Talk:Marcial Maciel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Early Biography

We should add information about his earlier life, particularly his influences and philosophies that led him to found the Legion and Regnum Christi. Scott5834 18:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Issues

This article is neither NPOV nor well written. It is overly glowing in its comments about Fr Maciel and delivers a highly pro-Maciel interpretation of the allegations against him as well as asserting as fact that the Vatican's examination of the allegations was rigorous and thorough. Vatican examinations of similar cases in the past have not been noted for their thoroughness and there are cases where the Vatican's examination have been explosed as whitewashes in subsequent legal cases. FearÉIREANN 03:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was not involved in the writing of this article, and I know little about the Legionaries of Christ. Nevertheless, I have recently been searching for some background to this story, and found this page [1]. Not sure on what grounds you criticize Vatican examinations. Can you give any reference? AnnH ♫ 23:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

+Dear Ann, you do realize you went to the official Legion site to get objective information regarding this very controversial subject involving the Legion Founder! Dear Ann & EIREANN, criticizing or defending Vatican investigations/ examinations is another issue beside the one in hand and takes on a whole life of its own. While empathizing with EireannFear I would suggest he not make such broad statements because then this will stir up another tangential discussion. The truth regarding Fr. Maciel is already very hard to find without further muddying the waters. As a critic of Fr. Maciel I find the NPOV "not too bad" and maybe a good jumping off place to supply more concrete information. Please note that I do not use that very hackneyed pro-Maciel ploy: 'I am neutral, know nothing about this, and just happened to stumble across it today'. I find this intro very deceitful. Such deceit, and perhaps animosity, or animus, on the other part, make a factual discussion hard going.ElPadrecito 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Maciel was first suspended in the late 1950s amid allegations of engaging in sexual activity with young boys, who it was alleged he would have sleep in his room. During the night he would allegedly request that they masturbate him, claiming that he had been given permission by Pope Pius XII to be masturbated by boys. Nine boys alleged this behaviour. Two respected Catholic Investigative reporters, Jason Barry and Gerald Renner, published a book about the allegations, produced a detailed and credible book on the topic.

I would suggest you clarify your facts before making statements such as this, especially if you choose to attack another on the same ground. Fr Maciel was suspended in 1956 but is is unclear whether or not sexual abuse was the reason. The Legionaries deny that it was and affirm that this subject was never ever mentioned during the inquiry into other charges of drug addition, (Fully cleared and medically proven false) and misrule also cleared. The accusers in 1997 admitted not ever mentioning sex abuse, but actually swore on the bible to Fr Maciel's sanctity and integrity. They even made deep philosophical and psychological excuses in 1997 for their silence. Since then a book has been published which alledgedly has transcripts from secret vatican files on that investigation, files never released or published by the vatican, so how could it come into the possession of the author of the book? Anyway this claims that sex abuse was in fact mentioned during that inquiry, if so then Fr. Maciel was also cleared of these charges. So it is very dubious indeed if this was the subject of the 1956 enquiry. I personally do not believe that the author of said book actually has the files he lays claim to, and believe them to be total fabrication. !! Yet another irishman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.32.142 (talk) 07:53, September 7, 2007

A church investigation cleared Maciel of any wrongdoing and he was re-instated in 1958. In the mid 1990s the allegations resurfaced and were in The Hardfort Courant, a respected US newspaper. The National Catholic Reporter subsequently reported the issue.

The allegations included one concerning the junior seminary in Ontaneda in Spain founded by Maciel, and was made by Fernandez Perez, in which he claimed that he had to sleep on a matress in Maciel's room. Maciel allegedly insisted that the boy play with his (Maciel's) penis, something that also allegedly happened with Perez's younger brother. The excuse they say Maciel gave was that his doctor had asked him to prevent a build up of semen in his penis. José Barba's account, which was published by Newsweek, included the allegation that Maciel told him he had been given permission by Pius XII to be masturbated by young people!!!

The problems with the Church examination in these cases are many:

  • Churchmen themselves admitted in the 1990s that they were unsuited to reach conclusions on allegations of sex abuse, because they had limited knowledge of the issue. That is why most investigations are now handled either by the police or by professionals engaged by the Church. Churchmen at diocese level no longer do the investigations. No so the Vatican, however.
  • Psychologists report that child sex abuse victims are less likely as children to uphold their allegations, even when physical evidence shows them to be true (for example, detailed rectal examinations) if the person doing the investigations are themselves of similar status to the perpetrator of the act. So children will not confide in doctors if abused by a child; they will not confide in teachers if abused by the teacher; they will not confide in a parent if abused by another parent, and will not confide in a clergyman if abused by a clergyman. Yet the 1950s investigations were all carried out by clergymen who confronted teenagers and young men about allegations they were making against a high-ranking churchman. In the circumstances psychologists would be astonished if the people had not withdrawn their allegations.
  • Massive credibility issues surround the supposed Church investigations in the 1990s, including
    • the lack of outside non-clerical involvement in the investigation;
    • the imposition of an absolute confidentiality clause by Ratzinger, which prevented efforts to approach other young children around Maciel for any evidence they might have (things witnessed, passes made at them, etc).
    • incredible loaded comments by Fr Richard John Neuhaus, who in exonerating Marciel on the basis of a superficial study of the case said that the paedophile priest crisis in the Church was largely the work of greedy lawyers, and anyway "what can one do to an eighty-two year old priest who has been so successful in building a movement of renewal and is strongly supported and repeatedly praised by, among others, Pope John Paul II?' The praise by the pope was to him of such importance that the fact that if guilty Maciel had raped children, committed criminal acts and breached the moral law faded into insignificance. He further stated that a key influencer of his opinion was that an unnamed cardinal "in whom I have unbounded confidence and who has been involved in the case . . . tells me that the charges are "pure invention, without the slightest foundation." The principal cardinal involved in that case, and who fits that description, and whom Neuhaus is very close to, was Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
    • Ratzinger himself mishandled the case in 1998, allowing it to drag on until forced to begin an investigation in 2004 when Barry and Renner's book was published and widely reviewed. He himself questioned what could be done to a priest who was friends with a pope, hardly the sort of independent stance one would expect of a neutral judge in a case.

In no way can this be described as a thorough independent examination of serious allegations of child abuse by a priest. In other jurisdictions not alone would such an 'examination' not be tolerated. Both Ratzinger and Neuhaus would potentially have faced prosecution themselves for 'perverting the course of justice'.

In contrast, amid the ramshakle examination, a couple of important points are worth making:

  • The people making the allegations do not in any way fit the identikit profile of people who make false allegations (usually low achievers looking for recognition, people anti-Catholicism and/or out to make money from the case.
    • They include two respected academics and the former head of the Legion in the United States, all of whom risked having their careers overshadowed by claims that they had been abused by a prominent and respected cleric;
    • Their explanation for their withdrawal of their statements in the 1950s matches perfectly the reasons why children who demonstrably have been accused withdraw statements - ie, being confronted by someone similar to the abuser (a clergyman) who was investigating the case, and afraid of the power of the institution both the investigator and the abuser represented, added to a belief that as the man who had done the acts was widely accepted as a holy man, they must have been the guilty ones (a standard reaction among child abuse victims);
    • When they raised the case (following the death of another alleged victim of Maciel) they were in a position to make no monetary gain, as the case was sufficiently old to be covered by the Statute of Limitations. So clearly money was not a motivating factor;
    • They adhered to the church demand for secrecy until they concluded, by Ratzinger's longfingering of the case, that the Church was not going to do anything, and so the only way to force it to respond was publicity.
    • They swore full legal affidavits;
    • Maciel, though being both slandered and libelled in a serious manner if the allegations were untrue, never once threatened to take the normal route for dealing with defamation and so much as threaten a writ, let alone actually sue them for 'talking his good name'.

Their willingness to put the allegations in a legal form, and his complete unwillingness to, is striking.

Finally, Maciel's own past raises serious questions. Maciel was sacked from not one but two seminaries for incidents, the details of which are kept secret. In one of them, the incident was so serious that he was given 30 minutes to get out of the place. I once asked some people attached to Maynooth seminary (and someone attached once to Clonliffe) as to whether a student priest would ever be ordered off the premises within 30 minutes. They said 'absolutely not. There would be a report sent to the bishop, and meetings'. In their view, short of murder, for which they would call the police, the only things they could possibly imagine would be "celebrating a satanic ceremony, or the most gross sexual act performed with a minor on college property.' Something Maciel did led him to be kicked out of two seminaries, one of them within 30 minutes.

for the record once again your comments are ill advised. In the first incident Fr Maciel was removed from the seminary because of his desire to start a religious congregation. In the second it was precisely because he had begun his own group within the seminary, in his youthful naivity, and the bishops requested that he be removed. Yet another Irishman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.32.142 (talk) 07:53, September 7, 2007

One churchman, with whom I talked about the Maciel case, said when I asked him if he thought it was true - 'of course it is. But the Vatican daren't act against him. It is one thing to have obscure priests doing those sort of things. But this man is a friend of the pope. You can't tell the world a friend of the pope raped children.' He further added, 'but then there are people in the Vatican who live in denial about a lot of things. Some of them, if they saw Maciel has sex with a kid, still wouldn't believe it and would insist the devil was playing tricks with their eyes. Or that it was all an anti-Catholic plot. When (Lord) Acton said "power corrupts" he could have been describing some people in the Vatican. They believe they are of course right, because they are on 'God's side'. They are good men corrupted by power. Their unability to face up to the whole issue of clerical sex abuse turned a disaster into a calamity for the Church. Ordinary people on the ground know it. But there eminences, in an all-male world in the Vatican, don't. Their attitude, like so many companies where we see scandals, is one of 'look after each other. Protect the institution. We are right. It is all a plot by outsiders.' Tragically John Paul II was too busy to act sooner. And when he had time to act, his health was failing, his memory weakening. He left it to others. And they did nothing. And so we have the crisis over clerical sex abuse that is doing more damage than you could possibly imagine. It may bankrupt the Church in America. And morally bankrupt the Church worldwide. '

Among the sources available on the truth about Maciel, there is Jason Barry and Gerald Renner, Vows of Silence (2004), Newsweek and John Cornwall, The Pope in Winter. A further book is also coming out dealing with the issue which may make very uncomfortable reading for the cardinals who elected Ratzinger pope. In addition, private comments from senior churchmen, which as they are confidential can't be revealed here, leave me in little doubt but that the Vatican's investigation was a disgrace, and that Maciel is unfit to be a priest and should have spent years in prison. FearÉIREANN 03:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am amazed that you could consider Jason Berry and Gerald Renner as a source of truth in this case. They have repeated lied, and been shown to lie on this case. Wake up and smell the coffee mate. Yet another Irishman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.32.142 (talk) 07:53, September 7, 2007
Fear Eireann, though I appreciate the time you took to write such a long response, I couldn't possibly respond to all your points. I have not read either of the books you mention, but believe that John Cornwell's credibility is undermined by the use of a seriously misleading picture [2] of Eugenio Pacelli (later Pius XII) on the dust jacket of the book Hitler's Pope. It shows the then Archbishop, who at the time of the photo was apostolic nuncio in Berlin, leaving a German Government building, saluted by two soldiers. Archbiship Pacelli left Germany in 1929, and never returned. Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Pacelli was elected pope on March 2, 1939. It would seem that the use of that photo is intended to make readers believe that Pius XII and Hitler were friends. Now the fact that Cornwell stooped to such an action does not, of course, mean that Pius XII was not guilty of Nazi-ism; nor does it mean that he was. (I don't believe he was, as he hid Jews in his palace, and as a public condemnation of nazi-ism made by the Dutch bishops had achieved nothing good but had led to further persecution of Jews who had converted to Catholicism, including the execution of Saint Edith Stein; however that subject is not relevant to discussion about Fr Maciel.)
So I'm afraid that I can't trust that book. When anti-Catholics (and that also includes Catholics who reject the teachings of their Church) write books or articles attacking the Church, their accusations may or may not be true. I would read the information, assuming that I had time, if it were available free of charge. The Legionaries' answer is [3] - have you examined it? I would not like to contribute to "royalties" for books that attack people I loved (e.g. Pope John Paul). I'm sure you can understand that.
What so scandalized me in the behaviour of many (not all) bishops was that they knowingly transferred priests who had abused children (in some cases the priests had even admitted it), and then, when they were exposed, they came out with pathetic "mistakes-were-made" and "had-we-but-known-then-what-we-know-now" statements. I am unaware of any allegation that Pope Benedict ever, as bishop, transferred a priest who had admitted to molesting children. I would be very shocked to learn of such a case. I am not in the least bit shocked that Cardinal Connell says Cardinal Ratzinger advised him on his handling of the Dublin crisis. My experience of Cardinal Connell is that he words things in an indirect way to prevent blame falling on himself. He does not say directly that he informed Ratzinger fully about how many priests had admitted to or been credibly accused of sexual activity with children. And he does not say what advice Ratzinger gave him - he just mentions something about selling land!
Even if Fr Maciel is guilty, I cannot see that Cardinal Ratzinger's actions were of the same nature as, say, Cardinal Law's. Fr Maciel was cleared of wrongdoing long before Cardinal Ratzinger had anything to do with the case. He continued to deny the accusations, and Cardinal Ratzinger evidently believed him. (That's very different from the bishops who imply that they "didn't know" that someone who had molested once might do it again.) In a secular court, if a jury find a guilty man not guilty, and he subsequently commits further crimes, the jury are not guilty of the kind of cover-up that the bishops engaged in. In British law, if someone is found not guilty, and so cannot be retried for the same offence even when new evidence suggests his guilt, the people who drafted that "no second trial" law are not guilty of cover-up. If the seminarians denied in the fifties that any abuse had taken place, and then later changed their story Fr Maciel, Cardinal Ratzinger may well have decided that it was just an attempt to smear an order known for loyalty to the Church, especially since one of the accusers later retracted his story.
By the way, as far as I know, Fr Maciel was not accused of sexual abuse in the fifties; those accusations came later. He was accused of other things in the fifties, including drug addiction, and voluntarily submitted to tests which showed that accusation to be groundless. Also, I had a quick look at the book reviews on Amazon.com for the Vows of Silence book. Many are enthusiastic reviews written by people who are delighted to hear all the shocking things the Church is guilty of. But there is a review by an ex-seminarian from the Legionaries - Jonathan Brunk - who says that he "NEVER, EVER encountered anything like what one would read in this book". He knew Fr Maciel, and "there was never a hint of the 'lavish' lifestyle talked about in this book." He continues, "I KNOW AND LIVED AND BREATHED the Legion of Christ and KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHO WOULD OR NOT BELIEVE ME, that this book, inasmuch as it deals with the Legion, is a terrible distortion of the truth."
I think that because so many priests abused children, there is a tendency to believe molestation charges against any priest; and because so many bishops covered up, there is a tendency to believe cover up charges against any bishop - even Pope Benedict. But even if you don't think Fr Maciel is innocent, do you not think that Cardinal Ratzinger may have thought he was?
As I said, it would take too long to respond to all your points, and you may laugh at my final point, which is this: you seem to think that Fr Maciel's failure to take any legal action is an indication of his guilt. Well, if he's guilty, of course it could be (though not a proof). But if we look at this without any preconceived idea, and see him just as a man who founded an order known for supporting the teachings of the Church, perhaps we should remember that many saints who were falsely accused did not try to defend themselves, choosing rather to imitate Christ, who made no answer when falsely accused. AnnH ♫ 15:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, your response fails to deal with objective analysis and is depressingly superficial. Whether Cornwell has a bias is irrelevant. His analysis may on occasion be suspect, but his verifiable research in terms of researching facts isn't. Nor does the claim by others that they say no evidence count for anything. Most criminals have people who did not know their behaviour. I personally know of one child abuser who was regarded by 98% of people who knew him as a holy saintly man. His actually was an ogre who raped a child on an altar, but only a small number of people knew the truth behind him.

What is clear from the evidence is that Maciel's case has been bungled by the Vatican. The clerics who investigated him were biased. And Ratzinger is either monumentally incompetent, a woeful judge of evidence, or conspired to cover-up the case lest it damage Maciel's friend, the then pope, and a religious order that was close to his vision of Catholicism and which would potentially be damaged if its founder was revealed to be a paedophile. If the latter case Ratzinger would face criminal prospection and a jail sentence in every country in the world for perverting the course of justice. His incompetent handling of the case contrasts with a competence of some past figures in his office, when, for example, they thoroughly examined claims against Padre Pio (against whom claims had been made that he was propositioning women in the confessional) and dismissed them after detailed examination immediately the allegations had been made. They didn't leave it for 6 years before opening a full investigation. But then in the 1940s and 1950s Padre Pio was not popular in the Vatican and seen as a troublesome cleric with a populist appeal that was alien to Pius XII's style of church. Maciel was a hero in John Paul II's Vatican. He was one of their own, and showed the same sort of loyalty politicians show to their own, the media show to their own, etc. The problem is however that unlike politicians or the media, the Church claims to be doing the work of God, so it should practice higher standards. Unfortunately for its own credibility it all too often doesn't. FearÉIREANN 22:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the tag; it had been there since 25 April. AnnH ♫ 19:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcial Maciel

In response to the text written in another post, I would like to make the following correction. Fr. Maciel was not suspended due to allegations of Sex Abuse in 1956. He was accused of Drug Addiction and rebellion against the Pope. He attended a Drug Rehabilitation centre under the order of the Holy See, but the doctors there concluded that he was not, nor never had been a drug abuse, and a separate independant test carried out by a vatican physician came to the same conclusion.

All other charges were also proven false. At no time during the investigation was Fr. Maciel accused of sexual impropriety.

It must be noted that those now accusing Fr. Maciel also claim he was a drug abuser.

It must also be noted that one of those accusing Fr Maciel died in 1995, and according to reliable sources, namely his cardiologist, he suffered a major stroke 1989 and had lost all power of speech, and furthermore had lost the ability to write. Yet these men say he left a sworn deathbed statement.

So there is indeed dubiety regarding the authenticity of the claims. (Unsigned at 12:06, 17 June 2005 by 195.173.32.195 )


[edit] Marcial Maciel Again

In recent weeks Mr Frederico Dominguez, one of those who raised the false charges is now making allegations of sexual abuse, which he failed to mention in 1956. The alleged abuse he claims to witness alledgedly occured in 1949. It must be noted, that he also was in a different seminary at the time, as he was a philosopher in Rome, and the alledged abuse he claims to have witnessed was in Cobreces in Spain. It must also be noted that he claims to have walked into the room and found Fr. Maciel in bed with one of the accusers, Mr Vaca, yet in the Legion of Christ no one would walk into a room of a superior without first knocking and being invited in. Lastly it must also be noted that he had been included in a letter to the Vatican in 1996, but removed himself from the claimants when Bishop Emeritus Polidoro's letter discredited his evidence. He has now come back.

All of this would indicate to me that this is fabrication, and further emphase the claims by Miguel Diaz who admitted that the allegations were fabrication, and that he had been repeatedly urged by the others to make false claims. (Unsigned at 12:47, 17 June 2005 by 195.173.32.195 )


[edit] Thoughts on the case

Having examined the above posts, and having read about the case serval times in Mexican newspapers, I Belive that, even if yet unresolved, the case is an important part in the history of Mr. Maciel, and should therefore be included in the article. I would also suggest organizing and expanding the information about the case, so that when it is, hopefully someday, solved, extensive evidence exists of the false claims of who ever ends up as the liar.

On the other hand, I belive further explanation is necesary of the claims Against the accusers. That is, what do those on the side of Mr Maciel belive are the true motives of the accusers? I belive that Mr. Maciel's case show the dirty politics going on in the Roman Catholic Church. Shall the claims against Mr. Maciel are proven false, it is interesting to see that there are people trying to attack the founder of an order that claims charity as it's main objective. If, the claims are otherwise proven true, it is even more important the fact that such high ranking figures of the Roman Catholic Church had covered up for him.

I hope this healthy debate continues. (Unsigned at 03:50, 7 August 2005 by Syats )


Because personal testimonies carry such weight to those who are not directly involved in a case, I would like to provide my own personal testimony about the group founded by Mr. Maciel which I hope will provide perspective to the rest of the testimonies.
I was a full member of the Legion of Christ (the group he founded) from the ages of 12 to 17. I lived in the exact environment in which these alleged abuses were performed, at the ages of the most vulnerable of the victims.
I myself did not personally experience any sexual abuse during my time there, nor am I aware that any of my contemporaries were abused. However, I did have experiences which I consider abusive in other respects and I know others too have had awful and similar experiences. I have not yet, after many years, come to a conclusion as to whether or not I can blame those in charge for anything other than severe incompetence in their handling of the development of teenage boys. What I can say for certain, however, is that the environment that is strictly maintained and enforced within the group founded by this man is the perfect setting for unreported abuse. Complete silence (in their interpretation any form of written, spoken, or body language communication is a breach of silence) is maintained for 90% of the average day. Shaming techniques are used often to maintain particularly dissident members within the group. The children who are inside of their minor seminaries are thoroughly isolated from the outside world, their families, and, for the majority of their lives, from each other.
I believe that amongst the many members of the Legion of Christ that have been accused of sexual abuse, it is highly likely that some are guilty based on the combined facts that they are amongst a group of people (catholic priests) who have been proven to have a high number of pedophiles capable of successfully dodging accusers for years and that these particular priests control an isolated environment of young boys who are thoroughly isolated from their parents and the outside world and have no adults on which to rely besides the (potentially) guilty parties.
As to the particulars of the cases presented against Mr. Maciel, I am personally in no position to speak to their truth or falsehood. There are two sites that those interested should visit to read signed testimonials concerning life within the organization he has founded. The first is a messageboard: www.exlegionaries.com the second is an organization called ReGAIN (www.regainnetwork.org) which aims to provide information about the Legion of Christ provided by ex-members. Both are run by former members. Nearly all of those who put forth their testimony on these sites include contact information, and many who dont can arrange contact through the site administrators.
A common criticism of these two sources of information is that they represent a vocal minority of disenfranchised ex-members. It is quite possible that those who do feel bitter and hurt by their experience are a minority. As one of the group who feel deeply hurt by his own personal experience there I can promise you, however, that that is not a valid reason to disregard the veracity of their testimonies. I can also vouch for the fact that there are members who leave the organization and maintain respect for it, I know many of these people personally as well. This discrepancy proves nothing about the truth of one or the other's testimonies. What it proves is that within the same organization there are some people in authority making life decisions for the lower ranking members which are very poor, and there are others whose decisions are sound. Knowing this, I do not think that individual's use of the good or bad results from the organization should be considered in the case against Mr. Maciel.
Another important point is that as the organization has grown to its current size, direct access to Mr. Maciel by its members has diminished proportionally to the point where nearly all the members have still "met" him (I myself met him on no less than five occasions and shook his hand, and more times than that have listened to his conferences) but these meetings are strictly orchestrated in every detail. Anyone claiming to know the man and presenting themselves as a character witness should be thoroughly disregarded until they demonstrate in detail the extent to which they had daily interactions with him, for how long they had access to him, whether at any point that access was candid and direct, and how that experience relates to the timeframe during which the pedophilic abuses are alleged to have occurred.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.53.29 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duty of this discussion

Having initiated a discussion on this subject it is now incumbent upon the readers to document truthfully and honestly the full facts of the case. It is also important not to make statements that are not properly researched, such as the above claim that Fr. Maciel was suspended in 1956 amid claims of sexual misconduct with boys. History clearly demonstrates that is not the case.

I would add a number of observations that I have seen in recent months. Mr Jose De Jesus Barba Martin, one of the accusers, despite being instructed not to discuss the case with the media while the current investigation was underway, spoke on Mexican television where he denied any contact with 4 witnesses who had previously testified that they had been approached and asked to make false allegations of abuse against fr. Maciel. This statement is demonstrably false, because, in 1997 when this story was first published, the accusers state that they had indeed spoken with these men, but that they denied any abuse, and made no further contact with them. The men, Juan Manuel Correa, Jorge Limon, Valente Velazgues, and Armando Arias all state that they were repeatedly approached and asked to make false allegations. This supported the claim by Miguel Diaz, who retracted his statement and admitted that he was repeatedly urged to make false allegations.

Barba's statement on television is a clear and irrefutable lie. (Unsigned at 14:37, 29 August 2005 by 195.173.32.163 )


It's kind of obvious that people are out to get this guy. Numerous allegations have opened up against Legionaries, especially Fr. Bannon and rectors of seminaries. I have been in a junior program of Regnum Christi for about five years, been to the summer program for people interested in attending the Legion's minor seminary in New Hampshire, and in personal experience, and contact with countless people involved in the Legion and its lay apostolate, and there has never been any mention of any kind of abuse - not even from people who openly dislike the legion due to its hardcore brand of Catholicism(which was refreshing for me though I really didn't expect that I'd want to stay at the minor seminary). Only until I got on the internet did I find all these allegations - and mainly from people who look to expand and highlight absolutely any accusations of wrong-doing against the Catholic Church. It's reaffirmed my belief that evil does indeed come from one place, and always tests the strongest, always attacks the holiest. They say you can tell a tree by its fruit. If there was such hypocrisy from the top, it would show. Anyone who has met a Legionary in person knows this can't be here. I've for the first time seen someone who is genuine. consistent with what they say and do, and it's made me a better person. I'd be some trash-talking, perverted teen like a great portion of my generation if someone hadn't come along to show me what it was to truly be not just a good, but a great person.

Danny, 4th Stage ECYD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.223.142.17 (talk • contribs) 01:57, November 03, 2005.


I'm glad you think you're "not just a good, but a great person" Danny, but pedophilia is a sickness of the mind. It's not something you do because you're a bad person or mean. It's a sickness and a weakness that can take over a person. Not everyone is perfect, not even the best most generous and compassionate people in the world. 71.212.93.69 19:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello everyone, I would like to say thank you to Danny. I am in ECYD as well, a third stage member. I agree with his tree statement. I have a small question for the previous user... how does a mentally ill man form an amazing movement full of charity and zeal, and obtain the blessings of every Pope who has witnessed it's growth? Just out of curiosity...

I would also like to say that our response to these claims as members of the Church and the Movement are thus: that we have stated in the past very strongly that we know he is innocent, and that we will remain charitable as is our charism regardless of what accusations there may exist. In obedience to the Vatican, Fr. Maciel has accepted this cross, embracing it in the spirit of Calvary. He has said all that he can say in his defense, as have we. I invite all Catholics in the spirit of true Charity to speak your opinions with charity. It was Christ's most beloved virtue, and a true Catholic can radiate it as he did.

Fr. Maciel's friend who died as a martyr at fourteen cried out in his moment of martyrdom, the trial of his life, VIVA CRISTO REY! VIVA LA VIRGEN DE GUADELOUPE! (Long live Christ the King! Long Live our Lady of Guadeloupe!) That is the cry of Fr. Maciel along with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi as we offer up this spiritual trial. All for the glory of God. May graces be obtained through it.

In Christ and his beautiful Church, An ECYD Member —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Outline (talk • contribs) .

It is unfounded and absurd to assert that 6 accusers have recanted. Only one recanted. I am going to edit one more time and name the accusers, all of whom remain so publicly: Félix Alarcón Hoyos José de J. Barba Martín Saúl Barrales Arellano Alejandro Espinosa Alcalá Arturo Jurado Guzmán Fernando Pérez Olvera José Antonio Pérez Olvera Juan José Vaca Rodríguez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.98.67.23 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont forget to mention the case of Frederico Dominguez and Carlos de la Isla, discreditedin 1996, removed from the list of accusers, and re-introduced at a later time after the death of their discreditor, yes indeed, very credible witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.173.32.142 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary vs. Secondary Sources

Ok, this is the second time I think you've misunderstood a Wiki concept but thrown it at me to support your POV. You say 2nd > 1st? Quote me that, because I looked, and I didn't see it on the article or discussion page.

Secondly, there are other secondary sources that express the ambiguity of the Vatican's position and don't pretend to know their mind. The source you keep replacing is an interpretation.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wvatican0519/BNStory/International/home and of course, zenit.org, but, heh... The Jackal God 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:PSTS:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

and

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.

This last point is bolded and emphasized in Wikipedia's Guide to Sources. The 3 sources I quote are from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press respectively. The sentence I quoted is directly pulled from their titles, much less their content. I can't read the "ambiguity" mentioned in your article as it is behind a subscription wall. If there are mainstream press articles with radically different interpretations, please add them and amend the text. Scott5834 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."
"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."
using the words of the primary source isn't interpreting, fyi. concerning something as vague and mysterious as the Curia, can you explain why it's better to take a newspaper's interpretation over the Vatican's own words? and as the link i provided above shows, there is another stance that is more representative of what was actually said - and considering ppl will make what they will of it, why not leave them to do that (i.e. use the vatican's words) instead of trying to form their opinion for them. The Jackal God 21:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you summed it with "concerning something as vague and mysterious as the Curia". This subject requires interpretation, secondary sources provide this. Sсοττ5834talk 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
do you usually refer to the AP to interpret news coming out of the Vatican? vague and mysterious argues against interpretation, unless coming from a privy source. The Jackal God 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If a reader can't make sense of the Curia because it's "vague and mysterious", then it isn't something one can understand without specialist knowledge. Primary sources are supposed to be used in very specialized situations, secondary sources for the rest. The article summary isn't one of them. Sсοττ5834talk 14:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
that's your opinion. not everything thinks they need an american journalist to interpret a simple vatican press statement for them. the inner workings of the Curia are secretive, not their press statement; this is a situation where the subject matter is sensitive and unclear; any interpretation not coming from the Vatican or a privy party falls short. The Jackal God 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Subject matter that is "sensitive and unclear" needs secondary sources. The Wikipedia policies seem very clear on this. If this is, to quote the Wikipedia policy, a "rare exception", I think you'll need to make a better case than your wariness of the American press. Also, the soapbox policy refers to article content, not their discussions. Sсοττ5834talk 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Jackal, I think the appropriate pages to judge discussion pages are their civility and etiquette policies. Considering the number of times you and I have bumped heads, we both should try following the policies better. Or at least I should! Sсοττ5834talk 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
right, although otherwise stated as a momentous and rare case, that a leading and powerful Church figure is retired, this isn't rare for you. Yes, I think you should try to be more NPOV towards the Legion and MM. by the way, from the soapbox page:
"The above guidelines apply to content on Wikipedia. These guidelines apply to Wikipedia discussions and forums." The Jackal God 01:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please try to stay civil. Thanks! Sсοττ5834talk 03:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
hmm, scott, you edit out my edits, without discussion first - you want to talk about civility? discuss first, that way you don't give off the impression that your opinion counts for more than others. The Jackal God 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, you've done the same. It was more your tone that getting a bit nasty. I'm happy with your current edits on the main article. Sсοττ5834talk 16:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I made a post a week or two ago in this discussion and it was removed. The post I made contained links to two letters that have been published this year in spanish from the 1950s. One of the letters specifically mentions Maciel and suspicions of his abusing the young seminarians. I believe that this is important to show as it has been constantly denied that Maciel was accused of this in the 1950s. The authenticity of the letter is verified in the book it is published in, and while it does not prove whether Maciel is an abuser, it does show us that he was accused of it in the 1950s. Does anyone know why my link was removed? It was successfully posted and subsequently removed. Aronski 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Jackal deleted the post. I restored it and he deleted it again. As to why he deleted the post, I'll leave that to him to elucidate. If you think this was in error, restore your post and leave your reasoning here. Sсοττ5834talk 18:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)