevailed over violence. Moreover, the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s had been won by Gen. Francisco Franco, a Catholic who had pledged to restore the monarchy. Franco governed Spain as a dictator and was admired by conservative Mexicans.

By various accounts a brilliant fund-raiser, Maciel cultivated wealthy patrons in Mexico and, in time, Spain as well, by impressing donors with his program of moral rectitude in a quasi-military order. He managed to raise 200,000 pesos, a substantial sum in those days, to begin his religious order. He first called it the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart. Then he changed it to the Legionaries of the Pope, and finally settled on the Legionaries of Christ.

By 1948 Maciel had established a Legion seminary in a mansion in Tlalpan, a suburb south of Mexico City. Tall trees surrounded the estate, which had a large swimming pool and picturesque lake. Sometimes Maciel mingled, playing marbles or passing leisure time with older boys. But he had no casual agenda. The boys were told that Maciel was a living saint, on a personal crusade against communism on behalf of the holy father in Rome.

In the late ’40s the Legion expanded into Spain, by arranging for the older students to study philosophy at the Jesuits’ University of Comillas in the northern province of Santander.

But Maciel’s penchant for trying to recruit other seminarians to join the Legion is said to have led to friction with the Jesuits, who severed ties with him. The Legionaries studied at a nearby monastery until the early 1950s, when Maciel found a location at Ontaneda, in Santander province, where the seminary has operated ever since. From Ontaneda, where the seminarians study philosophy, they advance to major theological studies in Rome.

In recruiting boys for the order, many of the former Legionaries interviewed said, Maciel had an obsession with light-haired, fair-skinned youth. Vaca said when Maciel sent him to Spain in 1963, “my instructions were to get the prettiest and smartest kids.”

An extra vow
The Legionaries pledged total fidelity to the pope and took the traditional three vows that members of other religious orders do — of poverty, chastity and obedience. They took a fourth one as well: They swore never to speak ill of the Legion, Maciel or their superiors — and to inform on anyone who did.

The former Legionaries remember being taught that women were temptresses and masturbation a mortal sin. In an art encyclopedia at the Spanish seminary, the plate of Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus” and other works depicting the unclothed feminine form were covered by dark paper with Scotch tape.

The countryside was beautiful and the classical curriculum a boon to boys with a scholarly bent. Many boys formed friendships that lasted long after they departed.

The boys were told that if they left the Legion, their souls would literally go to hell: “Lost vocation, sure damnation” was the phrase that moved many of them to remain, years after wanting to leave. Eventually, some of those who said they had been abused sought out therapists to cope with traumatic memories.

They watched films celebrating Franco and heard stories of Nuestro Padre’s heroic fight against debilitating illnesses. Disciplinary standards were medireview. To ward off impure thoughts, the former Legionaries said, they were given the “cilicio,” a leather strap studded with chain hooks to wrap around their thighs.

“The needles entered my flesh and caused great pain,” one former seminarian recalled, “yet my bad thoughts pursued me still.” At night, they recalled, dormitory silence was torn by sound bursts of boys striking their own backs with whips as punishment for their sins.

As described by the men, it was a culture in which one’s every moment was to be accounted for, not just in seminary but throughout their lives as priests — a system of total control. Incoming and outgoing mail was monitored and they had no access to telephones. The oath to inform on anyone speaking ill of Nuestro Padre or his Legion meant they were expected to spy on one another, they said. Contact with their families was severely curtailed. Juan Vaca said that for “12 years I was kept in Europe away from my parents and family. I was not allowed to see them or keep close contact with them.”

The former Legionaries said punishment was harsh. Fernando Perez Olvera, 62, an engineer in Mexico, said that he was 14 when he recoiled from sexual advances Maciel made. He said he began breaking rules to get himself expelled.

One time, he said, Maciel “locked me in a room with one bed and a night table, and one window that had to remain closed. . . . It was very hard in that jail.” The solitary confinement lasted a month, he recalled. “If I had been there for a longer time, I would have lost my mind.”

Another time, he said, Maciel told him to pack, and ordered him to walk to the railroad station miles away. He left in midmorning and arrived there at 7 p.m., tired and hungry. He had no money and by 11 p.m. felt desperate and alone when Maciel arrived in a car and took him back to the seminary. Shortly thereafter he was expelled and returned to Mexico by ship. Several years later, in the mid-’50s, Perez’s younger brother, Jose Antonio Perez Olvera, was summoned to Maciel’s room, where the founder expressed concern for Fernando’s health.

“He said my brother masturbated frequently and it was urgent to take him away from this sin,” said Jose Antonio Perez, 59, who is now a lawyer in Mexico City.

“I didn’t know what to think. I had not spoken of this with my brother,” he said. Maciel, Jose Antonio continued, told him that he needed a sample of his semen to send to a famous doctor in Madrid, whose analysis would help remedy his brother’s problem. The former seminarian said he was bewildered, but submitted as Maciel fondled him to orgasm, put the semen in a flask and said soothingly, “The purpose was right.” Then, he said, Maciel told him to receive Holy Communion and “never tell anyone of this heroic act.” “The details of my violation could prove to be funny if they had not been derived from the tremendous tragedy to me,” Jose Antonio said.

Having entered the Legion at 10, he believed “chastity was the No. 1 virtue.” He likened the experience with Maciel to “being deflowered” and said it made him feel he was “an accomplice.” Suffering from insomnia and anxiety, he kept his distance from Maciel until he left the order at age 25. Today, Jose Antonio Perez views the self-flagellating by seminarians as “a form of psychological transference” — punishing themselves for Maciel’s sins.

Papal dispensation
Arturo Jurado Guzman, 58, who teaches at the U.S. Defense Department School of Linguistics in Monterey, Calif., entered the Legion at 11. He says he was 16 when Maciel summoned him to his bedside.

In a darkened room, he said, Maciel was moaning with pain he attributed to abdominal problems. “He told me to put my hand on his stomach and start massaging,” Jurado said with a sigh. Maciel told him “to go lower and lower,” coaxing the teenager to masturbate him, while the priest began fondling Jurado.

“He said that he had a personal dispensation from Pope Pius XII to do these sexual acts because of his pain,” Jurado said. He submitted to Maciel’s designs about 40 times, Jurado said, and when he resisted Maciel’s attempts at anal penetration, Maciel summoned another boy.

Vaca, who would rise to be head of the order in the United States, said that his first sexual encounter was under similar circumstances. Afterward, he said, “I told him I didn’t feel right. I wanted to go to confession. He said, `There is nothing wrong. You don’t have to go to confession.”

Vaca recalls that when his dismay did not melt away, Maciel said, “Here, I will give you absolution” — and made the sign of the cross. Alejandro Espinosa Alcala, 59, a Legion seminarian in the early 1950s who today is a rancher in rural Mexico, said Maciel would sometimes bring him and another boy together in bed for mutual masturbation. “I could not fight my natural repugnancies,” Espinosa reflected.

Maciel assured him that the activity was “morally correct,” he said, because he was only acting as a “technical nurse” and that the priest had received special papal permission to use boys, not women, in that role.

One who said he resisted Maciel’s sexual advances was Saul Barrales Arellano, 62, who has taught in Catholic schools in Mexico for many years since leaving the Legion. As a seminarian, he was known as “the charitable one” by his peers, who thought his kindness would make him a natural priest.

Barrales said that Maciel “asked me to manipulate him sexually five or 10 times and I refused.” Barrales said he would lie across the doorway of the bedroom when Maciel drifted off to sleep, to keep out others who he feared might be more willing to do Maciel’s bidding.

The former Legionaries said that Maciel seemed to dissociate himself from the sexual acts, separating the bedroom encounters from his priestly activities.

To some he never acknowledged that anything unusual had happened. Barba, the literary scholar, said that after a sexual encounter with Maciel, the priest calmly dressed and walked with the youth to bless an outdoor lunch under blue skies. “Fundamentally, Maciel’s case is one of a divided personality,” said Miguel Diaz, in his initial statements.

Maciel claimed to be “suffering from a disease,” Diaz had said before his retraction, “that caused him to retain sperm in his testicles, causing him insufferable pain that could only be relieved with a specific drug . . . or through masturbation, which he asked me to perform on several occasions and which I obviously did.”

Questions of drug use
Maciel’s medical history has been a source of curiosity to the men who say he sexually abused them. Each one said Maciel was addicted to painkilling drugs despite his being cleared of that accusation in the Vatican investigation.

In Rome, Jurado said, he was dispatched to Salvator Mundi hospital on a dozen occasions to obtain morphine. Under orders from Maciel, Jurado said, “I gave him injections many times in the forearm.”

Barrales, “the charitable one” who said he resisted the sexual advances, said that he was dispatched, usually by car, to Isola Tiberina, a hospital on a small isle in the Tiber River, to obtain drugs. If refused there, Barrales said, the driver would head to another hospital.

“We were living in a world with a lack of knowledge. I would go to drugstores to ask for the drugs but they wouldn’t give them to me because they were forbidden. When I went to hospitals run by nuns, some of them would give me the drugs to take to Maciel,” said Barrales.

`The War’
The Legion’s official history, published in 1995, makes no reference to the Vatican investigation of Maciel between 1956 and 1958. Legionaries refer to it as the time of “The War.”

In the fall of 1956, they recall, a distraught Maciel tearfully told his seminarians in Rome that he had to show his obedience to the pope, even though mistaken Vatican officials were investigating him. With Maciel suspended as superior, confusion spread: How could Nuestro Padre be in trouble with Pope Pius XII, who had approved the Legion as a Roman Catholic order?

Maciel went to Villa Linda, a hospital outside Rome. Statements from three physicians, two dated in October 1956 and one undated, provided by the Legion through its law firm, say that Maciel was in good health and specifically had no drug problem. Nevertheless, the former Legionaries insist that Maciel was, indeed, addicted to painkilling drugs, despite what the doctors wrote. Ironically, it was the realization of his addiction that softened their attitudes toward his sexual abuse of them, they said.

The ex-Legionaries recall a fearful moral drama at the time in which they had to balance years of seminary study against the interests of Maciel. Jurado, the Defense Department language instructor, said that the seminary headmaster in Rome told the seminarians the Vatican investigators were “evil people, of bad intentions,” and that the boys did not have to tell the truth.

“We were all very nervous,” recalled Barba, the literary scholar. “If the pope was the ultimate head of the Legion, how could we believe that he sent men with bad intentions? [The rector] told me, `Do whatever your conscience dictates.’ ” When asked by an investigator what he thought of Maciel, Barba recalls replying, “He is a saint” — as the seminarians had been told for years. The priest asked why. Barba referred to Maciel’s suffering in the infirmary. Under more pointed questioning, said Barba: “I retreated, I was scared. . . . I didn’t tell him about my experiences.” Jurado said he, too, lied. “For me it was obedience.”

The pressure on the apostolic schoolboys was enormous. To those nearing ordination, admitting sexual activity could wreck the priestly life they had pursued through the years from Mexico to Spain, and now Rome. Blowing the whistle on Maciel could bring down others before their ordinations.

Vaca said, “We were told there are these enemies of God who were out to get Maciel. I denied drug abuse and I made a big defense and praise of Father Maciel.” He said he was asked no further questions.

In interviews, the former Legionaries said they assumed that the 1956 accusations involved sexual molestation. They said they are surprised now to hear differently from the only one of the four Vatican investigators said to be still alive. In a letter provided by the Legionaries’ law firm, dated Dec. 12, 1996, retired Bishop Polidoro Van Vlieberghe of Illapel, Chile, wrote that he found “all of the charges raised against Father Maciel at that time were meritless.”

The bishop said the charges in the 1950s were “part of a methodically organized campaign to discredit Father Maciel and the Legionaries of Christ.”

In his letter, Van Vlieberghe lays the blame on two of Maciel’s clerical subordinates. In a supporting document, undated but presumably written about 1958, the bishop said two Mexican bishops and the Society of Jesus, or Jesuits — “for unspeakable reasons” — supported the accusations.

Van Vlieberghe said no allegations of sexual abuse were made, despite a “searching” inquiry in which Legion members had “every opportunity to level any accusation.”

However, Jose Antonio Perez, the Mexico City lawyer who said Maciel collected a sample of his semen, recollects that an investigator asked him only one pointed question: “ `At any point did Father Maciel do anything improper to you and ask you not to tell anyone, not even under confession?’ My response was a firm `No.’ I was very proud of my fidelity to Father Maciel.”

When he put his hand on the Bible and lied, Perez continued, “I sacrificed myself for him. Internally I feel I was excommunicated. ”He said he was so dedicated to Maciel, to whom he felt he owed everything, he was proud to protect him.

Why now?
In the ensuing years it has taken them to remake their lives, the men say they were too frightened to accuse Maciel. The Vatican had exonerated him, and with the power and influence Maciel wielded, they feared no one would believe them. Their fears of Maciel stemmed from a bank of personal experiences that, they say, took them years to overcome. Even while he was suspended during the Vatican investigation, the men say, no one doubted that Maciel still ran the Legion, despite the presence of an interim superior.

In 1957, with the Vatican investigation in high gear, Barrales, “the charitable one,” said that Maciel sent him to the Canary Islands so that he could not give testimony to the Vatican investigators. Nine months later, Maciel expelled him from the order, just short of ordination. Barrales said he was depressed for a year and could not admit to his parents what he had endured in the Legion. Arturo Jurado, the language instructor from California, said that he was abruptly demoted from studies in Rome and sent back to Spain. Not long after that, he left. Barba left in 1962 of his own accord. As the years passed, other men left as well.

But in the early 1990s, they watched sexual abuse by members of the clergy become an issue in the North American and European media, as victims began to speak out publicly and criticize church leaders who recycled known pedophiles to new parish assignments. Another galvanizing factor, they say,was a letter from Pope John Paul II to Maciel, praising him as “an efficacious guide to youth” — a letter reproduced as a half-page advertisement on Dec. 5, 1994, in Mexico City’s largest newspapers, accompanied by a photograph of Maciel kissing the pope’s ring. The ad celebrated Maciel’s 50th anniversary as a priest.

The Legionaries are esteemed in Rome. The pope presided at the ordination of 60 new Legionary priests in 1991 and praised Maciel for loyalty to the papacy. Maciel accompanied the pope on two of his North American trips. The former Legionaries say they were convinced that a direct appeal to the pope for a new investigation would not work because of Vaca’s futile experience.

Letters to the pope
Despite two letters to the pope, in 1978 and 1989, in which he complained about his having been sexually abused by Maciel, Vaca never got a response. His 1978 letter, sent to the Vatican by the Diocese of Rockville Centre, was backed up with a supporting letter from Alarcon, who said he also had been abused.

Years later, when Vaca decided to leave the priesthood and marry, he wrote Pope John Paul II, in a letter dated Oct. 28, 1989, requesting formal dispensation from his priestly vows. He again discussed the “years of being sexually and psychologically abused” by Maciel, giving specific details going back to 1949 in Cobreces, Spain. Maciel “started to abuse me sexually in the same way I soon realized he was doing to other seminarians,” the letter to the pope stated.

In an interview at his home in Holbrook, N.Y., Vaca said that although the pope ignored his allegations against Maciel, he did receive a two-page document in Latin in 1993, signed by a Vatican cardinal, granting his request to leave the priesthood and marry. He had already married in a civil ceremony but he then had a church wedding, at which Auxiliary Bishop James J. Daly of Rockville Centre officiated.

Vaca works as a guidance counselor in a community college. He remains an observant Catholic and lives with his wife and 2-year-old daughter in a modest Cape home appointed with religious paintings and statues. Alesandro, the Rockville Centre canon lawyer, said that confidentiality prevents him from talking specifically about Vaca’s appeal, but that he follows the same procedure set by canon law in every case.

Along with whatever documents the petitioner wishes to submit to make his case, he said, Bishop McGann writes a recommendation. “Transmittal goes through the nunciature [in Washington, D.C.] for protection, in a diplomatic pouch to Rome. Then they send a card saying they got it and they send a protocol number,” or case number. The Vatican acknowledged receipt of Vaca’s petition, he said.

The Vatican had no response to inquiries from The Courant about why no investigation followed the allegations made by Vaca and Alarcon. Informed by The Courant through faxes of the nature of the complaints, Archbishop John J. Foley, an American in charge of “social communications” for the Vatican, replied that the faxes “have been forwarded to the appropriate authorities.” The archbishop said he also sent copies to the Vatican press office, which is responsible for responding to journalists. But Navarro-Valls, director of the press office, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

A deathbed testament
Perhaps the most poignant account of Maciel’s critics is that of Juan Manuel Fernandez Amenabar, a Legion priest who in the early 1980s served as president of the Legionaries’ Northern Anahuac University in Mexico City.

In 1984 Fernandez left his position and quit the priesthood. A Spaniard by birth, he spent time in San Diego and headed back to Mexico. One day in May 1991, he hobbled into the Spanish Hospital in Mexico City, dazed from a stroke, his speech impeded.

As Fernandez began rehabilitation, a young physician in her residency, Dr. Gabriela Quintero Calleja, became a friend in the course of treating him. Sometimes, after making her rounds, she sat by his bed and read poetry to him. Quintero said that for the last three years of Fernandez’s life, she was closer to him than anyone else. He confided his life story to her, she said, including how Maciel “on three occasions sexually abused Juan Manuel [Fernandez], the first two occasions at the age of 16 years of age and the third at 17 years.”

On Jan. 6, 1995, his health failing, Fernandez dictated a statement about his experiences, with several former Legionaries as witnesses. He attested that Maciel “tried to justify this use of drugs and the above-mentioned sexual abuse to me, and as I learned later, to other religious men and novitiates who were his victims, by saying that he had a `disease’ and that he had direct permission from His Holiness Pope Pius XII. . . .”

Kearns, the Legionaries’ spokesman, disputes that Fernandez could have made any rational judgment in his last days because he had suffered a stroke that impaired his ability to speak or write. In support, he provided a letter from Raul de Anda Gomez, whom he described as Fernandez’s “physician.” De Anda suggested that the dying man “was a possible victim of persons without principles.”

But de Anda is a psychotherapist, not a medical doctor, and Fernandez was not his patient, Dr. Quintero said. In an interview in Mexico City, she told The Courant that Fernandez “made his declaration in full use of his mental faculties.” Francisca Toffano Del Rio, a psychologist who was among the hospital team who attended to Fernandez, supported Quintero’s evaluation. Quintero said de Anda visited Fernandez three or four times in the hospital. The first time she met him, she said, de Anda accompanied Maciel, who tried to talk Fernandez into going to Spain with him for medical care.

With artful manners, Quintero said, Maciel suggested that she, too, might wish to accompany Fernandez and study in Spain under the Legion’s auspices. She and Fernandez declined. When Maciel and de Anda left the room, the patient told the doctor: “Watch him[Maciel]. He is a fox.”

In a written statement Quintero gave The Courant, she said it was her “desire to reveal the truth that has been kept hidden for so many years, since so many members of the Catholic Church as well as the society as a whole seem ignorant of the moral character of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado.”

Translate »
%%footer%%