|
Reflections on the Legion of Christ:
2003-2006
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Introduction to Legion of Christ Session:
ICSA Conference, October 18, 2003, Enfield,
Connecticut
Dr. Jorge Erdely, editor of
the Latin American Journal for the Academic
Study of Religions, prepared a paper for our
California conference in June on "The
Legionaries of Christ and the Vatican's
Geopolitical Strategy for Latin America."
Because Dr. Erdely was unable to attend the
conference in June, Dr. Cesar Mascarenas
presented it for him.
Back in March, before the
conference, Dr. Erderly suggested that we
consider organizing a panel on the Legion of
Christ, a relatively new Catholic order, founded
in the 1940s, that has generated some
controversy in the press because of alleged
psychological manipulation and molestation
charges against the founder. Dr. Erdely
suggested that Dr. Jose Barba,
Researcher and
Professor of Humanities, Instituto
Tecnológica Autónomo
de Mexico, Mexico City, coordinate the panel.
Herb Rosedale and I said that we would want to
have some representation from the Legion so that
its perspective could be aired as well. Dr.
Erdely and Dr. Barba both agreed that the Legion
should be included.
Shortly before the California conference I
received an e-mail message from Giuseppe
Ferrari, director of GRIS in Bologna, Italy.
GRIS is a cult educational organization
associated with the Italian Catholic Council of
Bishops. Mr. Ferrari, who was concerned about
Dr. Erdely's paper at our conference, relayed a
letter from Mr. Jay Dunlap, Communications
Director of the Legion of Christ/Regnum Christi
in North Haven, CT. Mr. Dunlap said:
The congregation of
the Legionaries of Christ is a Catholic
religious congregation fully approved by the
Church. They were founded in Mexico City in
1941. The first diocesan approval came in
1948. The definitive approval was given by Pope
Paul VI in 1965. Their rule of life
("Constitutions") was approved by Pope John Paul
II on June 29, 1983. Thus, as a part of the
Catholic Church, and as a religious congregation
that has the approval and continuing esteem of
the Holy Father in no way may it be called a
cult or sect…
In recent dates a few
disgruntled ex-members are actively using the
Internet and the media to try to classify the
Legion as a cult or sect. As an official
observer of GRIS, under the auspices of the
Italian Catholic Conference of Bishops, I can
assure you there are no objective bases to this
effort.
Beginning in 1996
some of these ex-members, with the support of
two U.S. reporters, raised allegations of sexual
abuse against Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the
Legionaries. Fr. Maciel has constantly denied
the alleged facts while expressing forgiveness
for those who accuse him. These false
allegations have been many times repeated over
the past few years, always using the media, in
what clearly seems a denigration campaign. The
Legionaries have set up a website with some of
the basic facts regarding these issues. You may
find it at
www.legionaryfacts.org. [If this
subject interests you, I recommend that you
inspect this Web site.]
During the conference, I received a phone call
from and had a long conversation with Mr.
Dunlap. I explained to Mr. Dunlap that our
predilection for the adjective "cultic" and the
fact that our conference is entitled "Cults and
New Religious Movements" emphasize that our
discussion of a particular group doesn't
necessarily imply that it is a cult. I also
discussed some of the following points, which I
sent to Mr. Ferrari:
Regarding the distinction you make between
control and abusive dynamics characterizing a
group and occurring occasionally within a large
group: I agree completely with that distinction.
That is one reason why we emphasize that our
"lists" are lists of groups about which we have
received inquiries or have information and not a
list of "cults." However, once a group or
organization has stirred some controversy, as
have the Legionaries, the question arises as to
the degree to which dynamics of abuse and
control characterize the organization. Just as
it would be improper to draw firm conclusions in
the negative, it is likewise improper to draw
firm conclusions in the positive—until there is
an adequate body of data from which to make
conclusions. About all one can say is that
there is controversy. Some might be inclined to
give the organization the benefit of the doubt;
others might not….
One aspect of the controversy that has arisen
over the Legionaries is the perception many
people have that the organization is defensive
and dismissive of all criticism. In defense of
the Legionaries I have noticed in my informal
conversations with various people that some of
the antagonism toward the organization derives
from antagonism toward its conservative
theological stance, not necessarily to its
practices. However, I personally know two
conservative Catholics, both converts from
Evangelical Protestantism and both active as
Catholic educators, who are critical of the
Legionaries because of reports of heavy-handed
and abusive treatment of SOME members… Hence, I
don't believe that all of the criticism of the
Legionaries reflects theological differences.
If
it doesn't listen thoughtfully to criticism, a
large and varied organization that is NOT
characterized by abusive practices cannot
correct what abuse is bound to occur now and
then. Moreover, it thereby runs the risk of
reinforcing the very perception to which it
objects.
The antidote to the perhaps unintended
reinforcement of critical attitudes toward an
organization is honest and open dialogue. I hope
to create a forum for such dialogue at our
Connecticut conference.
In line with those
sentiments we invited the Legion to send one or
two representatives to this conference in order
to present their perspective on the issues.
They declined, although they did express a
desire to continue the dialogue we had begun.
Father LeBar and I visited them on Thursday and
spent several hours in conversation with them.
After the California
conference Mr. Dunlap and I exchanged several
e-mails. In one of our exchanges, I said:
It
appears to me that the abuse allegations leveled
against the Legion fall into three categories:
1.
sexual abuse [charges against the
founder]
2.
psychologically abusive manipulation of
prospects, recruits, and members
3.
Psychological, social, and economic
manipulation of organizations and leaders in
organizations (e.g., to take over schools; to
protect the Legion's reputation)
If
the bulk of criticisms in any one or two of
these categories is invalid, it does not
necessarily follow that the criticisms in the
remaining category(ies) are invalid. Hence,
even if it were demonstrated that the sexual
abuse allegations are indeed untrue or that they
only occurred in the distant past, then it may
still be the case that criticisms in categories
two and three are valid. All, of course, may be
false. But the falsehood of one doesn't
necessitate the falsehood of the others.
I
believe a persuasive argument could be made that
enthusiastic, growth-oriented groups, such as
the Legion, are at risk of using manipulative
methods, for members' enthusiasm may sometimes
cause them to lose sight of the proper
relationship between ends and means. Nearly 20
years ago, for example, leaders of the
Evangelical campus ministry, InterVarsity
Christian Fellowship, approached my colleagues
and me because they recognized that their
youthful campus ministers sometimes lost their
ethical bearings in their enthusiasm to bring
Christ to as many people as possible. They
recognized that psychological manipulation
within InterVarsity was, to use Giuseppe
Ferrari's word, episodic. Their recognition of
such and willingness to do something about the
episodic manipulations are important factors
preventing psychological manipulation from
becoming characteristic of the organization.
Moreover, even if the leaders of the Legion were
worse than its harshest critics imply, it does
not necessarily follow that its members (and the
members of Regnum Christi) are not on the whole
well intentioned. Nor would even a highly
manipulative organizational climate nullify all
the good work that members accomplish. I have
not as yet spoken to one critic of the Legion
who does not acknowledge that many good and
decent people with honorable intentions do much
that is commendable.
It
seems to me that the key issues vis a vis
charges of psychological manipulation are: (1)
to what degree does it exist and (2) if at least
some instances of manipulation occur, what
corrective and preventive actions should Legion
leaders take to keep it to a minimum. The
perception that even some conservative Catholics
have is that the Legion is aggressively
defensive and unwilling to acknowledge any
validity to any criticisms, except perhaps as
token gestures. Of course, if the Legion is
indeed a victim of a vicious conspiracy, such
defensiveness becomes more understandable.
However, a reluctance to acknowledge and
constructively respond to valid criticisms
increases the credibility of those that are
invalid. I expect that you will address these
issues, for, as your message below indicates,
you believe that this perception is unjustified.
Also, I am very interested in considering for
publication an article that gives the Legion's
perspective on its critics' claims, regardless
of whether or not you agree to participate in
the conference.
Mr. Dunlap has indicated
that he is interested in contributing an article
to our journal, and I hope that we can begin a
useful dialogue in print. [Editor’s Note: An
article was never submitted.]
This issue is much more
complex than it appears. The Legion, for
example, has statements from individuals who
contradict what you will hear today and
contradict some of the allegations that have
been made in the press. I have, for example, a
statement by Joseph Williams, one of the
ex-novices in the Hartford Courant article of
June 10, 1996. He says:
I
wish it to be known that I emphatically disavow
the tone and general impression of the article,
and I disagree with nearly all of the details of
the article's description of how I left the
novitiate in Mt. Kisco...To call what we did an
"elaborately planned getaway" is silly;
personally, I find it insulting….I categorically
reject as false and defamatory the description
Gerald Renner [the author of the article] makes
of the Legionaries of Christ and their seminary
program as:
§
Militaristically-styled
§
Demeaning,
§
Boot-camp like training program
§
Brainwashing,
§
Psychologically manipulating and
intimidating us,
§
Subjecting us to mind-numbing,
sleep-depriving tactics,
§
Stealing our personality away.
The controversy involving
the Legion rests on a massive, tangled web of
charges and countercharges. What sounds
convincing and credible on its face, such as Mr.
Williams' statement above and, in my opinion,
the testimonies you are about to hear (see
video of session), often can
be challenged by another statement or line of
argument. As I go through the material I have
collected, which is a small fraction of what is
available, my head spins as I attempt to discern
the truth. For this reason, I must treat my
personal opinions as provisional.
Update (July 18, 2006)
Since I wrote the
introduction above, much information about the
Legion of Christ has come into the public arena,
including actions taken by a Vatican that had
long ignored the official complaints of
ex-Legionaries who said they had been molested by
the organization’s founder, Marcial Maciel.
A very important event was
the publication in 2004 of Vows of Silence
by journalists Jason Berry and Gerald Renner.
Nearly one-half of this book dealt with the
Legion of Christ. Berry and Renner review the
events that have generated controversy, the
Legion’s defense against various allegations,
and the Church’s response.
The Legion’s primary
defense against the most threatening allegation,
i.e., that Maciel had molested youngsters in his
charge, was to claim “conspiracy”:
The nine men were lying as “part of a
coordinated campaign to smear Father Maciel,”
“to teach him a lesson” and “punish him for his
pride.” Secondly, the Vatican had exonerated
Maciel after a two-year investigation in 1958.
Having failed then, the old enemies were raising
new allegations of sexual abuse. (Berry &
Renner, 2004, p. 189)
To back up their claim of
conspiracy, the Legion had accumulated a large
body of information, much of which was available
on a special Web site, www.legionaryfacts.org.
When I examined this site in 2003, it included
Father Maciel’s denial of the allegations
against him, a one-and-a-half page “Statement of
the Legionaries of Christ” from Fr. Thomas
Williams, a National Catholic Register
column from Fr. Owen Kearn, an article,
“Feathers of Scandal,” by Fr. Richard John
Neuhaus, six other letters, and a collection of
testimonials from well known and respected
intellectuals. The Legion also had other
material, some of which they gave me, designed
to discredit Maciel’s accusers, including a
report from a company claiming that one of the
accusers had given a doctored photo to a news
organization (a photo that the accuser claimed
Maciel had himself doctored so as to impress the
parents of his students—it portrayed the student
with the pope).
During a new religions
conference that I attended, a colleague (not a
member of the Legion or Regnum Christi) gave me
a half-inch packet of information containing
documents purportedly demonstrating the
dishonesty of Maciel’s accusers and the fact
that “everybody” in the Vatican deemed the
charges spurious, even a liberal Cardinal.
I was impressed, not so
much by the persuasiveness of these documents
(although at the time several gave me pause),
but by the scale of the Legion’s effort to
protect its founder’s reputation, even with a
very minor player such as the organization I
worked for. They seemed to be ready and able to
rebut EACH AND EVERY critical allegation that
any “disgruntled” former legionary made.
This puzzled me at first
because it seemed to me that the good works of
and good people in the Legion and Regnum Christi
would not be nullified, if Maciel indeed had
molested students and seminarians. I did not
then understand, however, the psychological
importance of the concept of “charism.”
“Charism”
refers to a: “Divine Spiritual Gift to
individuals or groups for the good of the
community. Examples: prophecy, healing,
preaching, teaching, administration, generosity
and Love is the greatest of all.” As
Lennon (2006) makes clear, Maciel and the Legion
have encouraged belief in the divine mission of
the founder and his movement. Indeed, in one of
my conversations with Legion leaders, I was
taken aback by one man’s statement that he would
have to leave the Legion, if he found out that
the charges against Maciel were true. It would
mean that he had devoted his life to a false
charism.
To me this reaction was
consistent with what some research suggested was
at the heart of the cultic dynamic. In the 1991
survey that gave rise to ICSA’s Group
Psychological Abuse Scale (Chambers, Langone,
Dole, & Grice, 1994), the two items that
received the highest ratings from 308 subjects
from 101 different groups were (abridged): (1)
the group is an elite; (2) dissent is not
tolerated. In line with this finding, I often
give the following shorthand description of the
cultic dynamic: “If you want to feel special,
shut up and obey.”
Belief in the charism of
its founder enables Legionaries to feel part of
an elite movement (although they would, of
course, quickly cover up and deny any feelings
of pride that might be associated with this
belief). As Lennon and others have maintained,
obedience and the secret vow not to speak ill of
the Legion ensure that members continue to
participate in this elite organization. If the
founder were a pedophile and a spiritual fake,
his charism couldn’t be genuine and his movement
couldn’t be special. Moreover, all the
subservience, self-sacrifice, and secrecy to
which members subjected themselves would have
been in the service of a lie. Therefore, the
founder’s special status must be protected at
all costs. Hence, the Legion’s vicious attacks
on Maciel’s accusers and dismissal of
ex-legionaries who publicly criticized the
organization were adaptive responses to the
cultic dynamic in which they were enmeshed.
Of course, one could reply
that this criticism would apply to all religious
orders with a vow of obedience. However, (a)
not all orders manifest what amounts to a cult
of personality of the founder; (b) not all
orders demand a private vow of secrecy and
commitment to never criticize the organization;
and (c) not all orders are as aggressively
defensive as the Legion (a possible sign of
overcompensating hubris?).
The Legion’s offensive
strategy of defense began to founder
as the allegations against Maciel and the Legion
(allegations of psychological manipulation and
abuse, as well as sexual abuse) mounted and as
more people—in part because of the work of
REGAIN—spoke
out publicly and privately, especially within
conservative Catholic circles.
The first hint that the
tide was turning against the Legion occurred in
January of 2005 when the Vatican reopened the
investigation of Maciel, who shortly thereafter
stepped down as head of the Legion (Renner,
2005, January 25). In April of 2005, Monsignor
Charles Scicluna “traveled to the United States
and Mexico, where he personally interviewed more
than 30 people, including seven of the eight men
who made the accusations, as well as several
others claiming abuse who had not publicly come
forward before” (Renner, 2005, May 24).
Although initially there
was concern that the Vatican would simply let
the controversy languish, on May 19, 2006 the
New York Times reported: “The Vatican said
Friday it had asked the Mexican founder of the
conservative order Legionaries of Christ to
renounce celebrating public Masses and live a
life of 'prayer and repentance' following its
investigation into allegations he sexually
abused seminarians” (Vatican disciplines
Legionary founder, 2006, May 19). Maciel and
the Legion continued to deny the charges, but
offered no resistance to the Vatican, and the
Legion has since pledged its support of the Pope
(Head of Legionaries tells pope members
completely adhere to pope, 2006, June 19).
Although the Vatican said it was grateful for
the work of the Legion and refused to take
formal action against Maciel because of his age
(86), some observers praised Pope Benedict
for disciplining Maciel (e.g., Berry, 2006, June
4; Van Diema, 2006, May 18), although others
were disappointed at what they saw as a weak
response (Martin, 2006, July 12)..
Today,
www.legionaryfacts.org is much toned down from
the Web site I originally visited in 2003. Gone
are the many testimonies and articles impugning
the honesty of Maciel’s accusers. Instead,
there are (as of July 18, 2006) a small
collection of “communiqués.” The Legion’s reply
is especially noteworthy for what it doesn’t
say, which it once said emphatically (“Maciel is
an innocent victim of a conspiracy!”), as well
as for the submissive tone of what it does say:
- Father Marcial Maciel
has received during his life a great number
of accusations. In the last few years, some
of these were presented to the Holy See so
that a canonical process would be opened.
- Facing the accusations
made against him, he declared his innocence
and, following the example of Jesus Christ,
decided not to defend himself in any way.
- Considering his
advanced age and his frail health, the Holy
See has decided to forgo a canonical hearing
and to "invite him to a reserved life of
penitence and prayer, relinquishing any form
of public ministry".
- Father Maciel, with
the spirit of obedience to the Church that
has always characterized him, has accepted
this communiqué with faith, complete
serenity and tranquility of conscience,
knowing that it is a new cross that God, the
Father of Mercy, has allowed him to suffer
and that will obtain many graces for the
Legion of Christ and the Regnum Christi
Movement.
- The Legionaries of
Christ and the members of Regnum Christi,
following the example of Father Maciel and
united to him, accept and will always accept
the directives of the Holy See with profound
spirit of obedience and faith. We renew our
commitment to work with great intensity to
live our charism of charity and extend the
Kingdom of Christ serving the Church.
Assuming that Maciel is
guilty of the sexual abuse charges (and the
evidence points to his guilt, in my
opinion), it would not be surprising that he
would have developed a structure of secrecy
within his new organization. That foundational
structure of secrecy probably set the stage for
the manipulation and abuse to which so many have
testified.
It seems very unlikely to
me that the psychological abuse of members will
end without eliminating the cultic dynamics that
underlie it. If it wants to make the Legion and
Regnum Christi worthy of the Church, the Vatican
needs to do more than put Maciel out to
pasture. It needs to continue to listen closely
to the testimonies of former members who were
psychologically or sexually abused within the
organization. It needs to study and monitor the
psychological dynamics of control and influence
within the Legion.
It needs to eliminate the private vow of secrecy
and encourage dissent and questioning proper to
a religious order. And it needs to teach the Legion’s
organizational leaders (especially new leaders
who hopefully will be moved in to the
organization) how to think psychologically as
well as theologically. Only then will the
Vatican be able to institute organizational changes
that will drastically reduce the “episodic”
frequency of abuse—psychological as well as
sexual.
References
Berry, Jason. (2006, June
4). This pope shows no tolerance for accused
abuser. Hartford Courant.
Berry, Jason, & Renner,
Gerald. (2004). Vows of silence: The abuse of
power in the papacy of John Paul II. New
York: Free Press.
Chambers, William, Langone,
Michael, Dole, Arthur, & Grice, James. (1994).
The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A measure
of the varieties of cultic abuse. Cultic
Studies Review, 11(1), 88-117.
Head of Legionaries tells
pope members completely adhere to pope. (2006,
June 19). Catholic News Service.
(online)
Lennon, J. Paul. (2006).
Aspects of concern regarding the Legion of
Christ mind control reflected in its rules,
norms, and ex-member testimonies. ICSA
e-Newsletter, 5(2).
Martin, Michelle. (2005, 12
July). Slap in the face or on the wrist? –
Legionaries stay on task despite penance of its
charismatic founder. Our Sunday Visitor.
Renner, Gerald. (2005,
January 25). Catholic leader steps down:
Founder of order under Vatican probe.
Hartford Courant.
Van Diema, David. (2006,
May 18). The pope’s good call on sexual abuse.
Time Online.
Vatican disciplines
Legionary founder. (2006, May 19). New York
Times. (online)
|
