Monthly Archives: July 2010

The 1920 Czechoslovak National Church and Rome

The 1920 Czechoslovak

National Church

and Rome

In the eighteenth century in Europe, the Enlightenment Catholicism of the day promoted “The State Church” as a means of controlling it. Austria was the most famous.

Emperor Joseph II (1741-1790) reorganized dioceses and parishes, reduced episcopal incomes and prohibited pluralism. He objected to such ‘superstitious practices’ as pilgrimages and the observance of saints days; he opposed baroque extravagances in churches and services on the grounds that simplicity had been the mark of primitive worship. Nothing was too small for Joseph’s attention and Frederick the Great is said to have referred to him as ‘my brother the sacristan of Europe’.[1]

It was a variation of what had been known for a long time in France as Gallicanism. But the model for each system required a monarch to assume the final authority over the church. What to do if you do not have a monarch?

Those who are wary about the emergence of the “American Catholic Church” with its own identity separate from papal allegiance might do well to consider that there is available another precedent, one which did not require a monarch, and was even founded in reaction to monarchy as well as to papal fidelity. State control, or any faction’s control for the sake of ideology, does not need a monarch at all. While the agenda differs today, and history may not repeat itself exactly, there may still be something to be learned.

Few remember the conditions in Bohemia and Moravia after World War I. The Catholic dynasty of the Habsburgs, while never fully friendly to the Church in either the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, was still identified with it. Czech nationalism, as indeed Slavic nationalism generally, longed to be free of the Empire. Psychologically, that nationalism resulted in the government being free of its state-supported church, the Catholic Church. Though the dynasty used the church for its own purposes, the nationalist cause was usually unable to distinguish these subtleties.

From Austria the “Los von Rom” (“Away from Rome”) Movement itself provided the pattern. As “Pan-Germanism” tended to attack the Church,[2] so forms of “Pan-Slavism” discarded anything which could be construed as a foreign influence over nationalist aspirations. There was a desire for a “patriarchate of Prague,” an autonomous church in a free state.

The Slovaks tried to rid themselves of the Magyarizing policies of the Hungarian pole of the Dual Monarchy, and the Czechs had long resisted the Germanizing pressures of Vienna. Anti-German feeling has always run strong in Bohemia, just as German influence has always been great. The Empire collapsed as a result of the war, and President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”  included independence for many of the individual Slavic national and linguistic groups that had been within it. Finally there would be a free Poland, for one example among others. While Czecho-Slovakia seemed to us a somewhat artificial country and the fact that this amalgamated state finally split apart after Communism fell, it was a young and bold idea as the Versailles Treaty was being signed in 1919.

In addition to Czech nationalism, often rallying around the martyred and semi-mythic figure of Jan Hus,[3] were intellectual currents that had long ceased to be confined to the universities. These political ideas were action-oriented and had begun to capture the allegiance of ordinary working people. The usual names we gave them in the nineteenth century are “Liberalism” and “Socialism.” Though they may be distinguished, they also overlapped.

Liberalism originally came from the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, while Socialism had evolved even beyond that. Socialism was a broad movement which, generally, called itself “progressive.” It was active in those places where industrialization had taken place. Along with England, France, and Germany, Bohemia would be included in such a description. Socialism opposed traditional religion which it linked to a feudal, class-divided world that was soon to be just as forgotten as the sick old empire itself. The individualism of “personal salvation” had been replaced, so the thinking went, with a concern for humanity itself. Trade unions were organized around the ideas of Karl Marx and others. Religion was the opium of the people. Socialist leaders therefore had an interest in the formation of a Czechoslovak National Church which would be a bridge to either atheism or at least religious indifferentism. Tactically, such a formation  would be a good first step. In destroying the power of Rome over this mostly Catholic country the ideological quest for power over the future could be satisfied. In any case, Socialists encouraged apostasies by insisting that a worker could not be a good Socialist and a Catholic at the same time. In this, the Church agreed.

After World War I a secular leader became the President of the Czechoslovak Republic in the person of Thomas Garrigue Masaryk. He was a philosopher who had renounced Catholicism in his youth. In 1920, early in his administration, the government donated a fairly large sum of money to help set up a schismatic Czechoslovak National Church.[4] Its first congress was held the next year on January 8-9 in the hotel Albergo dell’Oca in Prague. Various other churches with an anti-Roman bias attended in the hope of forming some type of coalition, or perhaps even absorbing the dissidents who had left the Roman Church. These days were truly anti-ecumenical!

However, this particular part of the project ultimately failed. The new National Church would be destined never to unite either with the Anglican Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church[5] or with the Protestant Czech/Moravian Brethren or even with the Old Catholics. At the time of the congress, moreover, approximately 288 ex-priests had joined the movement, most of them from Bohemia, and a smaller number from Moravia. An even smaller number came from Silesia, while almost none were from Slovakia or sub-Carpathian Ruthenia. One of the attractions for this group was the abolition of priestly celibacy, even before the new church had formalized a liturgy of its own.[6] Eventually the National Church would adopt a presbyterian-style or quasi-democratic government, perhaps in keeping with the Hussite mythology that was employed to prop up the idea of “freedom from Roman domination.”[7]

Both Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI condemned the confiscation of Catholic properties and the intimidation of Catholics who were at times coerced into joining. Not joining was considered unpatriotic. Catholic priests were insulted as they walked the streets of Prague and other Bohemian centers. By the time things settled down, and a “modus vivendi” with the Holy See was signed (February 2, 1928) between Cardinal Pietro Gasparri8 and Dr. Eduard Beneš, the

Catholic Church had lost both members and properties which were either confiscated, secularized or just plain vandalized. 9

Initially, the national church numbered 1,388,000 members, but by 1930 it was down to 853,000. The rest had ceased to claim any confession whatever, 10 although one report indicated that a few joined the occult. The Catholic population of the Czechoslovak Republic declined from 95% to 75%, though a revival and a counter-movement occurred simultaneous with the decline.

The new nation matured. Czech Catholics were eventually recognized for their patriotism, but it took the influence of World War II to accomplish it.11 Old associations with the days of the empire were forgotten in the experience of yet another war and the performance of Catholics in regard to both Nazism and Communism. Even President Masaryk, who had never acknowledged Czech Catholics as constituting the majority of the country, might have respected them at last. He died September 14, 1937.

Rev. Brian Van Hove, SJ

Alma, Michigan

First published as “The 1920 Czechoslovak National Church and Rome.” The Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter 17, no. 3 (June 1994): 13-15.

Posted on Ignatius insight 25 June 2010.

Revised July 2010.

[1] See J. Derek Holmes, The Triumph of the Holy See: A Short History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century (London: Burns and Oates, 1978) 10.

[2] Note especially Otto von Bismarck’s “Kulturkampf” (1870-1878).

3 See James Bemis, “Greatest When Catholic: The Great Age of Bohemia and Moravia,” in The Latin Mass: The Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition (Spring 2010) 16-19, esp. 18.

[4] See Ludvik Nemec, Church and State in Czechoslovakia: Historically, Juridically, and Theologically Documented (New York: Vantage Press, 1955) 129-130. The German Imperial Government had done the same thing for the “Old Catholics” after 1870 when they rejected the First Vatican Council.

5   Serbian and Russian jurisdictions sent a delegation to the organizational congress.

[6] In the consistorial allocution of December 16, 1920, Benedict XV said that the position of the Holy See in the matter of priestly celibacy was “irrevocable.”

7    See Roger Aubert, The Christian Centuries, vol. 5, The Church in a Secularized Society (New York: Paulist Press, 1978) 541-542.

8 Pietro Gasparri (May 5, 1852 – November 18, 1934).

9 The years 1928-1929 were intense for Vatican negotiators. The church was undergoing persecution in Mexico and the Soviet Union, and the Lateran Treaties were being concluded with Mussolini in Italy.  The church was eager to make peace with governments through the concordat process.

10 See Nemec, 130.

11 Ibid. 144.


Advertisements

An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing my Service on I.C.E.L. By Father Stephen Somerville, STL. [2002]


“Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church” Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D

An Open Letter to the Church
Renouncing my Service on I.C.E.L.
By Father Stephen Somerville, STL.
2002

Dear Fellow Catholics in the Roman Rite,

1 – I am a priest who for over ten years collaborated in a work that became a notable harm to the Catholic Faith. I wish now to apologize before God and the Church and to renounce decisively my personal sharing in that damaging project. I am speaking of the official work of translating the new post-Vatican II Latin liturgy into the English language, when I was a member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy (I.C.E.L.).

2 – I am a priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, Canada, ordained in 1956. Fascinated by the Liturgy from early youth, I was singled out in 1964 to represent Canada on the newly constituted I.C.E.L. as a member of the Advisory Board. At 33 its youngest member, and awkwardly aware of my shortcomings in liturgiology and related disciplines, I soon felt perplexity before the bold mistranslations confidently proposed and pressed by the everstrengthening radical/progressive element in our group. I felt but could not articulate the wrongness of so many of our committee’s renderings.

3 – Let me illustrate briefly with a few examples. To the frequent greeting by the priest, The Lord be with you, the people traditionally answered, and with your (Thy) spirit: in Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo. But I.C.E.L. rewrote the answer: And also with you. This, besides having an overall trite sound, has added a redundant word, also. Worse, it has suppressed the word spirit which reminds us that we human beings have a spiritual soul. Furthermore, it has stopped the echo of four (inspired) uses of with your spirit in St. Paul’s letters.

4 – In the I confess of the penitential rite, I.C.E.L. eliminated the threefold through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, and substituted one feeble through my own fault. This is another nail in the coffin of the sense of sin.

5 – Before Communion, we pray Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst (you should) enter under my roof. I.C.E.L. changed this to … not worthy to receive you. We loose the roof metaphor, clear echo of the Gospel (Matth. 8:8), and a vivid, concrete image for a child.

6 – I.C.E.L.’s changes amounted to true devastation especially in the oration prayers of the Mass. The Collect or Opening Prayer for Ordinary Sunday 21 will exemplify the damage. The Latin prayer, strictly translated, runs thus: O God, who make the minds of the faithful to be of one will, grant to your peoples (grace) to love that which you command and to desire that which you promise, so that, amidst worldly variety, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are found.

7 – Here is the I.C.E.L. version, in use since 1973: Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise, make us one in mind and heart.

8 – Now a few comments: To call God Father is not customary in the Liturgy, except Our Father in the Lord’s prayer. Help us to seek implies that we could do this alone (Pelagian heresy) but would like some aid from God. Jesus teaches, without Me you can do nothing. The Latin prays grant (to us), not just help us. I.C.E.L.’s values suggests that secular buzzword, “values” that are currently popular, or politically correct, or changing from person to person, place to place. Lasting joy in this changing world, is impossible. In our desire presumes we already have the desire, but the Latin humbly prays for this. What you promise omits “what you (God) command”, thus weakening our sense of duty. Make us one in mind (and heart) is a new sentence, and appears as the main petition, yet not in coherence with what went before. The Latin rather teaches that uniting our minds is a constant work of God, to be achieved by our pondering his commandments and promises. Clearly, I.C.E.L. has written a new prayer. Does all this criticism matter? Profoundly! The Liturgy is our law of praying (lex orandi), and it forms our law of believing (lex credendi). If I.C.E.L. has changed our liturgy, it will change our faith. We see signs of this change and loss of faith all around us.

9 – The foregoing instances of weakening the Latin Catholic Liturgy prayers must suffice. There are certainly THOUSANDS OF MISTRANSLATIONS in the accumulated work of I.C.E.L. As the work progressed I became a more and more articulate critic. My term of office on the Advisory Board ended voluntarily about 1973, and I was named Member Emeritus and Consultant. As of this writing I renounce any lingering reality of this status.

10 – The I.C.E.L. labours were far from being all negative. I remember with appreciation the rich brotherly sharing, the growing fund of church knowledge, the Catholic presence in Rome and London and elswhere, the assisting at a day-session of Vatican II Council, the encounters with distinguished Christian personalities, and more besides. I gratefully acknowledge two fellow members of I.C.E.L. who saw then, so much more clearly than I, the right translating way to follow: the late Professor Herbert Finberg, and Fr. James Quinn S.J. of Edinburgh. Not for these positive features and persons do I renounce my I.C.E.L. past, but for the corrosion of Catholic Faith and of reverence to which I.C.E.L.’s work has contributed. And for this corrosion, however slight my personal part in it, I humbly and sincerely apologize to God and to Holy Church.

11 – Having just mentioned in passing the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), I now come to identify my other reason for renouncing my translating work on I.C.E.L. It is an even more serious and delicate matter. In the past year (from mid 2001), I have come to know with respect and admiration many traditional Catholics. These, being persons who have decided to return to pre-Vatican II Catholic Mass and Liturgy, and being distinct from “conservative” Catholics (those trying to retouch and improve the Novus Ordo Mass and Sacraments of post-Vatican II), these Traditionals, I say, have taught me a grave lesson. They brought to me a large number of published books and essays. These demonstrated cumulatively, in both scholarly and popular fashion, that the Second Vatican Council was early commandeered and manipulated and infected by modernist, liberalist, and protestantizing persons and ideas. These writings show further that the new liturgy produced by the Vatican “Concilium” group, under the late Archbishop A. Bugnini, was similarly infected. Especially the New Mass is problematic. It waters down the doctrine that the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice, not just a memorial. It weakens the truth of the Real Presence of Christ’s victim Body and Blood by demoting the Tabernacle to a corner, by reduced signs of reverence around the Consecration, by giving Communion in the hand, often of women, by cheapering the sacred vessels, by having used six Protestant experts (who disbelieve the Real Presence) in the preparation of the new rite, by encouraging the use of sacro-pop music with guitars, instead of Gregorian chant, and by still further novelties.

12 – Such a litany of defects suggests that many modern Masses are sacrilegious, and some could well be invalid. They certainly are less Catholic, and less apt to sustain Catholic Faith.

13 – Who are the authors of these published critiques of the Conciliar Church? Of the many names, let a few be noted as articulate, sober evaluators of the Council: Atila Sinka Guimaeres (In the Murky Waters of Vatican II), Romano Amerio (Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century), Michael Davies (various books and booklets, TAN Books), and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, one the Council Fathers, who worked on the preparatory schemas for discussions, and has written many readable essays on Council and Mass (cf Angelus Press).

14 – Among traditional Catholics, the late Archbishop Lefebvre stands out because he founded the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), a strong society of priests (including six seminaries to date) for the celebration of the traditional Catholic liturgy. Many Catholics who are aware of this may share the opinion that he was excommunicated and that his followers are in schism. There are however solid authorities (including Cardinal Ratzinger, the top theologian in the Vatican) who hold that this is not so. SSPX declares itself fully Roman Catholic, recognizing Pope John Paul II while respectfully maintaining certain serious reservations.

15 – I thank the kindly reader for persevering with me thus far. Let it be clear that it is FOR THE FAITH that I am renouncing my association with I.C.E.L. and the changes in the Liturgy. It is FOR THE FAITH that one must recover Catholic liturgical tradition. It is not a matter of mere nostalgia or recoiling before bad taste.

16 – Dear non-traditional Catholic Reader, do not lightly put aside this letter. It is addressed to you, who must know that only the true Faith can save you, that eternal salvation depends on holy and grace- filled sacraments as preserved under Christ by His faithful Church. Pursue these grave questions with prayer and by serious reading, especially in the publications of the Society of St Pius X.

17 – Peace be with you. May Jesus and Mary grant to us all a Blessed Return and a Faithful Perseverance in our true Catholic home.

Rev Father Stephen F. Somerville, STL.

***

Link to this page
Toronto — On July 15, 2004, Fr. Stephen Somerville was suspended from the priesthood by Toronto’s Archbishop Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic. It is a sad, but not surprising, occasion for us at Catholic Insight.

Fr. Somerville was associated with Catholic Insight magazine from its start in November/December 1992 until the end of 2001. He was listed as Associate Editor in our first edition of January/February 1993. His special responsibility was to educate our readers about the nature and meaning of the liturgy and forms of worship, and to inform us about the latest developments.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Father+Stephen+Somerville+suspended-a0122989858

COPYRIGHT 2004 Catholic Insight

Secretive Catholic Order Founded by Accused Pedophile Under Fire [Published on 03-15-2010] http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-7793-0-3-3–.html

[dated information but useful as history]


Secretive Catholic Order Founded by Accused Pedophile Under Fire

Published on 03-15-2010http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-7793-0-3-3–.html
Source: AOL NewsAs sex abuse scandals rock the Vatican, the results of an investigation into a rich, ultra-conservative and secretive Roman Catholic order founded by a priest accused of pedophilia and incest are due to be filed in Rome tomorrow.

The sordid story of the Legion of Christ, whose late founder, the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, was a close ally of Pope John Paul II before being forcibly retired by the Vatican in 2006, is a microcosm of the crisis currently enveloping the church.

At stake is whether Pope Benedict XVI will decide to take over the Legion and install new leaders from the outside or allow it to continue with its same hierarchy. Five bishops from five countries are expected to submit their reports about the Legion Monday.

Pope John Paul II gives his blessing to Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, at the Vatican in a November 2004 file photo. The late pope once called Maciel “an efficacious guide to youth.”
The controversy over the Legion, which is now barred or severely restricted from operating in six U.S. dioceses, is especially awkward for Benedict because he wants to have John Paul, a staunch defender of the order, canonized.

“Maciel was a sexual criminal of epic proportions who gained the trust of John Paul II and created a movement that is as close to a cult as anything we’ve seen in the church,” said author Jason Berry, one of two reporters who broke the Maciel story in 1997 and who directed a 2008 documentary about the priest called “Vows of Silence.”

“But he got away with it for years and still in a sense he’s getting away with it.”

The Vatican ordered a worldwide investigation into the Legion, founded in Mexico in 1941, last year. But its response to decades of allegations involving Maciel has been as slow and often reluctant as its reaction to the long-festering sex abuse scandals now erupting in Ireland, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.

In 1997, nine former high-ranking seminarians accused Maciel, who died in 2008, of sexually abusing them when they were boys training for the priesthood. Last year, it was discovered Maciel had an illegitimate daughter born in 1986 in Spain. Two Mexican men who say they are Maciel’s sons claim he also sexually abused them as children.

With a leader said to be a manipulative monster who built a shadowy but powerful organization for elite, wealthy Catholics with schools in 22 countries – and a tradition of grooming handsome, clean-cut priests who all wear their hair parted on the left and black double-breasted suits — the Legion of Christ sounds straight out of a Dan Brown novel.

But while Opus Dei, the other controversial conservative Catholic order, was made famous in Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code,” the Legion of Christ is virtually unknown to most Americans – at least on the surface.

Two of the most visible priests in America are Father Thomas Williams, a movie-star-handsome CBS News analyst, and Father Jonathan Morris, who is sometimes referred to as “Father Knows Best” on the Fox News Channel. They belong to the Legion of Christ but rarely identify themselves as such on camera.

“Dan Brown got the wrong group,” said Genevieve Kineke, an orthodox Catholic who was a member of Regnum Christi, the legion’s lay movement, from 1992 to 2000 and writes a blog about her experiences. “The Legion of Christ is the scary cult embedded in the bosom of the mother church. Not Opus Dei.”

Though the Vatican knew of improprieties involving Maciel as far back as 1956, he was praised and protected by John Paul II, who became pope in 1978 and once called Maciel “an efficacious guide to youth.”

Even when the former seminarians went public in 1997 about Maciel’s sexual abuse and filed a formal complaint with the Vatican, the church at first did nothing while the Legion and other high-profile conservative Catholics called them liars.

A book, Vows of Silence, written by Hartford Courant reporter Gerald Renner and writer Jason Berry, was published in 2004 with what one reviewer called “horror stories… of brainwashing, manipulation, pederast seduction rituals, character assassination, bribes, drug abuse, gulag-type threats — you name it.”

Shortly after that, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who would succeed John Paul, ordered an investigation that ended with Maciel being consigned to a life of “prayer and penitence” after John Paul’s death in 2005. But the Legion itself was not condemned nor the victims acknowledged.

It wasn’t until the discovery that Maciel had a daughter living in Spain that the Vatican ordered the worldwide investigation, reportedly to find out who in the Legion knew about Maciel’s behavior and how it was covered up.

“Of course we’re shocked and disappointed by all of this,” said Jim Fair, the spokesman for the Legion of Christ in North America. “It’s as if Father Maciel lived in two different universes, like some old science fiction movie. And now it’s all blowing up.”

Fair said the order has “toned down the veneration,” such as often removing the photographs of Maciel that adorned Legion facilities. He added that the Legion welcomed the apostolic visitation, which is what the Vatican investigation is called.

“He was obviously a very flawed man,” said Fair. “It’s hard to reconcile the guy we now know with the man who built hundreds of seminaries. But we will go on. The work of the church is bigger than humans. It’s a little as if we found out Abraham Lincoln was a serial pedophile after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.”

Interviews with former members of the Legion and Regnum Christi paint a chilling picture of Maciel as a sociopathic master salesman who knew how to charm the upper echelon at the Vatican as well as enlist the wealthy and elite to his fast-growing order, all while using cult-like techniques.

“He created a structure that allowed sexual abuse, financial fraud and spiritual improprieties to go completely unchecked,” said Kineke. “Believe me, the best and the brightest got sucked into this scam. I was one. I was an elite bully for Christ.”

Kineke said part of Maciel’s allure was that he represented an old-school alternative in a modern, post-Vatican II world.

“But these recent incest claims have rattled even the sturdiest of cages,” she said.

Paul Lennon, 66, was a member of the order from 1961 to 1984 and directs ReGAIN, an organization founded by ex-Legionaries.

“It was nothing short of mind control,” said Lennon, who wrote a 2008 book about Maciel called Our Father Who Art in Bed. “He conned everybody.”

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, 70, who was named the world’s richest man by Forbes last week, has long been a supporter of the Legion. His children attended Legion schools in Mexico.

Harvard professor and former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Mary Anne Glendon has also been a staunch supporter of the Legion.

But the man whom all Legionaries venerated as a near-saint and called “Nuestro Padre” (Our Father) allegedly led a double life as a pedophile and had at least two mistresses and three children.

“He destroyed my life,” said Juan Vaca, 73, a former superior of the Legion of Christ who said he was molested by Maciel for ten years beginning when he was 12. “I dreamt of being a good priest. He killed all my dreams.”

Vaca, like many interviewed by AOL News, doubts that the Vatican will make any lasting changes to the Legion of Christ, despite the investigation.

“The Vatican may distance itself a bit but the Legion is too powerful to shut down,” Vaca said.

Vaca who left the order in 1978, is an adjunct professor of psychology and sociology at Mercy College. He remembers the first night he was summoned to Maciel’s room. He said he found the man who was “a holy man, my mother and my father, everything to me,” masturbating in front of him.

“I turned into a block of ice,” said Vaca, who had left his family behind in Mexico to move to the order in Spain. “I was petrified.”

Vaca said 28 other young seminarians were sexually abused by Maciel at the same time he was, and adds that some of them “went on to abuse others as they grew up.”

That misuse of sex and power was an undercurrent that helped fuel the growth of the order, according to several former members of the Legion and Regnum Christi.

“Maciel always told me to recruit the most handsome boys from the best families,” said Vaca. “They were trained to approach rich women. I’m not saying they had sexual relationships with these women but they did know how to charm them.”

Kineke and others also said Legion priests are notoriously successful in winning over women to the church.

“They are spiritual seducers,” said another former Regnum Christi member. “They are the only priests I’ve seen who have swept people off their feet. These men woo women because they want access to our children and our husbands’ wallets.”

In an interview not long before his death in 2007, “Vows of Silence” author Gerald Renner said Maciel was not the only priest in the Legion who led a double life. Renner referred to one priest who he said was known as “the horndog of Rome” for his many affairs with women.

“The Legion by its very nature spawns people who lead double lives,” said Lennon. “Maciel was certainly not the only hypocrite in the Legion but he was definitely the worst one.”