FR. LUIS: SCAPEGOAT

By Tim Rohr

For anyone who knows a bit about the underbelly of Neocat theology, it's hard to miss the irony of what happened to one of the Neocat's own sons: the now-former Fr. Luis Camacho.

I don't know a lot about this weird theology, but I know someone who does, and Chuck White has studied and written quite a lot about it on his blog ThoughtfulCatholic.com. 

Several years ago, Mr. White posted an article titled The Xiphias Gladius Project. As White points out, said Project is the "name of a team of Neocatechumenal academics dedicated to researching and teaching the theories of Rene Girard,  a French-born American academic." (I recommend reading the full article.)

In short Girard matters greatly to the Neocats because Girard teaches that Christ's death was not a sacrifice, just as the Neocat founder, Kiko Arguello does. Rather, Girard (and Kiko) teach that Jesus Christ was a "scapegoat" and that his crucifixion and death was a ritual "scapegoating." White explains:

Girard posits that we learn what to desire by imitation, and as we compete for our desires, violence can erupt.  Our communities and societies have controlled this violence by projecting it onto a scapegoat outside the community.  Once the scapegoated enemy has been eliminated, some peace returns for a while.  Ancient sacrificial religions with sacrifices and prohibitions originated as an attempt to ritualize this “scapegoat mechanism” and control the violence. 

Functionally, this is what Archbishop Jimenez (if he does nothing else about the matter) has done. He has attempted to "control the violence" - the justifiable outrage of many in this archdiocese (even if it has been ten years) - by sending Luis "into the wilderness."

Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.— Leviticus 16:21–22, New Revised Standard Version

In this case, the scapegoat isn't an innocent animal, but a person who really did the things he was accused of and deserves to be banished to the wilderness. However, given the atrocious level of "all the iniquities of the people" (Apuron and the NCW handlers - and don't forget Diana), one might view the now branded ex-priest as relatively innocent - a scapegoat.

The "atrocious iniquities" have been well laid out in the previous two posts on the matter, but to sum up: Luis was caught in the act and arrested. While it was downplayed as "custodial interference," it's quite obvious that it was a lot more than giving an underage girl a lift somewhere without her parents' permission. And it's obvious from all that followed: Luis' resignation, his sudden disappearance, the lies that went as far up as the bishop of Doha, Qatar, and perhaps even up to then-Pope Francis, that something very, very serious happened.

I say "even up to then-Pope Franics" because Doha, Qatar, where Luis found refuge, is not a diocese but an Apostolic Vicariate under the direct administration and authority of the pope. In fact, even though Bishop Camillo Ballin, Luis' protector, was a bishop, he was not the bishop of Doha. He was the "apostolic vicar." The actual bishop of Doha is the bishop of Rome, the pope. 

This may explain why it took so long to get to the bottom of the Luis Affair: both Ballin and Francis are dead. And despite the still questionable direction of the new sheriff in town (Pope Leo XIV), it is quietly known that Leo is no friend of the NCW given what he had to deal with in Peru. So in short, for Luis, there was "nowhere to run, nowhere to hide," but back to Guam where he thought he might have a good shot at some cover, if not redemption.

But why did he think this? (If he did.) It's just speculation, but it seems quite possible that the new archbishop, particularly since he has done nothing to enforce any of the limits on Neo activities that his predecessor had put in place, that he might go soft on Luis. And it's quite possible that he may have. However, JW has never let this story go, and from what I can tell, certain clerics didn't let it go either, especially since it appeared that Luis just came marching back expecting, and maybe even demanding (as the Neo-clerics are inclined to do) to be welcomed.

And why wouldn't he? Luis was raised in Neo-think. All you have to do is blather out your sins to your community and all is well. In fact, that might have worked. Had Luis immediately and publicly confessed his bad-doings to the community, the whole community of Guam and not just his little Neocat enclave, and begged forgiveness, the people of Guam are such that he probably would be a much-loved and active pastor in Guam today. 

Or even if he did this ten years later. Had he gotten off the plane, called a press conference, and openly apologized for the "sins of youth" from ten years ago (even though he was in this 30's), I believe we would have forgiven him and welcomed him back. 

But he didn't do that. From what I understand, he secretly returned to Guam and functionally demanded to be restored. This put the clergy of the archdiocese between a rock and a hard place. This wasn't possible. Luis' actions of ten years ago came at a time when Apuron and the Neocats were already under increasing scrutiny (Apuron had already been called out as sex abuser by John Toves), and the Luis Affair was the "shot heard round the diocese" as it led to a cascade of events that resulted in the financial undoing of the archdiocese and the loss of many millions of dollars not to mention the loss of lands that many ancestors of the local population had donated to their church. 

So why didn't Luis just apologize? He couldn't. What we on the outside have to understand is that saving the face of the Neocatechumenal Way is the over-arching and controlling ethic of every thought and action by its members. Exhibit A is Apuron himself, who only recently, after nearly 10 years and having been found guilty twice by the Vatican, romps out in front of a camera and lies all over again, obviously reading a script most probably written for him by his handlers. 

Speaking of Apuron, and I've said this before, even he - despite the horrible things he did - would have been forgiven if he would just have said "I'm sorry, I was wrong." Imagine the pain those few words would have spared this Church! Imagine.! But Apuron had long been in the clutches of the Evil Monk and those beyond him, not to mention, the Great Deceiver himself (which is why Archbishop Byrnes chose to exorcise the bishop's house at the chancery before he moved in.)

But back to the scapegoat thing. I hope this isn't true, but from what we can tell so far, it appears that Archbishop Jimenez, by casting Fr. Scapegoat Camacho into the wilderness, is hoping that we will be quietly mollified ("controlled the violence") and will cease demanding action against the truly bad actors in this case and that "peace returns...for a while." 

+++++

The letter from Bishop Camillo Balin exonerating Luis Camacho in 2016: