Monday, August 10, 2009

Translation of the first paragraph of "Daughter" below

"I would have never chosen this path for my life...When I met this man, I was under aged. Neither my daughter nor I knew who this man really was until the very end." It is the first time that Norma Hilda Baños puts her story in words, and with these words, the long guarded secret, the sin which pursues her, finally takes shape. Thinking about it brings tears to her eyes. The Cronica found her in her sanctuary, in a luxurious residential area of Madrid, Spain. She seems to be taken aback. Dialogue is not easy. Beyond the opening, which stretches out from the doorway, there is a space of 3,500 square feet. She has live here for years with her daughter. The home has no husband or father. It has never had one. Her daughter is the fruit of a prohibited relationship. Who knows what kind of stories this woman had to invent when asked about the father of her child? Anything but telling the feared truth: he was the founder of the Legion of Christ, Fr. Marcial Maciel, who left her pregnant when she was 26 years old.

14 comments:

jonh303 said...

Age 26 is under aged??? Not really.

Exlcblogger said...

Please READ. The article states that she says she MET him when she was under aged. And then she was LEFT PREGNANT at 26. Two different things.

Does this blogger really have to explain everything?

jonh303 said...

So what are you trying to tell me? He kept her in isolation and brainwashed her until she was 26 when he got her pregnant? Either way she did it when she was 26....or 25.

Exlcblogger said...

While this blogger understands that the whole article is no available in English, there are other parts of the interview where this woman says that "things started" with Maciel when she was under aged in Alcapulco, Mexico. It is understandable that she was abused then and continually, and became pregnant at 26. This is part of the dynamic of sex abuse which can start very young and continue into adulthood of the victim.

giselle said...

Jonh303: I am baffled. You are pugnatius about the details of an illicit affair by a man who posited that he was a living saint. What part of this revelation shows us that we are wrong about our concerns? Do you have any clues about sexual abuse of minors? I was molested for years by a trusted older family member. By your reasoning, it was my fault because I didn't immediately to tell someone.

The Church has been grievously hurt in part due to the long, slow learning curve necessary to understanding sex abuse and similar addictive depravities. Please don't tell me that you're even slower to catch on! You're doing the pro-Maciel cause no favours.

jonh303 said...

giselle, I'm talking about facts, not speculation, thats all I'm talking about. It seems like if anything slightly in favor of (not a defense of) Maciel or giving the benefit of the doubt in this forum ever happens, that person gets jumped on. Thats not the point anyways-No you wouldn't be at fault in the situation you mentioned. All I'm saying is theres no reason to assume as true, unless you are doing so to hate the guy even more, that he held the woman in captivity and abused her for 10 or even 20 years. I'm disgusted with him as much as you are, but you have to be fair about things. What you are doing is like what happened to Michael Jackson. He's a creep, a really really weird guy and he laid with a little boy, but you can't assume or attempt to give me the details saying that he abused the kid. It's not a fair assumption. Try looking at it the way a court would, not the way your anger would direct you to look at it.

jonh303 said...

All we know is that she was made pregnant at 26. The victim was free to speak as far as we know, and she gave no indication of the things you are assuming. WAIT FOR THE FACTS. Speculation is fine as long as the things speculated don't become facts in your mind.

Recovering from RC said...

John303, your argument is like quibbling about how many inches of rain fell during Hurricane Katrina. It is irrelevant! The devastation was widespread and lasting, just as it is with the Legion. The focus needs to be on helping the victims i.e. all of us who were duped by Maciel and his "Movement." Every Legionary priest has been victimized, every RC member scandalized. We need to work together for healing.

jonh303 said...

THATS THE OTHER THING "You're doing the pro-Maciel cause no favours." WHAT THE HECK. This isn't about being for or against Fr. Maciel! What makes you think I am for Maciel and what does that even mean?! It's like you see everything as black and white. "If the act was done by Fr. Maciel, there has to be something bad in it since he is intrinsically a bad person." I don't buy that crap. We want justice to be served, but don't hate.

jonh303 said...

Recovering from RC, I completely agree with you, I'm not the one quibbling about how many inches of rain fell though, thats my point.

gregorbo said...

I'm puzzled by this dust up. Maciel's sin is against his vow to celibacy as a priest, in addition to his violating the sacrosanct relationship between a priest and a member of his flock--not to mention the monumental hypocrisy, theft, deceit, and sheer evil of the "double life." Maciel didn't just "knock up" some young thing--he had a relationship with her for years and years. Jonh303 seems to be arguing "well, at least she wasn't underage . . ." Okay. But some portion of every single donation to every single RC fundraiser in every single instance on the planet went to pay for this illicit relationship--so every single RC event was a lie. It's not that Maciel "took advantage" of his position has head and founder of the Legion. Every indication, from the Vatican's silencing him to this latest revelation is that he founded the Legion in order to lead this "double life." We can leave it to forensic psychologists to explain this deplorable behavior, but defenses that begin with "well, at least . . ." have no place at all in this discussion. That's like arguing, at sentencing, that a man found guilty of rape should be looked upon with mercy because, "well, at least he didn't commit murder."

Just looking at it the way a court would look at it. And a jury.

Pete Vere said...

It pains me to say this, but this is a tendency I warned against several months ago in a blog entry entitled "How Schism becomes an option". You can read it here: http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/2009/04/how-schism-beco.html

To move forward, the LC/RC and its supporters have to accept that the balance of probabilities now favor Fr. Maciel's various accusers.

giselle said...

"He kept her in isolation and brainwashed her until she was 26 when he got her pregnant? Either way she did it when she was 26....or 25."

I think what grates on me is the undercurrent that "she should have known better." No, He should have known better. He was the priest, he was the Perfect Legionary, he knew the faith and the wages of sin, he was older, he was the sweet-talker, he had the donations in his pocket for a different purpose, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, the jury's out on whether he was guilty of statutory rape as well as fornication and breaking his vows. Forgive us if we pile on without the forensic evidence in neat bundles. Every way you slice it (sorry if Lorena Bobbitt comes to mind) it's wicked and depraved.

Which is greater? The damage to this woman's soul or the damage to the Church at large? There are compelling reasons for each, since Jesus offered himself for Norma Hilda Baños and would have died for her alone. And -- God help him -- MM was in persona Christi.

Jeannette said...

That's quite a retreat, from the pro-LC quadrant; we've gone from "saint" to " there isn't enough evidence for a jury to convict Maciel 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on the count of statutory rape". But, like MJ, there are several other reasons for a lack of criminal charges against MM at this point:
1) He's dead.
2) The statute of limitations has run out.
3) The victim has so far not tried to obtain justice through the US court system.

But, also like MJ, most parents have kept their children way the hell away from these likely perverts and their minions because the risks far outweigh the possible benefits.

But I do have to agree with john303 in that there's nothing illegal about a 65-year-old priest impregnating a 25-year-old follower. The financial situation is what will cause the federal gov't to take note, though. (hallooo? IRS?)