Can Good Things Come From Movements Started By Bad People?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

This is mostly thinking out loud.

The question’s inspired by the news that Father Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ/Regnum Christi order/movements within the RCC, had been essentially taken out of circulation (but not formally defrocked or found guilty) following an investigation into allegations that he fiddled with seminarians decades ago.

I don’t want to dispute whether he did what’s alleged. (FWIW, my gut instinct is that he did, and that the Church thinks so too).

Nor whether the Church’s punishment was too harsh or too lenient (FWIW, especially in light of recent problems, and recognizing the evidentiary difficulties plaguing a he said-he said confrontation that involves events decades in the past – I think the Church should have come out and said what it clearly thinks is true, namely, that he probably did it and isn’t fit to be a priest, especially as he remains seemingly unrepentant).

My point in this post is: I have some friends associated with this movement. It’s given me a fairly mild case of the creeps ever since I heard of it (and that was before I learned of these allegations). Most of them have had a two-fold response to this situation:

  1. “Yes, there have always been a lot of allegations, The Movement has lots of enemies because of the great work it does on behalf of orthodoxy.”

My response: Umm, it’s okay to be paranoid if people really are out to get you, but the tone of this response always struck me as a little too placid in its uncritical acceptance of the “persecution” explanation, and a little too incurious about the particulars of whether an allegation which isn’t on its face preposterous (abuse by clergy has been a a real problem among a small but non-zero percentage of priests) is true or not.

  1. “And regardless of what Fr. Maciel did, he’s a great man and The Movement has done and continues to do great work.”

This is the one I’m interested in. Is it a sustainable position? Of course there is no real answer to that. Yes, it’s sustainable to the extent that members who would never do what Maciel (seemingly) did have done good work. I suppose you could stretch a point and say that it could be true even as to him, if he benefited people in addition to victimizing (maybe) some.

But how do you assess such a situation when you encounter it? These things happen often enough. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and his agrarian predelictions (that was one of them) no doubt influenced his ideas on the best form and role of government – yet we (or some of us) consider many of his ideas great and valid. Margaret Sanger espoused some grounds for birth control that most today consider pretty appalling if not racist, yet the cause she started still appeals to people.

I’ve criticized before the Genetic Fallacy, one form of which is condemning idea or policy X because some bad person thought of or believed X (on which grounds I could convince you we should all drive on dirt roads because Hitler loved the autobahn concept).

I guess for me it comes down to “How far intertwined is the person’s Bad Trait with the allegedly Good Cause he represents, or how much does the Good Cause partake of his character flaws?”

In the case of Maciel, I’m having a hard time convincing my friends (and I’m treading lightly, because these are matters of personal faith) that Maciel’s deviancies (if true) are not mere incidental, if unfortunate, sidelights that unfairly mar his and The Movement’s work by association.

It strikes me instead that the sex abuse allegations are very much of a piece with other characteristics and practices of LC/RC, which defectors have amply chronicled.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/loc/loc16.html

The secrecy, the blind faith, the autocratic demands, the recondite practice, the lack of openness (I’ve blandly asked several of my friends whether I could attend one of their meetings, just to check it out, and been told, no, that wouldn’t be right, not until you’re sponsored in, because we discuss personal faith issues), the resistance to criticism, the cult of personality – aren’t those all pretty consistent with the behavior either of a charismatic sect leader (I try to avoid the pejorative “cult”), as well as of a control freak or molester? “What we do here is our secret, don’t tell anyone, the outside world would never understand.”

My friends virulently resist my analogizing of the manipulative tactics of an authoritarian religious leader and the manipulative tactics of a pervert exploiting his young charges, and deny that the falsity of Maciel’s personal conduct (there’s no dispute at all that he was a proud, autocratic leader who demanded absolute fealty from his flock, so he’s not a Nice Guy even if the sex allegations are somehow untrue) has any relevance at all to the seemingly dubious practices and outcomes of The Movement as a whole.

I’m trying to find a way better to articulate my thoughts, other than falso in unum . . . ., but not having much success.

2

To directly answer the OP, Why not?

All of us as humans have weaknesses and shortcomings. I’m not personally acquainted with the organization you mention, but let’s assume a hypothetical situation.

Say that John Jones starts an organization to provide relief for people in natural disaster areas. He recruits volunteers, gets donations and delivers tons of food, clothing and necessities to homeless people.

Years later it is discovered that Jones was a pedophile. He is arrested, charged and convicted.

Have good things come from the movement he started? Definitely, yes. And if people don’t get hung up on his personal life, but continue the movement, it will continue to do good.

Is he a “bad person?” According to most people, probably yes. But what if he were arrested for shoplifting? Or speeding? Where do you draw the line?

The important thing is to separate the actions of an imperfect individual (which all of us are to some extent), from the good work that he has done.

3

Oh, I agree with you. But in your hypothetical, John’s being a pedophile (or drunkard, or philanderer) doesn’t directly bear on or affect how the Work of the Good Cause gets carried out. I suppose I am positing the more specific case in which the personality traits that lead John to his “personal failings” may also infect the Good Cause and bring about parallel “organizational failings” as in the parallels I saw between the secretive, manipulative character of a sexual predator and the secretive, manipulative traits that defectors see in the Legion’s treatment of its members overall.

4

Would a good example of one be Rhodes Scholarships which were instigated by Cecil John Rhodes who was a terribly racist man.

5

Yes. Maybe. But by my rubric, it is not so surprising (unless someone told me that he envisioned or administered the program as a means of advancing white supremacy, rather than as some expiation for his bad acts, or just as an act of charity that he regarded as unrelated to his racial views). Where I get a little iffy is when the Cause itself has elements or echoes of the Bad Act.

6

A number of people have started various positive endeavours as a way to expiate an evil (or at least selfish) past: Pulitzer, for example.

7

Little good can come from the Roman Catholic Church. It is by its nature a vile, rapacious organization with little hope for redemption.

8

Whoa, Dude… that’s a litttle harsh.

9

Yeah. Maybe I went a little overboard. (But just a little.)

10

The Church of England was born because some guy wanted a divorce.

OK, we can discuss whether the existence of Church of England is in itself a good thing or not (as opposed to having a more unified Church), but the institution in itself is a lot, uhm… “better behaved” than that Henry guy.

11

Nobel.

12

Right. The Church of England, today, has some problems, but most of them don’t have to do with a selfish leadership wanting to have their own way in matters of marital morality. So I don’t see Henry’s selfishness as permeating its ethos.

Another example of a movement where the failings of the founder might infect the overall mission – Covenant House. I read an interesting expose of Fr. Bruce Ritter (the founder), and I remember our family getting random fundraising letters from him when I was younger.

While I didn’t notice it at the time, the expose author pointed out (and I now remember) that a disproportionately high number of Ritter’s appeals dwelt with what now seems creepy solicitousness on the plight of tall young blond guys forced into male prostitution in Times Sq. or wherever. As the author also notes, most of Covenant House’s clientele was not white jocks but minority street kids, and many thankfully had nothing to do with the sex trade. When news came out that Ritter had groomed a bunch of young blond guys as his catamites, and that other dubious practices had pervaded the charity, it did make one wonder whether the whole movement, root and branch, was corrupt in the very same way (dishonesty, exploitativeness, emotional manipulation) that its founder was corrupt.

13

Several million Africans who are alive because of Catholic Charities and wouldn’t be otherwise might view it differently.

I’m not even sure what “rapacious” means in this context, either.

Anyway, OT – I guess I should have specified in the OP that this wasn’t a debate on RCC’s worthiness to exist vel non.

14

Well Rhodes was an ‘English supremist’ as such the idea of providing English schooling to the gifted of the rest of the world.

Also Wiki lists this as part of his will

This source is large if not necessarily trust worthy http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/rhodes-will.html

Thankfully, the Rhodes Trust ignored the Imperialistic nature of the will.