the skinny on the legion

I've had all sorts of trouble with my broadband company the past two days. Service has been spotty at best. Couldn't post, couldn't answer mail. Have checked with my neighbors here in the barrio and they are all in agreement: "Comcast es lo peor que hay!!!"

With that off my chest, I return to my thoughts on the Fr. Maciel/Legion of Christ thing that is starting to bubble again in the media.

Here's a picture of Fr. Marcial Maciel, LC at ordination at a priestly ordination ceremony back in 1991. Both have aged considerably since then, but remain young at heart.

Anyway, about seven years ago Fr. Maciel's accusers were at their most vociferous and it seemed to play well with certain media outlets who were still basking in the heat generated by the priest abuse scandals in USA and elsewhere. The canonical case went nowhere fast and, other than the books that were published - all with pretty similar versions of the same stuff (I've read them all, cover to cover) - there hasn't been much action until now that the case has apparently been revived.

Can't see the future, can't speak in tongues, can't hardly get out of my own way, so I don't pretend to predict where this is all going to go. (Unlike La Jornada, a Mexican rag, that ran a story on Tuesday, May 10, claiming to have it all figured out...) But I WILL say the following in response to all those who have asked me what I think about the whole mess:

1. I have known Fr.Maciel personally since I was 13 years old. I have lived with him months at a time repeatedly over the last thirty years in all kinds of circumstances. I have been in his close company and observed the man carefully when his defenses were at their lowest... I have NEVER, not once, ever, had the slightest suspicion regarding his moral probity. Not a word, not a gesture, not a single solitary scrap of evidence that would induce me in the least to give credence to the accusations that have been leveled against him. Quite the contrary. He has been a mentor, a true friend and an impeccable model of virtue and priestly commitment at all times.
   
   I realize that my knowledge of and my frank admiration for the man do not constitute scientific proof of his innocence. Indeed, both those who argue his guilt and those who defend his integrity have only their testimony to offer. But given the choice between a judgement based on my personal experience of Fr. Maciel during the last 30 years or the dubious imputations of nine aged and possibly bitter individuals, I would clearly choose the former. In a heartbeat. Anything else would be dishonest.
   
   
2. Fr. Maciel's accusers and the media people who put the wind in their sails cite the Vatican's unwillingness to pursue the matter as a sign of his guilt. Might not less tainted minds construe this rather as an indication of innocence? I mean, if the accusers themselves have sought out canonical authority as a reliable judge in this matter why such knee-jerk inconformity with the results thus far? Fr. Maciel has undergone more than his share of investigations during his long journey as founder of the Legion. His story is anything but a mystery to the ecclesiastical powers-that-be. If the case against him has not progressed further, might it not lack the merits to do so?
   
   The plaintiffs and the journalists they enlist allege that Church authority is in cahoots with the wiley Fr. Maciel and would prefer to cover up his wrongdoing. Why present the case in the first place, then? If both judge and accused are on board in the conspiracy, what hope of justice?
   
   There's not a whole lot of logic here, as far as I can tell. But, sadly, that's probably beside the point. Perhaps these folks won't be satisfied until a guilty verdict is issued no matter who the judge is. If not the Vatican, well, maybe the Hartford Courant or the Boston Globe or the NY Times or La Jornada...

(sorry, still have more to say on this, but I'm beat. will pick it up again tomorrow. peace.)

My name is legion, continued...

It's been a bumpy day. I spent most of it in the hospital visiting with some very sick individuals. I have celebrated 6 funerals in the last 15 days. Of the six, five died of complications stemming from HIV/AIDS. My last one (yesterday) was a 32 year old latina who left behind four children. Only about ten people made it to the ceremony. I accompanied her to the cemetery along with her kids. That was all.

This world can be a lonely place.

That said, I return to the topic of my previous post.

All the mentioned articles retell the story in practically the same way: Marcial Maciel, Mexican catholic priest, founder of a growing religious congregation of priests (Legion of Christ) and a movement of laity (Regnum Christi) faces allegations from eight or nine ex-members of the Legion who claim they were sexually abused as youngsters.

Since the statute of limitations makes a trial impossible in civil court, the plaintiffs have sought recourse to a court of Canon Law. They claim that their case, presented eight years ago at the Vatican, was virtually frozen because neither the reigning Pontiff, John Paul II, nor Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), wanted to pursue a matter so prejudicial to such an influential and recognized Church figure as Fr. Maciel.

The case languished in obscurity until December 2004 when canon lawyer, Rev. Charles J. Scicluna, a Maltese priest assigned promoter of justice for the CDF, reopened the case and traveled to Mexico and the USA to acquire statements from those involved.

Meanwhile, great speculation was raised by Fr.Maciel's refusal to accept a fourth term as Superior General of the Legion of Christ, after being unanimously reelected by the General Chapter of the Congregation held in Rome, January 2005.

To my knowledge, at least five books have been published in recent years retelling the tales of supposed abuse by the power wielding Fr. Maciel and his minions. They are:

• El Circulo de Poder y la Espiral de Silencio, by Salvador Guerrero
• El Legionario, by Alejandro Espinosa
• Los Legionarios de Cristo, el Nuevo Ejercito del Papa, by Jose Martinez de Velasco
• Los Documentos Secretos de los Legionarios de Cristo,, by Jose Martinez de Velasco
• Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, by Jason Berry and Gerald Renner

(Back soon, supper's burning...)

"My name is legion, for we are many."

One of the classic exorcisms of the New Testament starts with an interrogation. A man posessed, a demented vagrant haunting a cemetery, falls at Jesus' feet.

"What is your name?" Jesus asked.

"My name is legion, for we are many," replied the man.

No exorcism is a bland occurance, but this one is especially wierd. A conversation between Jesus and the unclean spirit, followed by a choice of fate: the spirits are banished to a herd of pigs that meets a watery death.

Exegetes have labored long and hard to interpret Mark 5, but as far as a definitive understanding of the passage goes, well, the jury's still out. Even us seasoned exorcists switch to some votive Mass reading when this story sneaks up on us in the daily liturgy. The whole gashing-on-tombstones, spitting-and-thrashing, pigs-off-the cliff scenario is way too much at 7 am, before our morning caffeine fix has allowed valor to kick in...

Anyway, all of the above has really nothing to do with the gist of this post, except maybe for maintaining the exorcism motif of the blog and giving me a few words to play with.

Mark's demons came together in a legion. But let not all legions be demonized.

One of the subtexts being developed in the media beneath all the coverage of John Paul II's passing and Benedict XVI's rising concerns a series of accusations against the Rev. Marcial Maciel, founder and, until January of this year, superior general of a religious congregation of priests called the Legion of Christ.

Yesterday a number of pieces were released by press sources as diverse as the Boston Globe, La Jornada (Mexico) and Rainbow Network, a gay/lesbian activist newsite. The Hartford Courant spoke of the matter in two different articles on April 20, ABC News ran a story on April 21 and the NY Times has published at least three different references between April 23 and May 1.

The story is not going away because those behind it will not let it go away. It's time Fr. Karras gave his opinion on all this.

(to be continued...)

an exorcist's Mother's Day angst

Mother's Day is not an easy time for an exorcist.

You either go over to her place and listen to her mumble strange slavic syllables at an even stranger slavic radio broadcast.

Or you have to go through that, "She's in here with us, Karras!!" crap that Captain Howdy is constantly ranting about.

"Deemeee, what for you do theees to meeee?!!!"

Either way, Mother's Day is a drag in this racket.

one last post on the bride...

I can't believe that the media is still talking about the Runaway Bride. Must be because of idiots like me who just can't seem to let it go...

And speaking of the Bride, allow me a few final observations.

Jim Shea of the Hartford Courant empathizes with the father of Unwilling Wilbanks. He says,

"...Harris Wilbanks (Dad) had two thoughts once ET phoned home:
Thank God she's all right. And, I should get a restraining order on myself."

If you add up the cost of the wedding hall, banquet, caterers, DJ, limo, etc... and the VERY likely fine to cover the cost of the search effort while Daughter Disappeared was shooting craps in Vegas, I'll bet Dad is himself thinking of hopping on a Greyhound to parts unknown.

But, as we all know, the financial encumbrances are only one layer of this spoiled wedding cake.

In a recent statement, Jennifer Wilbanks asserted that it wasn't the wedding she was fleeing. Sadly, I'm inclined to believe her. Weddings nowadays are hardly worth running from.

To see where I'm going with this read Eilene Zimmerman's piece in May 1's NY Times. (Here, admittedly, I digress from the case of the Feckless Fiance.)

Perhaps the way in which the choice of celebrant is approached says more about what weddings really mean today than any of the other decisions that go into planning the celebration.

Not that any one element of the ceremony, or even the ceremony itself, necessarily reveals the full significance of marriage - although we catholics believe that the sacramental liturgy does precisely that. But the choice of minister or officiant tends to say a lot about what the couple understands their wedding to mean.

During my missionary stint in Latin America, I knew many couples - catholics in predominantly catholic countries - who chose not to be married by a catholic priest because they understood what that would mean: indissoluble, forever, sacramental, total, "as Christ loves His Church...", etc. To choose a priest would be to choose something much larger than just the dude in the flowing robes. He stands for a meaning that goes far beyond his possible friendship with the bride and groom, or his being part of the traditional decor that some like in churchy weddings. That's part of why it is not even essential that he be a friend of the couple he marries.

Zimmerman's article about nontraditional officiants is quite suggestive. You'll have to read it all to get the full brunt, but a few bytes merit repetition here.

Given as examples of trendy marriage officiants:

• Chris the lifeguard ("we were getting married at the beach, we wanted something light, yet official, so having a lifeguard seemed to fit")
• Ellen Sweets, the food writer (yup, Sweets)
• Jeff, a producer for VH1 music channel ("some were afraid I would turn the ceremony into a comedy...") Fear not, Jeff, by the time you were picked, it already was.

The criteria for choosing a nontraditional minister is equally varied:

• 'whatever most personalizes your wedding'
• 'whatever makes sense for you as a couple'
• 'a good friend'
• 'someone who reflects your identity' (kind of like choosing a screen saver for your pc or a tatoo for your arm...)

Apparently, traditional officiants fit none of these dubious requisites. What all the nontrads named in the article have in common is that they were "ordained" online in a matter of minutes.

I must really ask my superiors what the !#%@&!!#@! I was doing for thirteen years before being ordained, when it was only a mouse click away...

Not everything is as rosy as it may seem with the online ministers, however. The article cautions that:

• many charge between $350 and $800 per service, although one popular minister (a geography professor) asks only for a bottle of tequila as payment
• some have felt that, notwithstanding their officiants particular charism, "the solemnity of the act may have been compromised" (Hmmm... hard to imagine.)
• some officiants are found not to have been ordained after all (Impostors!! What an outrage!)
• not all online officiants necessarily show the same level of professionalism
• not all states recognize marriages performed by online ordained officiants as legal
• some ministers have arrived late or even drunk (geography prof?) to the ceremony

What then does marriage mean?

What could ordination possibly mean?

I think I just gave myself a headache.

Lord, why could we not drive out these demons?

This is Fr. Damien Karras with an important notice for all you aspiring exorcists.

Not all demons cooperate.

I mean, like, sometimes an exorcism just isn't enough. Get me?

Sometimes you can only shake your head and wonder dumbly, "What in the world possessed her?"

You follow?


scary!!!

downright terrifying...

birds in the news

Birds have been big news in recent days. They have brought color to dour newscasts and have given relief to those of us who still haven't figured out the media's obsession with all things Jacko.

The ivory billed woodpecker, long thought extinct as a result of the destruction of its natural habitat in the southern US, has reappeared. Diminished, precarious, but not GONE.



A true survivor's tale.

Ornithologists and nature lovers of lesser pedigree are thrilled with the discovery of conclusive evidence of the magnificent bird's survival, including a videotape of a close encounter. Definitely good news and a bit of proof that we can undo some of the damage we've done to Mother Nature.

We've all followed the drama of 'T-Bill' or, 'Duck Cheney', who decided that the Treasury Department front entrance was as good a place as any to sit on her nest egg. The little quackers hatched yesterday and were whisked away like any other family of celebrities to a more discreet location. The paparazzi were not entirely foiled, but neither did Momma Duck make any effort to hide her true identity.

'T-Bill' doesn't care who's watching.
Finally there's one other notable birdbrain that caught our attention this week. This specimen was thought extinct and became the object of an expensive search across the southern US. It was briefly spotted and then vanished. No one could fathom why she would fly the coop just before mating season was to officially begin. At long last this rare bird reappeared and showed surprise at all the attention, as if there were nothing strange about her migratory pattern.

She's back and her wings are temporarily clipped, but those close to her are now worried about the bill...

This bird is famous for the wrong reason...