ASJ Offers Encouragement, Guidance to Troubled LC’s

Maciel's problems expose issues with the Legion's sexual theology that only ASJ can help to fix.

The Legion of Christ, one of the fastest growing orders of Catholic priests in the world, and their vigorous lay order Regnum Christi, were rocked last week by the finding that the founder of the order, Rev. Marcial Maciel, fathered at least one child over twenty years ago. This means that in the 1980’s while the Legion was winning acclaim and special privileges from Pope John Paul II, its founding leader was seemingly routinely violating his vow of chastity. But this allegation pales in comparison to more lurid charges that have persistently dogged Maciel, and (however unfairly), the entire Legion of Christ. These allegations, which Maciel and the order adamantly denied, were of past sexual abuse against minors, even his own seminarians. The lingering implication of course, is that in light of this recently discovered sexual misdeed, it seems likely that the more sinister allegations are true as well.

Now in the wake of this news, our thoughts turn immediately in solidarity to the Legionaries, thousands of men who are ordained or studying for the LC priesthood. One can easily imagine what a crisis of faith in their commitment to Christ must be befalling even the most ardent among them, not to mention a sense of utter betrayal. Many Legionaries will wonder if this is a sign from God that they are on the wrong path, that they misunderstood God’s will in their lives. But the bigger problem is how they can continue in a formation program so centered on a man who sinned in this way.

Indeed, as ex-Legionary Fr. Steven Fitcher told the New York Times, “Father Maciel was this mythical hero who was put on a pedestal and had all the answers. To hear he’s been having this double life on the side, I just don’t see how they’re going to continue.”

But this sentiment is far too pessimistic. The order is called the Legion of Christ, not the Legion of Maciel. The young men who through a fallible instrument were introduced into a deeper commitment to Christ will have experienced His power in their lives, and they will continue to serve the Lord whatever happens to the founder or even to the order itself. They may well lose their faith in Maciel, but it will be harder for them to lose their faith in Jesus, the Eucharist, the priesthood, the pope, or any of the other things that they now know to be sources of good in their lives.

But our primary concern goes beyond the Legion’s survival. As the Church’s foremost defenders of celibacy, we feel compelled to step in and encourage the LC’s and all those committed to or considering celibacy. Undoubtedly many, especially the younger men, will be scandalized by this. A seminarian will wonder if he will live his whole life as a faithful celibate only to fail in the end. He will wonder if lapses against celibacy are like flat tires, that given enough time and mileage, they’re bound to happen. He may wonder whether celibacy is merely like a boys choir—a beautiful thing for sure, but something that exists only in the interim before one grows up. He will be tempted lose faith, not in Jesus, but in the reality of celibacy, wondering why if everybody else is cheating against celibacy, he should be the sole “fool for God.” The problem is still deeper. Maciel promises in his writings a “happiness of a person who offers all his renunciations [i.e., celibacy] for a higher love.” Yet, a young man trusting in celibacy will rightly ask whether this happiness exists, for if Maciel was so happy, why did he need to look to the flesh for comfort?

But celibacy most certainly is possible, and does provide this happiness. But celibacy as Maciel understood and taught it is not realizable, because it is based on a deep underlying contradiction. We hope to show that Maciel’s view of celibacy forces the celibate to either avoidance of the opposite sex or into a sexual relationship. Maciel chose the latter.

But before exploring this, we first mention that the appalling news was also another blot on the impressive legacy of Pope John Paul II. John Paul made no secret of his affection for the Legionaries, and the feeling was definitely mutual. The reason ASJ points this out is that because of this relationship, the LC’s often promote a sexual theology similar to JP2’s “Theology of the Body” which ASJ heavily criticizes. We are not surprised then that Maciel’s theology of celibacy suffers from similar problems.

The Legion of Christ has enough elements of good in it to rise from the ashes of this disaster. But clearly a fix needs to be made somewhere. We believe that the solution is not simply the removal of Maciel as an exemplar, it is also necessary to remove the root causes of his behavior—the erroneous view of celibacy that lies at the heart of Maciel’s thought, and hence at the heart of the LC formation program. The Apostolate of St. Jerome appeals to the LC’s that, before doing something drastic like disbanding, they consider replacing the flawed understanding of celibacy taught by Maciel with the doctrine of sexuality that ASJ promotes. For ours is founded not on a wretched man, but on Christ and the apostles.

The sad case of Maciel is evidence of an untenable theology of celibacy that he uses to form his priests. Now only one writing of Maciel is publicly available, a work titled Integral Formation of Catholic Priests. Thus we have little choice but to rely on it as a compendium of how he sees celibacy, especially in relation to the priesthood. The details we can glean from it are quite telling, and conceive clerical celibacy in a way that doesn’t properly fortify the celibate against the temptations of the world.

Now one obvious problem with his book is the very minor role given to celibacy in the first place. In the last issue of our newsletter, we remarked that the priesthood needs to be seen as a chapter within a book about celibacy instead of the current view that sees celibacy as a chapter in a book about the priesthood. But Maciel gives celibacy and chastity only a subsection, not even a full chapter! But something that involves the totality of self the way celibacy does cannot be minimized. Yet this is the big mistake the Church is making right now and with harmful results for both the priesthood and celibacy. As ASJ repeatedly warns, the Church needs to put less effort into cultivating vocations, and put more effort and energy into cultivating celibacy, in men and women, the young and the old, regardless of a person’s potential for ordination. If this is done, the task of finding priests will be trivial, for celibacy is what is keeping men out of the priesthood.

A second major problem with Maciel’s theology, much like the “Theology of the Body,” is that it elevates marriage and family, and only in this context tries to find a place for celibacy. Maciel writes that “Celibacy for the Kingdom reflects the high esteem and positive attitude of a priest for marriage and family life.” But as we repeatedly state, this is a disaster waiting to happen, as Maciel’s life shows. For when he was tempted with starting a relationship with the woman who bore his child(ren), how did it help him to have in his mind thoughts like this about how great a thing marriage and family are? Not exactly the antidote needed. See, clearly Maciel lacked a love for celibacy and virginity that would be strong enough to enable him to resist the temptation. It seems like Maciel, like many Church leaders today, are shy about speaking of the superiority of celibacy over marriage. But this is Catholic doctrine and no one should be ashamed of it.

In passing we point out that in an earlier issue of our newsletter, we took issue with the vice-rector of the LC seminary in Rome, Fr. Jonathan Morris of Fox News. This was in connection with a French case in which a man wanted a divorce because his wife had lied about her virginity. Fr. Morris basically asked what difference it makes whether a woman is virgin, and we were alarmed that a man in charge of forming Catholic priests would have such a low appreciation for virginity. But now it seems that such an attitude ran all the way to the top of the LC chain. This is a big problem.

See, the theology of Maciel forces seminarians to harmonize a dichotomy whereby they tell themselves that sex, marriage, and family are good things out of one side of their mouths, but then they must tell themselves not to do these things with the other side of their mouth. ASJ claims instead that celibacy and virginity for the kingdom reflects the Christian’s high esteem for celibacy and virginity. Maciel’s attitude is like a vegetarian who claims not to eat meat out of respect for meat. Rather, they avoid meat because, while it is not sinful, it is better not to eat it. It is healthier, and arguably more just given the potential food supply that goes into every pound of beef. Similarly, celibacy should be chosen for the goodness of celibacy, not because of the goodness of marriage.

See, any formation of young men needs an effective strategy for battling sexual temptation. Lofty statements about marriage or the goodness of celibacy are great, but in moments of crisis and temptation, a stick is often more helpful than a carrot. This is why the Lord phrases the sexual commandments negatively, “Thou shall not commit adultery,” instead of “Thou shall honor marriage.” There is nothing wrong with being reminded in times of crisis about what the good of marriage lacks relative to celibacy. Paul was not ashamed to point this out, calling those who marry anxious for the world. The author of Revelation was not ashamed to point this out regarding those who have “defiled themselves with women.” These reflect negative language against marriage and not just positive language for celibacy. Our patron St. Jerome says it best when he says that if it is good not to touch a woman then it is bad to touch one. Hopefully the LC’s will be aware that the theology of their leader is totally inadequate in this regard. For how can a person say such lofty things about marriage and then say no to it? We now know Father Maciel could not. And this we think, more than anything, discredits the view of celibacy underlying his formation program. Maciel claims this formation in celibacy must be a “positive, optimistic task.” The difference is he’s positive about marriage; we’re positive about celibacy. And we don’t have sex like he did.

Another area where Maciel’s view of celibacy is inadequate is his understanding of the clerical promise of celibacy. He presents this promise as a gift of the seminarian to the Church and to God. But celibacy is primarily, according to Scripture, a charism of the Spirit, i.e., a gift from God to the young man.

See, the problem with this is that given the lengthy LC formation process, by the time a young man arrives at the diaconate to promise celibacy, he has already invested the better part of a decade in his future as a cleric. He has likely forgone training in a secular field that could provide him a livelihood. Therefore, since he will not be ordained to the post in which he has invested so much if he does NOT make this promise of celibacy, it is somewhat of a stretch to act as if he’s being totally altruistic, isn’t it?

But our theology with its emphasis on the good that celibacy gains for the individual avoids this problem. We see no shame in admitting that celibacy is primarily self-serving, winning the celibate greater blessings in this world and in the next. After all, this is how the sacraments are; people are not baptized for others, they are baptized to save themselves!

Now up to this point, much of what Maciel has said would be found in other Catholic authors. But at the end of this subsection on chastity, Maciel gets plain weird. He writes, “Certain types of relationships with women arouse sentiments for affection and, eventually, love in a man. If a seminarian permits himself a relationship like this he is bound to fall prey to those sentiments.” Fall prey?! He actually writes this! It’s evident that Maciel lives in fear of his seminarians falling in love. But how can one prevent this? Don’t talk to girls? Nonsense. The horror of this teaching is even more pronounced in light of his conduct: while he himself knew that he needed relationships with women, he was depriving those under his care of the same privilege. But men cannot be kept hidden from pretty girls all their lives. The question rather to contemplate is why God permits celibates to fall in love with women, and what He wants us to learn from the experience. We explore this in detail in our article on the “gravity-assist.” Chaste relationships with women are the closest one can possibly get on earth to the relationships we will have in heaven—celibacy is the way God wants men and women to live! In fact, we claim that it is in the face of such love that celibacy most clearly manifests itself, proving to a man that he really does have the celibate charism. A man who falls in love with a woman but realizes he can go no further out of love of the Lord now has confidence that his gift is divine, it will manifest itself when needed to keep him from compromising it, and he can live without fear of relationships with women. So, far from keeping young men from young women, a discipline which, very much unlike celibacy, is truly against the spirit of “It is not good for man to be alone,” we encourage young men and women to interact, once both parties come to understand the value of their celibacy (and hopefully even virginity) before God.

But this is just one area where, compared to the ASJ theology, Maciel’s theology is backwards. He believes the carnal desires are “natural impulses which the Creator wants him to have.” He sees the physical desires for sex as natural and good and the psychological desires for love and romance as harmful. We see these higher psychological desires as helpful, constructive forces that help men and women be chaste in the way that we will all be in heaven when our lower, physical desires, which we view as fallen and never what God intended, will no longer get in our way. Maciel says these physical urges should be channeled, not repressed, but offers no advice on how to do this. It sure as heck isn’t obvious. ASJ distinguishes these lower urges from our higher sexual desires, and suggests channeling these. These lower urges simply have to be repressed and fought against; what else can one do with them? As evidence of our position, we appeal to St. Peter, who encourages his flock against the “fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul (KJV).” What does “war” mean except that the Christian must fight them? In fact, our resistance to these lusts is proof positive of the presence of the Spirit, which should lend us encouragement. Maciel acknowledges that these lower impulses are “instinctive and blind” and beset even the greatest mystics. But he loses us when he fears that seminarians will “run into strong stimuli that incite his natural tendencies against his vocation to priestly chastity.” We argue, and we believe common experience bears this out, that external stimuli are not needed to incite these passions. Sure, external stimuli don’t help things, but avoidance of such stimuli, even if that were possible, does not get rid of the temptations. This is a very important detail of the ASJ theology.

We see celibacy and chastity for that matter as a constant fight. Our job is to supply resources for the fight, especially intellectual ammunition from Scripture, tradition, and experience. But Maciel seems to view celibacy as the art of avoiding the fight. Such a man will grow weak in his defenses, and in the end, Maciel’s sad case shows, he will fail. In the ASJ approach, celibates are strong in the end because they have invested so much in the fight. Sleeping with women near the end of life when the crown of chastity is so close would be like quitting college one class short of a degree.

Maciel makes another strange statement in connection with these carnal impulses. He opposes repression because “God does not want the priest to be any less a man.” This is odd to us because it seems to imply that having these urges is what makes someone a man. Or at least, that we are more of a man if these urges exist in us. But Adam was a truer man and he did not have these urges. And of course Christ experienced not this inner conflict and he is True Man. Similarly the True Woman, the Blessed Virgin didn’t have these either. This is key because it teaches us that the essence of manliness and womanliness is something other than the genitals and their desires. But in this statement Maciel seems to tip his hand as to what the root cause of his problem was with celibacy. Given his actions one wonders whether deep in the recesses of his soul Maciel simply couldn’t feel “like a man” unless he had a sexual relationship or he had a woman or he had fathered children of his own. (Maybe this even explains his desire to be called “Nuestro Padre.”) This sentiment to be sure is a perennial adversary of celibacy. But we must recall again that we become more like a man by being more like Christ, who is the true man. And we become more like Christ by following His celibate example. St. Jerome is valuable here as well. His mockery of married men as those who are afraid of the dark and need a woman to keep them company at night is perhaps a bit much, but it shows that our greatest saints of the patristic age understood that celibacy, and the integrity of the solitary individual, is the true pinnacle of manliness.

The case of Fr. Maciel, we think, is symbolic of the major problem in the Church today—the inability to ultimately win the fight against sexual temptation. But we believe this tragic event helps others to see how our theology holds the key to winning this fight.

We invite all the good men in the Legionaries to drink more deeply from the theological fount with which ASJ is watering the Church. We ask them and members of Regnum Christi who are looking for a new spiritual father-figure to consider St. Jerome, a man with every bit as much energy and love for the Church as Maciel, and perhaps even more erudition. The difference is that St. Jerome actually lived the desert discipline—including celibacy—that he spent his life recommending to others.

 This article appeared in the February 11, 2009 issue of The Loyal Lion.