BishopAccountability.org
	More on Fr. Marcial Maciel By John L. Allen Jr National Catholic Reporter [Rome] January 7, 2005 In the last column before my hiatus, I noted that Pope John Paul II had recently praised Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado and the order he founded, the Legionaries of Christ. With respect to the accusations of sexual abuse lodged against Maciel, I wrote: "I think the only honest answer is that the pope and his senior aides obviously do not believe the charges." That comment brought a response from Jason Berry, who along with fellow journalist Gerald Renner co-authored the book Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, which is in part about the Maciel case. Berry writes: I'm sorry, but there are more honest answers than that. It is just as likely that John Paul II and Cardinal Angelo Sodano don't care if the charges are true. They view the Legion as an asset to protect. The pope has a long record of refusing to punish powerful churchmen who abuse the young, which you fail to mention. John Paul's support of Maciel is consistent with his response to other men of flawed morals or compromised judgment. Cardinal Bernard Law resigned after a catalytic role in an epic scandal. John Paul rewarded him with a basilica in Rome. In 1995, he let Vienna's Cardinal Groër ease into a position at a shrine when he resigned in disgrace as a pederast. As the scandal escalated John Paul would not discuss it in public. When American bishops Symons, Ziemann, Sanchez, O'Connell, and Ryan resigned under similar clouds John Paul did not remove any from the priesthood. Each is a bishop, albeit sans diocese, today. Since your column appeared, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reopened the case against Maciel. I would modestly suggest that Vows of Silence had something to do with that. Find me another priest, anywhere, in the world, against whom nine men gave detailed allegations of sexual assault, via church channels, and whose life has been as deeply probed in print. (You might have used the word 'irony' in quoting John Paul's praise of Maciel for 'the integral promotion of the person.') You wrote that "Vatican officials believe the evidence is old and ambiguous." You did not explain what they consider "ambiguous" in the graphic sexual acts, years, dates and places cited in documents from 1976, 1978, 1989 and 1998. I have read thousands of legal documents in reporting on the church's crisis in hundreds of articles and two books. Far from ambiguous, the evidence against Maciel is overwhelming. To call it "old" begs for clarity: John Paul ignored mounting accusations for decades. Is the pope "ambiguous"? I ask you. What does your phrase "absent a smoking gun" mean? Nine men stated they were [abused] and psychologically tyrannized as young seminarians. John, I must make a final point, with little joy, as you helped me during my 2002 research in Rome, and I hope still we are friends. Others in the Vatican press corps helped me too. Cultivating sources in that small, often cozy world with huge career implications should make a journalist doubly cautious. You have made glowing comments in columns and lectures about Maciel's prime defenders: Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Mary Ann Glendon, George Weigel and Legion of Christ Fr. Tom Williams who lives in Rome. You have identified Williams in NCR as a friend. Williams was Maciel's spokesman in an ABC News report in which he denied the charges, though admitting he had never asked Maciel about them. When you single out Williams and others (who have been guests at the Legion college in Rome) for praise, you can't have it both ways. It is disingenuous to write: "It's not for me to say whether [Vatican officials'] conclusions are justified"' At some point, the facts demand one to take a stand, rather than be a cipher. Your tone and comments are those of an apologist for Maciel and the Legion. I encourage you to change that position." Normally I let readers' comments speak for themselves, but since Berry issues a challenge, I will say just a quick word. Jason Berry stood virtually alone in the 1980s in breaking the sexual abuse story in the United States, much of it in the pages of the National Catholic Reporter. He has earned his strong feelings, and I can appreciate why attempts to be dispassionate may seem to him like moral cowardice. Still, it doesn't ring true psychologically to say that Vatican officials, including the pope, "don't care" whether charges of sexual abuse against Maciel are justified. To believe that requires making them out to be monsters. The fact is, some Vatican officials believe the charges are a smear campaign, others that it's a case of "he-said, they-said," and others aren't sure what to think. In the background sometimes are prejudices about the scandalous nature of the press, and the way that accusations of sexual misconduct have been used over the centuries by enemies of the church. One can certainly argue that this isn't good enough, and that the accusers deserve a hearing. Perhaps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will bring some resolution. But I hope it's not an "apology" to realistically describe a climate of thought, and I also hope we're not going to go down the road of impugning someone's integrity on the basis of who their friends are. By the way, Jason, we're still friends.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.