Legionnaries of Christ

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

There is a rumor going around concerning the scandals of child molestation in the schools of the Legionnaries. You tackled Opus Dei, now would you please comment about this new topic. Juan P.

-- Juan P. Gutiirrez (jpg_@yahoo.com), February 25, 2000

Answers

Dear Juan,
This is not a place for spreading or discussing anti-Catholic "rumors," to use your word. If you would go to an Internet search engine, such as "yahoo," you could get your fill of the filth that some people seek to spread about Catholics, but please don't bring it here.

On the other hand, if you go to "yahoo" and ask to see references to "legionaries of christ," you will see link after link of good news -- not stupid rumors.

The Legionaries are an outstanding, orthodox Catholic religious order, founded more than 50 years ago in Mexico by Fr. Maciel -- still alive near the age of 80 today. May God bless them and you.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 25, 2000.

Sorry Juan, I'm staying out of this one too. I usually try to avoid threads where I come off criticizing the Catholic Church and I honestly have no direct knowledge of the Legionnaires. I was drawn in by the Opus Dei thread out my natural instinct to protect the children who seemed to be the object of the discussion.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), February 25, 2000.

As a former brother of the Legion, I never saw or heard of any child molestation rumors or incidents at any of the Legionnaries schools. On our summer work and vacation I worked at a couple of the schools, and saw nothing but happiness within the children themselves. And for those out their who may be saying right now this comes from a Catholic , I am no longer or have been for quite some time. But I will not allow lies to destroy a good order of the Church. Fr. Anthony Bannon L.C taught me when I was leaving that I was going on my own journey now,and even though i was leaving the Catholic faith, he said" let truth be your guide".

-- Michael Sword (bugaboo@reach.net), February 02, 2001.

Dear Juan,
We are not only wise to guard against scandal, whether in or out of the Church. We also owe it to ourselves and to God, not to ''judge'' this scandal; particularly if the cause is unclear.

You must know that after Jesus Christ's Resurrection from the dead, some of the guards that the chief priests had placed at Jesus' tomb in case anyone would try to steal His body-- went into the city and reported to the priests all that had happened. (Matt, 28: 11-15)

''When they had assembled with the elders and had consulted together, they gave much money to the soldiers; telling them, ''Say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him while we were sleeping.' And if the procurator hears of this, we will persuade him and keep you out of trouble.' And they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this story has been spread abroad among the Jews even to the present day.''

False testimony by these paid liars was probably a cause of many good Jews never accepting their Messiah, after His Death and Resurrection.

Is it right, to possibly destroy the faith of many good Catholics, repeating scandalous things, and making them hate priests of the Catholic Church? Even should the scandal be TRUE-- and it isn't a fact, I don't think. Take a look at Jesus on the cross, (an image) and remember the way His Resurrection was betrayed by lies; lies that many good people spread among the Jews! It cost them and many of their descendants their chance to become Christians. If you go repeating malicious things about priests, it may cost a person and all his descendants their faith. Don't do this to God.

Blessed Mother of Jesus, pray for us! Saint James, Apostle of Our Lord, Pray for your people, Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 02, 2001.


If one has credible evidence that children are in possible danger, telling someone of that fact is not spreading scandal, it is a duty. Too often, things are covered up to "prevent scandal" - when worse scandal is befalling children. I am not saying to heed rumors, but to always be alert and to investigate where there are credible accusations - no matter who is the subject.

-- Mary E. Parks (mparks@stic.net), May 21, 2001.


This rumor is more than just a rumor. There have been allegations in the past of sexual abuse. The thing with this, though, is that it is unsubstantiated, a repitition of false accusations that were resolved years ago. In fact, some of theses accusers have written a rebutal saying that these allegations were not true, merely vindictive. It's worth checking out this site for further info http://members.aol.com/lgofchrist/. I had heard these rumors awhile back and was disturbed by them initially. But like everything you hear and read, there are always two sides and definite agendas. Let's make sure we get all the facts before deciding.

-- Pierre O'Reilly (pierre.oreilly@cco.ca), May 23, 2001.

I agree with Michael Sword - I attended a Legionary run youth club in Detroit during the 1980's, before the Legion was well known and never saw or heard anything wrong or bad. I also visited the seminarians and always found them to be balanced, cheerful and very honest guys.

A cousin of mine is a Legionary today and I've seen him often - again, a well balanced, happy, gung ho type guy. Not the types of people you'd find if the group was rotten to the core.

As for the allegations of wrong doing - the accusers claimed everything took place in the early 1950's - but didn't say anything about it until now. Hmmmm that's odd to the extreme. Especially since these same seminarians were in virtual control of the Legion from 1956 through 1959. They had tried to sack Fr Maciel then by accusing him of crimes that fit those times: drug abuse, abuse of funds, breaking the seal of confession. No word or hint of sexual abuse...until it became fashionable.

So rather than claim that there is something nefarious going on today, in 2002 or that children are at risk today (which there have been NO reports of), people would have us get worked up about something that supposedly happened 50 years ago!

Maybe it's just that people refuse to believe that good groups or saintly people exist. Some percentage of people always look for scandal and bad news: their criteria seems to be "believe all the evil you hear without question but only begrudgedly accept the good you actually see after exhaustive investigation."

-- Joseph Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 01, 2002.


Hello, Joseph.
Thanks for that interesting information.
Please do not reply if this seems an invasion of your privacy, but I wondered if you are related to a woman named Elizabeth Stong, who was formerly associated with Human Life International. I met her more than a decade ago and liked her very much.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

Dear Juan: I do not know if you still read this messages. As a former legionary of Christ I can tell you that it is just gossip. If you knew the history of the legionaries from within you will see the origin of all that gossip. I spend 9 yeras in the legion from 12 to 21. So i spend all my teenage there... we grew in a healthy and very respectful enviroment, I was able to cultivate real friendship and I can tell you that the legionaries are woth of everybody´s admiration and respect. This people are doing things for the world and sacrificing a lot.

-- rce (lesmiserables@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

I am the father of a Legionary seminarian who is now 20 years old. He began with the Legion by attending their vocation school in New Hampshire at age 12. When my son began school I warned him about the possibility of bad priests making advances. I have checked with him over the years several times and he has nothing but superlatives to say about the Legionaries. I personally am associated with the lay movement Regnum Christi, which is led by Legionaries. After eight years I have only praise for these men. The ones I have seen are devoted to personal holiness and the goal of bringing Chirst to the world in an attractive new way. They are very human, down-to-earth, well balanced men. The Legionaries must have learned how to screen out candidates with a tendency toward pedophilia. If it were otherwise I would not allow my son to be associated with them. Child molestation is something we must all be vigilant about at all times. But let us not make the opposite error of tarring the good with the bad. -Bill

-- Bill McKenzie (mckenzie@mo.net), February 25, 2002.


As a former Regnum Christi member with close ties to the Legion, I would not hesitate to tell anyone to stay clear of this questionable group. Manipulation, secretive dealings and suggestive activities abound. Allegations of sexual misconduct have NOT been investigated, contrary to what the Legion suggests. Instead, the Legion embarked upon a character assasination against the accusers. Use caution with this group. You can get sucked in and not realize how messed up things are until it is too late.

-- Andrew Thomas (Withheld@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

Jmj

It is obvious to me, from my 15 years of contact with the Legionaries of Christ and from the glowing praise of the Legion and Regnum Christi (posted above), that Andrew Thomas is wrong. [I hope that he is only wrong and not a lying anti-Catholic.]

I just received the Legion's quarterly, 12-page booklet, "Le Christo" (Winter 2002 issue). Let us rejoice together in the fact that, on December 22, the congregation was blessed by the ordination of FORTY-FOUR new priests (from 11 countries). They were ordained by the archbishop of Turin, Italy, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. The Legion now has more than 500 priests and 2,500 seminarians, even though it was founded by a seminarian (still living) just 60 years ago.

Interested young people should visit www.legionofchrist.org

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.


John,

I admire your dedication to your faith. I am not anti-Catholic, but am considered to be a very conservative Catholic. As a former Regnum Christi member I had much contact with Fr. Emilio and other high ranking members of the Legion here in the United States. I fully subscribe to their mission of spreading Christ's Kingdom. It is their methodology which is flawed and which will eventually lead to their downfall. If you are involved with this group, I strongly urge you to take a step back to examine the "red flags". When it all finally comes into focus, you will then realize this group is full of manipulation and deceit.

-- Andrew Thomas (Withheld@yahoo.com), March 30, 2002.


Andrew, my 15 years of contact with them, their having a strong patron in the pope, and their unmatched success together prove to me that you are badly mistaken. If you find something wrong with them, that is a sign to me that you are not an orthodox Catholic. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 31, 2002.

John,

Your reply to me is so typical of the Legion....find someone who disagrees with you and turn it on them and start throwing stones. That has been the single greatest downfall in the matter involving allegations that Fr. Maciel has sexually abused young men in the past. Instead of allowing this matter to be independently investigated, the Legion embarked upon a smear campaign of the individuals involved. Why am I not suprised that you turned this into a "sign" of what I am or am not? I will pray for your enlightenment.

-- Andrew Thomas (witheld@yahoo.com), April 14, 2002.



Juan, I have to tell you that you are correct. It is not a rumor, it is real. I was a student since kindergarden in the Instituto Cumbres which is a Legionaries of Christ's school. When I was gthere, there was a huge scandal, making the tv-news and the papers about a priest called "Guicho" who was discovered abusing several children of the school. When the parents demanded an explanation to the school Ptincipal (Father Lucatero), the Legionaries of Christ threaten to make public all the names of the abused children, in order to bargain an agreement.

-- Roberto (roberto920@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.

I can only speak of our family's experience, and it was not good, in Cincinnati in mid-1990s. Small Catholic orthodox school begun by homeschooling families asked Legion to come in help guide school. Regnum Christi (RC) introduced. Soon two founders, not RC, were kicked off board at open school meeting for trying to get Legion out of school after I believe not even a year. Parent during that meeting asked, "But if we don't follow the Legion, how will we get to Heaven?" A defining moment, as many parents understood the cult-like thought processes going on. Poor woman was told to follow the Magisterium, read encyclicals and great orthodox publications, etc. etc. and not think that if she wasn't "properly formed" [their favorite expression for RC and Legion people] she couldn't attain heaven! Got so bad that parents told they couldn't be room mothers if not "properly formed" by RC/Legion. Uh-oh. Families left and started own classical curriculum school w/o Legion; just followed Magisterium. Unlike the Legion school there and apparently most everywhere, we used CATHOLIC materials used by Catholic homeschoolers.

I had a Legion school principal lie to me this year and tell me that such Catholic textbook materials were "rare and hard to find" and that was reason his school did not use Catholic books. Strange...Tell that to the millions of Catholic children using such books, and to Seton and Kolbe (two major homeschooling material providers).

Well, did search on Internet recently and found out our school was not the only one in past few years which thinks it's experienced similar type of "take over" tactics. This deserves looking into by some investigate reporter.

My family lived through these terrible experiences--and so did dozens of other Cincinnati families, who are apparently joined by other families around the country. I ask people not to slam me for telling the truth of what we've lived and seen and heard, but to save their energy and do Internet searches themselves for just a few minutes-- that all it takes--to find out about these school problems. Then call the people involved and talk to them. The Truth shall set you free...It did us.

-- L. A. Bastian (bastianla@cs.com), April 15, 2002.


Hello, Roberto and L.A..
I won't slam you, because I can tell that you wish to speak the truth. However, I cannot accept what you have said without hearing the other side's rebuttal. I would like to see if you have great courage or not, enough to do something very difficult, in order to convince me.
Please contact the Legionaries of Christ (LofC) representatives in your two cities and have them come to this Internet page to contribute their responses to what you have said.

What could happen?
1. They could admit that you are right, or they could present an obviously deceptive/dishonest response -- in which case I would change my mind and reject the LofC from this point forward.
2. OR They could say that you are wrong, offering convincing proof, in which case you should change your mind.
3. OR They could present a statement that is less than fully convincing (as are yours). This may cause me to suspend judgment and withdraw my approval of the LofC, but I would also avoid saying anything negative about them, due to the great uncertainty involved.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.


I feel compelled to join in on this email session concerning the Legion. As a quick introduction, my 13 year marriage was destroyed after my wife joined regnum christi 3 years ago with the encouragement of her parents, who are RC. It has been an utter nightmare and how trusting I was when she first joined. Nothing could prpare me for the iceberg of problems this group has below it's apparent innocent surface. It's been like a continual bad dream. I have been unable to get my two children out of a Legion school because of her and her RC lawyer. My wife betrayed me for the Movement and her lawyer is a member of RC and has made my life even more miserable with his deep pockets. I consider it a personal goal and duty as a Catholic to expose this group. I will admit that there are good things and people in the Legion and RC. I've done extensive research to try to figure out just what the heck is going on with this group. What I have found deeply concerns me and I consider myself a normal, practicing Catholic who loves his Church. Besides experiencing the loss of my own wife and family, I am in contact with numerous people throughout the country that have very similar experiences. I believe that the basic charism of the Legion is flawed. They took alot of the neat things the Jesuits used but went many steps further. One on one, most RC members and Legion members seem fine. But what about the sense of spritual superiority that inevitably comes out. They are going to save the Church from itself, are they not??!!! My RC ex-mother in law, for example, had the audacity to tell me that I was not a good enough Catholic, that being mainstream wasn't good enough! How dare her. And what about the excessive loyalty to the founder, as if his words were in equality with Christ's? How many times I had to listen to the phrase "well, the Pope supports us" Gee, the Pope supports many groups but it doesn't guarantee the proper operation and functioning of those groups. In terms of this discussion, how about the manipulation of children at 13 years of age who are put in a Legion high school seminary? What on earth is a parent thinking releasing their children to the Legion at such an early and impressionable age? These children are missing the guidance of their parents, who are supposed to be the FIRST teachers of children, especially at this age. Since when does a 13 year old have any idea whether he or she has a vocation? Why have all the other major orders of the Church abandoned the high school seminary and yet the Legion feels it needs them. It's to "capture vocations", even if individuals and families are hurt in the process. Indeed, most orders demand a college graduate who knows themselves FIRST. The Legion would tell you that you have a vocation, that it is God's WILL for you. Since when does anyone know what God's will is? You can try to discern it, but only God knows it. Yet, you can read in Maciel's ENVOY how even Regnum Christi is made out to be God's WILL for those who join. How dare anyone say that they know God's will. The stories abound of this manipulation. Is it any coincidence that the Legion still uses high school seminaries and does Test your Vocation retreats with children who are in their teens! Give us a break. I find it hard to fathom how a 13 year old, or even an 18 year old, can truly make a decision to enter the road to priesthood. Let a kid live first and know himself first. If adults can be manipulated by the outward and apparent orthodoxy of the Legion, I can only imagine how manipulated a 13 year old would be when a Legion priest in a collar and cassock tells him he is destined for greatness as a Legion priest. He'll believe it because he doesn't know any better!! And the untold story goes on, the large number of priests who leave the Legion, even after 25 plus years in their service. I ask why! Most appear to go to diocesan priesthood. so that tells me that they want to stay in the service of God, but not through the Legion. I've said enough. I can only hope that some of the points I have made will help in this discussion because I am very concerned and I think it irresponsible to let 13 year olds be sent to the Legion. Parents beware and be the true teachers to your children FIRST. As always, may the truth come out in time.

-- tony fernandes (mobiletonyf@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.

Thank you, Tony, but you did not really present anything that seems alarming to me.
The very things that bother you are things that many people would find positive aspects of a Catholic organization.
I seriously doubt that any children are forced, against their will, to enter a LofC seminary. No point in doing that, because they would simply run away after becoming old enough and bold enough to do so. The LofC wants boys who WANT to be there, so that they will follow through and become priests -- or learn the faith well and become good laymen.
I think that you are just hurting about your marriage. Sorry it broke up, but maybe you were at fault, rather than (or in addition to) your spouse.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 17, 2002.

Dear Tony:
I'm not dismissing your words, even if to date I've no reason to take sides. My own experience makes me in some ways responsive. I was invited to cursillos and marriage encounters etc., and declined. Not from suspicion, or an aversion to ''joining'' (a condition not very attractive to me, for sure.)

If my mind were made up that God was inviting me I wouldn't hesitate. It bothered me that a community had made these overtures; a sect of sorts; elitist and somehow presumptuous. Even so, my scruples kept me from openly attacking these groups. I just remained independent and content with the Catholicism of my youth.

One priest berated me and my good wife a little antagonistically. I didn't respond. I simply walked away.

My personal belief is that Holy Mother Church keeps us all well-nourished in the faith without extraordinary demonstrations of zeal or self-immolation. I don't wish to become an Ultra-Catholic. The Holy Mass, prayer and the teachings of our Church are best for us. Christ lives with us; His sacraments and grace preserve me from harm. I think it is far better for a good Catholic to pick up his cross daily, as Jesus has taught us; and follow Him. In so saying, Tony-- I tend to side with you and your prudent points of view. Beware of these elitist movements. Let God be their judge; they don't need support from us.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 17, 2002.


Gene, we are not talking about an "elitist movement" here. We are talking about an outstanding congregation of priests (Legionaries of Christ) that has many vocations and is favored by the pope. Also being mentioned here is an associated lay organization (Regnum Christi).
Please learn the facts before expressing an opinion, especially a negative one.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2002.

I have no reason to doubt the priests are sincere and in touch with God. If you read the context in which I stated this, my reasons for passing are simple:

The Catholic faith is renewed in the faithful from age to age, and our mainstay is prayer and sacramental life. No Catholic in a state of grace has to enlist in ''Ultra- Catholic'' exercises. Pray, receive the sacraments, and live a life of faith and good works. Nothing can add to this by way of enlisting in movements. I believe the Church from the Apostles is perfect the way she is. If Opus Dei, Charismatics, or Legionnaries made one a BETTER Catholic, I would concede your point. I just don't agree they do.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2002.


You "don't agree they do," Gene?
Well, as has happened on other occasions, I would not want to be in your position, because you are thereby contradicting the pope. He has said a LOT of good things about the genuine, orthodox movements. Here is a sample:

[Oh, wait a minute! I just got through saying, in my last post, that this thread is about a congregation of priests, not about movements. I was trying to get you off the "elitist movement" kick that you previously mentioned. Why did you ignore me and go right back to attacking movements? Please play fair and smart, Gene!]

Now here are just a few of Pope John Paul II's positive words about movements ...

-------------------- QUOTE --------------------------
What is meant today by "movement"? The term is often used to refer to realities that differ among themselves, sometimes even by reason of their canonical structure. If, on the one hand, that structure certainly cannot exhaust or capture the wealth of forms produced by the life-giving creativity of Christ's Spirit, on the other, it indicates a concrete ecclesial reality with predominantly lay membership, a faith journey and Christian witness which bases its own pedagogical method on a precise charism given to the person of the founder in specific circumstances and ways.

The charism's own originality, which gives life to a movement, neither claims nor could claim to add anything to the richness of the depositum fidei, safeguarded by the Church with passionate fidelity. Nonetheless, it represents a powerful support, a moving and convincing reminder to live the Christian experience with intelligence and creativity. Therein lies the basis for finding adequate responses to the challenges and needs of ever changing times and historical circumstances.

In this light, the charisms recognized by the Church are ways to deepen one's knowledge of Christ and to give oneself more generously to him, while rooting oneself more and more deeply in communion with the entire Christian people. For this reason they deserve attention from every member of the ecclesial community, beginning with the Pastors to whom the care of the particular Churches is entrusted in communion with the Vicar of Christ. Movements can thus make a valuable contribution to the vital dynamics of the one Church founded on Peter in the various local situations, especially in those regions where the implantatio Ecclesiae is still in its early stages or subject to many difficulties.
--------------------- END QUOTE --------------------------

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2002.


I forgot to mention, Gene, that I am not saying that one must belong to an orthodox movement. (I don't belong to one.)
I am only saying that you are mistaken in saying that belonging to one doesn't help one to be a "better Catholic."
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 19, 2002.

John,
It seems every time I start something, you and only you pursue it like the ''Hound of Heaven,'' with --deliberate SPEED. Lol!!!

All right! I guess I've been setting standards for others which apply to me alone. I won't benefit one iota from something like that. I mean it literally.

I hope you won't object?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2002.


No, Gene, I won't object.
I can see that you "won't benefit one iota from something like that."
After all, how can you benefit when, as we all know, you are already "canonize-able"? Hahahahahahahahaha.
JFG
PS: I'm not your only hound, just the most frequent one.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2002.

John(JFG), I find it very interesting that you have to be so vitriolic to those of us that have expressed deep rooted concerns about the LC and RC. We are simply seeking the truth and passing on our experiences and concerns but then you question someone's Catholic orthodoxy(in one of your responses) simply because they haven't bought off on the Legion. You sound like you should be their communications director. You also presume to make judgements about whose fault it was in my divorce and also make some judgements about Gene. I would venture to say that just maybe, secretly, you're in Regnum Christi but wont come out with it. If so, that's okay and peace be with you. As far as children entering the LC high school seminaries, I never said that they were entering against their wills, as you seemed to think. I was making an opinion that I think it highly dangerous and questionable for parents to send their children away at such a young age(13) on the road to a vocation with the Legion. I have since found out that the Legion now has practically NO vocations in Ireland because of the negative methodology the Legion has used which has been highly publicized there. The word is out in Ireland, stay away from the Legion. On another note, I have heard that they have have closed down one of their novitiates in Cheshire due to lack of new "recruits". I say recruits because the Legion has to aggressively find them and capture them. I personally saw this on Staten Island, NY. A 8th grade boy in my church had expressed interest in the Legion and his family was then inundated with over 30 phone calls over the next 6 months by Fr Kermit and others working to get him. It was shocking. The mother had to threaten legal action to get the phone calls to stop. While I may be a bit biased due to the betrayal I suffered after my wife joined Regnum Christi, I think it still important to highlight methodology and questionable practices of the LC and RC. We all know that the Pope has been supportive of the Legion and i think that's great. It's normal for the Pope to support any Catholic group. It still doesn't gaurantee the correctness of the Legion. Many would say that the Legion seminarians are no longer as evident at the Pope's masses and that he has been quitly backing away from the LC. Who knows. I do not want to see the destruction of the Legion as it has many good people. I do believe that it needs to be fixed because of the methods it uses which definitely hurt people and families. Fr Maciel has set the rules for his order and they are tough, demanding and they expect a high level of obedience. But they have resulted in great hurt and destruction in families and amongst it's own seminarians. The family often becomes secondary to the Legion and the Movement. That is wrong but it has happened and the Legion lets it happen. And what has the Legion done at the grassroots level of the CHurch, the Parishes. Not much, it's not in their charism to operate at the parish level. It mainly is self supporting. Sadly, even if it changes on this issue, it mat mbe too late because of the growing number Bishops and Pastors that will not allow the Legion in the parish or Diocese because of the growing mass of negatives coming from this order. I am only attempting to pass on what I have seen or found out from others like me so that others can make better informed decisions before joining. People must always remember that the Legion is not a prerequisite to holiness or salvation. If one wants to elevate one's self through a Movement, I would definitely recommend much research and communication with all sides of the story before just jumping in.

-- tony fernandes (mobiletonyf@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, Tony.

If you would like to post messages at this forum, please make them easy to read by breaking them into paragraphs. What you have been doing (huge block messages) is very hard on my eyes. One way to break up a message is to hit your "Enter" key twice, leaving a blank line in the "Answer" box.

Now, having said that, I must say that I am not interested in carrying on any further conversation with you, because you are not using diligent care in reading my messages. Why should I respond to inaccurate comments that you make about what I have written? I will demonstrate:

1. You wrote: "I find it very interesting that you have to be so vitriolic to those of us that have expressed deep rooted concerns about the LC and RC."
In reality, Tony, any fair-minded person who reads all my messages above would not even dream of using the word "vitriolic" to describe them. My messages are calm and fair. You have failed to evaluate them carefully. I think that the problem is that you are overly emotional about this issue, because of the way it has touched you personally, and you are "projecting" your own emotion onto me.

2. You stated that I "question someone's Catholic orthodoxy (in one of [my] responses) simply because they haven't bought off on the Legion."
Your statement is false. You did not read carefully enough. My questioning of his orthodoxy came after the fellow had made improper, unkind accusations of all types of activities -- accusations made in the face of strong papal approval of LC and RC.

3. You stated: "I would venture to say that just maybe, secretly, you're in Regnum Christi but wont come out with it."
In this case, you have been not only "careless," but also insulting. I just got through telling Eugene that I am not a member of a movement (RC or otherwise). I am not interested in conversing with someone who is so foolish as to think that I am a liar. If I were in RC or Opus Dei, I would be proud to say so.

4. You stated: "You also presume to make judgements about whose fault it was in my divorce and also make some judgements about Gene."
Congratulations, Tony. You were able to get two careless (false) remarks into one sentence this time. I did not judge Gene, who (unbeknowst to you) has been my friend for two years. I also did not make a judgment about fault in your divorce, as you would know if you would read these words of mine carefully: "I think that you are just hurting about your marriage. Sorry it broke up, but maybe you were at fault, rather than (or in addition to) your spouse." Notice that I expressed sympathy. Realize that a person who wanted to accuse you of certainly being at fault (and the only one at fault) would not use the word "maybe" and would not suggest that there may have been shared responsibility. In my opinion, a Catholic man ought not to divorce his wife because of her involvement in a Catholic organization, even if she is being unjust to her husband in some way.

5. Tony, you have gone on and on with accusations and innuendo about LC and RC. Please scroll up and read what I told "LA" and Roberto. I now challenge you to do what I asked of them (and so far they have not had the courage to do it): "Please contact the Legionaries of Christ (LofC) representatives in your two cities and have them come to this Internet page to contribute their responses to what you have said." Until you do that, I will ignore all of your accusations. Instead, I will continue to keep in mind the following words of mine, which I posted above:
"I just received the Legion's quarterly, 12-page booklet, "Le Christo" (Winter 2002 issue). Let us rejoice together in the fact that, on December 22, the congregation was blessed by the ordination of FORTY-FOUR new priests (from 11 countries). They were ordained by the archbishop of Turin, Italy, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. The Legion now has more than 500 priests and 2,500 seminarians, even though it was founded by a seminarian (still living) just 60 years ago."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.


Dear John-- All you've explained is interesting. Now I must explain why I said these movements didn't have importance LITERALLY for me.

Simply on account of the grace to be had in our day to day Catholic existence.

I'm not pre-canonized. But neither will becoming a Charismatic or a follower of many new companies of elite Catholic sensibility make me more likely to be canonized. If the Pope has given them his own seal of approval, they STILL add nothing to the faith my fathers were born into. I mean this sincerely. Maybe the Pope simply believes these communities act consistently with Catholic teaching as we already had it. Or did you think they are adding to the deposit of faith?

I have to ask you to consider; are they going to bring YOU and ME closer to God? Closer than Holy Communion and prayer and watchfulness? Closer than FAITH? If you do think so, please explain it to me.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2002.


I'm really amazed at what you are saying, Gene, because you know better than your own words, if you would only stop and think about it. At least ... I hope you know better. I will respond to you, to refresh your memory (and for the benefit of others).

You stated: "I'm not pre-canonized. But neither will becoming a Charismatic or a follower of many new companies of elite Catholic sensibility make me more likely to be canonized."
This marks the third time that I am telling you that we are not discussing "elite" companies, etc., but rather pious associations (known as "movements") that exist to help people to become more holy. By referring, for a third time, to "elitists," you are showing an abysmal lack of charity, a prejudice that is truly bad. And this time you bring up "charismatics," to which I made no previous mention. I am now wondering if you thought I was talking only about them in earlier messages. I was not! I am now wondering if you are unaware of the various new lay "movements" in the Church that have nothing to do with the so-called "charismatic renewal." It is mainly about those very recent movements that I have been speaking. (If you do no reading, you would not even know about them.) Would you like me to name some of them?

You continue: "If the Pope has given them his own seal of approval, they STILL add nothing to the faith my fathers were born into. I mean this sincerely. Maybe the Pope simply believes these communities act consistently with Catholic teaching as we already had it. Or did you think they are adding to the deposit of faith?"

Neither I nor the pope claimed that they "add" anything to the "faith [your] fathers were born into." Why did it even enter your head to bring this subject up? What I (and the pope) have been saying all along is that movements can help Catholics to lead more virtuous, holier lives -- not that "they are adding to the deposit of faith." To prove this, let me repeat two parts of my previous quotation from the pope: "[The gift of a 'movement'] represents a powerful support, a moving and convincing reminder to live the Christian experience with intelligence and creativity. Therein lies the basis for finding adequate responses to the challenges and needs of ever changing times and historical circumstances. ... [The gifts of 'movements'] recognized by the Church are ways to deepen one's knowledge of Christ and to give oneself more generously to him, while rooting oneself more and more deeply in communion with the entire Christian people." See? Nothing about adding stuff there, but only about growing spiritually.

You concluded: "I have to ask you to consider; are they going to bring YOU and ME closer to God? Closer than Holy Communion and prayer and watchfulness? Closer than FAITH? If you do think so, please explain it to me."

The answer is a resounding YES! If we are called to take part in a movement and are able to do so, it CAN "bring YOU and ME closer to God." Still temporarily skeptical because of your forgetfulness? I will help you to overcome that skepticism ... You must acknowledge that God's calling of a woman to be a nun can and should "bring [her] closer to God," even "closer than [her previous] Holy Communion and prayer and watchfulness" and "faith" had brought her. In similar manner, God invites some of us laypeople to take part in ecclesiastical movements, which can and should "bring [us] closer to God," even "closer than [our private] Holy Communion and prayer and watchfulness" and "faith" had brought us.
If we have the vocation to do it, taking part in a movement can deepen our communion with God, can enhance prayer and watchfulness, and can strengthen faith.

All of this is totally in keeping with these words of the Catechism:
2013. "'All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity.' [Lumen gentium 40 #2.] All are called to holiness: 'Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.' [Mt 5:48.] In order to reach this perfection, the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ's gift, so that ... doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints. [LG 40 #2.]"

2014. "Spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ. This union is called 'mystical' because it participates in the mystery of Christ through the sacraments - 'the holy mysteries' - and, in him, in the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God calls us all to this intimate union with him, even if the special graces or extraordinary signs of this mystical life are granted only to some for the sake of manifesting the gratuitous gift given to all."

We must not scoff at movements that are approved by the Church, but humbly accept that they are gifts of God. They are ways given to help us respond to Jesus's words, "You must be perfected, as your heavenly Father is perfect." By speaking positively (rather than derogatorily) about approved movements, Gene, you can dispel the impressions that you have just left: namely, that you are quite satisfied with the level of holiness you have attained, that you don't aspire to be a living saint, and that you need not pay any attention to some of the means that the Church offers to aid us toward greater holiness and a deeper union with God.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


Dear John--
When you pontificate, I suffocate.

Quote-- ''I am telling you that we are not discussing *elite companies*, but rather, pious associations known as movements that exist to help people to become more holy. --By referring, for a third time, to 'elitists', you are showing an abysmal lack of charity, a prejudice that is truly bad.''

I did not condemn or belittle these movements. If you'll be so kind, go back and read what I said. To Tony I said we don't HAVE to support them.

''. . . a sect of sorts; elitist and somehow presumptuous (SOME ARE). --Even so, my scruples kept me from openly attacking these groups. I just remained independent and content with the Catholicism of my youth.'' April 17, 2002.

For which you may fault me, if you wish. --As in:''The impressions that you have just left: namely, that you are quite *satisfied* with the level of holiness you have attained, that you don't aspire to be a living saint, and that you need not pay any attention to some of the means that the Church offers to aid us toward greater holiness and a deeper union with God.''

Somehow similar to what L. A. Bastian described April 15th: during that meeting asked, "But if we don't follow the Legion, how will we get to Heaven?" A defining moment, as many parents understood the cult-like thought processes going on. Poor woman was told to follow the Magisterium, read encyclicals and great orthodox publications, etc. etc. and not think that if she wasn't "properly formed" [their favorite expression for RC and Legion people] she couldn't attain heaven! --Got so bad that parents told they couldn't be room mothers if not "properly formed" by RC/Legion. Uh-oh.'' --Haaha!

Yes, John. There are places I won't go. You may come to canonization, if the vocation to exotic forms of Catholicism drive you there. I'll do my slow pilgrimage anyway. I'm not partial to the rarified air you breathe. But neither do I judge the rest of us at fault. I worry about my own poor soul first.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2002.


Dear John, you're an amazing apologetic.. I find it interesting that you take such meticulous time to pick apart comments I or someone else made that have little to do with the issue of the Legion itself. Discredit me first because it's easier to go after me than to address the REAL ISSUES. I made many points about the Legion that you have totally chosen to ignore. I have no interest in communicating with you either but I will still try to communicate with my fellow Catholics. It was by another person that I even stumbled upon this site.

I can tell that it was probably a waste of time to engage with you but hopefully others will at least benefit from conflicting opinions and then make rational decisions. It's not about you and me, John, it's about the Legion of which MY comments center around. I bow out from discussion with you as well but for anyone who reads this, know that I have taken the time to research this group. I have called many people, traveled around the country to personally talk to people and know many people first hand(besides myself) whose lives have been devastated by Legion methodology. I say to others that may read this.... it is not Catholic bashing or mean hearted to speak what one knows and to share my experiences and knowledge gained by personal experience, interviews and investigation. The truth is the truth is the truth and I am still a loyal son of the Church despite my issues with the Legion. Guess it will all come out in time but I feel sorry for fellow Catholics who have been devastated in the past, now, and in times to come. I'm sure you'll pick apart my comments again but like I said, it's not about you and me. If my comments concerning your comments offended you, than I guess we are both guilty of offending each other and I apologize. Go in peace.

-- tony fernandes (mobiletonyf@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


To all of you

Can any of you actually PROVE that the Legion is in fact fully compatible to our faith and in true communion with us all in truth? I am patiently waiting for something that will point to the real truth. All I have seen is a lot of bickering without concrete evidence. Blessed be the Poor.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 22, 2002.


Fred,

TWICE on this thread, I have posted the following, which ought to clearly answer the question you have just asked:

"Let us rejoice together in the fact that, on December 22, [2001,] the [Legionaries of Christ] congregation was blessed by the ordination of FORTY-FOUR new priests (from 11 countries). They were ordained by the archbishop of Turin, Italy, in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. The Legion now has more than 500 priests and 2,500 seminarians, even though it was founded by a seminarian (still living) just 60 years ago."

This congregation of priests is greatly loved by Pope John Paul II. St. Mary Major is one of the four major basilicas in the diocese of Rome, the Holy Father's diocese. You can be certain if the archbishop of Turin ordained Legionaries there, it is an outstanding group.

I also encourage you to poke around at the Internet site of the Legionaries of Christ, starting on this page. I am confident that you will come away favorably impressed.

God bless you.
John
PS: Gene and Tony, I won't trouble you any more. Sometimes even my best jackhammer efforts cannot break down ultra-thick walls, built up over decades. People just hate to shed their errors because, I suppose, it is so painful to lose face and change habits.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


Thanks, John. I'm not upset, because I didn't have any reason to pick on you. I'm glad you have it in you to be magnanimous.

I was brought up a Catholic, and I'll be a Catholic till I die. Your jackhammer is good for dividing, not uniting. Decades ago GRACE was the answer to all my hurting. Yes I'm a result of decades of God's mercy and love. I have no hard walls for anybody to come demolishing. I have serenity. You haven't disturbed it, so I'm not displeased with you. God watch over you and save you from all harm.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2002.


I have found it interesting that "John" continues to pick at the contributors to this conversation who disagree with him. As I stated earlier, it is very consistent with the Legion's methodology to present a "red herring" offense instead of a valid, articulatable defense when someone raises concerns about the validity of their course of conduct. I have seen it many times. John, you repeatedly state that you are not RC, but your ramblings and conduct towards the other writers smacks of Legion. This behavior sticks out like a sore thumb to former RC members (there was a time when I myself passionately defended the Legion). In closing, I will repeat my earlier plea to anyone else who is questioning the validity of this group. Please take a step back and look deeply into what is going on around you. It is a painful process to extract yourself from the deciet, but once you are on the path to "recovery", you will find that you are surrounded by friends.

-- Andrew Thomas (withheld@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002.

Dear Andrew Thomas,
Please don't confront John Gecik in such a mean way. His thoughts on the subject aren't backward or mean-spirited. On the contrary; he wants all the benefit of the doubt to go to the communities here in question.

He has a right to his opinions. I never wanted him to change these and I don't think yours are going to change. In all cases like this, the truth might be somewhere in between.

I absolutely believe you had some truth in your version of this story. But, I can't believe John is on the wrong track in principle.

My personal argument with him is very minor. I don't feel any of these movements is obligatory or even so spiritually elevated. They have a right to exist, and I have a right not to pursue such lofty ideals. John makes them sound as if they had indispensable value to the Church. But I doubt it. The Church is perfect from day ONE; and since no more apostles are coming down the pike, we have what Jesus Christ evidently planned for His Church. That's only my personal opinion and I don't claim it's an article of faith. It just suits me. But John has his own rights; and you do too. If you disapprove of the people in these communities, just leave them.

God be with you and always preserve you in the Holy Faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 24, 2002.


Thank you, Gene, for defending me despite our disagreement.
Perhaps you, having known me for more than two years, could reassure Mr. Thomas that I would not lie when I state that I have never belonged to a movement, Regnum Christi (RC) or otherwise.

His suspicions of me are really sad (rather paranoid) on the one hand, but almost humorous to me on the other hand. The reason they made me laugh is this. Until a few days ago, when someone accused me of surely being a member of RC, I thought that Regnum Christi was only for women! I really did not (and do not) know much about it.

But Gene, you made an incorrect statement about what I believe. You said, "John makes them sound as if they had indispensable value to the Church."
Not true! I know that they are dispensable. The Church survived without them and could do so again. It is not that they are "indispensable," but rather that they are "beneficial." That was my only point.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.


Sure; I'll agree for some folks they'd be beneficial. Keep in mind I never joined in any condemnation of these parties who allegedly made improper advances to young kids. Some here maintain that was the case. I have no reason to believe THEY lied; but I'm neutral. I just don't know enough about them. I only referred to a particular way of ''achieving'' a higher spirituality. To me, old stick0in-the-mud that I am, nothing brings a souls in closer communion with God than the Holy Eucharist. No other pursuit is in the same league. Not even Bible reading, which is beneficial no matter what! --

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2002.

I have never posted to this forum before but I have followed the discussions here on the legionaries of Christ very closely. While I have no information with regard to the allegations against the founder, Marcial Maciel my own personal experience with the Legion leads me to believe that this kind of sexual abuse is rampant and more disturbingly still, covered up within the organization.

I first joined the legion in 1988 as an eight grade “apostolic boy” in Center Harbor. I was later a “pre-candidate” in Cheshire CT until I left the Legion in 1991. I am sorry to say that I witnessed first hand many things that have changed the way I look at the Legion and even challenged the way I look at the church.

While I was in Center Harbor a fellow “apostolic” and good friend of mine, was repeatedly molested by one of the superiors, a brother Fernando Cutanda from Spain. I discovered this when late one night I awoke to find my friend curled up beneath the bed of the “apostolic” next to me. (At the time, the dorm in Center Harbor was one large room with 80 or so beds lined up in rows). When I asked what he was doing he told me to forget about it, never mind. Unable to sleep, I pressed on and he said someone was “touching him” and that he would explain later.

The next day, at lunch, he explained in detail how Brother Fernando had molested him on various occasions. After all of the boys were asleep, Brother Fernando would go to his bed (located on an outside row and more isolated than most) and molest him under the covers. It was for this reason that he was under the bed: he was hiding.

He also recounted numerous other incidents of sexual molestation (I’ll spare the graphic details but suffice to say it was terrible) on hikes, swimming and other outings. I would later learn that it was a well-known fact among certain circles of Apostolics that Brother Fernando molested various ‘favorite’ apostolics. Apparently I was too naïve and blinded by the Legion because I never picked up on it until that night.

As he recounted his story, I was horrified. I was horrified by how my friend could say such horrible and evil things about a Legionary superior! Every apostolic boy is programmed to believe that the superiors are the instruments of God. As an apostolic I was told over and over again that the will of the superior is the will of God. In my mind at least, a superior was unimpeachable – almost like God himself. Upon hearing what to me had to be lies, and despite my friend’s pleading that I keep it a secret, I immediately told the rector (principal) of the house who at the time was Fr. Fergus O’Carrol. Understand, I was not turning in brother Fernando, I was telling on my friend whom I thought was spreading vicious and destructive rumors! After listening to my story, Fr. Fergus instructed me to tell no one about what I had heard. About a week later brother Fernando was removed from Center Harbor.

Apparently fearful that I would tell my parents about the incident from, Fr. Fergus tearfully admitted to my parents that sexual molestation of apostolics (plural) by Brother Fernando had taken place. Fr. Fergus apologized for not knowing that this was going on and assured my parents that Brother Fernando had been kicked out of the order altogether. Fr Fergus and other various superiors also admitted to ME that the sexual allegations against Br. Fernando were true but assured me that this was an isolated incident and that he was gone for good.

Several months later (I continued in the organization believing the issue had been put to rest) I had the opportunity to go to Rome with the Legion as a “pre-candidate” to witness the ordination of 50 priests by the pope in celebration of the Legion’s 50th anniversary. Before I departed, the rector of the Pre-Candidacy school in Cheshire CT, then Fr. Desmond Branigan, pulled me aside and told me not to be shocked when I saw Br. Fernando in Rome. Br. Fernando had not left the Legion after all. Indeed, when I arrived in Rome I saw Br. Fernando in Rome dressed in his cassock and still part of the Legion. I left the Legion a short while later but not before learning that Br. Fernando had been transferred to Spain as a superior at another Apostolic school!

I believe that sexual abuse may be endemic to the Legionaries of Christ. Since exiting the Legionaries I have become aware of several other specific and credible cases of abuse that took place while I was there and after my exit. I have learned of other child molesters as well as superiors who engaged in bizarre sexual behavior. These are not nebulous rumors – my former classmates and friends have described to me first hand how they were victims of this abuse.

What disgusts me most is not merely the fact that the superiors were sexually molesting apostolic boys – the fact that Br. Fernando was never turned over to authorities – but that the organization was actually complicit in the abuse by protecting him. They did not even remove him from the organization.

I believed in and indeed loved the Legion very much for about three years. I was so blinded by the brainwashing and the fact that I was young, naïve and innocent, that I didn’t realize what was going on around me until it was to late to do anything about it. I could go into much greater detail about this and other horrifying incidents that I witnessed and learned of at the Legion.

-- Frank L (frankl80@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.


Frank,
I think that you should be ashamed of yourself, for the following reasons:

(1) Everything you have said here is rank hearsay, which would not stand up in a court of law. You have said nothing about experiencing abuse yourself, but only what you claim to have been told. Until what you have stated is proved true, a just person must disregard it as either rumor or even possibly part of a satanic conspiracy to destroy a great religious congregation (so hated by the devil). Even the founder, now in his 80s, in being attacked. [By the way, your story reads as though it were a professionally written fiction.]

(2) Frank, if you have read this thread, you have seen my two calls for anti-LC people to ask LC representatives to come here and respond to the accusations. None of the previous people have taken up my challenge, and, instead of doing so yourself, you pile on more filth.

Well, if you will not bring the LC people here, I myself will put decent readers here in touch with the LC response to your accusations. I just received a letter from the LC, not to request funds, but to let everyone know about how they are being attacked and how to read their response, which can be found here.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.


Let me correct that link ...
here.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

John,

1) Perhaps it would not stand up in a court of law, I don't know but for argument's sake I will grant it to you. Also, I readily admit that I was not personally sexually abused, and as a result have not attempted to pursue any kind of legal remedy. Nonetheless I stand by my statement as it accurately reflects my experience:

a) I have friends who said they were being molested b) I observed first hand my friends taking action to avoid abuse (sleeping under beds and other tactics) c) I reported this to the Legionary in charge, Fr. Fergus O'Carrol d) Fr. Fergus admitted to me and my family that this took place. e) Fr. Desmond admitted to me that this took place f) Br. Fernando remained in the Legion well beyond these events.

I AM ashamed, much more than you could imagine. I am ashamed that despite the fact that my friend confided in me that he was being abused I refused to accept it and instead, in my mind, turned on him! As it happened, it worked out for the best, Fr. Fergus was honorable in this regard and took action to have Br. Fernando removed. In my mind however, I despised my friend for making this unthinkable accusation. I reacted much the same way you are reacting now (I have to think you are either an LC or a Regnum Christi member) so I am neither surprised nor hurt that you don’t believe me and would attack my integrity.

You suggest that this reads like “professionally written fiction” If you are suggesting that I am making this up I offer you the following:

a) Check the dates and names – you’ll find they’re real. I was really there and those were my superiors. I elected not to post the names of the victims themselves out of respect for their privacy. b) If I was making this up why would I bother saying that a “friend” was the victim? Why wouldn’t I say it was me? Clearly, as you yourself point out, a first hand experience is much more convincing. I could just as easily say that I was abused – it’s just as un-provable – there’s seldom if ever forensic evidence in these cases – but it would make for a much better story. In fact, it didn’t happen that way so I told the truth.

2) I am now out-of-contact with the Legion but by all means bring LC people here. Better still, bring the people who know what happened: Fr. Fergus O’Carrol , and Fr. Desmond Branigan. Would they swear under oath to know nothing of what I describe here? Unless I continue to be very naïve, Fr. Fergus and Fr. Desmond struck me as a decent and honorable priests trapped in a powerful and manipulative organization. I’d be most interested in their responses. I really have no interest in Br. Fernando’s response as I have already discussed this issue with him in person.

I hope you are able to open your eyes and see what is really happening. I and my family believed very much in the Legion. This was spectacularly unthinkable to me – it shook the very foundations of who I was and what I believed in. This experience was so traumatic that it took me a couple of years after exiting the Legion to fully come to grips with what happened: that people and an organization that I believed in and trusted with unwavering faith could turn out to be the polar opposite of what I thought they were.

I wish I was wrong about this. I really do.

Regards, Frank

-- Frank L (frankl80@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.


Frank,
It is John's job here to call your writings filth.
Can't have that kind of thing just sitting here in this forum making an awful stink. He must clean it up by making denial. If you insist on stiring up the mess, he'll work on your character. At least he doesn't have the press to blame, though he tried to develop a chink by making some reference to your writing style. Wonder where he was going with that one?
Good luck to ya.

-- Chris Coose (ccose@maine.rr.com), April 28, 2002.

Wow, Chris C. You are much further "gone" than I had ever imagined. Your have lost the ability to cope, so deep is your pain.

Frank L, you clearly read me THREE TIMES on this thread telling you accusers to bring in the LofC people to defend themselves on this thread. But you, gutlessly unable to approach those whom you falsely accuse, tell me that I can bring in those people. No, thanks. I now know that I need not do so, because you are obviously a liar.

Anyone who goes to the LoFC site that I provided and reads the truth can realize that what has been posted above is a tissue of lies coming from a series of conspirators whose souls have been sold to the devil. They are seeking revenge for some non-sexual offense or for hatred of the Church they have left or -- most likely -- for money. The best evidence of this is that the conspiracy has partially broken down. I quote:
"Miguel Diaz, originally an accuser, recanted his accusation and regretted having 'given in to the insistent urgings of those involved.' Four other men also came forward to testify that accusers recruited them to lie about Father Maciel."

Also extremely convincing are the following facts:
"The good name of Father Maciel and the Legion was cleared by a thorough Vatican investigation more than forty years ago. From 1956-1958, Father Maciel and the Legion underwent a thorough, two and a half-year investigation. The investigators were sent to live with the Legionaries and interview each member personally under oath. Bishop Polidoro Van Vlierberghe, OFM, one of these Vatican-appointed investigators, concluded: 'In the process of investigating the charges against Father Maciel, the Apostolic Visitators questioned every member of the Legion. That questioning was direct and probing. Our interest was either to prove or disprove the charges against Fr. Maciel conclusively, once and for all. At no point in our extensive and searching interviews about the character and deeds of Father Maciel did a single allegation of sexual impropriety ever surface.' This is particularly important because neither the men currently accusing Father Maciel, then aged 17-24, nor anyone else alleged such misconduct during the investigation. This 1956-1958 investigation found no aspect whatsoever of Father Maciel's behavior to be contrary to Christian morals. What is also telling are dozens upon dozens of letters written by today's accusers to Father Maciel for twenty years after the alleged acts occurred. The letters are dated in the 60's and 70's and are exceptionally warm, friendly and grateful in tone --- hardly the kind of writing an adult would send to someone who supposedly abused him in his childhood. At the time many of these kind letters were written, some of the accusers had already left the order and had no other reason but friendship and gratitude to maintain contact with Father Maciel."

May God have mercy on these evil false accusers.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.


John,
Frank is not accusing Fr. Marciel.
Thanks for the personal feedback. Don't be giving up your day job to do psychotherapy.
Chris

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), April 28, 2002.

John,

I suggest you read what I wrote a bit more carefully. What I describe above has absolutely nothing to do with Fr. Maciel or the accusations against him. I do not purport to offer anything in support or in contra to those allegations. Miguel Diaz and the investigation you refer to have no bearing on this case whatsoever. The statement by the Legionaries of Christ that you keep bringing up also has nothing to do with this. What I speak of is an entirely separate case of abuse by a different Legionary. Fr. Maciel is only implicated in as much as he did not remove Br. Fernando from the Legion after the abuse became known. I’m not sure if these facts are lost on you or if you are trying to distract from the real point with a red herring defense.

I’m beginning to doubt that you can be reasoned with on this matter but I’ll try my best with your latest attacks:

You suggest I call on the Legion to defend itself. My response to that is that I’ve already had face-to-face conversations with the Legion regarding these events: they (Fr. Fergus O’Carrol and Fr. Desmond Branigan) admitted to me that the abuse took place. If you would like a response from them then go get one – I’m all set.

You claim that I am lying and offer a number of possible ulterior motives. Let’s examine them for a moment:

1)Hatred for the church. I do not hate the church, I am still very much a strong Catholic. I attend mass, I participate in the sacraments, I pray and I try to live my life as a good Catholic. There’s no denying that when all this came out my faith was shaken for a time but I came to realize that one can not throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. Without a doubt there are some evil priests, some bad organizations and, in some cases, senior members of the church have exercised very poor judgment in dealing with these problems. That proves only that humans are prone to error – even in the service of the church. The church has had problems and corruption in the past, it is a difficult time for her right now, but this too shall pass.

2)Revenge for some non-sexual offense. I was in my early to mid teens at the time. I am in my late 20s now. I have since completed college and have a promising career as Product Manager in a tech firm. What on earth would I be seeking revenge for? Some Saturday I spent in detention back in 8th grade??? This is real life not a made- for-tv B grade comedy.

3)Money. My experience does not make a very compelling case for monetary compensation because I was not personally the victim of sexual abuse. If I was making this up I could have done a lot better – hey even you say that I can write good professional fiction ;-)

4)Sale of my soul to the devil. Right. On Ebay perhaps?

Regards. Frank

-- Frank L (frankl80@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.


Chris C, you really have just about dropped off the chart. Your mind is only barely functioning. Are you bombed or stoned? Which one? Please consider calling 911 for some help. I am truly concerned about you.
Only if you were losing your mind could you say something as brainless as this: "Frank is not accusing Fr. Marciel."
Anybody can see that! The point was to show that the conspiracy to take down the LofC, one leader at a time or all at once, is in motion. Frank goes for one of the small fry, leaving others to butcher Fr. Marcial [not "Marciel"].
Kindly take a hike from the forum, Chris C., until you have regained sobriety, followed by mental and spiritual health. You are becoming one of the series of cancers growing here, with your constant and idiotic dissent, standing up for heretics, liars, and the excommunicated.

May God help you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.


And you too can, and should, leave, Frank L..
You have nothing to offer this forum. You are evil incarnate.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.

John,
You have no right to persecute these people.
No one says you don't have every right to disagree, and even to trash their posts. But calling another person ''evil incarnate'' and telling Chris Coose he's ''brainless'' -- or without mental and spiritual health speaks volumes about your own insecurity.

You've been going out of your way to dispute me; and for this I have no complaint, I can take it. But the way you've abused the others is not a Catholic characteristic. Is there no way that you can remain detached; letting God be the judge of what is right or wrong? All you expect from others nowadays is that they take ''instruction'' from you. I wonder what is driving you? Please come to your senses!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 29, 2002.


"If you insist on stiring up the mess, he'll work on your character."

What'd I tell you Frank. Pretty predictable.

Chris

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), April 29, 2002.


Well at least he didn't say "Liar Liar pants on fire!" -- Frank

-- Frank L (frankl80@hotmail.com), April 29, 2002.

Dear CC--
Why don't YOU wise up?

You give yourself away, saying, ''If you insist on STIRRING UP THE MESS.''

John has his ways; but on principle he was correct. Bringing this to a Catholic forum is awfully crude. Isn't our faith more important than just adding to the unhappiness we all feel these days? Day after day, nothing but cheap shots; and some from supposedly Catholic posters.

Only God knows why our Church has to suffer this way. Our Lord prophesied something could happen at the end-time. He said that ''charity will grow cold.'' It sure is growing cold and cruel.

And instead of praying for our Church, all this time it's mealy-mouthed carping and zit-picking. No class left in our world.

Holy Saint Catherine of Siena; pray for Our Mother the Church; pray to Our Divine Lord for us ! Amen--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 29, 2002.


Thank you for the reprimand, Eugene. I deserved certain aspects of it.
I was far too harsh in speaking to Chris C and Frank L.
I did it in a passionate moment, but that is not a valid excuse. I apologize to them.

Gene, what you just told Chris C is my actual sentiment, which I should not have let overflow into ad hominem comments --
"Bringing this to a Catholic forum is awfully crude. Isn't our faith more important than just adding to the unhappiness we all feel these days? Day after day, nothing but cheap shots; and some from supposedly Catholic posters."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.


John

Cheap shots are throughout this forum. I am sick of it all. The bashing by the Stroreys and Molsons is getting to be totally mentally demoralizing and I am actually thinking this over in my mind as to why I must be subjected to this filth. The real purpose of this forum is enrichment ot our faith, not the bashing of it by these two people and their disciples. Why can't we find a remedy to this rubbish? I want to learn, not be humiliated by the constant reminder of abuse by priests and other deviant acts by people. I am considering bailing out of here as Kathy has due to the constant foolishness that constantly gets posted in here. This is to depressing and it is not helping me at all. I can't stand these fools. Sorry I am not in a good mood this morn thanks to too much of this stuff. But I will say this I have enjoyed some of the writings by your group in the past. I hope it gets better SOON. BLESSINGS.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 02, 2002.


Fred, I was wrong when I accused someone of being another person, one month ago! I was shooting from the hip, but I was very,very close, you have to admit?

You're relative seems like a very nice lady! I think the people on this forum like here a lot! She is very intelligent and shows a great hunger to learn!

I would advice her not to take things to personaly on the forum, now! I feel sad, for any child that was abused! But with certain creeps on forum now like(You know who), now is not the best time to bring them out on forum!He will jump on that, and twist it around, and say something very hurtful, to that person. I don't think anyone deserves that, that was abused.

I will offer up some prayers so that God will allow some of her wounds to heal, and her sleep, get easier at night!

God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), May 02, 2002.


David

Please be aware of this, Kathy is NOT related to me in any fashion nor do I know what she looks like and the rest. Yes she has proven herself to be a fine lady and I fully understand her feelings on what has been happening on this board by two individuals and like her I find it not only demoralizing, but totally disrespectful of them. I have only one wish and that is that this forum would only get back to it's original intent. If it does not happen soon, I will walk away from it. I have had many years of depression problems and this gloomy stuff that gets put in here only adds fuel to the fire. It is their sins that we do not want to be subjected to. As far as I am concerned they deserve whatever they get for their behavior. It is not normal and it needs to stop.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 02, 2002.


All,

It was not my intention to engage in mud-slinging or otherwise spread gloom and doom about the Church. I posted in response to a specific question regarding sexual abuse at the LC because I consider it a problem that I think we, the Catholic community, need to address. To often, problems of this nature are ignored and allowed to grow.

Nevertheless, a number of the participants in this forum have indicated that they believe I am lying or that it is inappropriate subject matter for discussion here. The former I can do little about but the latter is a valid opinion. While I do feel like the reaction by some was to "shoot the messenger", I recognize that I am a newcomer to this forum. Since my comments have been, for the most part, summarily dismissed as out place here then I will cease making them. I do stand by my previous statements as being true and accurate to the best of my knowledge but you have my word that I will refrain from commenting on this subject here again unless explicitly invited to do so.

I sincerely apologize to anyone who perceived my posts as offensive. In addition, John I thank you for having the good grace to apologize for the ad-hominems -- likewise I apologize for the couple of unnecessarily flip remarks that I made in my discourse.

I wish you all the best. -- Frank

-- Frank L (frankl80@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.


Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I was in the Legionaries of Christ in the early 1980s. I believe, as do most ex-Legionaries that the accusations against Fr. Maciel are completely and unequivocably false, and patently evil. The Legionaries of Christ has done nothing to provoke this recent regurgitation of attacks, except champion Jesus Christ Himself.

These attacks only convince me with more certainty that these beautiful souls are doing what Jesus expected of each of us, when He said, "Go, and make disciples of all men."

God bless,

Tim

-- Tim (buttinzki@yahoo.com), May 03, 2002.


Thank you, Tim.
For me, it is a great consolation to read your supportive words for the Legionaries of Christ.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

Been awhile... but the fog continous on this issue, too many legalities obscuring the essence here. Is the Legion perfect? Answer Are you perfect? Human frailities exist everywhere and in all beings. Sad but true and to those that have been hurt ...men may have failed in punishment but God will reap their crimes. How do you know this ...think of this ...a parable of sorts ...the countrys that neglect human rights...my what storms they see... China floods...Afghanastan quakes ...you figure the rest.

Michael

-- Michael Sword (bugaboo@reach.net), May 06, 2002.


Your welcome, John. The Legionaries of Christ deserve the love and support of all good Catholics, I seriously question the Catholicity of anyone claiming to be Catholic, while bashing them and lying about them. I left the Legionaries of grace with love and blessing, thankful for their willingness to bring Christ's grace to myself and my family.

For those of you who cannot understand why or how some people attack and calumniate the Legion, please realize that there are people who attack anything they feel they can get away with. To understand the psychology of such an attacker, you might ask yourself what kind of person would pull the wings off of a fly, for example. God help these pathetic wretches, who malign the Legionaries.

Meanwhile, each day new men are called by Christ to sacrifice their live's to the this grand religious order. I pray that those who read these assinine diatribes against Christ may someday meet a Legionary priest, themselves. That will be enough to put this nonsense away for good.

You others, you bitchers.. get a life. You are the obnoxious parent at a child's ball game, the pig who treats a waiter rudely, the road- rage coward insulated in some damn way from any but God's vengeance, for your sake, be ready. God will deal with you. You supporters, John, et al.. God Bless.. Adveniat Regnum Tuum!

-- Tim (buttinzki@yahoo.com), June 02, 2002.


Tim says,
"...please realize that there are people who attack anything they feel they can get away with."

Then he goes on,
"You others, you bitchers.. get a life. You are the obnoxious parent at a child's ball game, the pig who treats a waiter rudely, the road- rage coward insulated in some damn way from any but God's vengeance,..."

Brilliant!!!!

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), June 02, 2002.


Tim, you are indeed brilliant.
Thanks again. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 02, 2002.

My kids are in E.C.Y.D. Girls/Boys club and I have been approached about joining Regnum Christi. I like to make informed decisions.I have spent hours reading the good and the bad. I have prayed. I am more confused than ever and have a strong feeling I am in the middle of a fierce spiritual battle.

-- (honourmn@mail.com), July 27, 2002.

"...have a strong feeling I am in the middle of a fierce spiritual battle."

You are, but its that same one that's been in play since the Garden. Somehow I can't see the Legionaires as being heavyweights in the grand scheme of things. We could do alright either with them or without them.

As for myself I never was interested in joingin anything. What for? Catholic is Catholic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 27, 2002.


Although he is probably long gone, Tim's response seems to do more damage to crediblility than to promote it. In particular:

"I seriously question the Catholicity of anyone claiming to be Catholic, while bashing them and lying about them."

It is as suspect to claim that people are lying as are the allegations themselves.

Certainly the Legionaires aren't of any such stature that to criticize them is to criticize the Church itself.

John, I know you are a good guy and I hope you don't take offense... just pointing out that 1. Tim's response is typical of what I have read and that 2. The Legionaires, or the advocating of them, is not necessary to be in good standing in the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 27, 2002.


Kiwi

-- @ (@@@@.com), August 18, 2002.

Hmmmmm..... Hello?????

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 18, 2002.

Seems typical kiwi... wouldn't fret over it. lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 18, 2002.

Emerald and Kiwi, it appears that someone "topped" this thread for Kiwi's benefit. (I don't know why.)
Ironically, I had not seen the new posts (from 07/27) and would have missed them if the thread had not been "topped."

Emerald, I "don't take offense" at what you wrote. The mere fact that you're wrong doesn't mean that I have to be offended! {8^D)

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 18, 2002.


Duly noted, John. BTW, thanks for your reply on the other thread regarding Satan vs. Lucifer; helpful. Still wonder why Malachi Martin said that.

Kiwi, I don't know why they are topping threads for you. It aint me.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2002.


Hi Frank,

In reality I was sniffing around the Internet wondering if I can track you down. I was happy to see your name but sad to see what you have gone through. It didn’t have to be like that. I hope you have healed and have continued with your life.

We spent a few years together in the Apostolic school ran by the Legionaries of Christ. You left but I stayed for another seven years. I spent a total of ten years in the Legion. In those ten years I learned what it is to be human, a catholic and a man that is true to himself.

The ten years that I spent in the Legion can be described as ten beautiful years, even the days that you and me fake being sick so as to skip classes. Do you remember that? How about the Saturday hike with Br. Patrick or the basketball game in the Interlake high school gym? We can go back to the good old days and remember the beautiful things about Center Harbor.

You mentioned Fr. Fergus. I see him to be a total father figure to us. He was holy and exemplary. He was a man that was in total union with God. I remember the many days that he didn’t sleep for more than 4 hours. He would be the last one to go to bed and the first one up. I believe he average no more than 5 hours of sleep a day. How about the Carryman jokes that he told us in meditation?

The other priest at the time was Fr. Desmond. He was a simple priest that was in love with life. There wasn’t a soul that he was not caring towards. He was funny and tried his best to put a smile on everyone’s face. He too spent countless tiring hours taking care of us kids.

My favorite of all legionary priests is Fr. Kevin. I know you too had some contact with him. At that time he was but 27 years old. Great in basketball and humble as a St. Francis of Assisi. I remember one time he got upset in a basketball game. After the game he went to one by one of us and apologized for giving a bad example. How many of us are willing to do that? To this day he would call me up and ask me how I am doing. At the end of the conversation he would always end with the comment, “let me know if you need anything”.

I can go on with all the priest and brothers that took care of us during those years. The way that they took care of us was with lots of care and tenderness. Of course, at time they would lose their patience with us but who wouldn’t be? My mom got mad at me all the time.

As times goes on and I continue with my formation. I met other fathers and brother of top quality. They are one of the nicest people that I have ever met. True to themselves and their mission. They gave all to the mission. When I say all, I mean all. Their passion, is for all to love Christ totally. They work hard and long hours so as to spread the teaching of Christ to all.

I can’t see why an organization that is totally passionate about loving Christ and to build his kingdom can be so totally attacked.

I understand why you can be bitter with the Legion and I don’t for an instant judge you on it. But let us see the picture objectively. How many Legionaries fathers and brothers do you know? And how many of them are “bad”. I bet the number is small if not only one or two. Throughout my years of formation I have known hundreds of Legionary fathers and brothers and off of my head I can only think of 2 Legionary fathers that I didn’t get along with. They weren’t bad. We just didn’t get along. It happens to the best of us. I can see why they are so attacked and the reason is that they are totally passionate about getting things done. They act and when one acts in a passionate way, a lot of the times it comes across as being stuck up or offensive. Being in the work force, one learns this principle fairly quickly. Sometimes toes will have to be step on to get things done and people don’t like that. You mentioned that Fr. Fernando violated one of our brothers in Center Harbor. Frank, I was really sad to hear this. I hope this might be a misunderstanding but if it is true please don’t let one blemished priest ruin the good names of the other 2500 good and holy priests and seminarians. Come on, one bad apple in the basket does not mean the rest of the apples in the basket are bad. On the contrary, most Legionaries priests and seminarians are kind, holy and totally passionate in giving their lives for others. You can ask any ex Legionaries, being a Legionary is a life long boot camp that is trained to love and serve others totally in the name of Christ. It isn’t easy to do that. It isn’t fun to be a Legionary but they are willing to go through pain a suffering for a higher cause of build Christ Kingdom on earth.

Before I end this note I would like to tell you a bit about myself. I left the Legion of Christ 5 years ago after spending about ten years in the Legion. I am now over in California working for Sony Electronics as a Product Engineer. I am still single but hope to get married in about two years.

Frank, I hope we can meet sometimes to catch up and to discuss about this issue further. I know that I have a different view that you have but I hope this isn’t going to stop us from being good friends. Please tell my godmother (your mom) that I say hi. Please ask her to pray for me and I will continue to keep you and her in prayers. Take care.

Yours in Christ, Bao Nguyen

-- Bao Nguyen (ngxbao@hotmail.com), September 11, 2002.


Emerald, whatever, pin head. Why is it that anything a Catholic does or says is held to this sort of scrutiny? My post was not intended to be an outreach to someone who cannot decide their faith, that is between you and God, Emerald. My tirade, admittedly angry, if viewed contextually was in response to the shock and indignation I felt seeing these good men's names trashed. In other words, liken it to the feeling you might have if you encountered somebody speaking ill of a dear friend or your mother. If it is a solicitation you seek to learn about the more positive aspects of our faith, at your request I can furnish some more 'healthy' links, etc. I stand by what I said, and congratulate myself, for not swearing in my earlier post. Take care and God bless, Emerald, and I'll do my best to calm down.

-- Tim (buttinzki@yahoo.com), September 12, 2002.

Bao,

Fr. Fergus was my novice master! What a great guy. Take care, and God bless!

-- Tim (buttinzki@yahoo.com), September 12, 2002.


Tim, This is the first time I have ever posted anything in any internet forum. I thought I should defend my husband. First of all, if being a Legionary had done you any good, you might not have called my husband a pinhead. He is to the contrary NOT a pinhead. He is also a lot more patient and charitable with people than you are, even though he himself never had the opportunity to grow in holiness as a Legionary.

To my sadness, I also have concerns about the Legion. My concerns have nothing to do with what may be false accusations about the founder. I have a family member in the Legionaries right now who I have reason to be concerned about, and I also have have friends who have had experiences with the way the order operates that were rather terrible, to their surprise. These people who I love and who love the Church, were in a way "gobbled up" by the Legion. I'm not sure what to think about it really, except that it is disappointing to once be happy for a relative who entered what I thought was a wonderful order only to find out later that all too many other people have been hurt by it. I know I really don't know what is going on with everything there, and that a few individuals could be mishandling certain things which give the order a bad impression, but so far my impression of the order is that while it seems to be very orthodox, it gobbles up as many people as it can, sometimes taking years of their lives before spitting them out, and it seems that they go around getting recruits and as many rich supporters as possible so that they can expand as rapidly as possible. I guess I think that if it wasn't run like a cult, it would be an awesome order.

For the sake of my relative in the Legion I wish I never heard anything bad about it. He seems happy, although a bit malnourished and sleep-deprived. Also, I hope I haven't done the Legionnaries of Christ an injustice by posting this on the net.

-- Emerald's wife (emerald1@cox.net), September 12, 2002.


Tim whatever mellon head. What a humble selfless servant of Christ you seem to be. In both your posts youve made a fool out of yourself and your former order. What an disgrace you are. Give me a "pin head" over a "swollen rotten mellon" like yours anyday. Get lost loser.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 12, 2002.

Ahh, what can I say.

Nothing, perhaps, would be the best policy in the future. Sure, sure, I've indicated it once before and didn't follow through, but I must leave. The first attempt was practice I guess, but now time will prove it so. I've given up tougher things in the last couple weeks; this will prove easy enough.

I indicated to someone that I would slip away quietly. But see my wife here; she regrets the post she made... my little habit here has sucked her into doing something foreign to her that has sowed confusion in her heart that wasn't there before, and that's no good doings on my part. She worries now as to whether she did the right thing or not in posting anything, and that didn't have to be the case. Mea culpa.

In general though, I cannot tell you the heartfelt sadness I feel when I see otherwise good people spit venom upon one another, and worse yet knowing that I am a part of it. Not just here but among all good people I know and others I don't know; good Catholics... low profile, high profile, makes no difference. On a forum or in person, it is all around us. Gives one to pause and wonder why it should be so.

Sometimes we do need to correct each other. But in all, I have to be honest and say that the forum disturbs me. The honest to God truth of the matter is that I lose a significant measure of peace when I read and post here. Maybe that's my problem. I don't propose that you all should feel the same way, but I can only make decisions for myself in what I believe is my best interests.

Tim, it is not your post in particular. I mean, pinhead lol that's not so bad. The trigger here is not your post but by my poor wife being sucked in via my involvement to what is alien to her. It is alien to me as well I have come to find out; alien to talking with friends in person, listening to family, reading, living.

I won't defend myself any further on any opinion I have tried to render, or the manner in which I rendered it. But listen up; I categorically ask for the forgiveness of any forumite that I have mistreated in any way, before I abandon posting and lurking.

Sometimes after experimenting with new methods, new media, you get called back to your roots, to what worked before; what's tried and true, proven... nothing ventured, nothing gained.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), September 12, 2002.


mellon= enormous oversized NZ melon with a very soft centre, lacking in fibre with a very bitter taste. Yuk.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 12, 2002.

Emerald youre dead right I post on a few other forums. This one is compelling because of the forthright opinions expressed, it also also an undoubtably a negative place for me also. Its easy for me to think of excuses why I do this- Im just joking, stress, a few drinks, but at the end of the day Ive become a real creep.

Mild mannered unfailingly polite school teacher becomes the most horrible person you can meet. I find myself continuly surprising myself with the nastiness I never knew I even had. And Im getting worse. I look back and see how shocked I was when I first arrived at the behaviour occuring and now Im the worst offender. I only come here to antagonise others. Deplorable really, like anything evil its so hard to give up.

Reading through this thread my estimation of Mr Chavez continues to rise even higher and I feel slighty embarassed that someone who spent so much time helping me when I arrived has been so let down.

Mrs Emerald you have nothing to regret- your post was heartfelt and contained dignity and poise in the face of an arrogant man. God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 12, 2002.


Melon, your wife's post intrigues me, the way she rises to your side. I guess I can compare my response to unfair statements made publicly about the Legion to her defense of you. At any rate, I'd guess that you're a lucky man to have her at your side, unless she starts fighting you for access to the computor, now that she's posting herself.
Kiwi, yeah, yeah, yeah. I cannot give my opinion of you, 'cause you said nothing, I mean you are just like me, you ass, your initial post was meant to hurt me or whatever, based on things that I said to defend something that I love. So we aren't so very different, and your friends shouldn't think anything less of you for losing your patience 'cause of me, so quit backpeddling. You told me to get lost, I won't, so what.
Look at what Jesus said to people about leaving house and home and following Him, He has harsher words, admonishing on disciple in practical words "forget (hate?) your mother and your father. I mean, you guys don't think family can create huge problems for somebody trying to follow Christ? You think St. Ignatious of Loyala gave his family free reign to meddle in his life while he fought to save the Church from the Protestant revolution? I personally find it distasteful, too. But I think I can understand it. If these people that you love are perhaps called to a higher purpose, does it do well to second guess them, or try to distract them from their objective, which is to be like Christ? If that seems 'cultish' then I should inform you that these are the means applied by many great religious orders throughout the centuries, and this is how many of the greatest corporal works of mercy, ie hospitals, orphanages, missions, hunger relief, and SCHOOLS have been come to be. Brought to you by people wholeheartedly devoted to Christ and to their mission, which is also His mission.
I know it is pointless to be pedagogic when people are hurt and confused by loved ones who abandon them, I could not leave my family, and I don't fault anyone else who cannot do the same, obviously. I still admire people who are steadfast in their mission, and try not to be angry at the pain and confusion it can create in others of us.

-- Tim (buttinzki@yahoo.com), September 15, 2002.

Well, It looks like I got the last word in, and have put this whole situation to rest. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.

-- Tim (buttinzki@yahoo.com), September 19, 2002.

^^

-- ~ (^^^@^^^.^^), September 21, 2002.

I have not heard about child molestation in the schools, thought there was one many years ago at the Instituto Cumbres in Mexico City when Father Eduardo Lucatero-Alvarez was the principal. I have also heard allegations about my uncle, Father Marcial Maciel- Degollado. More recently I have been hearing about sexual abuse by some legionary superiors, vg, novicemasters, such as Guillermo Izquierdo, etc.

-- Mario Amezcua Maciel (maricamaciel@yahoo.com), October 21, 2002.

Hmmmmm, it seems that no one on this site has real yahoo accounts.

That's odd.

-- (Zbmstueown23@yahoo.com), October 30, 2002.


Dear Mario: good to see your name and see you alive after all these years. I am sorry to say I have tended to lend credence to the accusations against Father Maciel because he was always pretty strange, very narcissistic and could be excruciatingly cruel; certainly not a particularly kind or holy person in the 23 years I knew him. And also because I know, respect and have met some of the witnesses and their testimonies are heartbreakingly realistic. What do you think? Pablito who knew Mario and Roberto

-- Juan Pablo Limon xlc (irishmexican43@sbcglobal.net), November 21, 2002.

Mario Amezcua: i just noticed your email address and I think you should be ashamed of yourself. But I like your sense of humor! Are you implying that you believe those dreadful allegations against the Holy Man of God could be true when we have witnessed how faithfully he has kept his vows of poverty, chastity and obedience [to himself] all these years!

-- Maria Grand Tetones (mariconmaciel@yahoo.com), November 21, 2002.

Friends: be on the outlook for a renewed Regainnetwork.com webpage for exmembmers of the legion of christ and regnum christi.

-- exlegionary (REGAIN@yahoo.com), November 27, 2002.

In a nutshell: the jury is still out regarding Father Maciel's personal integrity and the Christian authenticity of his Opus Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi. Thomas of Gallilee.

-- Doubting Thomas (skeptical@yahoo.com), December 10, 2002.

You are mistaken, Thomas.
There is no jury.
There need not be one.

-- (Credulous@Andrew.com), December 13, 2002.

For those who think that Father Maciel is "holy" I pitty them. You are in for a big dissapointment as most of the charges against him are very well documentaded. The Legionaries of Christ are narcisists, frivolous and heartless. I should know, I spent 15 years with them (from Kindergarden to high school). Needless to say, all of the rumors are true... maybe you should acknowledge it and stop living your lies.

A friend

-- Luis Ulloa (iama@hotmail.com), January 13, 2003.


And as I promised when James Xwing posted virtually the same info/criticism, here's a link in case anyone cares to donate to this fine organization. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 13, 2003.

Aside from the sexual abuse controversy, my problem with the Legion/Regnum Christi is the pyramid aspect of it. I was told in a formation session that all societies should be hierarchical since the Church is, and the purpose of the laity is to contribute money and work to the efforts of the clergy. Another pyramid aspect is the way the local lay RC groups form schools, but (I think) the Legion has control over them. Then, there is the fact that they "evangelize" society from the top down, as does Opus Dei, only it seems that they really like the top best. I also think the society has elements of personality cult in it (which any society with a charismatic will have some of). The meetings were based on readings from the Founder, which were not very good, by the way, and they reminded me of the 60's Chinese readings from Mao's Little Red Book. Lastly, I think the spirituality is imperfect, close to Pelagianism. I also don't like how apostolic works are used mainly for recruitment, not for their good ends themselves. I would love to be corrected of any of these impressions.

-- Mary E. Parks (mparks12@satx.rr.com), January 17, 2003.

There is good and bad in the Legion. The good is at the surface - fun loving and devoted priests, really genuine people who love God and the Church, insightful talks and retreats. The bad hides deep below the surface - closely guarded secrets (as a Legionnaire about the fourth vow), a comprehensive pattern of mind control, aggressive recruiting centered on the Legion (not the individual), and distorted spiritual direction.

Grow spiritually from the good, but stay clear of the manipulation and deceit that is well documented. Lots of people in the Legion (esp. RC) don't know it's darker side. They're good people, love God and emphatically defend the Legion because they've been taught not to question anything about her.

Parents: Don't entrust your childs vocation-discerning process to the Legion. First, God has given you the resonsiblity, authority and the GRACE to guide your children. Second, the Legion's recuriting mentality for your son is "You have a vocation to the Legion until we tell you otherwise." Your child will NOT get an balanced vocation discernment.

Don't try and tangle with the Legion directly. They are well placed in Rome and funded handsomely. Their spokesmen are talented and can put a Legionnaire spin on just about anything (see NBC interview).

I'm looking for someone who has successfully extracted a family member or loved one from the Legion. Please reply to this post if you can provide guidance.

Thank You, Witheld

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), February 10, 2003.


Well, I do not know much about the Legion, but I DO KNOW that this kind of charge is remarkably IDENTICAL to charges against Opus Dei some years ago. They were all dismissed as not credible and the pope canonized their founder.

It is extremely difficult to me to understand how intelligent, God- loving people, can turn into monstrous devilish mind-controllers, keeping hideous secrets from coming to the air, once they assume positions of responsibility in an institution. It simply does not seem possible, even from a psychological point of view.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 10, 2003.


I appreciate your frustration. The dichotomy is truly disturbing. To gain a brief insight on this very subject please read Fr. Peter Cronin’s letter. Born in Ireland and a Legionnaire priest for 20 years he explains well. Type his name and the word “legionnaires” at the search engine of your choice, or follow this link http://www.regainnetwork.org/testimony-petercronin.htm. I am unable to find the original posting, but it has been duplicated in many places.

Fr. Cronin’s letter is refreshing in two ways. First, it lacks bitterness or a direct judgment of any person in the Legion. It speaks of means of persuasion, methods and practices, but never slanders or even takes an angry tone. It is written with honesty and charity. It’s second quality is the credibility of its author. Fr. Cronin’s 20 years in the Legion demonstrates intimate knowledge and very personal familiarity with the subject of his letter.

Two people, whom I love with all my heart, are presently in the Legion. I see clearly in them, the effects of Fr. Cronin’s claims. It causes me great pain.

Our Lady of Lourdes (feast today) Pray for us, and all in the Legion

-Withheld

-- Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), February 11, 2003.


Didn't we go through this whole thing with a guy named "James Xwing" just a couple of months ago?

Juan, estas Jaime?

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.


If anyone has serious questions about what seminarian life is like in the legion or what lay life is like in Regnum Christi, send me a note.

Critics have only one thing going for them: most people have no personal experience with knowledgeable and well formed Legionary priests and RC members. Most of these critics complain about either fellow novices (as inexperienced as themselves) or other new RC members who - like themselves - know less than alot and alot less than they ought.

IMHO, if you're going to pick a fight with someone or make a good judgement of any group, I think going to the best and most formed members would give you a better idea of that group than only looking at the least trained members. Otherwise, how many insults and accusations can be made at the Catholic Church? If we are to be judged by our worst members then what possible hope have we of evangelizing the world? If the 11 are to be judged because of Judas, where does that leave Christ's promise?

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 11, 2003.


No personal attacks on Stong...I don't know him, but his comments on Fr. Peter's letter 1.) miss the point 2.) distract from productive discussion. Without addressing his character, I've seen Stong elsewhere on the web and his style seems to pick at a thing until the focus and point are so obfuscated as to be unrecongnizable.

It's a free country and Stong can read and write what he likes without censure. Only wish the same were true for folks in the Legion.

-- Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), February 19, 2003.


Joe Stong is of fine character and a good man. I stand by what I say, including this. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 19, 2003.

Withheld, please show me where I missed the point, don't just say "you missed the point". Please.

If the letter from Cronin is not authentic, I think that's pretty much "to the point". I also think its internal inconsistencies and lack of cogent reasoning (begging the question about cult practices without proving them) also points away from Fr Cronin being the real author as people who knew him attest him to have been much more sophisticated than to make a manifesto like that (with points and all...that's Fr Paul Lennon's trait).

Now again, if I'm missing the point, please show us where exactly. Thanks.

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 19, 2003.


I'll give a few minutes to the defense of Fr. Peter's letter, its authenticity, what's the point, credibility, etc. BUT I won't do it just for Joe Stong. He already knows how this dialogue will play out.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go point-by-point. If there's enought interest, I'll give it a couple paragraphs next week.

-- Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), February 20, 2003.


Gee, thanks dad. I'll be waiting for your masterpiece of fiction.

In the meanwhile I encourage everyone to see the legionaries for themselves at www.legionofchrist.org and for a better look at what legionaries do for the Church at www.regnumchristi.org.

Unquestionably, the legion is unique. And like any new work or charism it is misunderstood by those used to thinking about orders in the old fashioned, comfortably stereotypical way. But I have never met someone who was willing to listen and learn who walked away still in a huff.

-- joe stong (joestong@yahoo.com), February 20, 2003.


Joe! Good to see you! Do you have reason to doubt the veracity of Fr. Peter's letter? I sure do, it sure took a long time hitting the internet, I had asked a guy who referred to this "White Salamander Letter" nearly two years ago to produce it, and he could not. Now it surfaces, about six months ago. Help me with this one.

Christine.. Dear sweet angel.. this fight Joe and I and some others are waging is so in the thick of things, I mean this fight is where spiritual rubber meets the road.

Hit me back, fast, Joe!

Tim R.

-- Buttinzki (tim_rum@msn.com), February 21, 2003.


Oh, by the way. Joe Stong is in no way affiliated with me, Buttinzki. We share only a common love and trust for Father Maciel and the Legion of Christ, which I ask all good Catholics to pray for, as they are under diabolical seige from enemies of the church.

I happen to love old Joe Stong, the man underwent horrible abuse at another forum, by these same perpetrators, who looked like clowns compared to Joe.

While some of you who might know of me cannot see where an endorsement from Buttinzki would help Joe Stong's cause in any way, I heartily understand, and do not wish to embarass Joe in any way.

God bless,

Buttinzki

-- Buttinzki (tim_rum@msn.com), February 21, 2003.


John,

I finally read most of this thread, and I owe you a huge thanks for defending the Legionaries, almost single-handedly for over a year.

God Bless.

-- buttinzki (tim_rum@msn.com), February 21, 2003.


The authenticity of the Fr. Peter Cronin's Letter can be verified by the Pat Kenny show in Ireland where they received it as an email or by the RegainNetwork (who received a similar letter). If anyone here heard Fr. Peter's verbal testimony to these facts, this post would benefit from their confirmation.

Stong suspects the letter because it wasn't written in Fr. Cronin's style. A person's style changes over time and varys from one situation to the next. For a priest writing about 20 years of seeming torment, his style is (at least) charitable - one of his hallmark qualities. Further, the end of the letter clearly states that he hadn't set about to write so much. This too goes to affect writing style. Tim doubts the authenticity based on timing of the letter’s public appearance. That seems an awfully thin reason to doubt a letter. After all, public internet discussion on the Legion is relatively new. Would that we could see every personal testimony of xlc's.

It is a fitting irony that Fr. Peter's letter has been so-called the 'White Salamander Letter', as many honest parallels could be drawn between the Legion and the LDS church.

Stong objects that most critics haven't sufficient personal Legion experience to make meaningful comments. If experience is Stong's barometer, Fr. Cronin is well qualified. But it should be evident that all experience is valid in some way.

The young boy who notices odd talk from an old friend who is now at the apostolic school in NH, the candidate who was spooked by cult- like mind control, the angry benefactor who underwrote hundreds of thousands of dollars of Legionnaire projects only to feel used, the 20-year Legionary priest who can no longer ignore the guilt he's been repressing in the name of Legionary Discretion.

I don't mind being labeled a critic, but I'm not a detractor for the sake of trashing the Legion. There is good in the Legion of Christ, which is why I remain involved with them. Without minimizing that which is good, it is important to recognize that the Legion's problems are grave. Fr. Cronin's letter is a good synopsis, a broad picture of the cause of the Legion's present troubles. Testimonies elsewhere on the web support his claims (or make similar ones).

How many people think the Legion is flawless as she is today? For those who are willing to acknowledge the faults, and would like to see an improved Legion, I'd like to know how you envision the change? What does a new up-and-up legion look like? Can the Legion change substantially while MM is alive? Will it remain the same after his death?

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.


Mr. Stong and others, the Regain and exlc sites are in the process of proving the validity of -not only- the white salamander letter but more of Fr. Cronin's correspondence on these important facts.

The Legion, her present and former members need a win! Dialogue charity and honesty will be the hallmarks of meaninful progress.

Adios

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.


The validity or authenticity of the "letter" (so now it's a letter and not an email or transcript huh?) is only half the problem.

The text itself is full of internal contradictions and logical fallacies, as I have ennumerated elsewhere.

Do you really want me to take apart your precious little manifesto again on this forum? Would that help you or anyone here? Answers to bulleted manifestos normally run one page per point. For example: try answering in one line the question: "The word Trinity is not in the Bible, so the concept was invented by pagan Catholics!"? You could write a book in answer... shall I write a book for you?

Wouldn't it be far better for you "Withheld" and your friends to meet me in person to discuss these issues - along with our other fellow seminarians?

What is the end-game here? Publicly (and anonymously) make unsubstantiated claims to besmearch the honor of whole groups of people (by calling them not only unfaithful Catholics, but also personally evil)?

If that's your goal - you'll loose. And you'll loose publicly.

Shall we have a re-play of last time? I make counter-arguments, and you go ad hominem against me? I pull out the facts, and you make snide comments as to my motives? I name names, quote Vatican II, Church documents, Canon Law, and historical precedents, and you duck the issue to pick apart some side issue...and then call me names...

I offer opportunities to meet, discuss, and put everything on the table - in public, with our peers and companions around for a 'reality check'...and you claim I'm a "spy" or that my invitation is not honest?

Not knowing who "Withheld" is, we may have exchanged pleasant emails. You know I'm busy and you know why. I appreciate your prayers and I pray for you and yours... we may have even spoken on the phone or in person...

At the very least you have my email. And while your emails to me stay with me, my private emails to you have been posted on-line... ("Asymetrical warfare" anyone?)

I've invited you guys to lunch or to have a beer... the invitation is still open. And of all the dozen or so people on-line who were actually Legionary seminarians...I'm one of 3 who was there longest. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... If time and breadth of formation don't give me any credibility or "authority" then neither do they give Cronin or Paul "authority"! You really can't turn it upside down and suppose time and formation means I'm unreliable, which you have... and that's another example of contradictory arguments...

So what'll it be boys? Me arguing and you assaulting my honor again? or a real conclusion to this? The appearance of "healing" or the actual thing? Futher pity parties or real results?

How sure are you of your position? Has anything changed since July? Back then a whole dozen of you were too few for my testimony and witness. Apparently your "subjective" feelings and beliefs were too delicate for lil'ol me... Has anything changed? Back then my opinion was claimed to be potentially devastating for those who "recovering victims"... and you know how delicate victims can be-- Can't let logic or history get in their way if "therapy" points them towards subjective sollipism!

So let me know OK? I can walk you through the "letter" (and other charges) step by step (in about 10 pages) and/or we can meet to have a meaningful dialogue and learn something new about each other, the Church, and the Legion.

"Carissimi, obsecro tamquam advenas et peregrinos abstinere vos a carnalibus desideriis, quae militant adversus animam; conversationem verstram inter gentes habentes malefactoribus, ex bonis operibus considerantes glorificent Deum in die visitationis."

Pax vobiscum frates

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2003.


I forgot to post the following reply from the Legionaires website, asking them to clairfy the matter of these allegations :

Your Kingdom Come!

Dear sir,

The Legion's policy is not to discuss these matters in chatrooms, so we will not be making a statement.

-----Original Message-----
From: spicenut@excite.com [mailto:spicenut@excite.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:20 AM
To: infoeng@regnumchristi.org
Subject: Contactanos La legión-Inglés

Below is your form's result, it was submitted by spicenut@excite.com on Fri Nov 1 10:20:01 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

Nombre: anonymous

Edad: 26

País: New Zealand

Ciudad: Auckland

E-mail: spicenut@excite.com

Comentario: Hi there. There is a great dispute going on in a Catholic forum on the famous greenspun server regarding sexual allegations of a Brother Fernando Cutanda from Spain. I would ask u to urgently please put this matter to rest by posting first hand on the forum whether or not this in fact took place as well as any other incidences within the legion of christ. The people discussing this matter are all Catholics and are trying to come to terms with protection, cover-ups, false allegation or any such thing. Can you please clear this up on the forum ? Here is the link to the discussion.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002eOK

Thankyou.


-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 11, 2003.


Oliver, The link you provided is for this page. Please correct it.

Thanks

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 12, 2003.


withheld,

Oliver sent an email asking someone to visit this site.

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), March 12, 2003.


Joe,

A productive discussion of the Cronin letter necessarily includes those inside the Legion who are in legitimate authority and those who have been affected by their practices. Even without knowing the details of your agency with the legion and with all due respect, you simply do not have the power or authority to make decisions that will lead to lasting reform.

There’s a similar discussion about a meeting of this sort on the xlc board. It’s a delicate thing and has the capacity for healing, or for more damage. I’m afraid the best we can hope for is a smoothing of the waters between lc and some former members. No exlc or group of xlcs/rc’s can change Legion policies/rulebooks and that’s where meaningful reform must occur.

I suspect you won’t acknowledge any of this but the need for reform is as urgent as care/respect for former legionaries/rc’s.

Peace

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.


Withheld,

In my experience most of the "issues" former members have with the Legion or their superiors are not serious enough to warrant a sweeping "investigation" or reform of the Legion.

I don't dispute that some claim they've suffered awful abuse. Many have claimed as such. Not alot though. Just some. And remarkably, the ones who seem loudest or most verbose are also the ones with least experience not just in the Legion but also in religious life and study in general...

When I have actually sat down with them in person, and put everything on the table and we've got a reality check from their peers... its amazing how quickly "the injustice I suffered" becomes "oh, well, then it wasn't intentional...I blew it all out of proportion. sorry."

Alot of prudential decisions - which could go either way and are infinately debatable... are twisted into major issues until you look at them in the light of calm reason and actual chronological history.

When you are there in person - of course passions can flare. But you are immediately aware of them and see the effect words have on your brother who suddenly is no longer the "other" that on-line debate so easily dehumanizes into "a brainwashed LC zombie spy" or some other such ad hominem charge.

I'm a firm believer in the need for friendly, honest discussion. I also believe its just too easy to ruin someone's reputation on line (or off-line by gossipping behind their backs).

For example, Paul Lennon publicly complains that his LC career was sidelined and eventually ruined in part "because I am short and not as good looking as the others...".

Now, that claim certainly makes the LC and his superiors look pretty darn petty and weird doesn't it? Kinda sets up the stage for some innuendo and suggestive motive-mongering...

But having met the guy in person I can publically affirm that he's not shorter than any other LC superior and is rather quite charming...certainly not "uglier" than other LC superiors! So THAT "and another thing" complaint of his is immediately cleared up as silly. Grasping at straws. And could possibly be a case of a poor man junk talking down to himself and harming his own self esteem... on-line for the world to see.

But it's not true! Paul Lennon isn't ugly and he's not grossly short. And the on-line world would never have known had I not met him in person... Whatever other problems he had height and appearance aren't among them!

So "Withheld" I think in-person get togethers are far more useful for helping "hurting" or disgruntled ex-members than endless on-line arguments about prudential decisions and hidden motives.

So again, I could de-construct the Cronin manifesto and others as well...but to what point? I've had my name and motives trashed on- line before. As far as I know my on-line counterparts still make vodoo dolls of me. Sticking my name with little pins and sounding brave about it.

So my best option invitation stands, only I'm afraid I can no longer afford to buy any former Legionary lunch. A beer or pop maybe...

We can sit, talk, put things on the table and laugh at how the light of truth dispells the shadows of doubt and confusion and self- destructive thoughts.

Let me know. Pax tecum frater

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.


Joe Et cum spiritu tuo.

You are RIGHT, and wrong. Hindsight gives exlcs/rc’s a chance to cool off. That’s true for everybody in frustrating situations. Some complaints against the Legion are silly and many are not. It is unjust to write-off legitimate grievances based on the baseless-ness of others.

I claimed the need for reform, and you objected based on your experience in talking with xlcs – very reasonable. But the nature of the problems registered over and again by xlcs are systemic. That is, Fr. Bob who left on good terms after 20yrs has a different experience than Tommy who left in a fit-of-rage after his 3rd month in the novitiate, but both recognize the danger in the 4th vow.

If Joe Stong sits down with Tommy two years later and eases a brooding animosity over a burger and a beer, that’s wonderful. But, the good done for Tommy doesn’t change the forth vow and the Legion is doomed to dispatch 50 more Tommy’s over the next decade and retain 250 like him, living their vows out of fear, not love.

The reform -I claim- that is needed allows each member to think critically (as advocated by St. Thomas A.), to recognize that the Legion has weaknesses and motivates those within not to repeat them, to compare the practices that don’t match well with the spirit of cannon law and change them for the better, etc. None of these reforms compromise desirable Legion traits, orthodoxy, healthy formation, prayer, and devotions are all strengthened under new honesty, integrity and true freedom.

Got to run. Pax Tibi

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 13, 2003.


Frater mihi...

You just "begged the question" regarding the licitness and reasonable nature of the extra vows and the "need" for reform.

Just because a handful of former Legionaries forgot the reasons for the extra vows, doesn't mean there was never any good justification - both philosophically and morally, for them!

I have read and listened to people complain about the vows of 1) not seeking positions of authority for oneself and 2) of not criticizing the actions of one's superior to fellow companions who are not in position to help correct the situation in any way.

Most of the on-line critics create straw-man arguments by very carefully OMITTING mention of key details in the nature and practice of these vows.

Their arguments are usually threefold: no scriptural basis, no theological basis, and no practical charitable purpose.

And yet: Jesus commanded his apostles to not seek the first place, to not seek positions of authority, but to seek only to serve - and if you are choosen for authority then continue to act as a servant not as a master. Thus Legionaries are not to be ambitiously seeking positions of governance.

Yet the gossip who wishes to trash his superior's good name or judgement is setting himself up as a de facto "superior" - at least to his peers or own subjects - none of whom can do anything about the situation!

Jesus also warned us of breaking the 8th commandment, and he commanded us that if we have a problem with a brother, that we should go to this person for redress. If he does not respond, we are to take the matter "to the Church" (which is hierarchical). In otherwords, don't go to people who can not solve the problem.

Legionaries can and indeed are often obliged to communicate differences of opinion of a superior's action (which they feel inappropriate) to that superior himself, and to HIS superior.

That's how things get solved in a natural, calm, charitable and professional manner.

Thus the vow is anything but a "gag" rule. It forbids only a subject from going around complaining to other subjects - who themselves are incapable of doing anything to redress the situation!

Legionary obedience was not and is not understood as "blind obedience". It has been and is considered "motivated obedience" and includes frequent dialogue and dependence running up and down the chain of command.

But those on-line critics omit all mention of these details, thus creating straw-man arguments to the detriment of unwary lurkers and their own integrity.

Besides omitting any mention of the true nature of Legionary obedience, these critics also beg the question about the vows' purpose and rational by supposing it has only to do with power and control rather than with prudence, charity, and morale.

Such critics basically are saying "I don't like it and I don't understand it, so it has no meaning or justification".

It never seems to enter their heads that morale and true reform in any organized and hierarchical society can not improve or occur if those without authority to make any changes begin to bicker and complain to their companions about those who do have authority to make such changes!

When ever we had a problem with our superior in the Legion, we were totally free to see him about it. If he didn't change and we felt he should, we were totally free to go to HIS superior and so on up the chain of command... We were also free to go to the local Nuncio, and send sealed correspondance to the General Director, to the Cardinal Prefect of Religious, and to the Holy Father.

This way of handling things helps nullify the age-old temptation of separating a community into an "Us" versus "them" situation. It also keeps people with personalities that tend to detraction from occasions of sin.

Naturally, those who want to undermine a superior's moral authority or lower the esteem others have for him, can only achieve such results by complaining to their companions or other subjects in the form of whispered gossip and innuendo... denigrating, second- guessing, complaining, etc. and for them, such a vow would truly be a cross.

Oh well. Too bad. In any case, the vow is legitimate and not unreasonable. It is certainly no reason for calls for "reform".

What does need reform are certain peoples' memory - either they forgot the reason for these vows or they never really thought it all through.

Complaints that go up the chain of command (as opposed to horizontally or down it) stand a chance of getting positive results. The only result from horizontal or decending complaining is to impair morale by creating a negative atmosphere.

So you see, "Withheld" the whole issue with the private vows is so much easier to explain and defend than you on-line critics try to make it.

This is another reason why, whenever I have the chance to meet with people in person, all these "mountains" of "issues" soon are revealed to be caused by relatively minor misunderstandings.

:-) Any other question?



-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 14, 2003.


Joe,

Thanks for the reply with some thoughts on the other side of the 4th vow argument. I hope I didn’t beg the question (assume the very thing I was setting out to prove). I actually picked that issue as an example, rather than the point of my argument. I was careful not to trash the vow itself but emphasize the ‘danger’ with it. I’m happy to address this issue further if you like.

I'm late for a meeting, but will get back to this asap.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.


Dear Withheld,

No problem at all. I appreciate that you did not mean to "trash the 4th vow". My response also shows that the only "danger" with it comes when it is not followed, and the virtue it is meant to safeguard is not exercised: fraternal charity.

Your statement:

"The reform -I claim- that is needed allows each member to think critically (as advocated by St. Thomas A.), to recognize that the Legion has weaknesses and motivates those within not to repeat them, to compare the practices that don’t match well with the spirit of cannon law and change them for the better, etc. None of these reforms compromise desirable Legion traits, orthodoxy, healthy formation, prayer, and devotions are all strengthened under new honesty, integrity and true freedom."

has some "begging the question" problems...

You imply that reform is needed to allow Legionaries to "think critically"... as though they are incapable of critical thinking! As though the Legion has not been in a continual process of internal improvement (*thus all the gen. chapters)!

You also imply that the Legion does things against canon law...either in spirit or de jure... again, begging the question.

I know you probably have strong feelings about this and I hope I'm not sounding antagonistic. But I do feel that seeing things in their proper (i.e. complete) light clears up alot of "issues" that people have.

Peace

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.


Dear Posters: i have personal knowledge that Paul Lennon, whose name has been taken in vain on this page, is only 5' 3" and was quite ugly before his plastic surgery.

as his attorney I would also like to state that the fact of him being small and ugly has little to do with his person, his legionary experience, his critiques thereof and his present life. References to his physique were made by my client in passing and do not form part of his substantive objections to the legion of Christ, which are legion. The poster stated that Mr Small felt discriminated against by the Legion because of his lack of stature and physical beauty. What Mr Small did in fact say was that, as such, he was not one of Father Maciel's 'favorites'. This fact did not 'phase' him or have any significant impact on the difficulties he had with the Legion. Therefore this molehill converted into mountain can now be laid to rest, and should be considered a 'red herring' in any substantive discussion. And the 'red herring'used to butress the poster's point should be considered a blatantly false herring; a catfish, perhaps, or a rockfish.

-- Paul Really Small (irishmexican43@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.


A REAL RED HERRING: talking about 'clutching at straws'... there can be no doubt that Father Peter Cronin's written objections to the Legion as a cult- like organization are authentic. As already stated, here and on Regainnetwork.org, they were contributed to the Pat Kenny Show several years ago and were sent to friends in email and hard copy form. They are part of several writings Father Cronin produced as founder and editor of Network, a newsletter he began in 1992 to outreach disenfranchised exlegionaries.

-- Paul Really Small (irishmexican43@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

Paul, good to hear from you.

Your mention of height and appearance implied that Fr Maciel chose "favorites" based on them - making him appear petty or worse. But that flies in the face of historical reality as there are plenty of superiors who are neither tall nor GQ handsome!

Yes, it was an "aside" and not a key point of yours...but it follows the same pattern of virtually all "issues": affirming something as true and settled that hasn't been proven and indeed if true at all is only part of the picture.

Secondly, the Cronin manifesto has problems of its own regardless of its origin - as I have repeatedly mentioned above. If Fr Peter really wrote those words they still have major internal inconsistencies... Begging the whole "cult" and "brainwashing" questions are just part of its problem. Other gaping holes remain. I don't think my critique of this "manifesto" is a red-herring.

Finally it is my contention that most of the "issues" I have seen online regarding our seminary have more to do with partial and incomplete understandings of what was going on than with anything that actually happened. Thus mole hills become mountains.

Again, I don't deny that some people have strong feelings. But strong feelings that lead to begging the question will naturally set people up for falling into logical cul de sacs...

This is why, IMHO, I think discussing issues in person and in a nice fraternal setting is helpful. Most in-person dialogue is - as I think you will agree - much more circumspect and calm than on-line banter.

I hope all is well with you. (We promised to pray for one another remember? Your intention is typically reserved for the 4th decade of the rosary). :-)

Pax Christi, frater

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.


Joe,

Good to hear from Paul and his ‘attorney.’ I pray that REGAIN aids in healing, and strengthens many exlcs.

It seems clear that you don’t intend for your arguments on the Cronin letter to be red herrings, but in many cases they seem to have that effect. The authenticity question is a case in point.

The oft-repeated claim of begging the question is itself becoming a red herring. While the term ‘begging the question’ has at least two meanings, I’m assuming the classic case (Latin: petitio principii) in which a person assumes the truth of his claim as part of his argument, thereby rendering the argument ‘circular.’

For example I claimed a need for reform and cited the danger in the 4th vow. You stated what you believe to be its intended purpose, and claimed I was begging the question. Problem is, I never ruled out a useful purpose and you never claimed there wasn’t a danger.

Hey, how did I acquire this red herring?

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.


Withheld,

A red herring is a false argument - normally intended to shift the subject or distract from the primary point, right?

In your two paragraphs posted above on March 3rd you assert that: "it is important to recognize that the Legion's problems are grave"

...without either describing them, proving the Legion has them, or why anyone should "recognize" them as grave!

You then say: "Fr. Cronin's letter is a good synopsis, a broad picture of the cause of the Legion's present troubles."

I don't doubt that the "letter" tries to be a synopsis but as I have explained above it is not a picture (broad or narrow) of anything to do with the Legion of Christ.

People affirm all sorts of things about the Legion (and Legionaries), without defining their terms, without even describing the subject matter in its entirety...then they react to this partial or erroneous picture.... if not in "red herring" form then in "straw-man" form.

(This is begining to sound like the Wizard of Oz :-) )

Thus you claim there is a "danger" to the 4th vow...while studiously ignoring both the terms of said vow and its place in the formation of Legionary religious.

The only danger that exists is that free human beings may choose not to follow either it or the vow of obedience as explained and lived by faithful Legionaries!

How could that vow possibly be dangerous to anyone but a gossip- monger who is irresponsibly trying to destroy morale, tear down the principle of legitimate authority, or plot and scheme to get promoted to a position by discrediting some hapless superior?

The 4th vow does NOT forbid anyone from going to those who can effect positive change of a given situation. The LC vow of obedience in fact DOES positively charge every member to take responsibility for the charism and communicate their ideas, needs, and suggestions up the chain of command! (Thus there is no need to complain to one's classmates about an immediate superior - and there are literally a half dozen specific people with authority one can go to for advice, help, and redress!)

Taken together these 2 vows preclude, make highly unlikely, or lessen the damage of any abuse of authority.

As for your last affirmations about perfection...

"How many people think the Legion is flawless as she is today?"

That's a straw-man argument since no one - from Fr Maciel to the lowest novice claims or is taught that the Legion is composed of flawless human beings or is perfectly "founded" and beyond improvement!

No one in the Catholic Church and especially in the Legion believes or is taught that they are perfect! The Gospel is perfect - and the charism and rule of the LC have been approved by the Church as a means of holiness... whether or not individual Legionaries use them faithfully and thus become holy is an entirely different question- and one that every Legionary asked himself on a daily basis!

Every time we go to Mass we admit to our sins, and ask for pardon. Legionaries are taught (through examinations of conscience, etc.) to not let down their guard or think they are supermen. ("Acts of piety", "means of perseverance" anyone?)

And how many times were we reminded that "we're in a period of foundation" or that we were "co-founders"?! Hundreds of times!

Golly gee, what do you think that means?! It means things are not totally perfect, totally developed and settled, totally set in stone and functioning ideally... it means that everyone is trying to improve things - on all levels!

And that was our daily experience in the seminary - see how the very physical facility in Cheshire has been renovated and improved over the years, making things more and more perfect! And see how every class of brothers had a direct role in that very improvement!

Yet these critics paint a picture of seminarians who are mute drones, zombies who just go along, without initiative, without personality, just bumps on a log floating downstream... totally un-like the reality we lived folks!

Honestly, how any "former Legionary" could think we thought or they think they're perfect is beyond me! Yet it happens. Remember how many novices were equally "on the moon" - not seeing the forest for the trees?

Rather than say "I have an issue with Fr X or Br Y whom I feel didn't do "enough" for me..." we have people claiming that Fr X and Br Y are bad (yet to be proven) because the sytem itself is bad (also never proven or described with any accuracy).

So Withheld, my continued advice to you and our other friends is: if you are going to criticize something at least be decent enough to accurately describe it! The Cronin manifesto does not accurately describe the Legion of Christ.

Religious congregations of pontifical rite are not cults, and formation - based on the Evangelical counsels is not the same thing as "brainwashing" - nor is the 4th vow about power or control but about morale, professionalism, and effective obedience.

Similarity is not identity... distinctions and definitions are two key ingredients in all matters of contention... and finally, clarity is part of charity.

Not taking this into account, or the purpose (holiness) of said vows, or omitting key elements inherent in them (such as not complaining to one's fellow subjects who otherwise have no say in the matter), results in you not actually talking about the Legion of Christ and its practices at all, but talking about a figment of someone's imagination - thus a straw-man not a real man.

Now then, anyone want to buy me lunch or a beer? ;-)

Dominus vobiscum fratres.

You are suggesting the opposite: that the very spirit and letter itself is wrong and in need of change.



-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.


Joe,

A red herring is not a false argument. It is statement or claim made at the beginning of a debate usually employed by the disadvantaged debater designed to distract from the point at hand, even before a discussion has begun.

You hit the nail on the head when you said, “... distinctions and definitions are two key ingredients in all matters of contention...” Evidence is one thing, creating straw-men, red herrings and begging the question are distinct. It’s clear from my posts that I don’t give a lot of supporting evidence, and for good reason. I enjoy this debate, but it would be unfair to allot more than 5 minutes of my day to it.

How many days did we spend on the authenticity of Fr. Peter’s letter? I couldn’t prove its authenticity. I didn’t receive a copy or listen to the radio show in October 1996. That was an easy one and I was helpless without Paul?

We will forever go round and round. You’ll staunchly defend the Legion and I’ll cite examples of concern that I’ve experienced personally or seen/heard elsewhere and you’ll challenge each one. Actually, I won’t cite personal examples because I can’t reveal my identity.

I’m up for suggestions but I’m just not sure this can be productive.

-- Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.


No one can challenge someone's personal experience. What is challangeable is someone's "therefore" conclusion taken from a private experience and turned into a sweeping generalization and judgement on an entire congregation.

I do not dispute that many people have strongly negative feelings towards either individual legionaries or towards what they regard are unjust rules or events.

I do not dispute the possibility that individual Legionaries (including myself during the years I was one)could make mistakes - either omissions or commissions which may have hurt the feelings of other people or given rise to scandal. As Catholics we all admit to being sinners in need of conversion and forgiveness.

I do dispute their contention that their subjective feelings mean "therefore" that individual Legionaries are evil monsters and that the congregation is a cult which brainwashes members into being active accomplices of evil just because someone claims them to be so.

I'm willing to believe that as human beings Legionaries - as we were - could sin. I am not willing to believe and spread to the four winds unsubstantiated claims that the founder and great swaths of members are systematically, intentionally, and maliciously sinning against the Pope, the magisterium, the faith, and the morals of innocents (which they would be if your charges and the Cronin letter is correct).

I follow the axiom: innocent until proven guilty.

I propose fraternal get togethers when possible to help fellow former members get a "reality check" - not pity parties where everyone claims a priori victimhood status or begs the question as to someone else's moral culpability, or begs the question as to some LC policy's licitness. Those arrangements preclude any possible therapy because they preclude the possibility of seeing things objectively and in their entirety.

Only the truth will set you free - not spin, not self-serving platitudes, and not self-delusion or scapegoating.

This being said, you have my email. If you want to take this to the private forum and arrange a meeting go ahead.

The same goes for all the rest of you lurking readers. God bless,

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.


I said it once here and I’ll say it again.

I think that the Devil is being lazy in certain areas. Although I know nothing at all about the Legionaries, when I first read the charges against them I was sure to be reading charges leveled repeatedly against Opus Dei. It seems that the Enemy of the Church wrote a booklet on “How to denigrate new orthodox movements/orders/prelatures in the Church”. Remarkable similitude, lack of imagination and originality. Incredible! The very same charges!

The only difference being the sexual charges against Fr. Maciel. I guess that, since sexual scandals were not so common some time ago, either nobody had the brilliant idea of charging St. Josemaria Escriva with it or, having had the idea, did not push it because it would be hardly credible at the time. Now that sexual scandals are fashionable, it’s no wonder it came up.

And I am still trying to understand how holy people committed to sanctity can become cruel monsters by the fact of taking positions of responsibility in an institution. It simply does not make any sense to me.

God Bless

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.


Don't be surprised at the similarities between accusations levelled against the Work and the Legion. They have many similarities.

Good news, Opus Dei appears to be modifying how it operates! In the U.S. they are taking a more charitable approach to those who leave. Those at the highest levels show genuine concern for the welfare of the departing member and those down lower are permitted to visit with him/her. I've seen it first hand and the charity is wonderfully Christlike.

Some Opus Dei priests will impicily acknowledge the danger in recuiting methods previously used. They still recruit and observe strict discipline, but have eased away from enforcing norms via mind control-type methods. I can speak about the Work in the U.S. only. Some may have different experiences.

Hopefully the Legion will learn from the Work in this regard.

Sorry (Joe) for the lack of supporting details.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.


Golly, really? Mind-control techniques! Someone better call the CIA! They've been trying to figure out how to do that for years.

Seriously though, I have many Opus friends...and to date, I've seen no zombie-like or yes-men like attitudes. The key is again, education, formation, distiction, definitions, clarity and charity.

The RC and LC would be the first to say that extreme forms of recruitment are not only counter productive, they are also explicitly warned against. But you wouldn't know this from reading certain folks online.

It's just too easy to trash 3rd parties whom the vast majority of Catholics have no direct experience of.

As for former members being treated well... its a two way street. If you leave and move around alot, guess what? The LC will not have your address and therefore will never mail you a post card or letter! Lots of guys are not "cut off"... they're just lost. Like anything else in life, "ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be openned to you..."

Peace.

Withheld, are we ever gonna get together sometime? ciao fratello

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.


Sorry to butt in like this but I thought I would just offer my experience.

I left the Legionnaries in Nov. 2000. I was in the Legion ever since 9th grade in High School (1989-1990). Fr. Cutanda & Fr. Patrick Walsh were both at sometime in my minor seminary years my superiors.

Never did I experience nor did I in the least suspect sexual abuse (or any abuse) from either of these priests or anyone else. I remember I thought Fr. Cutanda was a bit strit & Fr. Patrick a very fatherly figure in my high school years. I never knew any of teh other apostolics to have had negative expereices either which were sexual in nature. Such a thought (or action) was unthinkable and non present while I was there.

I discerned with my spiritual director that I did not have a LC vocation. In fact my superiors exact words were," You fit in, you are able to live the lifestyle & community apparently, but your heart is not here." I left on good terms with the LC because I took teh time and effort to really figure out if I had a priestly LC vocation. No, it wasn't easy but I have a great peace and confidence that I did give God my all in vocational discenment. I also received an excellent formation, education, not to mention the cultural experience it offered, travel, free food, clothes and drinks!

When I left the LCs gave me new clothes, $500, a plane ticket from Rome to Albuquerque, and a job at their school in Dallas to help me to get on my feet outside of the Legion. I have since been on very good terms with tehm, though by my own choice I have choosen not to be active in their apostolates.

The only time I suspected that someone made a "sexual advance" on me was when I was in the novitiate and another novice opened up the shower curtain accidentally onme, much to his embarassment!

god Bless,

Joe Biltz

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), March 20, 2003.


Withheld, I am still wondering what those mind-control techniques could be.

I was in Opus Dei as a Numerary and I left it a log time ago. I cannot figure out what you are talking about.

And I am still in contact with Opus Dei, and in very friendly terms.

That’s why it is difficult for me to believe those charges against the LC.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.


Joe Blitz,

I'm really happy to hear your story. When did you leave? I've seen a few very positive stories from the folks in Rome, can you identify a difference in the mentality of the LC there as compared to the states, if any?

Of course there's also Fr. Philip Larrey and the Mexicans that left the seminary in Rome in the 90's...ugh.

I'd love to read other positive first hand accounts if you can encourage others to stop by.

Adios,

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 26, 2003.


Joe Stong,

An exlc’s treatment by the Legion isn’t whether you move around a lot after you leave, so much as experience in the Legion and conditions surrounding departure. Yours couldn’t have been too bad.

I suspect that the exlc’s temperament plays here as well. I’m amazed at the number of exlc’s who refuse to speak about their experience at all. They won’t say anything good or bad. They simply won’t discuss their experience in the Legion (I’m sure they have a confidant somewhere). I’ve witnessed this first hand in about half a dozen exlc’s. What do they have in common? They are all diocesan priests. This refusal to even address the merits of the Legion is troubling. What circumstances caused this silence?

Fr. Cronin kept silent for something like 10 years before he spoke publicly on his Legion experience. But I know how you feel about his so-called manifesto and I’m not out to push your buttons.

I wouldn’t mind meeting with and talking to you, but my anonymity must remain intact for the time being. You’ll be surprised to find out who I am.

Pax

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.


Hi "Withheld".

Drop me a private email anytime and we can set up a lunch, a phone call or something anonymous like going paint-balling together (paintballers all wear protective face masks!)...

You misunderstood my point about post-LC treatment... some guys complain that after they leave they are "cut off" from the Legion because they are not contacted regularly.

In my experience, most guys who return home soon move off to college or a new town following a job, a girl, or both. Unless they're donors of the Legion or take the initiative to forward their new address or contact info to the Legion, there is little their former superiors can do to contact them. Thus, being "cut off" isn't so much an intentional (read: malicious) thing as much as simply a lack of having someone's address.

Of course there is room for improvements here. If you have any suggestions let's hear them.

Add to this the fact that most superiors or companions are busy - at least as busy as parish priests - and such a schedule helps train them for real life... how many of us lay men send cards to all our known friends on a regular basis?

Also about guys not wanting to talk about their time in the Legion... Most guys I know who are married have other things on their minds: the future, their wives, their children, their careers... they don't have the time or attitude to dwell on the past.

And if they had a run in with someone they didn't like - what's the point of sharing it? The problem is still between them and that person - and won't be helped by airing it to the world. Mature men don't go around complaining to people who can't do anything about their problems.

But if you ask nicely - and in a non-confrontational manner (not picking a fight) most will start talking about "old times". Try asking them how their relationship with Jesus Christ is - and you'll be amazed how mature, profound, and even sublime these guys are. They just don't wear this on their sleeves.

As for diocesan priests... I've met a couple. They too are focused on their present and future. I don't find that odd or strange. As Legionaries they learned to be focused on Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls - what helps this quest, they nurture. What distracts from it, they reject.

It's like meeting Americans abroad: we don't sit around talking about American history, the political theory behind constitutional republics, and why freedom of association and religion precludes a socialist monopoly along the European model... No! We talk about our immediate present, our likes, peanut butter (unavailable in most of Europe) and other light fare...

Former Legionaries are not going to bend your ear talking about the finer points of a the Legionary understanding of poverty (includes our use of time and effective means of evangelization) or obedience (as being motivated and including open and constant dialogue with superiors rather than "blindly" following them)...

Instead, we'll talk about that time at Mt.Washington, or the canoe trip (and subsequent "battle") on the Wisconsin river during vacations...the good times we had playing soccer at the Cheshire Cup, or the funny stories from our novitiate or candidacy days...

I was in enough communities (big and small) in enough countries (in the Americans and Europe), and passed through enough stages of formation (ECYD - licenciate in Rome)to see, learn, and understand a lot about the Legion and her formation and above all, the "why" for alot. It's a blessing. - Not that I was perfect or anywhere close to being "outstanding"... but I witnessed and lived miracles by the grace of God.

So by all means, Withheld, let's do get together sometime. There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

"Christ walks hidden through His world, an orphan from hearts and homes...let us take Him into ours, and thus restore the Kingdom to the Throne." (excerpt of Poem #12, Salamanca, 1990 (c) Joseph Stong)

Peace of Christ,

Joseph

PS. "Withheld" does your name start with an "A" ? ;-)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 27, 2003.


Witheld: i hope you are able to see through J.S. "Apologia por Vita Legionis". He is better than even the official spokesperson. My theory is that after JS swallowed the party line, the Superiors 'cultivated' him by sending him on 'special missions' so he could be their apologist. Then, when he was ready, they told him 'he didn't have a Legionary vocation' and released him to the world where he could continue their work. There is a Stong on the Legion payroll somewhere. So he is a 'convinced' mercenary. What is disturbing is that the people who created the 'conspiracy myth' to undermine Father Maciel's accusers re pedophilia are also exlegionaries who are on the Legion's payroll. The Legion can pay them to be silent or to speak.

-- Frank Lee Jodido (fljodido@yahoo.com), March 28, 2003.

Frank, if you can "see through" me it's shouldn't be so difficult for you to defeat my arguments.

You guys are wonderful! The moment I leave you speechless, you attack my motives or honor. Rather than deal with reality and facts, you dredge up "theories" to "explain away" the obvious: a guy who knows more than you, who has more direct experience than you, and above all who understands more than ANY of you... has got the upper hand and you don't LIKE IT.

Well too bad. If I win the argument you should have the honor to admit defeat, learn something and turn over a new leaf - and not go off on tangents grasping at more straws with which to create more "straw men"!

Not being able to come up with any charge, accusation, or even argument that can withstand the light of day, you shoot the messenger.

Typical.

Well, I was a LC - were you? And while I did move around a bit, it wasn't extraordinary - maybe just a little bit more than others. And most of my moves were not within 3 years of my departure....so all your little pet theories and "there's gotta be a sinister spin to this.." is held up to the light of day, to reality, and shown to be stupid and silly.

It's simple really: some people (like you) can't accept anything except conspiracy theories. So some one like me really rocks the boat.

As for being paid...I wish! ;-) The only Stong on the payroll is a relation of mine who got his job long before I left. He's a good guy.

So... since none of you have emailed me privately am I to suppose none of you are willing or capable of handling the truth?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.


Easy on old Joe Stong there Frank. I don't agree with much of what he says, but he's never come out and lied, at least not that I can see. Frustration can lead to the ad hominem thing, but that always fails under charity.

I must agree with you though. Joe has a gift for defending the Legion in ways I've never even heard, even from the Legion spin doctors. He smokes Frs. Kearns and Bannon - if you ask me. He never clouds the issues with the "It's God's will.", and "If only you had Faith!" arguments I've heard elsewhere.

He's forever introducing a element of doubt into all the arguments against Legion practices. He has convinced me that the theory, constitutions, ideal are intact. Most others have shown me that the practice is materially different than the model. Seems to me this is the heart of the matter.

I'm still working it out, but I appreciate the perspective from the other side, something you won't generally get in the Legion.

Peace,

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.


When I was young I followed my older brothers into Boy Scouts. (Actually, my Grandfather was a Scout back in 1910). Being an idealistic young man, I worked my way through virtually every leadership position in various troops - from "quarter master" to patrol leader to senior patrol leader in 3 different troops (in two states). I was also picked ("tapped out") for the elite OA corps that helps run BSA camps etc.

I really believed in the Scout Law and Oath - and still do. But I saw my share of scouts who cheated, gamed the system, and bullied others. I also saw a few scoutmasters who were less than ideal...

So I saw the ideal and the real...and learned to distinguish early on that sometimes people don't live up to what they profess to believe... and that their defections DO NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE IDEAL IS WRONG OR IMPOSSIBLE.

Also, my family is good friends with priests such as Fr Paul Marx OSB and others intimately involved in the Pro-Life movement... but growing up I also saw priests of the more, shall we say, "non- commital" variety who almost seemed embarrased by the Faith.

So again, the ideal and the real... not everyone lives up to the ideal - yet their defects don't make the ideal any less true or any less livable! Monasticism is still a worthy and noble vocation even though Collegeville left much to be desired...

So even before meeting Legionaries, I knew that there were Catholics, "and then, there were Catholics..." - not everyone gives edifying example - therefore, all the MORE reason for me to try harder so as to not let Christ's sacrifice go in vain.

In other words - far from not being aware of defects, or being naive, I am aware of them and seek to improve situations. Other people naively suppose that everything is black, sinister, corrupt, and imperfect because of one, two, or three bad examples - or examples of people they just don't like on the human level.

How anyone could have read the Old Testament and the New (especially Acts) and supposed that imperfection somehow nullifies God's special graces and will is beyond me...but that's another issue.

By God's grace, I've lived in enough situations and observed enough to not be fooled by appearances - to not second guess the intentions of others so quickly, or to give in to hasty judgements of others' motives.

Sometimes - I think perhaps even most of the time - problems we have with others are caused by their oversight and omission, rather than any forethought and malice.

Very few people go out of their way to harm others. Or as our good friend Fr Van Straaten (RIP) used to say "People are always better than you think they are."

Yet on some on-line forums people are so personally consumed with negative passions, feelings, and impressions "against" the LC that they make mistakes of judgement. They make factual errors, then feed off these into fallicious arguments and innuendo... eventually positioning themselves in psychological boxes where the LC "has to be wrong" because otherwise they'd have to re-think too much and eat a generous portion of humble pie.

After telling complete strangers that so-and-so is evil, it's hard to go back and say "um, by the way, he's not guilty...I just was having a bad day and..."

The above affirmation of mine is my honest opinion of them; it doesn't make them evil, just mistaken. I don't regard "anti-LC" former Legionaries as malicious either. Mistaken, yes, and ignorant of some pretty elemental stuff, absolutely, but whether or not they're guilty of anything is not mine to judge.

But mistakes and ignorance can be remedied. And people with a "bad feeling" for someone can learn to distinguish between differences of taste, differences of opinion, and differences of fact.

IMHO, peace and the further building up of the Church - the "universal sacrament of salvation" in Jesus Christ, demands all of us to be more circumspect, more prudent, and much more patient with respect to judging the motives and intentions of our fellow Catholics who may differ from us in some ways.

Not every scout is an eagle or in OA. That's fine. Not every scout follows the Oath and Law - but the Oath and Law are still noble.... Not every priest is a monk. Monks are fine. So are missionaries, so are diocesan...

Not every lay movement or new "personal prelature" is alike or does things the same way or serves the same people... and not every individual member is perfect - but the ideal, the "charism" is still worthy of receiving as "gift" and making real through our humble attempt to "imitate Christ."

Peace to all.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.


In the spirit of full disclosure:

Boy Scout Motto, slogan, Oath, and Law.

Motto: Be Prepared A Scout should be prepared for anything that may possibly occur.

Slogan: Do a good turn daily Help someone or do a good deed everyday. Do so without expecting pay or reward

Scout Oath: On my Honor, I will do my best to To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law: A Scout is... Trustworthy Loyal Helpful Friendly Courteous Kind Obediant Cheerful Thrifty Brave Clean Reverent

Now, how many of the current 2.5 million Boy Scouts (and 30 million former Scouts) live up to the above ideals? If a sizable percentage leave much to be desired, does their imperfection make these ideals any less noble?

If individual scouts don't understand or live out elemental parts of the Oath and Law, does that mean the Oath and Law are sinister and bad, or just this individual's understanding to be imperfect?

You can see the direction I'm taking this example right?

peace.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.


Joe: you are a masterful apologist for the Legion. You should be on their payroll...

I still don't understand what you meant, trying to explain your travels with the Legion, whereby you KNOW MUCH MORE than anyone else:

'Well, I was a LC - were you? And while I did move around a bit, it wasn't extraordinary - maybe just a little bit more than others. And most of my moves were not within 3 years of my departure....'

Could you explain that last sentence?

Bowing to your superior knowledge, Frank

-- Frank Lee Jodido (fljodido@yahoo.com), March 31, 2003.


Excuse me? Your conspiracy theory helds that I was handled special prior to being booted... yet I wasn't booted and I wasn't given a special tour! I left after long deliberation and at a normal and natural moment in one's formation.

Secondly, about knowing more... well, thus far when dealing other ex- LCs at least who apparently have forgotten or never learned elemental points and reasons for basic religious practices and pedagogy I seem to know more. Being a philosopher I know better than to think I've got a corner on any market (like say, Thales), but I do try to pay attention and think things through. So if the shoe fits... :-)

As for experience - well some guys stayed in the same apostolate or center for years. I had the grace to experience quite a few apostolates as well as get second hand accounts of more from the people directly involved. Add to this my post-LC experiences and I think IMHO that I've had a pretty well balanced look at the whole kit and kaboodle.

Peace

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 01, 2003.


Now then, Frank, who are you and what's your experience in the LC?

I ask because another typical feature of pro vs anti-LCs is that those in support end up telling alot about themselves ('cause we've nothing to hide or feel ashamed of apparently) while those anti are always running around with cloak and dagger excuses why they can't reveal even the years they were in!

But they sure don't feel inhibited from making sweeping charges against the LC in general or some LCs in particular as though they're "in the know".

Just my observation.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 01, 2003.


Joe,

Have you seen the arrow?

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.


Yes, and long before the Internet I also learned about WWW!

So tell me...have you been to Philmont?

Peace brother!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.


Joe,

Never went to Philmont, seemed like a hot and dry way to spend my summer vacation, but I thought it would be cool to pan for silver, which was one of the options. Our troop created our own high adventure trips, and I paid for most of them through fund raising (an admirable Legionary quality).

Scored many merit badges but my two favorites were just patches. I got the mile swim and the Polar Bear (sleep outdoors overnight with temperature confirmed below zero Fahrenheit).

Raced through to Life and never finished my Eagle project, partly because I was intimidated by the paperwork. If only I'd known how much paperwork I'd face in the years to come.

OA was especially fun since I fell in with the ceremonies team almost immediately. They made me a brotherhood member quickly so that I could help with brotherhood ceremonies. Haven't dressed like an Indian since.

The ideals are good, but the council I was in seemed to center on self improvement more than the Christian focus that I expected from Scouting.

Brings back a lot of memories.

Wimachtendienk, Wingolautsik, Witahemaway, Withheld

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.


Thanks for the reflections down memory lane...

I hear you. Having been in different troops in different councils I saw quite a bit of variation - some were more, some less organized.

My first troop went to the boundary waters in MN and then to Philmont. The second troop I was in did winter camping (those sleds were awesome).

WWW. Ah those days... remember the "ordeal"? It was like a spiritual retreat, although it was light on spirituality. Fortunately I had been on other retreats before with ECYD so had some framework to go on for comparison. The other kids (Protestants mainly) had never, ever, been in silence much less gone through the other stuff. I think it had a good impact on them.

Following a family tradition, I stuck it out till I made Eagle. One regret: I never got an "Eagle palm" - I met one guy who had 3 of them! (Talk about being "over qualified"! That guy knew everything, did everything, saw everything. I think he was a Vigil OA.)

BSA was a good boy's "formation program" - I have alot of fond memories from those days. Thanks again for the reminder.

Joe

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 02, 2003.


Joe: i am a bit ashamed of myself and revealing more details about myself. i was one of several mexican kids sexually abused by a Legionary Brother at the Apostolic School in the US some years ago. i and others are still trying to do something about the abuse and are in contact with Church authorities in the diocese of Manchester NH. They have sworn us to secrecy regarding many details of our personal lives. This was my first adventure out after a long silence, Sorry I can't reveal more for now, Frank

-- Frank Lee Jodido (fljodido@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.

I'm sorry to hear that Frank.

Two reflections for you. First of all, it is long standing Catholic doctrine that the value, worth and dignity of any Christian can not be affected or lessened by suffered injustice.

I say this because of the tendency of some to internalize or "make their own" outside forces or the malevolent deeds of others. Nothing and no one (except ourselves) can separate us from the love of Christ who died for our sins and to spare us from sin and spiritual death.

So I hope you don't make the mistake of looking at yourself as a person defined by the past or the actions of others. Your real identity and self worth is found in your baptism and the destiny God gave you as a beloved son...a man called to beatitud and eternal life.

The second reflection is that the Church swears people to secrecy while conducting investigations because memories of past events are very suceptible to re-imaging and re-interpretation.

None of this is anyone's fault - people are just hard-wired that way. Take for example the Washington Sniper case: someone thought the get- away vehicle was a "white box truck" because they saw a truck drive away from one of the shooting scenes.

Suddenly an entire metropolitan area - 2 million people - were on the look out for a "white box truck". Meanwhile the real killers were stopped 10 times by police, but since they were in a blue car, no one suspected them! Instead of recalling exactly what they saw, witnesses glanced first at nearby trucks - excluding any other possibilities.

Secrecy allows those involved in the investigation to reach potential witnesses and character witnesses without having the "scene" (their memories) affected by outside sources...not that your "witness" would be wrong, but that once published, things tend to get either twisted (down-played on the one hand or exaggerated on the other during 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tellings)...

Thus investigations have to be done privately and interviews done individually without everyone having dozens on competing "versions" of the events bouncing around their heads.

So if you were sworn to secrecy, I'd encourage you to keep your word.

In the meanwhile I will pray for you and those involved.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 03, 2003.


Frank,

I was always taught that, that behavior was impossible within the Legion. I was naive. I will keep you in my prayers for healing and happiness in whatever you chose to do in life.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), April 07, 2003.


Joe,

Any additions to the family born yet? The LC has an answers page for some of the objections typically raised. They worded the questions and answers, so objectivity is lacking. There are simply too many red herrings for you to have played a part in its construction.

Hope all's well.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 08, 2003.


Hi. No nothing yet. God willing next week. Pray!

I dunno about the site being full of red herrings. Sardines maybe, but not herrings. Had I been involved you'd have gotten tuna - or maybe grouper and swordfish. I don't pull punches when I can connect. And as you've seen here, the only time I'm not verbose is when I get poetical. Maybe I say TOO MUCH! So instead of being upset I think you should give them stars for a good first round.

Now, are we gonna meet anytime soon?

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), May 08, 2003.


Friday, February 28, 1997 The allegations printed in the Hartford Courant regarding Father Maciel, founder of the Roman Catholic order, the Legionaries of Christ, are false and baseless. This effort to smear a distinguished Catholic leader is reminiscent of the fake accusations made against the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. The Legionaries of Christ is an established order in the Catholic Church, respected for its fidelity to the Catholic faith and to Peter's successor, the Pope, and its apostolates and vocations are thriving-due, we believe, to our founder's fidelity to the mission Christ entrusted to him.

The group of elderly Mexicans and Spaniards, all ex-members of the order who have known each other since 1940s, allege events in Spain and Rome more than 35 years ago. The 48 Legionary priests who were their companions, and others outside the Legion, categorically reject their allegations of events that could not possibly have gone on unnoticed in such a small, close-knit community as the Legionaries were back then in Spain and Rome.

The Legionaries of Christ in the U.S. are dismayed at the way the Courant treated the voluminous evidence (including numerous documents) we provided, at their request, with great effort and within the limited time frame the Courant imposed. To any impartial observer, that evidence eliminated the credibility of the allegations. Given the horrendous nature of the charges, and the incalculable damage that would result from publishing such falsehoods, we hoped the Courant would not propagate such demonstrably false accusations; at a minimum, since the Courant had promised it-at least a fair and balanced article.

Unfortunately, the Courant chose to ignore these facts. Indeed, in many instances the Courant downplayed and even concealed from its readers critical evidence disproving the allegations. The following is the most blatant instance:

One of the Courant's major sources, Mr. Miguel Diaz, made a detailed, sworn retraction of his first statement to the Courant. The article mentions this but withholds from its readers the content of this retraction. Even worse, the Courant persists in describing, in excruciating and obsessive detail, the very accusations which Mr. Diaz himself had sworn were lies.

There are many other instances, but it is not our mission to engage in an antagonistic relationship with the media. To summarize: the allegations published by the Courant are demonstrably false. Father Maciel has never engaged in any of the improprieties alleged.

Christ promised those who left all things to follow him that they would receive a hundred-fold, and persecutions besides. Our time has come. This trial will help us to mature as an authentically Christian community within the Church, marked with the sign of the cross. The harm and the damage to those who will believe the falsehoods pains us, but we are sure, with the certainty of our faith in Christ, that we and all those who love the Legion's abundantly fruitful apostolates (with young people, families, the poor, the missions, education and evangelization) will only be confirmed in our desire to work for Christ and for our brothers and sisters.

-- SMILES (weloveyou@ourhouse.com), May 08, 2003.


The only hope the LCs critics have is that most people don't know Legionaries first hand or their works. They deal in innuendo, old memories, 3rd hand rumors, guesses as to the motives of others (how would they know that?) and outright fabrications.

Another constant is their anonymity and refusal to be personally responsible either for their own actions, words, or those of their supposed "sources". They'll endlessly grill YOU on who do you think you are, who you work for, why you're stupid, etc. but never show their own hands and reasons why any should listen to them.

Another constant is they never, ever, quote the LCs founder's fabulous writings, the texts of the Popes (from Pius XII to John Paul II praising both the Legion, its works, and its founder).

Their only chance is to keep people ignorant of reality and create a fantasy world of their own in which to harbor grudges, pet peeves, and silly amazingly ignorant rhetorical questions as though they're "tough questions".

If you want to see the real deal, check out the following site: Legionariesofchrist.org By their fruits you shall know them, and their fruits are magnificent.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 08, 2003.


Joe,

Things on my end would have to change before I’d reveal who I am. As noted above, people I love are in the Legion or Regnum Christi. Revealing my identity would cause more trouble than you can imagine. It’s a complicated story but I’ll say two things.

One way or another I’ve personally been involved with the LC/RC for more than 20 years. I am to this day! I love the Legion for its outward adherence to the teaching of the Church. I like the truth and I like it straight. More than any other order or diocese, the Legion presents the faith in a way that is appealing in its forthright-ness. At the same time I –from personal experience and after careful research- plainly know the Legion of Christ to be a destructive cult. Yes you read correctly “ I love the Legion . . . . the Legion is a cult”, right in the same paragraph. On my part there is no dichotomy, outwardly the Legion is orthodox, inwardly they have some very serious problems. I balance both to my satisfaction and share my concerns when appropriate. I have written here and elsewhere anonymously. This has been done of necessity not of preference. I would prefer to say who I am, list my experience explicitly, give specific examples of how the Legion fits – on SO many levels- the modern understanding of a “sheparding/discipleship type’ cult. That cannot happen. I apologize if I appear cowardly for not identifying myself. I have grown to enjoy the strong opposition I find here. It gives me food for thought and shines a broad light on some difficult subjects. I’ve given some thought to ending my participation here since anonymity is important to me. Comments are welcome.

Meanwhile I'll pray for the safe and speedy delivery of the twins.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 09, 2003.


Thanks for the prayers. Our little boy and girl arrived safely via C- section this Friday. They are beautiful and we're still getting to know each other. Momma is fine, thank God.

I'm neither anonymous nor scared, and I've known the Legion since 1984, and have seen it in action in 5 countries, directly and indirectly, with diocesan bishops and cardinals as well as local pastors... and they refute the charge that it's anything like a cult.

Similarity is not identity. A few loose similarities does not make X to be Y. In my experiences, people use pigeon holes (stereotypes) and loaded words like "cult" not as the result of experience, but in place of experience. You may think you know what you're talking about - both about cults and the Legion, but I respectfully encourage you to look not at your prejudice and feelings but at reality. One helpful tip is: apply your criteria of judgment which determines the LC to be a cult to other religious orders in the time of their founding...OFM, SJ, Salesians, Carthusians, military orders... and see if they come out differently. If not, then you're criteria are simply incorrect.

God bless.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003.


Congratulations on the birth of your son and daughter, Joe. God is good!

God bless you all

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 11, 2003.


Congratulations to you and the missus, Joe! You deserve this joy. The kids are blessed to have you as their father. The world is blessed to have two more pro-life, orthodox Catholics.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.

Joe,

I'm glad all are well. SO cool to see them brand new. I'll make my next rosary one of thanksgiving for the double sized Stong Family.

Peace.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003.


hey joe, congrats on the little ones. best wishes for you and for them, i'll say a prayer for them.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 12, 2003.

I read with interest the comments from "weloveyou" rehashing the hollow denials from the legion. Gerald Renner, the author of the report in question, has responded to the published statements from the legion and I am including them in entirety below. These facts speak for themselves. A logical conclusion is that, instead of just facing these allegations and ordering a true investigation, the Legion just slings mud at the accusers, hoping that it will detract from the allegations of horrific acts committed by their founder. That posture is not unlike that taken by the pro-legion supporters on this message board...

“An open letter from the Legionaries of Christ” on the organization’s Web site chooses to attack me for the stories I have written about them rather than examine what it is about the way they operate that alienates a significant number of people -- lay and clerical -- wherever they set up shop.

Following the example of the open letter, let me provide some background to put the stories in perspective.

I do not have now, nor have I ever had, “an anti-Legionary agenda.” I’ve been a journalist for 40 years and a specialist in religion reporting for 25 of them. In reporting on the Legion, or any other group, I’ve tried to follow the basic precepts of good journalism.

The first I knew of the Legion’s existence was in 1989 when I was on assignment in Rome for The Hartford (Conn.) Courant to cover a meeting of the 35 American archbishops with Pope John Paul II and Vatican officials.

The late Archbishop John F. Whealon of Hartford pointed out to me on a drive through the city the headquarters building of what he called “that controversial, conservative religious order that has a seminary in Cheshire.”

He explained that he was talking about the Legionaries of Christ, an order I had never heard of despite the fact its U.S. headquarters was in Connecticut. When I got home and checked the newspaper’s files I found the Courant had never written about the order or its seminary. As the newspaper’s fulltime religion writer, I thought this had been an oversight. I called the seminary to inquire whether I could visit and write a feature story about it.

That was the beginning of a runaround and of stonewalling by the Legion that I have long since become familiar with. I was told I had to seek the permission of the national director, Fr. Anthony Bannon, to write anything. But he was never available, despite calls I made to him over the course of several years. I even visited the seminary personally one day to the consternation of the seminarian- receptionist and was again told I had to talk to Fr. Bannon.

Finally, one day in 1993, Fr. Bannon himself happened to pick up the phone when I called. He told me in no uncertain terms the order did not want any publicity and that he did not trust the press. The only way he would provide information for an article, he said, if he had the right to review it after it was written, something that is journalistically unacceptable.

Research into the Catholic Periodical Index indicated that the Catholic press, likewise, hadn’t written about the Legion, except for a small, laudatory article about the success of the order’s seminary in Cheshire in the National Catholic Register, a private weekly newspaper then owned by multimillionaire businessman Patrick Frawley in Encino, Calif.

The Register, along with another weekly newspaper, then called Twin Circle, were moved to Hamden, Conn., when Frawley sold them to a Legion-connected group. That led to my first story about the order (“Catholic Legionaries expand base in state,” Courant, March 25, 1996, Page 1).

I had to write the story without Legion cooperation, although I was able to draw on a 1995 article in the Rome-based magazine, Inside the Vatican, about the founding of the Legionaries in Mexico in 1941.

Despite their being moved to Connecticut, the newspapers were incorporated as “Circle Media” in Albany, N.Y., where non-profit organizations did not have to disclose their principals. A Manhattan lawyer, Richard Ellenbogen, was named as the agent to receive correspondence.

The religious order “is not terribly interested in a whole lot of publicity in what they are doing,” Ellenbogen told me. “If the fathers are not forthcoming, I cannot tell you anything else.”

Yet, the order wonders aloud in its open letter why it’s called secretive.

As I was to soon find out, one story would inevitably lead to another. On Monday, March 26, 1996, the day after that first article, I got a call from a man who said he had been a seminarian in the Legion at Cheshire and in a satellite seminary the Legion ran near Mount Kisco, N.Y. He said he and another novice had fled from the seminary without permission when their religious superiors kept rebuffing their pleas to leave.

It was such a bizarre claim that I was skeptical. Was this a religious nut or what? But he sounded stable. We had a personal meeting, and he repeated his story convincingly. He put me in touch with three other former novices. Two of them said they had similar experiences of being psychologically coerced by overzealous religious superiors. The third, who had been in a Legion-operated seminary in Mexico said he had to beg for his passport and clothes to go home after being repeatedly rebuffed.

I turned to Fr. Bannon for response only to be told by his secretary that the Courant was only trying to stir up “scandal” and that he did not expect Fr. Bannon to respond. Only after the article appeared did Fr. Bannon send a statement denying the accusations. His statement was published in the Courant.

Now the Legion in its open letter disclaims “the harrowing tale of two men who supposedly had to escape in secret in order to leave.”

Indeed it was harrowing. The men told of how they broke into an attic to retrieve their suitcases. They hid them under their beds and watched for an opportunity to retrieve them unobserved. That came one day when the students were at athletics. They hid their bags in bushes and jogged into Mount Kisco. There one of them called a friend to pick them up.

One of them may well have remained “on good terms with the Legion after he left,” as the open letter says. He wanted to enter a diocesan seminary and needed to remain on good terms so he wouldn’t be blocked. The last I heard from him, he is much happier.

I’m baffled by the open letter’s claim that I talked to other ex- seminarians, “but as soon as they had something positive to say of the Legion the interview was ended.”

Poppycock.

I’ve talked to a number of former Legionary priests and seminarians. Most of them wish anonymity because they want to leave the past behind them and get on with their lives. I never ever ended an interview when someone said something positive about the Legion.

The most explosive story of all resulted from a tip from a priest who was not connected to the Legion. Published in the Courant on Feb. 23, 1997, after months of investigation, it began:

“After decades of silence, nine men have come forward to accuse the head of an international Roman Catholic order of sexually abusing them when they were boys and young men training to be priests.

“The men, in interviews in the United States and Mexico, said the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, molested them in Spain and Italy during the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s.”

The story was reported and written by me and a colleague, Jason Berry, author of the prize-winning 1992 book Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children.

Maciel’s accusers said they decided to go public because Pope John Paul II did not respond to letters from two priests sent through church channels in 1978 and again in 1989 seeking an investigation.

After the pope praised Maciel in 1994 as an “efficacious guide to youth,” they got in touch with Berry.

The former Legionaries making the accusations included three professors, a priest, a teacher, an engineer, a rancher and a lawyer. A professor who was a former priest and who died in 1995 left behind an accusatory deathbed statement.

Fr. Maciel, who is based in Rome, declined to be interviewed, but denied any wrongdoing through the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis. The Legion said Maciel was the victim of a plot by disgruntled former members of the order to depose him.

In a letter to the editor of the Courant published on March 2, 1997, Maciel denied the accusations as “defamations and falsities with no foundation whatsoever” and said he was praying for his accusers.

The Vatican has kept silent on the matter and, in fact, late in 1997, the pope appointed Fr. Maciel as one of his special delegates to the Synod for America. Several of the accusers subsequently filed formal complaints under canon law directly to the Holy See, but what is being done, if anything, I do not know.

The “open letter” accuses me of “willfully” ignoring “essential facts that discredit the accusers’ story.” We weighed most carefully all of the “essential facts” the law firm offered to counter the accusations.

The “open letter” repeats the mantra-like refrains of the defense that we took most seriously but in the course of our investigation thought did not ring true.

For example, the Legion claimed that Juan Manuel Fernandez Amenabar, the former Legion priest who made a deathbed statement accusing Fr. Maciel of having sexually abused him, could not have done so because he was incoherent and in a virtual coma.

They produced a supporting statement from a man they said was the physician who took care of Amenabar. But on double-checking we found that the alleged physician, Raul de Anda Gomez, was not a medical doctor at all but a psychotherapist. Furthermore, he did not even attend to Fernandez.

The real physician who took care of the dying man, Dr. Gabriela Quintero Calleja, told us that Fernandez “made his declaration in full use of his mental faculties.” She was a witness to his statement.

A psychologist who was among the hospital team that attended to Fernandez supported Dr. Quintero's evaluation.

It was such a major discrepancy it called into question everything the Legion was telling us. At the last moment, the day we went to press and so informed the law firm we were doing so, they sprang on us an affidavit from a former priest recanting the earlier accusations he had made against Fr. Maciel. He had originally made his claims in a tearful interview with Mr. Berry and in a detailed affidavit. The retraction read hollowly and without the intimate detail that gave so much credence to his original account.

The retraction appeared to have been coerced. We cited both it and his original affidavit.

The “open letter” goes on to say the accusers “had a decades-long history of trying to discredit Fr. Maciel.” Not true. The Legion from the beginning has tried to link his present-day accusers with those in the 1950s whose complaints against Fr. Maciel led to his temporary suspension under Pope Pius XII. The nature of the complaints against Fr. Maciel, whether they were of a sexual nature or mismanagement, remains in dispute.

But those making the accusations today were young boys in seminary in the late 1950s. They say they lied at the time to Vatican investigators to protect the man they called “Nuestro Padre.”

I thought I had done with the Legion when I retired from the Courant at the end of March, after having reported from Israel on the pope’s trip there. But it was a tar baby I couldn't get rid of.

At the end of August the National Catholic Reporter got several calls from parents in Atlanta who had children at The Donnellan School, the assets of which had been sold by the archdiocese to the Legion the year before. They were fearful of the changes being made and felt they were losing the close-knit collegiality between teachers and parents that made the school such a success.

I had got similar calls in recent years from parents elsewhere unhappy with the direction of their schools under Legion control or in the Legion’s sights -- from Dallas, Cincinnati, northern Kentucky, Milwaukee, San Diego.

More recently, I’ve heard from parents in Naples, Fla., and Calgary, Canada.

What is the Legion, on a supposedly evangelical mission to “re- Christianize the Catholic church,” doing to upset so many people in so many places?

The “open letter” says my story “argues that the Legionaries make a practice of taking over schools that others have worked to start.” Exactly so. Talk to the parents in Cincinnati who lost control when they suddenly found their board taken over by Regnum Christi and given to the order. Or talk to parents of an independent school in Calgary newly awakened to the possibility (fear?) of taking direction from the Legion. Or talk to San Diego parents who have fended off the Legion.

Now the Legion may certainly have inspired lay leaders of Regnum Christi to try to get a school going. But the other parents they involve are seldom aware they are part of a “front group” working for eventual control by the Legion and are shocked when it happens.

Despite hearing from many people involved in these school controversies, I never wrote about the schools until the editor of the National Catholic Reporter asked me to undertake the assignment in Atlanta.

The open letter makes much of the fact that these calls came even before the four staff members were fired dramatically on Sept. 13 as if that was the main concern. However, a substantial number of parents and teachers were upset at what was going on even before the firings.

Indeed, I had heard directly from some concerned parents the year before after Sr. Dawn Gear was forced out by the board in January 1999 and Fr. John Hopkins showed up as “chaplain” in March of that year, several months before the formal sale to the Legion-controlled corporation.

The claim in the Legion’s open letter that Sr. Gear’s leaving had nothing to do with the subsequent Legionary affiliation is disingenuous at best. It was already in the works. It was not as if the board forced her out and then said, “Oh, gee, what do we do now?”

In late August, parents were upset that school officers were trying to foist an amended contract on the principal of the lower school and that the guidance counselor was being pressured to inform Fr. Hopkins of the students who sought counseling and the nature of their problems. There were other concerns as well, not least of which was that, according to the parents, the Legionaries had not been direct and open about their intentions. Parents felt they were being kept in the dark about many things.

I heard about an emotional meeting of the board with parents on Sept. 14 and learned about a meeting the board called to thrash out the issues at 8 a.m., Saturday, Sept. 30.

I reckoned on that Sept. 30 meeting as a good place to hear from all sides and booked a flight to Atlanta to attend. But it was not to be. The board cancelled the meeting and said some board members could meet with small groups of parents who had concerns. They refused to allow the parents who wanted to hold their own meeting to use the school. The parents instead met at Peachtree Presbyterian Church. More than 100 parents attended. Most of them felt manipulated, betrayed and outraged.

My attempts to reach those who felt differently were to no avail. The board told parents it would be destructive to talk to the media.

My calls for comment to key people at the school went unanswered -- to Fr. Hopkins, the Legion priest; Msgr. Edward Dillon, the school president; and to Frank Hanna III, the wealthy Regnum Christi board member. I was told Hanna was a key player in the decision to make Donnellan a Legion school. Mr. Hanna’s wife told me he did not want to talk to me. She refused to give me his office number.

A spokeswoman for the archdiocese said Archbishop John Donoghue would have no comment but referred me to a letter the archbishop wrote to parents defending the decision to turn the school over to the Legion. I also had the minutes of the Sept. 14 meeting kept by the parents association.

The only one who agreed to speak to me was Matthew S. Coles, the lawyer for both the school and the archdiocese. Here it is again, I thought: déjà vu. Dealing with the Legion means going through a lawyer. But most of what Coles had to say was for background only, not for quotation.

By then the lawyer for the four aggrieved staff members, those who were fired, had filed the first of what were to be three lawsuits against the school and the board. I agreed to hold up writing the story until Coles had a chance to make a legal response. He promised to e-mail me a copy.

It described the firings as justifiable because, the legal document said, the former teachers and administrators had been undermining the authority of the new owners. But it failed to address many other issues the parents were concerned about, including what they said was the underhanded way the Legion went about gaining and exercising its authoritarian control.

We were near deadline, but I felt we should go to the Legionaries national headquarters for a last effort to get some kind of substantive response. I inquired of the seminarian who answered the phone whether anyone would be willing to talk to me, perhaps the national director, Fr. Anthony Bannon, or Fr. Owen Kearns, editor-in- chief and publisher of the National Catholic Register. We were on deadline, I told him, and needed a speedy response. He said he would pass on my request.

Another day went by, and I heard nothing. I called again. This time the person who answered said I should talk to their public relations director, Jay Dunlap, an addition to the Legion’s staff since last I reported on them. Dunlap was forthcoming with his responses in defense of the Legion, and I quoted him liberally in my story.

Dunlap also suggested I would be remiss if I did not include comments from some Donnellan parents who welcomed the Legionaries presence at the school. I said I would like to talk to some supportive parents.

He called me back minutes later and gave me the names and phone numbers of two parents who were happy with the Legion in Atlanta. One of them, Kitty Moots, refused to speak with me when I called her. “I don’t believe in a media circus,” she said. She said she would “need permission” to speak. This baffled me. Permission from whom? Someone in authority at the school, she answered. When I told her Jay Dunlap, the public relations man for the Legion in Orange, Conn., suggested I talk with her, she told me she did not know him. I reached the answering machine of the second person the Legion referred me to.

Meanwhile Fr. Kearns called the editor of the National Catholic Reporter directly, as did Ms. Moots -- apparently having received permission -- and the other supporter, Jay Morgan. Comments from all of them were incorporated into the story.

On one point, I stand corrected. The Legionary school in Edgerton, Wis., attended by boys from Latin America, is not an apostolic school, a place where boys considering the priesthood attend. The only such school in the country is in Centre Harbor, N.H.

National Catholic Reporter, posted December 11, 2000



-- Andrew Thomas (withheld@yahoo.com), May 23, 2003.


I met both reporters. I knew the kid who "ran away" from Mt. Kisco. I have personal experience with the LC school pedagogy and system. And what we have above is half-truths. Just because a group doesn't want a reporter from the notoriously anti-Catholic Hartford Courant to write a piece doesn't make them "secretive"! Just because some 22 year old man from California decides on Wednesday that he wants to go home NOW, and won't wait til Friday for his superiors to get a ticket at less than same day prices, that doesn't make him a "prisoner" and finally just because minorities on every school board have personaly issues and differences of opinion doesn't make the majority complicit in "hostile takeovers".

Over and over again so-called critics just re-hash allegations and accusations WITHOUT PROOF, WITHOUT EYE WITNESSES TO THESE EVENTS.

Thus we are shown cut-and-pasted articles over and over as though they proved anything beyond the bias of ONE reporter, who - from my personal experience - didn't seem capable of distinguishing between differences of style and charism and immoral or illegal activities. He judged LC poverty from a Carthusian mindset, LC obedience from a modern US province Jesuit mindset, and LC chastity from who knows whose idea... in short if you compare apples with oranges don't be amazed if you find the apple somehow "imperfect" because its not as sweet!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 24, 2003.


Joe,

It's often the way of things with the media and the Church. People choose to believe what suits them, or their agenda. "The whole truth, and nothing but the truth" rarely comes into the equation.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 24, 2003.


I know. I just wish they'd be more honest with their criticism. I mean, from their posts you'd never know that of every 100 men who attend "Test your Call" retreats with the LC, half are encouraged to check out their local diocese. Half express interest in the LC per se and are invited to the summer candidacy. Of those about half again come, stay and join. But time and again these men have specific chances to pause, pray, and decide whether or not to keep going.

They have monthly retreats, they have a 2 year novitiate - guys can leave at any time, then there's the set of temporary vows... if the LC was so enamored of "numbers" they'd dispense with these temporary vows and jump straight into the perpetual ones...but they DON'T.

Over and over again, their critics only stand a chance of convincing anyone if a)the person has no personal experience of the LC, and b) they carefully omit key truths, carefully confuse different things, and exclude all the daily facts of life in the Legion.

I find this amazing. If the LC was bad they'd not have to do this. They'd just post things as they are "from the horse's mouth" and everyone would agree "yep dem der guys is crazy".

No body beats a dead horse. But these guys are barking up the wrong tree (just to mix metaphors!) ;-)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 24, 2003.


Joe, I honestly believe that Jesus himself could get off the cross and point out a dozen priests, two dozen nuns, a couple saints and a flock of angels, all with videotaped accounts of activities involving the legion, and your reply would still be:

"Over and over again so-called critics just re-hash allegations and accusations WITHOUT PROOF, WITHOUT EYE WITNESSES TO THESE EVENTS."

Give me a break!

How many people have to step up, how many people have to have their faith crushed and how many children have to suffer before you and the others like you who blindly cling to the words of the legion will at least acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, something is going on down there?

But instead, the same ol' drivel:

"These are nice people" (many, many of them are indeed....they cannot see what is going on around themselves)

"They are attacking the church" (not true, we are attacking a faction within the church which is manipulating OUR faith)

"This was all previously investigated" (not true...the previous investigation, fifty years ago, was completely different and concerned the use of drugs by Maciel).

"There are no witnesses" (Where have you been and what were you smoking while you were there...over and over people have spoken of their personal experiences. They were all lying????)

Finally, and my personal favorite, is when the personal attacks are unleased upon those who step up to speak out again the legion....suddenly we are these horrible people.

I WAS there folks, and I managed to get away. I suggest that, if you are reading this and contemplating affiliation with the legion, that you RUN AWAY NOW. If you are already affiliated with the legion, and you are experiencing those same doubts and feelings that all ex- members experienced, please know that you are not alone. If you are able to break free, know that your faith WILL recover, but it may take some time. God's blessings be with all of you.

-- Andrew Thomas (withheld@yahoo.com), May 26, 2003.


Andrew, you're a gem. You call me names while not providing any further "proof" other than some articles from Renner and Barry, some "testimonies" from half a dozen ex-seminarians. That's it. Now for every single accusation there are official responses by the Legion and unofficial testimonies by those of us who were legionaries who knew the people involved and have spotted vast internal inconsistencies among their accusations.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Straw man arguments go no where. What have you to say for yourself? You got a problem with the LC? You're an American right? What'd Fr MM do to you? What did other LCs ever do to you? If 1-2 were less than perfect, how would that make the whole kit and kaboodle evil?

Accusations and wild tales are not the same thing as evidence and fact.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), May 26, 2003.


Yes let's talk about EYE WITNESSES. For every single person who claims immoral or illegal goings on, we've got dozens of their peers who didn't see, hear, or sense anything untoward going on. Now, if you're the conspiracy type of person then no amount of proof is good enough, but eventually you'll have to admit that sheer possibility is NOT the same thing as probability.

Barry and Renner aren't witnesses of anything. Other internet personalities at most have personal gripes - they have tried again and again to turn these into bigger deals by invoking some ecclesial law only to have their lunch handed to them on a platter by those who know more than they do.

They tried the canon law gibberish...only to be shown in detail why a religious congegation is NOT a diocesan seminary! Why a congregation's own rule as approved by the Church's authorities is valid, why no one is forced to do ANYTHING, but that rules have consequences and one cannot expect to live like a college co-ed while being under religious vows ad altare Dei!

They've tried the purient angle - again, someone's word against a host of other eyewitnesses, their own classmates and peers... in such a situation character witness and chronology, circumstancial evidence mean alot- indeed are practically the only evidence available. But while the Legion goes on the record, their accusers go anonymous and irresponsible. Then when NAILED ON IT, come up with some black- helicopter reason for being anonymous!

They claim Bishop X or Cardinal Y is "against the Legion". Fine. But for every critic I can name a dozen bishops and Cardinals who, having seen the Legion in action, and having Legionaries in their dioceses have nothing but good things to say. So the only thing this proves is a difference of taste!

Without personal tragedy to milk they throw in their sympathy with 40 year old accusations - in other words, nothing in the USA to be concerned with, several generations of Legionaries having had nothing to do with the supposed crimes, they still blame the whole organization...

Grasping for straws they talk about schools - only to be shown exhaustively that all the issues are between lay people - a majority vs a minority opinion, heresay and hyperbole out of control, anonymous postings trashing peoples' honor for maximum effect... and in the end what do you have other than again, a difference of opinion, bad feelings and anger? Nothing illegal or immoral, nothing evil or malicious. Just human.

Time and again their little stupid accusations implode once you start holding their veracity to the same standards they try to hold other people. If their maxim is guilty until proven innocent, how well do these half dozen guys hold up? Not too well I'm afraid.

One man tries to accuse LC priests of breaking the seal of confession and the best he can do is illegally tape a conversation across state lines, (then deny it) then show a transcript which shows the priest in question actually refuse to reveal any thing. Then claim that this was a "veiled threat"! And all the while his supposition is that this priest could only have known anything about himself through confession! Had it NEVER DAWNED on the man that this priest knew him personally for over a decade, that there are other ways of knowing what someone is like and what they've done besides confession? Like watching him in action, like seeing him in person?

No. The poor man was so eager to find something illegal or immoral common sense never enters the picture at all. The amazing thing is these guys really think they've proven something other than their amazing ignorance.

What have you got for us Andrew Thomas? Your word and your FEELINGS vs. a couple thousand eye witnesses who have far more personal experience and far more education and formation than you... the balance of 60 some years of a religious congregation's existence, several THOUSAND members and former members, TENS OF THOUSANDS of lay members... and still you have only a half dozen former Legionaries with serious issues? Doesn't this make you wonder?

Of course for a person like our friend Andrew, it proves only what he wants it to...utter lack of evidence even from the dirty half dozen (whose testimonies are full of holes) only proves that Elvis lives, UFOs soar throw blacken skies and Fr MM is evil well, just because they SAY SO!

Try checking out some UFO sites on the internet. They're full of lurid details of secret government bases, conspiracies with aliens, etc. all with so-called eye-witnesses who go long on lurid details but short on practical evidence.

170 years ago Maria Monk published a diatribe against the Catholic Church accusing nuns and monks of concubinage and abortion. She was long on lurid details too, but utterly void of proof. Of course, that didn't matter for the Protestants and "Know nothing" party that led to the riots and mayhem of 1846 wherein Catholic convents and churches were torched by mobs...all in search of "underground bordellos and tunnels"!

Of course, it was possible the Catholic Church was plotting the overthrow the USA and install the Pope as ruler...but how likely was it in 1846? Or 1946? It was possible every nun and monk were secret sinners...but apart from a dozen failures here and there throughout the 1800's...there was no systematic and intentional conspiracy to sin! Yet, using Andrew's line of reasoning....

No one is so blind as he who will not see the overwhelming evidence of innocence... you talked about Jesus - well, the proof was in the pudding...his miracles. The LC and Fr MM have done miracles and you choose not to mention them or credit them, well from here on out I will.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 26, 2003.


Man Joe, you're on a roll. And still it's the same old thing. You've got more defenses, doubts and red halibuts every time I read. It's a thing of beauty though. I think MM should tap you to head the Legionary PR department.

I just saw a Legionary friend this weekend. The underlying flavor of superiority and willingness to use any means to advance the Legion is never far from an LC. It kills me too because the indoctrination is so complete that her members often seem to view the Legion as the Church itself.

I read above as you supported your ‘handful of malcontents’ theory. It seems to me that was pretty shallow. There are dozens who have left, some after long tenure. The three who left the Regina Apostolarum in the 90’s where long time LC’s, deans of theology and philosophy. Fr. Cronin was in for 20 years and left. It was almost another 10 years before he had the courage to support awareness of practices in the Legion. These folks aren’t just angry teens.

I’ve also had first hand experience with parents whose school age children have struggled with sins against the 4th commandment after so-called Legionary formation. They claim the behavior is cult- like. Whether the Legion is a cult I don’t know, but the cumulative evidence from the behavior of those who are in, the testimony of those who are out, and the number of distraught parents nullifies the ‘handful of malcontents’ theory in my book.

You may be the staunchest and most prolific Legion defender I’ve ever encountered, so my argument will fall on deaf ears with you. Maybe others will recognize similarities between their experience and mine.

How are mom and babies?

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 27, 2003.


What argument?! Withheld, you have WITHHELD ANY ARGUMENT, FACTS, NAMES, DATES, EVENTS, things we can argue about yeah or nay. You assert that the LC is bad, but asserting it doesn't prove it. You DO see the difference right?

Some anonymous "parent" asserts that the LC "took over" a school. And you believe them! First of all, what are the facts at hand? Did you inquire as to the vote of the school's founding board? Did you check to see what the founding parents and principle had to say about inviting the LC in? If the majority of the board voted to get involved with NCE and use the LC pedagogy... it wasn't a "hostile take over"! Sour grapes are still sour grapes my friend.

If you read some former minor seminary kid assert that the Legion breaks Canon Law...you believe him! But I have quoted Canon Law and shown how the norms for diocesan seminarians are vastly different from those governing RELIGIOUS personnel and seminarians. Apples and oranges my friend.

If you read some ex-priest or deacon assert that the LC recruitment style is cultish - you believe him - but don't you wonder: what definition of "cult" he uses, what criteria of judgment he's using and whether or not similarity in superficials equals identity in essentials?

Go right down the line in all the charges... what do you have beyond assertions? Assertions are only the start of any argument, they are not the argument itself!

They assert that Legionary formation somehow separates parents from children. But in my 9 years as a professed religious brother I was able to call home every month (long distance from Rome, talking for as long as I wanted). My parents were able to visit me every year for a week - and every month for a day when I was in the US. I was able to fly home for major family events.... and I was typical, not the exception! Families were able and ENCOURAGED to visit the seminary at Christmas, on Profession's day, and for the feast of Christ the King.

Now that's not bad... being professed religious in a missionary congregation you're not supposed to be a bachelor or college kid who can go where ever you want or do whatever you want... there is such a thing as community life. But those who criticize Legionary practices here don't seem to appreciate the difference again between being a professed Religious and practices in diocesan seminaries where guys are governed by norms that approximate colleges.

So by not appreciating the reality of things and omitting any reference to the differences, many "charges" are embarrassing admissions of actual ignorance. It's as if someone was upset with a couple kissing in public while not mentioning the fact that they're married! Or spreading some rumor about their love-life again without mentioning "well doh" that they're married!

Now you say I'm just a spin-master? How all the above could somehow be meaningless or somehow mean the seminarians had NO ACCESS to their families is beyond me. We had MORE ACCESS with our parents than most military personnel and most businessmen have! How many times per month do YOU call home to talk to Mom and Dad? Most people typically call home about once a month. LCs were well within the norm.

Someone levels the charge that the LC is divisive - in the face of all the cooperation every LC house and major apostolate has with the local diocesan bishop and parish priest! In the face of the countless conventions, retreats, conferences, and other major works in conjunction with the Vatican and episcopal conferences! The LC runs a major seminary for 120 diocesan seminarians in Rome! Bishops are constantly visiting the LC's major seminaries...the whole charge of "divisiveness" is SO BOGUS it's laughable.

You want photos?! You want quotes?! You want video from these bishops and cardinals praising the work the LC does in their dioceses? The LC has 'em. Like I say, just give them the reason and they can unload truck loads of evidence on you.

But no. That'd be too easy. Far better for disgruntled ex-members to make anonymous snide accusations without proof. Far easier to use innuendo and begging the question non sequiturs and ommit reference to daily lived experience and easily verifiable proof.

You have charges of some former seminarians that they suffered abuse. Many do not define what the abuse was, exactly. Some fail to show that their hurt feelings come from something objective and malicious. Others make sweeping generalizations about "all their superiors" again without specificity, without dates, times, places...things anyone could verify either way.

It's the classic way to take someone down a peg - accuse them of a heinous crime...vaguely. But guess what? THEY HAD CLASSMATES. PEERS. OTHERS WHO LIVED IN THE SAME HOUSE WHO SAW NOTHING OF THE SORT.

Now, I suppose you can go on believing the vast majority of former members are scared into silence (how convenient...it absolves you of finding facts). That's like saying the US Government discovered UFOs and Atlantis but no one is talking out of fear! The utter lack of corraboration is proof enough!

So using your own measuring stick I can conclude that you are a spy for the Chinese Communists, you have a secret lair built under your garage for heinous human experiments with aliens, and you are the one who assasinated Kennedy - why? Well, because I assert it to be so, there is no proof, which means there's a cover-up and all those who do know are scared of admitting it!

Now, then, shouldn't you be selling a bridge in Brooklyn sometime soon?

Here's some facts: the Legion has been around for 60 some years. There are about 500 priests and about 2500 seminarians. But simple math and attrition has always meant that there are hundreds if not thousands of men in the world who were Legionary seminarians for weeks, months, years or (a few) for a decade or so. There are also a couple dozen former LC priests.

Now of all these men, eye-witnesses from generation upon generation...you still have ONLY 7 guys who claim utterly evil things about 1 Legionary. But their testimonies - while long on lurid details are short on verifiable facts: dates, times, places...even their psychological profiles...just because you cry foul doesn't mean you're a victim! Victims have rights - but only so far, and the accused have rights too - because without proof who's the victim and who's the attacker?

Then you ONLY have another half dozen other members who claim "cultish" activities - all without proof, all without argument.

As I stated above: you give me an argument, and I can hand it back to you on a platter. But if you make assertions and affirmations without any semblance of proof...and all we have is "he says, they say".



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 27, 2003.


Mom and babies are doing OK. Our little boy has come down with something, though we're not sure if it's serious yet....prayers always welcome.

Amazing how golden a full night's sleep is looking though! Wasn't that one of the unappreciated luxuries of single life? Still, at 2am while rocking a colicky baby to sleep one gets a personal taste of what "being gift" is all about and how parenthood is full of practical ways of becoming holy by being more and more self-less.

That's what seminary life was all about too - forming a fatherly heart, focusing more and more on the good that needs to be done for others than the whims and desires of one's own heart.

So often we prayed with St Francis..."Lord make me a channel of YOUR peace" - it's all about being gift to another - that's the role true maturity always leads men towards.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 27, 2003.


When I taught CCD to a bunch of 7th graders back in 1989 (I was a novice in the LC), I taught the 10 commandments, the laws of the Church, and basic Catholic morality to children who had no clue as to what these things were.

I usually had to field some tricky questions from the students whose parents were either not married or whose status was questionable. VERY tough to do with the limited information given by a 7th grader, and something the answer to which should always be something "we'll see after class" to respect privacy etc.

But I had to be honest to the Church teaching, and I had to insist that these young Catholics be honest too - not just in the doctrine, but above all in the praxis: prayer and virtue.

One of my best students was a girl named "Maria". Every class I concluded with a bit of the rosary said all together. I stood everyone up, every student led one of the prayers, one after the other, and every decade was for one of their special intentions.

Maria always prayed for her "mom and dad". The last class of the year she was absent. I later asked about her from the parish priest who informed me that that evening she had been in the church with her parents who "were baptized, confirmed, received Holy Communion and had their marriage vows regularized"!

Wow! By being faithful to the teaching of the Church and prayer, that little girl had worked on her parents for a year...and so helped convert them! Her fidelity to Christ led to the fidelity and real growth of her parents in the faith and life of grace.

But I also heard horror stories of irate parents who stormed into their child's CCD class to complain to the brother that his orthodox teaching on sin (mortal and venial, the need for confession, and conversion) was "dividing their family"! They wanted him to talk about "the loving God" without mentioning that love means something other than "feeling good about oneself- no matter what one does!"

So whenever someone makes VAGUE accusations that the LC somehow militates against the 4th commandment (honor thy father and thy mother that you may have long life in the land...) I wonder if the division was unavoidable given the territory or something misunderstood in the translation from a young student and parents.

What do you do if a 16 year old student expresses interest in becoming Catholic? Tell them to wait until they're 18? What if they're Catholic and are contemplating a religious vocation to the Missionaries of Charity, while their parents want them to become a Lawyer? If you teach them the truth of the Catholic faith which includes the theology of vocation and personal responsibility for one's actions...you could run afoul from parents who want to choose their career for them.

Parents are the primary guardians of their children, but there are limits to our authority. In general we can't tell our children WHAT to do with their lives apart from the need to be holy, but we can and should tell them WHAT NOT to do (anything that is sinful or wasteful).

But if your daughter or son expresses an interest in the religious life, and you shoot them down... are you hiding behind the commandment or obeying it? St Francis' dad was against his religious vocation too - was he a disobedient son?

In conclusion, vague accusations of vague crimes against the 4th commandment hold no water. Those that go down that rhetorical road do so to their own peril.

People have got to stop believing that the vocation is something generic and that kids can be whatever we direct them to be! It just doesn't work that way.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 27, 2003.


Hi everyone! I just saw this little answer from a Legionary to a mother who asked about the vocation and what role parents (or anyone else) should have.

For a priest who is supposed to be part of a "cult" or nefarious group, his answer sure sounds pretty good to me!

Q. Dear Fr Anthony,

I would be so happy if one of my sons decides to become a priest or my daughter wants to become a sister. Only my youngest seems open. How should I approach conversations about this topic with them? This son says, "If I were to become a priest," and I listen and encourage his thought process. What about the other two who are more closed? Does that mean they are not being called? Thanks.

- Brigid

A. Dear Brigid,

Funny things can happen inside children. At times the one who is acting like he is not interested when you are preaching to the others is precisely the one that is really taking it in.

In educating your children to be open to God, it is important that they see your example. They will absorb your priorities in the thousand ways you reflect them during your day, and most probably they will in time make them their own.

So, be what you are supposed to be. Without being artificial about it, let them see you pray, teach them to pray, teach them the example of Jesus, teach them about Mary, and relate it to their lives. Direct and encourage everything that is good. Correct what is wrong. Weather their tantrums and stay fast and teach. Help them grow, according to their age, in their relationship with God and knowledge of their faith. Challenge them appropriately. Lives of the saints are a great source of inspiration for children (and not only for children!). What you are really doing is to prepare the ground so that at the moment God begins to give them a hint of what he has in mind for them, they will be able to recognize and respond, will have principles of faith to follow, love to move them, and strength of character to be able to do what might be difficult.

As regards the vocation directly, do not push it on them, but do not be silent, either. Answer questions, at times bring them up yourself, and raise the possibility. It seems to me that what you are doing will be helpful to them. God bless.

- Fr Anthony

-- Just bearing witness (anonymous@yahoo.com), May 27, 2003.


Joe,

My ability to argue my point well is crippled by my anonymity. It doesn’t make my experience untrue just hard to accept. But, even without my experience there are enough examples out there to make a solid case, I just don’t have the time to compile it all. I’ll keep praying that my situation changes and I can get very specific about my claims. You own the theoretical road and the challenge here comes from the practical.

It’s especially important for a child to obey the 4th commandment when he/she is young unless the parent’s request is illicit. That is, it would be better for a 13 year old boy to honor his parents request to stay home than go to the minor seminary at the suggestion of a priest. If the vocation is authentic, God will preserve it!

A local boy wanted to go to the college seminary after high school. Much to his dismay his mother instructed him to stay home and work for one year to discern his vocation. His mother wanted her son to be a priest, but wanted him to wait. He honored his mother and entered the seminary a year later. (Today he’s a rare find among diocesean priests). It’s the right thing to do and God blesses it.

One mother of a jr. high school child at a Legion school in Atlanta posted a little story elsewhere on the Net saying that her son/daughter was advised by a Legionary priest to join the Regnum Christi over her parent’s objections. I watched Fr. Owen Kearns publicly hound a guy about joining the Regnum Christi so the story is at least believable. Any priest who knowingly pressures an early teenage kid to disobey is parent’s is a soul in jeopardy. Say what you like Joe, this case is crystal clear and anyone who thinks differently should consider themselves down to 9 commandments.

I’ll keep your boys in my prayers. It’s hard for parents to see their children sick and yours are awfully young too.

To whoever quoted Fr. Bannon (he’s starting to show his years a little), I’ve seen that post before; I thought it was very nice. Notice how he gave the encouragement to the parent to foster the vocation. So many parents ship their kids off to Catholic schools (Legionary schools included) expecting the school to take the roll of parent. That ‘strategy’ is a failure of parenting and easily a sin omission.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 27, 2003.


Withheld, tell me, what's wrong with Regnum Christi? Do you object to the prayer commitments? Daily Mass (if possible), at least a decade of the Rosary, monthly confession, weekly holy hour, 15 minutes of Bible or spiritual reading daily, at least 15 minutes of private prayer, daily examination of conscience...

Um, sounds like a normal Catholic life to me! What's wrong for a young person to hang around with other active young Catholics? Is there something wrong with going on missions to help local parish priests take Parish census, or encourage fallen away parishoners to come back to the parish? What's so scary about monthly or at least annual spiritual retreats?

Ah, the begged question is that these retreats or spiritual direction will result in "brainwashing"? How about simple Christian conversion?

In today's Generation Y culture where kids are more prone to drugs and premarital sex than ever before, if you don't actively promote Catholic doctrine and sacramental life in your children you run the risk of losing them to the ever more powerful propaganda of the "world". There are plenty of organizations and clubs and sports and hobbies that can help young people. RC is one among many.

There are no dues in RC. No one is forced to pay any fee or tithe. No one is forced to attend meetings and if you can't make it only Christian charity is required as any one would expect from anyone who has to cancel an appointment! While spiritual direction is part of the deal there is no compulsion - maybe a priest may think the young boy or young man has a priestly vocation...but in my experience nowhere has any LC priest said "you definately have a LC vocation".

That's the whole point of the LC calling it's retreats "test your call" rather than "You've been called to us" retreats!

In short, while parents have authority over their children at least until the kid is 18, there is nothing anti-Catholic or anti-thetical to the Catholic concept of parenthood in a 17 year-old young man from becoming a member of RC.

Nothing anti-Catholic or essentially extraordinary is asked of RC members - unless you consider honesty and a minimum of prayer and sacramental life "extraordinary"!

Would you also forbid your daughter or son from becoming involved in a local pro-life apostolate? How about the Knights of Columbus Squires? Boy Scouts (those uniforms, those all weekend campouts, the rigid "Scout Oath and Law", the secretive elite Order of the Arrow and its weekend 'retreats'...)?

I find it interesting that Parents let children do all sorts of things but then balk when confronted with the possibility that their children may have a vocation (and if so, may need special formation to nurture it or protect it in today's permissive environment).

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), May 27, 2003.


The Regnum Christi has many benefits, I avail myself of them from time to time. My objection is with pressuring kids to join RC/LC over their parent’s objection. Every priest, in every order/diocese is obligated to encourage children to honor their parents.

I spoke with a Dominican priest who, when discerning his vocation, had been physically detained in a room in Cheshire on a Test-Your- Call weekend. The offending Legionary priest blocked the exit to the room hounding the man - forcing him to say the he had a “vocation” to the Legion of Christ. He’s in Providence R.I. and his story is well known among young Dominicans of his province.

A statement from you last post: . . . in my experience nowhere has any LC priest said "you definately have a LC vocation".

If you are being perfectly truthful, Joe, your Legionary experience in this area is so limited as to be of marginal value. I’m NOT calling you a liar, but am giving you the opportunity to clarify that statement if you wish.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.


"physically detained"? "forced to say he had a vocation"? When, where, with whom? How many times can the re-telling of the tale blow a small gesture or poorly phrased line into some dramatic adventure?

None of the receiving rooms in Cheshire have door locks on them nor do any of the classrooms (fire code). All the receiving rooms have large windows - hardly some place someone could be cornered against their will.

Now, you're calling me a liar and I'd like to ask your friend which version of his story is more true - what exactly does he mean by "physically detained"? By whom, and in what exact words.

It makes a BIG difference.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.


Look, if when all's said and done, the "offending priest" really "blocked the exit" and really said what he said, then doh, that's stupid, and he should be ashamed. That's not the way LCs operate and certainly not the way I saw TYC retreats being run.

But think for a second...you said this priest has told his story "to all the young dominicans". Who will tell it to others they meet. One bad example spread to the four winds... human nature I guess. but what a pity.

-- (joestong@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.


Look, if when all's said and done, the "offending priest" really "blocked the exit" and really said what he said, then doh, that's stupid, and he should be ashamed. That's not the way LCs are trained to work and certainly not the way I saw TYC retreats being run.

It's hard to make any judgment about it without knowing the priest's name, the date of this supposed event, and what exactly was said. As anyone who has broken up with a girl knows, sometimes small mistakes or slips of the tongue can be ulteriorly re-interpreted into the most nefarious of intentions.

As anyone who has met the girlfriends of an ex-girlfriend can also attest, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th re-telling of "the breakup" gets more and more negative.

Think for a second...you said this priest has told his story "to all the young dominicans", who will naturally tell it to others they meet presumably for the rest of their lives. Each telling will convert the Cheshire seminary into a fortress, the priest into a towering figure, his eventual exit (after what? 3 minutes?) into an "escape"...

This is how charactures are created.

This is how one bad example coupled with loose translation can spread to the four winds... human nature I guess. but what a pity.

When we downplay and ignore the good then highlight and embellish the bad examples we encounter doesn't life get that much more cynical and that much more impoverished?

Fact is, it's tough to be circumspect and objective when talking about negative experiences. Maybe for this very reason the fact that the "horror stories" about Legionaries number only in the low dozens rather than thousands should make you think again about the presuppositions underlying your friend's story and retelling.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.


Joe,

If I told you that I spoke with an LC whose prayer life grew at least 10 fold in the novitiate and the practice of virtue likewise, would you believe that story? If I described in detail how regular "visits" profoundly increase my devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, would you doubt it or reduce it to a meaningless claim?

Let's hold hands around a campfire, sing Kumbaya, and tell stories about the upbuilding and fun times we had in the Legion.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.


Let's not exaggerate. Besides, the Legion NEVER sings Kumbaya. ;-)

Your Dominican friend may have had some bad encounter - but goes and spreads to a whole generation of young seminarians the story which cannot fail but give the impression that an entire congregation is nuts rather than just one particular priest who may have had a bad day.

Was it illegal or immoral? No. Stupid? Yes. Unfortunate? Yes. Malicious and systematic? Not his or you or me to decide!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't make hasty moral judgments about the whole Dominican order or you based on one mistake or stupidity. Who'd you rather be judged by? Someone like me or someone like you?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.


Joe,

That's a resonable argument . . . if it was an isolated incident.

When you were in the Legion how many times did you hear "Lost vacation: sure damnation."? Surely not zero???? In the zeal to recruit vocations were you NEVER told that souls depended on you. That you would be responsible for lost souls if you left the Legion? What means of recruiting were declared illicit? It was implicit that the ends justified the means. Shhhhh don't tell St. Thomas Aquinas.

You're no longer in the Legion. Are the souls of your sons less valuable than those you might have garnered for Christ were you still in? Is it not "God's Will" that you are sanctifying married life? All the manipulation we got and gave was never intended by God or approved by the Church in the process of vocation discernment.

Aw shucks, you say. No hard feelings, I left on good terms and keep in touch with lots of LC's, so no harm no foul. There was a foul every time an LC used the words of a talk or group pressure to target someone who was doubting there vocation, every time the name of God was invoked to pressure someone to continue in a vocation they weren't called to. The foul was against honesty, against integrity, against Christ and His Bride the Church.

It was a good thing gone awry, zealousness became manipulative and controlling. If you weren't winning vocations at some point, you weren't living the spirit of the Legion. That, my brother in Christ, is systemic.

So rare is the exception, that it only goes to prove the rule.

Lost vocation: sure damnation - that's cult talk

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.


No, that was exactly what they said was NOT THE CASE in spirit of the Legion. That's what happens when you aren't listening! When you refuse to make distinctions, when you refuse to face multiple Catholic truths and try - erroneously - to put things in a nut shell.

Souls may very well be helped or hindered by your decision to say yes or no to a clear Divine call... but that's what you'd expect in this economy of salvation! Or do you think its indifferent whether or not individuals are generous with God or one another?

Had Karol Wojtyla decided to become an actor, would Poland be the same as it is today? Had Mother Theresa not left her first convent to found the Missionaries of Charity, would all those poor people have experienced unconditional love, regardless?

She was discerning her vocation - and did everything with dependence and by the book - blessed for it.

But the real possibility that you'll bear less fruit doing A rather than B doesn't automatically damn you. God is always merciful. And Legionaries always taught us He was merciful - but that God is also just. So the fact remains: while you may be forgiven, souls are still needy and if no one is sent to preach to them, and bring the Gospel to them... some will be lost.

I was there in 1989 when someone asked Fr Maciel that question precisely: "if I leave will I go to hell"? He replied, "No". Then elaborated: going to hell is something that happens only when a person knowlingly commits grave sin and does not repent. But if you ask me what happens in the case of a man who is truly called by God to become a Legionary priest yet decides not to follow it, if there will be consequences, well yes, there would have to be. That's how providence works."

So if you leave the Legion - or your wife, or your post when you should be there... souls could be lost. But this doesn't mean you're automatically damned without hope. It just means that we ought to do our best to know and do our duty. Duty or its omission has consequences.

Do you think the Rich Young Man in the Gospel was damned? He fulfilled the Law of Moses, he obeyed all the commandments, but he was asking about perfection - not the minimum to be saved. He chose to not give up his goods..so went away sad. He could have been an apostle but chose to be an anonymous person....

If you can't see that some service could be better than others...what does that say about your ecclesiology? If you're given great gifts to help others but choose to put a bushel basket over them out of human respect...wouldn't that of necesity mean somepeople would not receive what you could have given them?

If you're in public and someone blasphemes against Our Lord and you do not speak up to defend "Blessed be His Holy Name" won't it just drop and thereby an opportunity to witness to the truth and perhaps awaken someone from a bad habit will be lost?

Didn't St Augustine warn about graces that come and if not accepted are lost? How many of us wonder about meeting our spouses...if I had not been there, then, I wouldn't have met her...we wouldn't have twins... 2 immortal souls wouldn't exist. CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

That's the whole point of a 2 year novitiate, then up to 9 years of temporary vows... to discern one's vocation. No one is rushed through the pipeline, force fed into perpetual profession. Some go faster than others...another sign of personalized not cookie cut formation.

Once you discern a vocation to WHATEVER you have to admit that God will place you in touch with people. Being more holy will help them. By necesity! Being less holy, less involved will also leave repercussions- again, of necesity.

It's true that if you were called to the priesthood, and knew it, and yet threw it away out of cowardice that sure, people MAY be lost. But nowhere does it say that YOU will of necesity will be damned. You might have committed a sin of ingratitude or ommission, or disobedience, but sin is one thing, damnation is another.

And if you think the above is against Catholic theology, show me where. I can show you SAINTS that say the same thing, beginning with St Paul.

Had Ananias not gone to Saul...had Barnabas not gone in search of Paul...wouldn't the Acts of the Apostles had been different? Don't you think free will has real life consequences? It's not a matter of damnation but a matter of producing "some 30, some 60 and others 100 fold" to quote Our Lord.

Since I was not called to the priesthood, I would not have flourished there as much as I will flourish here in the lay state. That's also a fact of metaphysics. Vocations are not generic. God does call you to fill a spot - but you are free. If you misuse your freedom...you could go to hell.

But the Legion never taught that leaving the Legion per se would DAMN you. It did say "be careful to discern what your calling is. Don't go home for less than the noblest of reasons. Don't give up unless you're sure what you're doing..." they always stressed two primary truths: discerning God's will, then generously doing it.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.


Do you believe Chris Butler has the stigmatta?

-- - (.@...), May 29, 2003.

"So if you leave the Legion - or your wife, or your post when you should be there... souls could be lost."

Joe... what are you doing here? What are you doing to this poor guy?

Forget the Legion. If one does not incessently pray night and day for the conversion of sinners, and does not sacrifice for the conversion of sinners, souls will be lost.

The Legion has nothing to do with it. The Faith predates the Legion, and will survive the Legion.

The Legion's problem is that it partakes in an unholy alliance between the Church and the World.

The Legion needs to evoke salvation from whence it comes, from Christ through His mother, and not through by the hands of men.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 29, 2003.


Joe,

Do you have a direct answer to these questions?

When you were in the Legion how many times did you hear "Lost vacation: sure damnation."? Surely not zero???? In the zeal to recruit vocations were you NEVER told that souls depended on you? That you would be responsible for lost souls if you left the Legion? What means of recruiting were declared illicit?

Emerald, If you have a minute, explain your 'unholy alliance between the Church and the World' theory.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 29, 2003.


I never heard that expression in the Legion. I heard it specifically debunked as what the LC does NOT BELIEVE.

I did here that souls depended on me - which is true, just as souls depend on me now, and just as souls depend on you and on everyone else, as Emerald has so eloquently stated. But this is a far cry from saying "if you leave you will be damned". That would be true if you left the Catholic Church, knowing it is Christ's sacrament of salvation - but the Legion has NEVER claimed to be indispensible to the Church or a stand-alone congregation. They ALWAYS worked with other groups as they do today.

As for any unholy alliance, I can only imagine he's mad that the Legion is trying to evangelize a segment of population that has been largely neglected in the last 200 years (except when money is needed): lay leaders. Yet, Karol Wojtyla did the very same thing in Poland under the occupation: he worked with lay leaders. Pope Pius X did the same thing with Catholic Action in Italy in the 1900's - evangelize, form, and mobilize lay leaders in order to convert society.

Everyone loves it when the Church works with the "poor" - after all, that work doesn't upset the apple cart, it doesn't threaten "the powers that be" or the moral status quo. But woe quickly falls on the group that tries to work with the leaders of society! Look what happened to the Jesuits in 1773!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 29, 2003.


Thanks for the reply Joe

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 29, 2003.

It's a fact of ecclesiology and the economy of Christ's salvation that God works through human beings. He calls people to serve others. He sends apostles... when Mary appears she too chooses simple souls who will carry a message... in other words, neither act directly! They both have chosen to "need" the rest of us to bring the Gospel and grace of salvation to the world.

Now just exactly how does one go about converting the world? If you focus on the poor - that's great, you'll be evangelizing them and helping save those souls...but the economic poor aren't the only people who need to be saved.

Most missionaries in history have also sought to convert social leaders: the king, the nobles, the elite, those whose lives and actions can either spread the Gospel or crush it. If the Church - through whatever vehicle and whatever group, does not evangelize the leaders of any given society it runs the risk not only of marginalizing people but also of making its other evangelization that much harder to achieve.

Had the Church converted the intellectuals prior to the Enlightenment, there would not have been a French Revolution! Had the Church - through whatever group or charism truly and effectively formed the English nobility and royal family in the faith (both as a doctrine and above all as a way of life), King Henry VIII may not have rebelled leading the majority of the English speaking world into schism and heresy!

So we know two facts: Christ is the savior of the world and He has sent apostles to "make disciples of all the nations..." He didn't specify "only the economic poor", nor did he tell us to write off leaders. Nor did he say working with them was "an unholy alliance"!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 29, 2003.


Wow.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), May 29, 2003.

Obviously God uses people. Here's the problem: assuming we know exactly how it is that God uses people, and furthermore...

...that if one does not act, God's Holy Will will not be enacted.

Yes it will. God will have His way. Far be it from us to think that we are responsible for other people's salvation, when we see that salvation actually brought about.

Again, far be it from us to think that we are not involved in the salvation of others.

How so? Prayer and sacrifice. By pleading for it; by suffering for it, and pleading and suffering, and of course, prayer and pleading and suffering. This is the way, the only way, the we can effectively participate in the Mystical Body of Christ and draw down the power of God to entice others to do the same. It is not that our efforts are worthy; they aren't. But when adjoined to the Blood of Christ, they become necessary actions on our part; they cease to be the clanging gongs that they are and become music.

These things can all be done from one's closet. Seriously. These secret efforts home in on the hidden source of all good things that happen, which is the sovereign domain of Dominus and Him alone.

My bad hair day at Joe (my apologies again, Joe, for being half- cocked) has to do with every and any insinuation to namewithheld here that leaving or avoiding the Legion had anything whatsoever to do with his salvation or damnation.

This would be self serving for either party. On one side it is would be just plain old coercion on the part of the Legion, and if namewithheld falls for it, then for him, submission to a false god of sorts... a holding in esteem of something that is not intrinsically of the essence of the Faith.

Namewithheld, don't stress your mind with needless loyalties that may serve as mistresses to the One True bridegroom. If you wish to save souls, then go find Him in the Blessed Sacrament and plead your case, and their case, until souls come to truth. You certainly will not be damned for this; and this is most certainly God's will. I would stake my entire life on this statement: it is God's will.

Most of the rest of the pomp of evangelical methods are the useless strategies and glories of damned-if-not-for-the-blood-of-Christ men. I can't believe a consideration of economic status would ever enter into the equation at all, when at the end of a man's days he is stripped naked before the Almighty and renders an account of his will. Every single act that draws this final encounter to a beneficial conclusion is the result of an act in secret, secret like the hidden suffering God in the Eucharist, and nothing of visible mechanics.

We will ultimately be detached from the world, whether we will it or not. Better start now by a free act of the will, instead of later by force and by judgement at the term of life. Seek Christ as your Savior first, because we cannot withstand Him as our judge.

Namewithheld, go detach yourself from all things earthly, and beg for the salvation of your enemies first, then move on to your friends.

Let God figure out the best way to handle it while you obliviously move on the next request for the next person.

If there is anything I can't stand about the Legion is it's presumptiveness... that it actually considers itself capable of saving the Church through the efforts of a ways and means commitee. Better for it first and foremost, to uphold the doctrine of the Faith and not merely claim that it does.

The meek shall inherit the earth; die now while you still have the opportunity. That's what I mean by avoiding the unholy alliance.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 29, 2003.


Keep my little "italics off problem" in your prayers... eh? =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 29, 2003.

Meekness is not "wall flower" but "self control". It's not the cowardly, the timid, and those that bury their talents that will "inherit the earth" but those who are disciplined, self- sacrificial, self-controlled.

Yes, there is a place for the monks and nuns. Yes, prayer and suffering is a participation in Christ's redemptive mission. But you also have Jesus Christ Our Lord, in the Gospel specifically command us to "love one another as I have loved you." And how did he love us? He gave his life for us. Yes he prayed. Yes he suffered. But it wasn't in a corner or hidden room. It was through meekness - his self- control, like a lamb...

Now you Emerald seem to think that in the Catholic Church there can be no distinction, no difference, no charisms, no variety. That if we're not all achorites, we're damned.

Not so. And neither are Legionaries all the same, all doing the same thing - nor for that matter are Regnum Christi members all doing the same thing. They all pray and offer up sacrifices every day...but they also work together, again following Our Lord's command in Matthew: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, leading little children to Himself, preaching the Gospel.....

It's such a pile of BS for you guys to draw up false straw men arguments. NOWHERE DO WE SAY OR BELIEVE THAT WE ALONE, APART FROM CHRIST SAVE PEOPLE THROUGH OUR WORKS. NO WHERE DO WE SAY OR BELIEVE OR TEACH THAT ALL LEGIONARIES OR RC PEOPLE ARE PERFECT.

But we do say and believe, and teach that Christ sends people to his harvest, that we feel called to serve the Lord in this way and that it's not indifferent either to our own salvation or to others' whether or not we get up in the morning and go to work in the vineyard!

The Church is rich precisely because there are a plethora of groups. In 1998 I was in Rome for the celebration of Pentecost and the gathering of 350,000 lay people involved with 20+ lay movements. We all got along splendidly. No envy, no competition, there's plenty of work to be done and each to his own... everyone includes prayer and personal sacrifice, but our exterior (neighor-oriented) work varies according to "the needs of time and place".

There is a need for Missionaries of Charity. There are real cases where one nun reaches out and finds one miserable soul, serves him, cares for him, loves him, and is able to baptize him as he dies....now Emerald, if she hadn't done that...he wouldn't have been baptized.... If you think Our Lord is a jealous Savior... your're wrong. I'm sorry. But human free will DOES have terrible consequences. (Which is why actual grace exists and also why hell exists - there are real consequences to our use of freedom. If God saved people "anyway"...what point would there be in sending apostles? Arbitrary?

God is not arbitrary and our lives are not "superfluous".

It's a temptation you MUST overcome. You may be called to do more than just pray and sacrifice. Your truest prayer and sacrifice may be in evangelizing, in the spiritual or corporal works of mercy! Your true calling may be in the Pro-Life movement, in youth formation, in fathering souls through loving moral formation...

God has chosen to work through people. The Word was made flesh Emerald for a good reason! Logos without a means of communication is mute. Spirit without flesh... real, metaphysical realities like God and angels and souls... are still invisible and except for miracles like actual grace or theophanies, are also mute. He chose to become Man to save us. And He sent other men "As the Father sent me, so I send you"

Golly gee, Emerald, what do you think that means? We should just go home and pray for a better tomorrow? Sure, pray. Sure sacrifice. But also go out and love your neighbor, take care of him. Teach, preach, bear witness to the Gospel, confront the sinner, protect the innocent, defend the defenseless... carry your cross. (That's not a metaphor which makes much sense in the privacy of your room! Cross- carrying was scrictly a public-spectacle, a walk-in-the-middle-of-the- street deal.)

Now go out there and get 'em! Charge! The gates will not prevail! And this means we're outside, laying siege to the inside! We're battering down the walls... we're on the offensive, not home in some underground city of Zion or secret bunker hoping for Armageddon.

Christ will win the battle - but if it's a true battle then there must be opposing forces.



-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), May 30, 2003.


"Sure, pray. Sure sacrifice. But also go out and love your neighbor, take care of him."

Why do you make a distinction here?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 30, 2003.


Because there is a distinction between ora et labora!

You're the one upset about "unholy alliances" and committees, and other icky "exterior" works which somehow fail to make Christ known as the source of all salvation...(emerald, please, go check out the Legion's website first, and then the RC website, click on "Apostolates" first then make your judgments. Otherwise you're dooming yourself to serious mistakes.)

Guess who has promoted Eucharistic adoration around the country? Guess who organized the world rosary? guess who has organized pilgrimages, spiritual exercises, etc. etc. for years? It would take a book to just list the number of "apostolates" going on thanks to this charism.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 31, 2003.


"You're the one upset about "unholy alliances" and committees, and other icky "exterior" works which somehow fail to make Christ known as the source of all salvation..."

Not an accurate understanding of my position. Nor is much of anything above, or above that.

It's not like "oops, I didn't see a distinction there..." Let me be more specific: how is it that this distinction implies that prayer and sacrifice and loving/helping your neighbor are to be treated as wholly separate acts, when the best act of help and love is to pray and sacrifice for another's salvation?

There of course is a distinction, but any distinction which fails to keep intact the intimate relationship between the two is a false distinction. They are as intimate as the relationship of body and soul in a man, since... that's where the distinction arises from, in principle, in the first place.

No, I'm not dooming myself to a serious mistake; I'm avoiding one. To be specific, avoiding the error of packing a deadly potient of the Faith and the World. There's no synthesis possible there. You must choose one and forsake the other. It's always been that way; any one of the Saints will say as much, over and over again if people actually take the time to read their works. Not what people say about them, but what the Saints actually say themselves. Not supposed living saints either, I mean the dead kind.

Going to the LC/RC website and "getting informed" seems to be the solution to everything with these people; argument by authority is the only real game going. Getting informed is not knowledge and understanding, let alone wisdom. It's so LC to figure that "informing people" is the solution to everything. The LC is going to tell me something I can't figure out. It's like a novel thought that people out there might actually know stuff and understand stuff without them. lol! How did we ever manage to survive without them?

It's not like I take no action. Far from it:

I'm raising my kids to be traditional Catholics, and promoting traditional Catholicism; now more than ever. More tomorrow than today.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 31, 2003.


Emerald,

YThe LC is going to tell me something I can't figure out. It's like a novel thought that people out there might actually know stuff and understand stuff without them. lol! How did we ever manage to survive without them?

Not to speak for him, but I'd bet Joe's point would be that an organization giving an *approved* point of view from the church is *superior* to an individual's private interpretation (like yours). Individuals come up with all kinds of incorrect positions, which is why we have so many protestant denominations, and now have schismatic pseudo-Catholic groups who each think their interpretation is more correct than the church's.

You and the other schismatics do the same, saying that YOU are correct, where everyone else is not. That is a protestant position, saying that you know more than the Pope and Magisterium on what the correct direction of what the church should be. Get some humility Emerald, it's something that will keep you in Christ's church.

Frank

-- 2 (1@3.4), May 31, 2003.


Frank, even if it were a matter of personal humility on my part, and what I've have said above was inspired by an absolute lack of it, the problem is... it does not address the truth of the matter.

The objective, I think, is that people hear you say that, and walk away from their computers and say, yeah, that's Emerald's problem, he's full of pride, lacking all humility. But again, does that address the truth of the matter? I say, let people think that; what difference does it make?

I'm cool with that. Let them walk away; generally speaking, it serves to narrow the playing field down to the ones who really care about the truth. Around here, it'll pretty much empty the forum.

Or the schismatic thing. I could point out that in order for there a schismatic according to the teachings of the Church, one must deny the authority of the Pope outright; not just on this or that particular item. Nobody looked into the matter, because it suits the nature of inertia to remain at rest in thinking a certain way.

So from my perspective, my personal humility issues is a strawman, because this could be leveled an any of 6 billion other people on the planet besides myself, and the schismatic thing is also a strawman because nobody can answer the questions anyways.

There is something to this unholy alliance of the Church and the world, and the LC are pretty much the self-proclaimed Republican Guard of the post-conciliar of post conciliar thinking. I know exactly why I don't agree with them or relate to them in any way.

The real and holy alliance between God and the world would be the Incarnation, which in turn has something to do with Mary.

Did you see that recent article about certain prelates trying to make Our Lady the Mother of Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 31, 2003.


Emerald, please do show us where in the Gospel Jesus Christ tells us to do what you are suggesting is the only true form of Christian living. You won't find it in his description of the Last Judgment and you won't find it in Paul or John. You won't find the ideal Christians just sitting home praying and offering up little sacrifices in Acts either.

So you condem the LC for being a missionary congregation, for obeying the Holy Father, for running seminaries, missions, catechisis, marriage programs? You condemn them for evangelizing the rich and powerful as well as the poor and marginalized? You condemn them for not praying enough? Legionaries pray 3.5 hours per day at least! You condemn them for running youth programs? I suppose you think they're superfluous?

Would they be heroes if all they did was offer the T-Mass and officiate at solemn rosaries?

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), May 31, 2003.


Emerald,

Regarding schism, not many people who were raised Catholic are going to stand up and say, "I formally reject the Pope's authority, and all his teachings, etc." BUT, various splinter groups do just that *in practice* putting their own left or right wing agendas over the teachings of the church. It's like de jure vs. de facto segregation: a company might say "look, we have a policy against racism" but if they are in an all black area and only hire white people by the hundred, moving them in from outside, one could probably assume that what they believe and practice is different from their official line.

Reading any post from ed richards will show you the schismatics on the left -- people who have deviated so far from the Novus Ordo that one would wonder if they are still practicing Catholics.

But left isn't the only way people can fall off the path, there's also rightwards. This is where the LeFebvrists et.al. fell off. They liked the rite of the mass more than Papal authority, and entered schism just like the lefties did. When you place your own interpretation and beliefs over the direction of the church, you are doing exactly the same thing. Even if you SAY you respect the authority of the church, but in practice refute the direction of the church as being correct you are in fact rejecting the Pope's and the church's authority. In essence a de facto and not a de jure schism. Just like in business, "Catholics" are too crafty to outright state their true position, prefering to hedge their bets. Schismatics still want to maintain the position that THEY represent the True Catholics and that others have left the church and not them, even if what they are practicing is different from what the Pope and Magesterium want!

The important thing Emerald is that God can see through bar-room lawyers, and will look to someone's true thoughts and actions, and not just what they claim out of the side of their mouth. Be careful with your "I know the right way" attitude, the RIGHT way is what the church and Pope (with the power to bind and loose) TELL you is the right way.

Frank

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2003.


Joe, you asked where you can find Scriptural support for this stuff... the Sermon on the Mount isn't the only place, but that's about as potent a package as anyone could find: Matthew chapters 15 through 17.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 31, 2003.

"Be careful with your "I know the right way" attitude, the RIGHT way is what the church and Pope (with the power to bind and loose) TELL you is the right way."

You mean, like this?

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

See, that's a dogmatic statement.

No pontiff has ever made a dogmatic statement which binds the Faithful to the post-conciliar Church's so-called "required" understanding of any twisting up of this Dogma of the Faith.

Ecumenism and interreligious dialogue are not doctrines. The above quote is a dogmatic statement which has not been upturned, over-ruled or otherwise.

So in that sense, I would turn the tables on this issue and many, many others and claim that you (not so much the "you Frank" as the collective "You" of those who tenaciously hold to a hell-bent postconciliarism) that it is you who do not heed the authority of Pontiffs and dogmatic definitions.

No, it's not me thinking it's my way or the highway. Stop doing that... lol! Gee whiz.

No offense Frank, I'm not angry or flying off the handle here even if it may sound that way, but look... let's say I really do have this I'm right attitude and this arrogance that seems to be flying off the page at you and everyone else. Better that kind than the kind that festers deep down inside people and is masked off by a false and perverted sense of humility, huh? I'm not accusing anybody of that in any way at all btw.

Here's the point though: it isn't, and never has been, about what I think, it's about what the Church has always taught. Now both you know and I know that fear of rejection or even fear of hypocracy should not silence the truth.

Besides, from what I've heard, the Pope has asked the laity to get more active... so I'm doing it.

I think that if it's ok for the LC to feel they need to remind any of us of anything, that it's fair for any of us to remind any of them of anything. From my personal observations of the Legion in my house and in other place, I think they need to be reminded that human acts are worthless without the prayer and sacrifices.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 01, 2003.


My question for Joe is, when it comes to actually following the Pope, why stop just short of his advice on the war in Iraq?

I see a contradiction there. Where's the loyalty to the Holy Father in this particular case?

There's a supposed loyalty where none is required, or in fact where none is sometimes even possible such as contradictions to established doctrines of the Faith.

Otoh, we have no assent where assent to this pontiff is actually required.

If you were to examine more closely the nature of real and true loyalty to the Holy Father, you would find that his judgement on this matter of war required your assent. I gave it mine, of all people. I no peacenik either.

The Pope's understanding of this war and the most prudent course of action could have been wrong, but we would still be required to obey him. That's the nature of obedience.

On the flipside, you can't take a "course of action" in regards to things doctrinal. It is impossible. Anything and everything that a pope may say that goes in conflict against the deposit of the Faith does not require our assent, and furthermore, it demands our dissent. In the latter case, dissent would be the duty of the Faithful.

Therefore, in as much as the Legion carries the banner of post- conciliarism, it is no friend of me or my kind, because the post conciliar mind is in fact contrary in many ways to the dogma of the Faith. That's my beef with the Legion. Claims against the founder are no never-mind to me.

"Would they be heroes if all they did was offer the T-Mass and officiate at solemn rosaries?"

YES.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 01, 2003.


I'm just speaking plain; don't take as a dislike for either of you two; it's simply not the case. John said I hate him once, and it isn't true.

Frustrated? Yeah, it gets frustrating sometimes, but not angering. It used to be angering to have these heated differences, but not so much anymore.

Let's face it; there's just two different schools of thought going on here, with some similiarities and some differences. But they both cannot coexist and both be right.

One will wane and the other will survive. Traditional Catholicism will survive, and while it is yet in the minority, that's where I'm placing myself. It's far safer and saner, and much less confusing.

The Faith was simple easily understood before the modernist came in and made it impossible to understand, as one of my friends says.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 01, 2003.


There are orders that just offer the Mass and say prayers. They live in monasteries and are wonderful and doing wonderful work. But there are also missionary orders and congregations that work with people - with the "world" to convert it. As for the Legion is is a bit of both; monastic as well as apostolic. Prayer life always with apostolate. Daily morning prayer, gregorian chant, hour long private prayer, Mass, rosary, 15 minutes of spiritual reading, 3 examinations of conscience, 30 minutes (minimum) of eucharistic adoration, frequent visits to the blessed sacrament and prayers to Mary... plus monthly retreats, triduums every 6 months and annual 8-day spiritual exercises... all this, and community life, and active apostolic work which stresses the sacraments and spiritual direction.

Gee. Sounds pretty darn like the Legionaries combine prayer with their work and don't separate the two as though somehow "committee" work alone will solve problems.

Let's see, during the 3 days of Carnival we held special periods of adoration to interceed and make reparations for sinners... before every great launch of apostolate or for needs, we would bring the intention to the Lord on our knees in prayer... You'd be hard pressed to find any other non-contemplative order or group as dedicated to prayer as the Legion of Christ.

As for the dogma you quoted. I see no problem with it. It's the feenyite interpretation that is problematic. If I lived in the 14th century, and knowing the Church was from Christ, choose to either not remain or not being within chose to keep apart, how could I possibly be saved? But that's entirely different from the situation of American Indians in 1441 who never heard the Gospel at all or even knew to expect a savior!

Finally, the war. It was a matter of prudential decision, not a matter of questioning Catholic dogma or doctrine. Only time will tell whether the war was launched for immoral reasons (thus vitiating it) or not. The 4th crusade was approved at its start by the Popes only to turn out bad and have the whole army excommunicated.

Sometimes the most just of causes can end poorly...but provided we keep the Left out of the mix, I think we have a chance of really doing alot of good in Iraq. I don't see any inconsistency. Indeed, my side was the only one's arguing from Catholic principles rather than vague and as they say in Spanish "Ojalla" thinking (wishful)...

"I think diplomacy should be given more time to work" is qualitatively different that saying "war under no circumstance is justified in this situation". So it wasn't a black/white thing. It was a debate about the best way and when to solve a problem. Thus, a prudent decision.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 01, 2003.


"If I lived in the 14th century, and knowing the Church was from Christ, choose to either not remain or not being within chose to keep apart, how could I possibly be saved?"

It's interesting that you would say that, or timely I should say, because if you were to have lived back in the 14th century, you would have been a great participator in what people call the Thomistic view, no? The heavy incorporation of Aristolian philosophy into the Faith as the chief or best handmaiden to the Faith.

It is good for the Church to have an appropriate philosophical handmaiden as it aids in the clarification and promulgating of the principles of the Faith. But here, believe or not, is where I part company with the mind of that place that place I went to college:

The first dirty little secret of Thomism, besides the fact that it wasn't really completely St. Thomas' idea but the leanings pre-dated him, is that the Aristolian view is far inferior to the Platonic view as best choice for philosophical handmaiden to the Faith.

Correspondingly, the second dirty secret of Thomism is that the Summa Theologica was not among his best work but the least, as good as it was... he has far, far better works of theology that are lessor known, and believe or not, more of a Platonic tone. And just plain better.

Before taking issue with this, remember, these are not my ideas but the good Doctor's own words... that his Summa was mere straw before the majesty of Almighty God. There is good reason for him to say this.

But this man was a Saint, right? YES Of course, and a doctor of the Church. But he was a Saint because his will was good and he led a holy life. From what I have heard, he used to press his head against the tabernacle in an attempt to obtain understanding from the Word Himself; more the act of a Platonist than an Aristotelian imho.

Truth of the matter is that Thomas Aquinas was more Platonist than Aristotelian in the heart. Aristotle is what is generally known today, I guess, as moderate realism and is inferior to the first and best handmaiden, which is the ultrarealism of the Platonic philosophy.

To cut to the quick, the use of the Platonic handmaiden better jives with the truths of the principles of Roman Catholicism... the one way in which it most uniquely supports it, surprisingly, has to do with this awesome, awesome reality:

Will precedes intellect.

First an act of the will to serve, then comes knowledge and understanding, and ultimately, wisdom.

How the hell does this relate to the Legion and post conciliar thought? Here's how: I do not think that what I decry as the post conciliar travesty has come about because of Vatican II. I say, effect and not a cause. The next stopping point for explaining the origin of our current crisis I suppose would be the French Revolution and a Farewell to Kings, but that's not going back far enough either.

It goes back to slow decline of the early Platonic handmaiden to the Catholic Faith and the rise of the Aristotelian handmaiden, which held matter as eternal, and the whole as the sum of it's parts as opposed to the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, and so on such other stuff...

...which leads ultimately to ecumenism and this horrible thing called interreligious dialogue, and this phony concept of what loyalty and obedience are, and etc. and etc. on down the line. It's where people get this disgusting idea that "We are Church" as opposed to the august and supreme concept of Mystical Body of Christ.

But worst of all, it's where people get the idea that they can argue a person into the Faith... to reason them into holiness. Convince them of the so called fulness of the Faith. That's not how things work. "If we could just present our case in the best, most intelligent way" they say.

Try this rather: take on the early Platonic handmaiden and discover the nature of the Hidden Mystical Body of Christ as like a form to which we aspire that is more real than even the individuals that go to make it up.

Take on the Platonic handmaiden of the early fathers of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and begin to see that an act of the will leads to Truth and understanding, and that dialogue does not lead to an act of the will.

More interesting than anything else... take on the Platonic handmaiden and see how deviation from it may have had a helping hand in the Great Schism 1000 years ago, and then think of Queen Mother Mary's call to prayer and sacrifice, and the conversion of specifically of all nations, Russia.

That's how far back go the roots of the post conciliar debacle; you probably thought I would say 50 years... lol! Try a thousand.

The point at which philosophy and theology meet, like the fingers in the painting, must be the common playing field of ultra realism, as there are not two realities but one.

Plato was convicted on three counts:

1. Promoting a restoration of Monarchy in Athens 2. Promoting the concept of One God 3. "Corrupting the Youth" (read as: encouraging critical thinking)

Today we have:

1. Separation of Church and State 2. Ecumenism and indifference (false gods in the plural) 3. A deviant understanding of the magisterium

Nero burns while Rome Fiddles.

We have theological speculations that seem to be coming from a game of rock/paper/scissors when it should be based upon the ultrareal concepts of Rock/Water/Blood. The fabric of reality is a tight weave and the analogies all fit in perfect harmony, but one must believe first and understand later, because will precedes intellect.

What people innaccurately call the Thomistic View says the opposite:

Intellect precedes will.

In other words, if we dialogue enough, we'll get more converts, because if we can convince their minds, they'll choose God, right?

Wrong. It isn't working, because many say "I will not serve". That's a reality we cannot contend with. No amount of blather or even good works will convince these people to become Catholic. Why? Because the Truth is that will precedes intellect; an understanding which helped along with the use of the Platonic, not the Aristotelian, handmaiden to the Faith.

With the older and more suitable philosphical handmaiden to the Faith, the Platonic handmaiden, it can be seen that we can only really gain true knowledge and convince others of the same by partaking in that etherial form somewhere in between the bright lights and the far unlit unknown. Our Faith tells us that this would be the Eucharist. Partaking in the Eucharist is the ultimate prayer, and involves a commitment to partaking in the Cross of Christ.

So there's your prayer and suffering right there.

And make no mistake, it is hidden, it is in the closet. It is not at all in the limelight and for public veiwing, for public consumption. I strongly disagree with the tone of the Legion on this matter. Think of it from this perspective:

The Divine Analogy is the analogy of the Christ and His Church is that of marriage, with all of the romance and intimacy. It is about deeds done in secret that are intimate and produce life. To remove the hiddeness of the ways and means of salvation and to force it into the public limelight does severe and immense damage to the Analogy itself... because it seems in carrythrough, that this would force indecent exposure into the context of the analogy. In like manner, the Church toying with the ways of the world is to prostitute itself, and furthermore, for the Church to court other religions is to be unfaithful to the Bridegroom.

The Bridegroom makes no secret of one thing: His jealousy.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 01, 2003.


Consider the Fiat, Joe. One young girl who said "I will serve", or, "let it be done unto me according to Thy Will".

And salvation entered into the world, the Incarnation, the holy alliance.

Will precedes intellect.

It is really, really true, it is God's truth, that in the twinkling of an eye He can upset normality and restore all things in Christ, despite our best efforts. He does not desire our actions, He desires our wills, to the point of death.

This is what will renew the face of the earth. It seems insane, it seems crazy, illogical, irrational, but it is God and His ways, which are inscrutible.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 02, 2003.


This is positively painful...You're a smart man, Emerald, but (and please forgive me) you're an idiot (in the greek sense, perhaps).

An idiot, because all your supposed connections are really post hoc ergo propter hoc reasonings. You can't make Vatican Council II the logical result of a thousand years of ploting... that's not how history works because history is full of free beings whose interaction is not so streamline. Just because something happens after something else doesn't mean there is a casual relationship.

You yourself mentioned how God throws monkey wrenches into the plans of men...well? Well what does that tell you about historical mechanics? It's free people. People can plot and scheme for a generation but every plot unravels by the 3rd generation and dies in the 4th - hence the rise and fall of empires.

I say this is because God is constantly working in His Church (Christ promised us this) but also because the tools he is working with are free human beings. There is no such thing as historical inevitability. The only sure thing is that Christ is our Only King, Savior, and Redeemer. His Church will survive until the end... but when that is or how it will come about is not set in stone.

So you are trying to re-read a scheme of things into history which just can't be forced. Especially since the Aristotelian concepts of the Suma were not accepted wholesale into the culture of Europe in the 13th century! The Paris condemnations that unjustly froze Thomism for a generation led the thinkers of that age into Scottism and Oakhamism...which sure, may have set some stage for Protestantism (anti-intellectualism, remember? reason as whore?) and Atheism (the will to power...).

So, don't go around blaming Thomism for things it did not have control over! I'm appalled that you didn't learn basic history at TAC. Thomism wasn't learned systematically in the Catholic Church until the 1900's and by then most Catholic countries were already living under siege and persecution...

Your 1950's Golden Age American Catholic view point filled with piety and myth about why it was and how it was superior makes no sense to people who lived through the dark ages of 1950 Europe, Asia, or Africa! For them, the Church has only gotten stronger and taken more and more control of their societies not less... and most of THEIR bishops and clergy have Thomistic philosophy and theology under their belts...whereas most European and American clergy went light on their philosophy and long on managerial skills.

Secondly, your analysis of Aristotelian and Platonic concepts is too vague to be useful. Yes Thomas said his work was "like straw". The key word was "like" not "it's staw". Sure before the theophany of God Almighty, all our words and explanations seem like trifles. How could they not? But what kind of argument is this? That NOTHING is true because there is a greater truth?

Thirdly, you say, you affirm that "will precedes intellect" but Emerald, what kind of anthropology and theory of human knowledge are you basing yourself on? How could Mary have given her Fiat unless she a)recognized the Angel to be from God, and b) recognized the offer to be something good? First she heard the word from the Angel, then asked about how it could be possible (given her vow of chastity) and then said Yes. That doesn't sound like will before intellect to me!

Otherwise she'd have said "Yes" before the Angel even spoke! No. She said Yes, at the very end, after judging the word to be good. There's really no other way to interpret that verse Emerald.

The will simply cannot choose what it does not know. I'm sorry. Free actions and choices always include the mind along with the will. You can't (it's impossible) first will something and then think about it.

If you could, why would it be virtuous? What place would the conscience have? Just because you affirm something as true in words doesn't mean you've proven it true conceptually.

Just because you say Eccumenism is pagan or dumb doesn't mean a thing. And just because some liberals love what they CALL eccumenism or what they SAY IS THE SPIRIT OF VATICAN 2 doesn't mean that's what they are!

What you describe is NOT what the Church is doing. It's the simpleton's "will first ask questions later" approach. Being respectful of others is marketing 101. There are two ways to convert pagans: kill the adults and kidnap their children, or let truth on its own win those who are willing to accept it. Charity and virtue convince more than a king and his army killing the pagan priests, burning their temples and forcibly baptizing the multitude.

You err because you don't know the history of the Church in Africa, Asia and the America's - all places were missionaries have made converts NOT by the sword but by peaceful means.

And while you smuggly suggest God will do all the work, you forget that Mexico was converted by Guadalupe (who appeared in the very ecumenical garb of a native Aztec princess, with tan skin, speaking in Aztec) and the spanish missionaries who worked tireless and intelligently for 3 generations. So the Virgin alone did not suddenly bestow faith hope and charity on the indians, and the missionaries alone did not win the war... it was collaborative effort as one should expect given that the Church Militant is not essentially different from the Church Triumphant! Just as you don't know what you're talking about when you so blithely mention the Legion as not being prayerful, or not making praying while they work or praying for their work... so too you broadcast your ignorance when you parrot the tired old charges that the Church is betraying Our Lord because we aren't thundering condemnations on our Pagan neighbors but insist on first building up human virtue and human charity before evangelizing them through our example and discourse.

You should admit that YOUR WAY is fruitless. It hasn't worked ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME. But I must admit, it's a temptation. It'll make you feel good. But it'll also drive most people away because it that's how you have to sell your "good news", how good could it possibly be?

After all, because Intellect is primary, the Gospel was to be preached! Golly gee, why Emerald? Why preach something as The Way, the Truth, the Life, the Good news...if will not reason is primary?

Why give reasons such as "if you want to save yourselves..."? People need motives, reasons, which yes, include love and friendship, to act, to escape temptations and sin. They need to come to believe in the existence of soul, and heaven and hell, and judgment and forgiveness... all of which are intellectual concepts, not sheer acts of the will...

Think for a second, why should we have spiritual direction? Why homilies? Why catechism?

It's always amazed me that people - who supposedly know the problems of their generation so well - should harken back to some age 1200 years ago and think that those days were better than ours because they didn't appear to have vices or problems!



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.


Emerald,

Insightful thoughts. You put a good light on the Platonic Aquinas. It's a new concept to me but I suspect Thomas A. would say he loved God more with his heart than his pen.

I need a laymans understanding of the unholy alliance. It seems you're implying that the LC sells itself as THE means of salvation rather than Christ and His mystical body; that the Legion of Christ is the Way, Truth and Life.

I suspect I'm off-base since the LC would never openly claim that for herself.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.


Everyone who joins and spends any time in the Legion (who pays attention), hears over and over that the Legion only exists for the Church, at the service of the Church. And we lived our obedience to the Pope and bishops in union with him on a daily, practical level. No where is it written, said, muted, suggested, hinted, or winked at that the LC makes any sense apart from the Church.

It's just not there. Emerald's "unholy alliance" is some theory of history and human life all his own.

Now, Emerald, I'm sorry for calling you an "idios" or individual in Greek. You certainly are unique. I've no intention of insulting you for the heck of it. It's just that sometimes...it seems people respond better to chiding than to meek "well I beg to differ" language. Nevertheless, I do not wish to insult your honor or intelligence but to wake you up.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.


If we want to get picky, we could say that strictly speaking, BEING is primary, then knowing, and then willing...

In God (ipsum esse subsistens), his will and knowledge and our becoming to exist is simultaneous and eternal. But in us, composite creatures in time, there is a process, however close to instantaneous, nevertheless, a process...

The Way must first exist, for us to know the Truth about it, and once we accept this truth we are Free to find Life in it...

Even in Plato! The ideas exist independently of our knowledge or will power... just as the sun existed independently of the fire and shadows in the cave... But the escaped slave first had to see the sunshine to become aware of its existence and goodness...

Think about "revelation" itself... or the term "angelos", Angel (messenger). Or the name of Michael (who is like God?), whereas Lucifer chose to make will primary ( I will not serve), Michael chose to make judgment of true goodness primary - not my will, but thy Lord...

What did Our Lord do in the Garden? It wasn't a matter of what He desired, or what He willed, but what the Father wanted. It was a matter of Him knowing what the Father wanted, and obeying, not of him choosing first and then judging it to be good as though arbitrary.

He gave us example: first know what is true and good, and then accept it!

That's the common theme throughout scripture! First God revealed to Adam and Eve what was good (acceptible) and what was not (eating of the tree in the center of the garden). It was their knowledge of good and evil which made their action a sin. They didn't know a whole lot about goodness and evil conceptually or experimentally (obviously) but they knew enough to know that God forbade them on pain of death. (and while not knowing exactly what "death" was, they knew it wasn't "desirable").

There you have it. From Genesis to Revelation, it is not the will in man or creatures which is primary but the intellect which immediately preceeds all acts of the will, thereby making those acts human and moral actions, open to praise or blame, blessing or curse.

Catholicism and a Christian culture is no different. First we must know what is true in order to do it.

There is only one time period in life when this is not the case: childhood. We are baptised by our parents and taught human virtue...until the age of reason and assent. Then we become responsible for our actions (hence the need for confession before Eucharist)...

Don't tell me "sniff, well in Diocese X they don't so..." I know. I Know. But what I'm talking about is the truth taught by the Catholic Church, not what is actually done in Michigan or Colorado, Seoul, or Moscow.

Similarly, there is a subjective truth to many critiques against the Legion; people feeling bad about a particular priest, or brother, or RC member... people are imperfect, we make mistakes. That's one thing. But that doesn't mean the group or charism we feel God is calling us to participate in is the cause of our mistakes or imperfection.

You've got the ideal...and then the real... You've got people who seek a "way of perfection" - that doesn't automatically make them perfect! And that isn't a defect of the "way" either! And guess what guys? The LC never teaches or taught us that we were perfect or that the charism automatically made us superior...

I know lots of people CLAIM that's what Legionaries think...but that's just a misunderstanding. The Legion, from Fr Maciel on down, officially, and in practice, never claimed or claims to be superior or self-sufficient. Now, if some ex-member thought or thinks he is superior or self-sufficient that's something entirely different.

But you don't blame the organization or founder for the crazy idea of a neophyte or poorly formed member! Look at last Sunday's readings... after the Resurrection and on the very day of the Ascension, some of Our Lord's followers were still asking whether he was going to "restore the Kingdom to Israel"! Did that mean the Church per se was teaching that Jesus was merely a political person? No. It meant they still had "old yeast".

Some guys who joined in the 1980's may have had "old yeast" about religious life, about the priesthood, complexes of superiority, etc. But we were NEVER taught to sit in judgment of bishops or other groups. We WERE taught in word, letter, and example, to help other congregations and groups, to respect the valid differences of charism, work, and style, to see that Catholicism means the Church is blessed with different charisms. We read various Church histories...the Carthusians for example, the monks in Europe... how saints came and blessed the Church in both diocesan and religious form...

It's just so laughable that anyone should call the LC a "cult" or "sect". I can only imagine that this is because they don't know what those words actually mean nor have any first hand experience of the Legion!

Words have meanings guys! (How more Platonic can you get?)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.


lol Joe, no I was offended, believe it or not. In fact, I got a kick out of it, because it was a case-in-point verification of the differences in our thinking... you were expressing as profoundly as possible the concept of

Intellect precedes Will

...because if I do not choose properly, therefore I must be an idiot! lol! I have to tease Gecik about this, because whenever someone doesn't choose what he believes is the orthodox road, then people are idiots, mentally challenged or are suffering from dimentia. That's because whether he knows it or not, he believes that

Intellect precedes Will

Therefore, the orthodox roster of forumites are smarter than everyone else, as their properly formed intellect has put them on the road to salvation. The reason he and I get in scraps with each is that I believe that one must first thirst for Truth, and will the good, and the rest of understanding is heaped upon the individual in the measure and manner of God's choosing and according to what you might call that person's charisms, which I believe exist but of a slightly different essence and purpose with which you might understand them.

I also thought of this: I could have always said

"Will Precedes Intellect"

...then claim that if I am an idiot, that it's just because I haven't made up my mind yet...

Just teasing. I've got to work, but later I would like to get into this foreign missionary thing you brought up, because I'm in Junipero Serra territory here. This was that very missionary territory you speak of, and I married your cousin in California's first mission founded by Junipero Serro. Up north, Charles III ordered, literally ordered, the location and the name of Los Angeles. There's history in the soil here, much of it having to do with the issues at hand, believe it or not... even about the Platonic leanings of missionaries like Junipero Serra, and about issues like baptism.

When they landed on these shores, indians came up to them and asked for Baptism because they were having dreams about it, and one of my favorites, Ven. Mary of Agreda had insights about these things.

And the Guadalupe... get this, it took my post-conciliar, novus-ordo minded ecumenical new-evangelism buddy who came over to my house last week for beers, to tell me his recent visit to the shrine in Mexico City and all the things he learned about that image on the Tilma... everything beyond the local garb on that image was a statement contrary to what we now see as ecumenism... more later, gotta work.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 02, 2003.


Joe, I meant I was NOT offended... geez, sorry.

NOT offended.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 02, 2003.


How can you "thirst for the good" unless you know what goodness is?

Watch your words...they mean things...how can you speak about will as though it comes mechanically before intellect? You couldn't possibly desire anything unless you first knew it existed and was desirable!

Once you know it exists and is good (desirable) then of course, instantly the will (the heart, whatever) goes towards it.

It's vital to know the truth... and look at the very phenomenon of temptation...the devil or the flesh or the world tries to convince the heart (will) that something is good while the conscience (judgment, mind) begs to differ.

Your idea of how this works is more voluntarism - "I will it to be good so it is for me", not "I know it is good therefore I desire it"...

And insofar as God is creator and truth, and we know him and therefore obey and love him... yes, all those who deny him and deny that goodness is objective but is something created by the human will...are indeed cut off from the only majority that matters - the saved, and thus are idios - individuals.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.


I'm not saying (nor did Thomas) that merely knowing the truth is enough or that somehow the will always chooses what it knows to be good... so that missionary activity is simply a matter of informing the soul of its options.

Human beings are more complicated than that.

Nor does the Legion think it's just a matter of "informing" lay people for them to become holy. Not at all! Nor could you really get that idea by having any decent amount of experience with them.

Knowing what is right is only half the battle. Of COURSE there is a great role for the will, for love. For the formation of virtue as well as for conscience.... the very fact that the Movement stresses frequent attendance at Mass and confession, spiritual direction and retreats should lead you to conclude that both the mind and heart have key roles in the life of the committed and serious Catholic apostle.

Emerald, have you ever read Mortimer Adler's "Ten Philosophical Mistakes"? (Now, I don't care if he wasn't Catholic at the time, or any other ad hominem about him. Just yes or no will do for now. And if Yes, then whether or not his arguments were right, not whether or not he was a nice guy).

I think your train of thought has some questionable cargo which may be more easily off loaded should you preruse a bit of that simple but deep book.

Unless of course you don't want to be convinced... there is always room for the passions and the stubborn will to NOT listen, to NOT learn, to NOT accept an argument because one knows where it may lead...but in the act of not learning, one makes a moral choice...

Kinda like on-line lurkers who desperately want the Legion to be bad so refuse to approach anyone who has much experience of her unless he is a disgruntled ex-member. They'd never approach Fr Bannon or Fr Maciel himself, or go visit a seminary for themselves. That'd be too "risky". It just might upset prejudice and a priori thinking...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 02, 2003.


"How can you "thirst for the good" unless you know what goodness is?"

If you had possession of the good, why would you thirst for it?

"Watch your words...they mean things..."

True, and under the Platonic handmaiden this too is more readily apparent. Anne Emmerich saw the prayers of the Faithful ascending to heaven in a visible manifestation of essence. The Word was made flesh; and Charity knows these to be realities as well, so don't worry, it is not lost on me.

"how can you speak about will as though it comes mechanically before intellect?"

I can't say that I did. What I said was that Will precedes Intellect. Are we assuming a tabularosa or not? What man or women knows absolutely nothing? Yet still, the will exists from conception.

"You couldn't possibly desire anything unless you first knew it existed and was desirable!"

Does a baby just born thirst yet not know about water? I'm not sure I entirely agree with that premise; maybe establish it better for me?

"Once you know it exists and is good (desirable) then of course, instantly the will (the heart, whatever) goes towards it."

Wait a minute. Are you saying that we have no free will? Because it sounds like you are saying the if the soul perceives good it must necessarily desire it. That would contradict not only reason and observable reality but the Faith. This is the very automation of being which I believe I'm right in saying you wish to avoid. It is, however, not unlike the automation I have seen from the legion, and from post-conciliarism in general. The carry through of this kind of thinking would be that if we presented enough information to a person, he will necessarily become one with truth, become good. This is against all observable reality; try this Compton CA sometime... lol!

It's vital to know the truth... and look at the very phenomenon of temptation...the devil or the flesh or the world tries to convince the heart (will) that something is good while the conscience (judgment, mind) begs to differ.

Who refers to "the heart" is synonymous the will? Besides being debatable at the offset, this premise would run counter to my own experience... acts of the will can be forced through without emotion or feeling, and even against it. I don't know if I would sum up the nature of temptation in this manner.

"Your idea of how this works is more voluntarism - "I will it to be good so it is for me", not "I know it is good therefore I desire it"..."

No no no no no, nonono. No! "I desire what is good, I will seek what is good, I will find what is good." The Good God seeing this, as in the parable, will run to meet His lost son while he is yet on the horizon. Believe it.

"And insofar as God is creator and truth, and we know him and therefore obey and love him..."

I disagree with this as a premise. The demons know Him as creator and truth, but there's no "therefore" anywhere there, becomes evil does not follow in and of itself. Goodness and evil are not the products of good and bad premises and syllogisms. Evil acts are in fact incomprehendable acts of the will. Will precedes intellect. Under your assumptions, it really would be true that people can be convinced into the Faith. I believe ya'll believe this to be true though because I watch ya'll try to do it.

"...yes, all those who deny him and deny that goodness is objective but is something created by the human will...are indeed cut off from the only majority that matters - the saved, and thus are idios - individuals."

What? That MAJORITY? This would be so a-Scripural, so a-everything the Catholic Church has ever taught. You mean, you really, really believe that the majority of mankind will be saved? Did I misread that or what?

If this is the case, then ecumenism actually IS indifferentism, and it's condemnation would be a fortiori. This would be insulting to pious ears, Pius X, and pie-in-the-skius. This would render the Cross of Christ void. This would lay waste to the Faith in the modern world... oh wait a minute. That's what is actually happening... my bad. =)

Please tell me it aint true. If it is, I would be more right about the Legion than I thought.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 02, 2003.


I give you Joe Stong:

"I think your train of thought has some questionable cargo which may be more easily off loaded should you preruse a bit of that simple but deep book. . . ."

WTF was that?

That's like saying,

"Um well, I'd um like to. . . ahem! I believe there's a straw man holding a red herring on the next block, why don't we have a look...err if ah . . . that's ok with everybody?

Or do you expect a book report by the end of the week?

Emerald, you're the first person I've seen put Joe so far over a barrel that he's resorted to beating you with his well-worn red herring.

Honestly, this is fun.

Please Joe, no multi-themed reply is necessary. Its my pleasure to watch Emerald beat you at your own game.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), June 03, 2003.


Emerald, you're the first person I've seen put Joe so far over a barrel that he's resorted to beating you with his well-worn red herring

and youre the first person ive met who has no clue what red herring means, whats your point?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 03, 2003.


Emerald and I are not putting each other over barrels, we're trying to grasp what each other are actually saying. There is a difference.

Right now we're consistently talking past each other...

You say there's no need to know when you possess...but duh, how do you know you possess something? If you're asleep, or unconscious, your will cannot function. You won't thirst or hunger in anything but a biological way.

So your metaphor of thirst proves nothing about whether Intellect preceeds acts of will in human beings. Sure babies have biological needs (hunger, thirst, warmth etc.) They have appetites, passions, etc. but strictly speaking, their intellect and will are not developed yet (which is why they are not guilty of anything for a couple of years.)

Now, you still have not shown how it is possible for a person to desire anything without knowing that it is good. You may feel pain in your stomach and pain in your throat. Your mind will make a simple judgment: pain = bad. decision: cry for help. act/will : deep breath, yelp....

Then, following Withheld's companions, you put words into my mouth by interpreting my point about the importance of knowing in order to desire, to claiming I do not believe in free will!

Well, again, strictly speaking, in heaven, before the majesty of God who is Goodness himself, you are not free to not love him! The mind judges it as perfect goodness and the will immediately desires Him.

But we're NOT in heaven. We're in a garden with many trees, many good things, many different levels of good things: biological needs, urges, appetites, desires, moral needs, urges, appetites, desires, intellectual (such as math and science) pursuits...and spiritual needs etc.

Part of the problem with the moral life is learning what is right and what is wrong, as well as being formed in human virtues, habits of right action which make the pursuit of moral/spiritual goods that much easier.

So, no, I do believe and know that human beings have free will. That's why I talk about moral culpability, why I mention that human beings are complex (composite) creatures... why merely knowing what is right is not enough.

(Angels by the way, have no bodies so don't have passions, appetites, etc. and as metaphysics teaches us, their manner of knowledge is not dependent on the senses but on infused knowledge. How they came to reject the love of God is a mystery. Malice too is a mystery. How can someone hate another who has done no harm or ill to you?

Did not our Lord, quoting the prophets talk about this "they hated me for no reason"? It's the lack of reason for acts of the will which make some acts so heinious. If WILL was primary to the issue then what account could you possibly have for acts of malice? hmmmmmm?

If we always act based on needs (thirst) and our will is always set up prior to our act of judgment about what is to be desired...how can immorality exist? Where would it come from?

Finally, in another example of putting words in my mouth, you read my phrase about "the only majority that matters, those saved" as though I was saying "the majority of human beings ever created are saved".

That's not what I said, that's not how you could reasonably interpret those words. The paragraph was arranged to show a distinction between the "idiot", (idios in Greek means individual) and the People, the multitude which Revelation describes as innumerable, from every language and group on earth. In Heaven everyone shouts in unison, "Holy Holy Holy" etc. not in a babel of voices. But again, not so fast to jump to conclusions...this doesn't mean we cease being individuals, it's that individual interpretation of scriptures is not Catholic. I am arguing from what I know to be Catholic doctrine...you're the one quoting some mystic as though this was dogma (what in the world does "essences of prayers rising to heaven" mean? You CAN'T SEE ESSENCES! You're jumping from metaphors to metaphysics, from biological needs to conscious desires, trying to somehow make the will primary when in fact, it can't be.

This doesn't mean the will doesn't exist, it doesn't mean we're not free, but it does mean that our intellect, our perceptions and conceptions about what our body and mind and soul needs come first. The mind interprets signals from the body and judges whether this means we're OK or should cry....

Withheld, if you think I was put over a barrel... show me where. My train metaphor was apt: the engine (Emerald's erudition) is fine. So are the tracks, his faith...but some of the cargo he's carrying (Platonic theories which reach back in time trying to pin direct causal links between disparate things, ages, and people... are defective. The phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy for a good reason. Not EVERYTHING that comes after something else is caused by that something else! Just because WWII came after WWI doesn't mean it was a direct and unavoidable effect of the treaty of Versailles. Who knows what would have happened had there not been a Great Depression? Or had the Communists not been around, or if greater saints had risen in Deutchland?

Emerald, in your affirmations about the WILL, as opposed to Intellect, it seems to me that this would be true if you were talking about God (since will and intellect are co-eternal), but not about man. In Man, it may very well be that our will responds nearly simultaneously to the known good...but reason has to say "X" is good.

You are confusing biological human needs and human appetites (hunger, thirst, warmth, etc.) with human desires...and since we don't hold children accountable for moral acts until they have "reached the age of reason" guess what this means? It means, there are no culpable human will actions before reason develops.

Now I do not deny that the mind is actively trying to understand and is learning from even before birth (the senses of touch and hearing are active in utero, space and time...) but that's a far cry from wholly conscious judgments and will.

So maybe we're not using the same vocabulary or definitions of our terms.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 03, 2003.


The Wall Street Journal once printed a little piece titled > > "Sincerity." It goes like this: > > > > I wish I were big enough honestly to > > admit all my shortcomings; > > brilliant enough to accept praise > > without it making me arrogant; > > tall enough to tower above deceit; > > strong enough to welcome criticism; > > compassionate enough to understand human frailties; > > wise enough to recognize my mistakes; > > humble enough to appreciate greatness; > > staunch enough to stand by my friends; > > human enough to be thoughtful of my neighbor; > > and righteous enough to be devoted to > > the love of God. > > So, we're all working on something. Withheld probably thinks I'm an arrogant SOaG. I'm really working on that. It's hard to not go sarcastic sometimes. And it's hard not to pound something home too much, trying too hard to make a point, too verbose, too... oops, here I go again...

I need to work on being anonymous and concise.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 03, 2003.


God is God, angels and men aren't. The Gospel must be preached to all lands...and men must choose goodness over evil. Wisdom and Romans speak of natural law - as well as revealed that is known or knowable and ought to be followed. Should one not follow what he knows is right, he is condemned.

-- Withholding (withholding@yahoo.com), June 03, 2003.

"Withheld probably thinks I'm an arrogant SOaG. I'm really working on that. It's hard to not go sarcastic sometimes."

Listen, don't worry about it. Well, I mean, worry about it in one sense, but in the sense that I know what you mean and fight the same thing myself and fall. But on to other stuff, yes we are talking past each other quite a bit I think. Perhaps it's this medium that fails us. I can't do it until later because of time, but perhaps maybe I should lay out some elemental premises (probably the wrong word, but good enough for now) that I have about the Faith that probably make me seem to come in from a bizarre angle... and come across as a sucker punch sometimes to people instead of a valid objection or a valid concept.

Perhaps if I did that, it would help for you to see what drives my contention with the LC. It is not an aimless sort of evil inclination that makes me take issue with the Legion, but that the Legion in many respects represents to me a paradigm of a Grand Departure, so to speak. My contention with the Legion is merely symbolic of my contention with a much larger phenomena in the Church. The contention doesn't exist in the realm of accusations and allegations against individuals but in the realm of philosophy, theology and holiness.

Also, my contention with the Legion is not to be construed as a contention with you, because I don't perceive you as being someone disinterested in God's truth. I think we could profitably talk this through.

So later on, I'll do what I can to explain where I am coming from in principle; that would probably help.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 03, 2003.


Thanks. I think this would be very helpful. As for barrels, perhaps we could both "get over a barrel" of beer & pretzels sometime.

This medium IS notoriously difficult to maintain heated (or passionate) or just plain old intricate dialogues.

Peace

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), June 03, 2003.


Joe,

I don’t think you’re an arrogant SOB (oops).

I think . . . You love God with your whole mind soul and strength. You love your wife and kids the same. You’re a passionate person. Passionate about your faith, passionate about your views.

Some guesswork You were attracted to Legion orthodoxy, and the Legion saw you as an excellent candidate – smart, motivated, engaged and faithful. Did that passion interfere with the Spirit of the Legion? I suspect you didn’t think your vocation was at and end, but the fathers did. You were well ingrained with the benefits of the Legion and loved her as much on the day you left, as you did when you arrived.

And here you are. A little blinded by your love for the Legion, maybe. Tenacious, persistent, passionate . . . you bet. Arrogant, no.

Loving God with mind, soul and strength trumps all else. Plus the opinion of someone who won’t even reveal his identity shouldn’t count for too much.

PAX

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), June 03, 2003.


Another one of my "troubles" is being so honest and open about my personal history...virtually unequalled on-line. Those with gripes don't expose their identities and reputation to the world.

Not having much to hide, I haven't been so anonymous. But maybe it was just verbosity???

But suffice to say that the Legion didn't come looking for me. A road team never visited me, I never got letters in the mail...no, I went to them. I just showed up one June afternoon, 3 days before Candidacy actually started, back in 1988. I came, I saw, I stayed.

I had previously experienced Christ as a living person in a profound way back in Cheshire during a short visit in 1984. Later, in May 1988, I felt that He was asking me to follow His lead and that took me to Cheshire.

And so for the next 10 years or so I continued to walk the way I perceived Him leading me on. It was always about following Christ where ever He led, always about serving the Church, helping other people... never ever about a career or private ambition to be regarded with honor and respect as a "priest".

My vocational discernment process took years...and I got multiple opinions, various spiritual directors, corresponded with Fr Maciel, read alot, meditated alot on the mystery of a vocation, on the mystery of the priesthood, of what man is, and what fatherhood is...how all men need to become moral fathers in order to be mature... to become Friends of Christ, and fatherly gentlemen, brothers, sons...

In the end, I realized more and more that while the priesthood is a noble and lofty and heavy cross - whose glory is found not from men or society, but from the mystery of Christ's presence working through your hands.... I could not be called to that post. Sure, I was helped through direction, but the decision was not made for me.

There was no "they". The whole "They/us" divide is an artificial construct. If you start looking at the Church in political terms you're doomed. I don't doubt that some people DO act like politicians. But the Church is not America or the West. It is Christ's and surpasses this world. Angels and saints are members...

Sure, the Spirit grants charisms and gifts: some are apostles, others teachers, others prophets, etc. etc. but all are "one body in Christ". Sure some were superiors and others subjects. I was always a "subject" but simultaneously, a co-founder, and fellow Catholic...a "brother in Christ".

That's my story. I'm still here, still striving to be a friend of Jesus Christ and of His friends...still hoping to be a faithful Catholic son, brother, and father of souls.

There is no adventure greater than the adventure of giving "to God what belongs to God".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 03, 2003.


Emerald,

Been out of town a few days.

that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire (Pope Eugene)

You do realize that LeFebvre died excommunicated for schism don't you? If you believe Pope Eugene here, LeFebvre's roasting in Hell now, or is there some doublethink response you've been taught for this? If not, why are you following (or at least respect the tenets of) someone *known by the church to be in Hell*? Or finally, well, I'll wait on this.

So in that sense, I would turn the tables on this issue and many, many others and claim that you (not so much the "you Frank" as the collective "You" of those who tenaciously hold to a hell-bent postconciliarism) that it is you who do not heed the authority of Pontiffs and dogmatic definitions

No, I've been saying since you've been here that Lefebvre was wrong, and Pope Eugene backs me up! What pope *Dogmatically* backs up your position that you should turn your back on Papal authority?

Here's the point though: it isn't, and never has been, about what I think, it's about what the Church has always taught.

The church did NOT always teach a Tridentine mass though, that at one time was a "new invention". The church HAS always taught obedience though, something that you are weaker on. Basically, I don't see schismatics as being truer to the faith, rather they just stopped the clock where it suited them, much like some people only listen to classical music or Elvis. Why not go back to a Greek mass if you want what the church taught? It's closer to the original.

Besides, from what I've heard, the Pope has asked the laity to get more active... so I'm doing it.

Can't argue with that. Good work!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 03, 2003.


Frank, that's about as honest a challenge as I have ever received in this forum, and I think your question is 100% worthy... well, except some minor things, like the implication that I've been spoon-fed my arguments by others BUT... but whatever. =)

Usually I either get silence or nonsubstantive insults and accusations. Yours is a clear cut challenge, and I think I can do a decent job in laying out a fair answer for you, if you are willing to hear it.

I want to continue with Joe too, but it is 2am here. I hope I get a chance to answer before the Six-Fingered Man shows up and claims this:

"Disappeared. He must have seen us closing in, which might account for his panicking in error. Unless I'm wrong, and I am never wrong, they are headed dead into the fire swamp."

But it really has deviated away from the LC at this point, so maybe it's better to make a new thread. Do you want to do this or not? Because if you are serious, I'm all over getting in depth into this; I can address the topic... and all from someone who has never attended an SSPX Mass in my entire life! What more could you ask for?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 04, 2003.


Emerald,

I get a sense that you can't reconcile eccumenism and orthodoxy, or at least that, attempts at eccumenism necessarily compromise the fullness and teaching of the faith.

What's your position?

E-jew kill my father...prepare to die!

-- Withheld Montoya (withheld@yahoo.com), June 04, 2003.


"As... you... wish! is my position. That would be the Platonic will preceding intellect: "As you wish" was all he ever said to her. That's all we need to say to God.

They keep using that word, though... ecumenism. I don't think it means what they think it means. So yes, it can't be reconciled with orthodoxy, not at all. Not it's common current usage; it's common current usage is manifest heresy.

At least, it should be manifest. But people don't want to believe it, so they won't look into why that's true, because will precedes intellect.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 04, 2003.


Why don't people want to believe? For that matter, why do you want to believe? You simply haven't proven how a human being can desire some moral or spiritual good without first knowing it exists and is good!

Now, does this mean you Platonically think we're conceived with a head full of knowledge of the universals and that therefore learning is superfluous? If so, why pray tell was "the word made flesh"? Why did He preach and send others to preach? What's the point of "angelos" (messengers) carrying any message if the soul somehow already "possesses" all truth with which to make a choice pro or con?

Mary asked "How can this be for I do not know man" - BEFORE she said "FIAT MIHI". Let it be done to me ACCORDING TO YOUR WORD... FIRST SHE LEARNED AND JUDGED IT TO BE GOOD, THEN ACTED.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 05, 2003.


Emerald,

Orthodoxy and ecumenism can/do peacefully coexist. That is, it’s not incontheivable to reconcile the two. In the old days ecumenism was accomplished with a certain amount of force - via the Brute Squad. Fortunately, the old way is dead, or only mostly dead.

The new way is dialog. Dialog typically begins with small talk and that’s what’s happening now. A wacky priest or bishop could say something heretical (they do in every age), but the teaching and Tradition of the Church is intact.

The cause of ecumenism is nothing more or less than preaching the Gospel to all peoples. If you don’t like the way this preaching is going, say why and how to make it right. Sometimes our language subtly implies that the Church has swallowed a goblet of wine, laced with iocane powder. That's no good.

To the pain

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), June 05, 2003.


"It's possible, pig -- I might be bluffing -- it's conceivable, you miserable vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand -- then again, perhaps I have the strength after all..."

Just kidding, withheld. I haven't forgotten Frank's question, and giving Joe a feel for what drives what my attitude; after I started writing, it started to grow, and I'm not done yet. I have to work most of the time. There's not a lot of money in revenge.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 05, 2003.


Emerald,

Take your time in responding. Anyone else should feel free to jump in on this one too.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), June 05, 2003.


Emerald,

The original topic seems to have been discontinued already, you might as well continue here, IMO, but feel free to start a new thread if you wish. Also, I'm not necessarily checking in every day at this point, but will reply to whatever you ask, even if it takes a day or two to do so.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 05, 2003.


What I’m going to attempt to do:

1. Make clear the context of Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication 2. Make clear exactly why Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated 3. Make clear exactly what he was NOT excommunicated for 4. Say in what ways I sympathize with Lefebvre 5. Say in what ways I disagree with Lefebvre 6. Describe what the ordeal was that Feeney went through 7. Describe the similiarities between the two case 8. Go on a rampaging rant about the post-conciliar debacle 9. Somehow manage to bend this rant back around to the Legionaires

First, these are not canned arguments, nor did I visit the SSPX website to obtain them, nor have I really visited any websites to ‘regurgitate and argument’ so to speak. I have never operated that way. What I did was to look up the document Ecclesia Dei itself and read it carefully; I was taught to do things that way. Am I looking for certain red flags? You bet. Why not… the strategies are all similar, and after some time practicing, and measuring the phenomena witnessed against what the mind of the Church has been all along, not only does one get good at seeing that where we are now is not where we were before, but how very very far we are… not in terms of external displays of piety and smells ‘n bells and that whole army of strawmen, but in the very gut and core of the way we think and live and even perceive the fundamental principles of Catholic reality, which is reality itself, and the Only Reality.

Go pull up Ecclesia Dei and examine it; read it through very carefully, paying attention to the specific choice of wording. Keep in mind, after a little observation, it becomes painfully clear that in all things post-conciliar, ambiguity is the watchword.

You will find that the excommunication of Lefebvre that everyone refers to is actually not a declaration of excommunication, but a statement that Latae Sentiencia excommunication.

What for?

…for ordaining 4 bishops without permission.

It was NOT for the following:

1. Saying the Tridentine Mass, or 2. Saying it without an indult 3. For taking issue and with and exception to the Novus Ordo Misse 4. For not being willing to come into line with Vatican II, or the “spirit” thereof 5. For being generally irritated with the post conciliar pontiffs, and the post conciliar Church

It did not include:

1. Those who attend SSPX Masses 2. Those who bang on Vatican II 3. Those who are irritated with the current pontiff

It did in fact make reference to an excommunication of Lefebvre:

Was Lefebvre guilty as charged, of the ordaining of 4 bishops? Well, yes of course. Did he disobey the Roman Pontiff? Yes he did. Is this to be taken lightly? No way. Is there a possible out for Lefebvre? Actually, there is one… and that would be a canon law rule that makes for an exception of Lefebvre under extreme duress. Would Lefebvre have qualified for this out? I don’t know. Is he roasting in Hell? I don’t know.

He may have indeed made a mistake. The mistake would have been limited to the ordination… and that alone.

The mistake, if there was one, was limited to that and that alone… not to other issues such as these:

1. Upholding the Mass of Trent 2. Saying the Mass of Trent without an indult 3. Disparaging the post conciliar Church. 4. Disagreeing with the current Pontiff 5. Being in opposition to any novelties and deviations that can be found in Vatican II

…and many, many more. But the NuvoCatholic, defending the position of postconciliarism, uses the situation conveniently for the rejection of Traditional Roman Catholicism. Why not? After all, that was imho the intent of the ordeal, and it worked.

Is Lefebvre in schism? Absolutely not… because schism requires the outright rejection of the authority of the Pope. If anybody really knows what a schism is, it will be absolutely manifest that this was not a schism despite what this document says. For heavens sake, read up on schism and find out for yourself what it really consists of. A real schism was the East/West schism. Ecclesia Dei states only that such an action as ordaining those bishops without permission implies schism, in so far as it implies rejection of the Roman papacy.

Except for one problem: Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t reject the Roman primacy. If he in fact had done that, he would have been in fact in schism. But he didn’t, and Ecclesia Dei doesn’t do much more than “imply” that he did, which is debatable at best.

Ecclesia Dei did not declare a schism, either. Nice try, but here’s the actual wording from the document:

”Hence such disobedience--which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy--constitutes a schismatic act.”

Pontiffs throughout history, if you take the time to read their acts, don’t mince words as a habitual modus operandi. The general tone of past pontiffs may have appeared something similar to this, if you will allow me the liberty of rewriting it to rid the statement of ambiguity:

”Hence, this act of disobedience – which is in fact the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schism.

Look, they had plenty of time to think this over, and plenty of time to make sure that this most grave of statements was clear, final, precise and (for lack of a better word) damning. With the ambiguity present, one is left plenty of wiggle room, no? If I can write it clearly, I would assume, with the grace of office, that they could do better, no?

They chose not to.

And a try it was, make no mistake. Trying to do what? The document launches into a long diatribe about Vatican II, citing it as being the underpinning behind this whole action taken. That’s where it becomes clearer what kind of thing you really have going on here. Make no mistake, the intent behind the action of Ecclesia Dei was clearly to suppress the Tridentine Rite of the Mass, and to discourage the Faithful from that direction. Bummer, because that Mass expresses the essence of our salvation. It was my position on extra ecclesiam nulla solus that brought about my attraction and respect for that Mass, the Mass of Trent. There is a fundamental cohesion of strategy at work here.

What is the root of that strategy? Vatican II and the post conciliar mindset of course. The document says so:

”4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition.”

Once again, an opportunity to declare it as fact, but no… it “can be” discerned. Not “is discerned as”. This leaves the entire issue open ending; it declares nothing. It suggests, it does not declare. It implies, but does not state.

At the end of the document, it insults all those who wish to hold to all that is traditionally Catholic by referring to their demands for the retention of doctrinal expression as “attachments”.

But all it can manage to officially pull off is nailing Lefebvre for something other than attempting to uphold the Tridentine Rite of the Mass… the ordination of four bishops.

The document didn’t suppress the Mass of Trent except in the minds of those who don’t give a rat’s rump one way or the other. The document does not put jake, Isabel and Regina in schism. Frank, they are not schismatics. The forumites like to call them that because it seems to be an effective way to marginalize them and to marginalize their pious concerns. What it really shows is:

1. Nobody is doing their homework on the matter 2. People don’t want to believe that these supposed “schismatics” are really on to something. 3. We better start praying for this Pontiff right now, and pray hard.

They are on to something. They may blunder here and there on details as do I, but this is the natural result of a trying to grapple with a castrophe in the Church where, in the words of Leo XIII:

”These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”

And scattered we are.

Check this out:

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

Frank, that poses a real problem, doesn’t it, with our post-conciliar ecumenism, acted out visible by our own Holy Father? I am a papal loyalist; I don’t reject this pontiff. How do you think this makes me feel? If my earthly father departs from the way of truth, does it hurt? Is he still my father? How about this one:

"Some people hope that nations, in spite of their differing religious viewpoints, may unite as brothers in the profession of certain doctrines as a common foundation. Certainly, efforts such as these cannot receive the approbation of Catholics, for they rest on the false opinion that any religion whatever is more-or-less praiseworthy and good. Those who hold this opinion are in gross error! Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate everyone who in any way lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! This Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics." -- Pope Pius XI

…and nobody sees a problem with what’s going on right now? Nothing? No departures… everything is the same… it all meshes together…

It’s no wonder that the new “holy trinity” as I like to call it, of the postconciliar Church is this:

Vatican II / Loyal to John Paul II / The New Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But never ever, mind you, reference any old documents. Why, don’t you dare take a gander at what the Church used to say, they tell you. You don’t have what it takes, they say. You aren’t qualified. Who are you? Holier than the Pope?!? “Don’t go there!”

…because if you do, my friend, you’ll see a problem; a real big one.

But what says the Nuvo? “No, there’s no problem. Just a bunch of weirdoes and malcontents. Pharisees, we call them. Holier than thou. Holier than the Pope. There’s no catastrophe; all is well. There’s nothing to see here; move along.”

The denial kills me. It is the most heinous part of the damnation equation. It truly is vindication of the reality of will precedes intellect.

And what’s the chief loss of holding such a denial of the true condition of the Holy Roman Catholic Church? A loss of an evangelism borne of confidence and single heartedness; a loss of prayer, a loss of sacrificial living, a loss of a necessary separation from the ways of this world and a loss of a sense of the eternal, of the immutable, of the permanence of Heaven and Hell themselves.

The truest thing I have ever heard from a Protestant say was from this friend I had who used to say all the time “people believe what they want to believe”. I’ll never forget sitting at the table long ago, and this friend trying to convince me that my own Church taught Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus. And I argued that we didn’t; I denied it. Stupid, stupid, stupid me. I would give anything to have that moment back again. He was right.

But we are afraid of truth anymore, and we are slaves of the ways of the world anymore as well. This marriage of the Church and The World… if such an endeavor is so meritorious, and if such an endeavor is not in any way contrary to the dogma of the Faith, let me ask a simple question:

Why not make the document a dogmatic-level event? In fact, why not make all of Vatican II a dogmatic event? The answer is because it can’t be… much of it would be in contradiction, conflict and compromise with our Holy Faith. That’s why Vatican II and all that is uniquely PostConciliar will, and will always, stay in the realm of the pastoral, because the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

Now to take on Fr. Leonard Feeney’s debacle, or should I say, crucifixion. Because that’s what the attack on Feeney was all about; an attack on the Baptism and on the Eucharist. A far more insidious, far far deeper and more elemental attack than even many in the sspx movement are even privy to as they rightfully attempt to defend the august Mass of Trent.

This is where it gets good, because the way the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney plays out is absolute vindication that his claims about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus were absolutely the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as if… as if the fact that it is plastered into every writing of every saint in the history of the Church weren’t good enough proof in itself. For Heaven’s sake, it is the essence of Sister Faustina’s message!

I’m going to make this as simple as possible; if you don’t believe it, then research it yourself. When I did, I didn’t read websites on it; instead, my looking into these matters included a several-hour brunch with Feeney’s personal chauffer, a man that lived with him all those years as part of the order and had daily contact with him and knew every detail about everything that happened. But the basic information you can get anywhere, and it’s this:

Father Feeney was “reconciled with the Church” after a supposed excommunication for his position on no salvation outside the Church. He was reconciled based on his recitation of the Athenasian Creed. He recited it. The Athenasian Creed begins and ends with the statement that outside the Church, none are saved. He recanted nothing about anything, including not having this doctrine “in the proper understanding”. After his supposed reconciliation, he continued to uphold this dogma in public and in the same way as he always had, and they never bothered him again about it.

Why? Because it is Catholic Doctrine. If you are going to be reconciled with the Church after being excommunicated for heresy, you have to recant your position. He recanted nothing. In fact, he restated his adherence to the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla solus. So what was he supposedly excommunicated for?

For not going to Rome on these charges, because they, ROME, didn’t follow proper canonical procedure by which to bring him up on charges of heresy. They wanted to nail him for heresy, but couldn’t because it wasn’t heresy, it was truth.

Once again, a dubious excommunication based upon something totally other than the issue at hand. Always. Every time.

If it’s really true, they why not just come out and say it?

If the issues really were a threat to the Faithful, they would have addressed them directly and clearly. They didn’t. Because Lefebvre and Feeney weren’t a threat to the Faith; they were upholding the Faith in both cases in relation to each issue: the 1. Mass of Trent which upholds the 2. Way of Salvation. That’s that way it always works out for the true warriors of the Faith: brought up on bogus charges, slandered and ridiculed. That’s what happens to people of saintly makeup, because, well gee, that’s what happened to Christ Himself, and these people only wished to follow him.

In the mean time, countless real and truly dangerous barf- laden heretics and abusers run naked through the Church and nobody in the hierarchy does jack to call them on to the carpet for any of their doctrinal and liturgical “abortions”, or for their slaughter of the innocents, of the laity. No, we have to be ecumenical with them. But not with Lefebvre, not with Feeney.

They’re evil.

Right?

Frank, it will all end up shoring up the airtightness of the case for the Church and Salvation, not because it is not mine but because is the position of the Roman Catholic Church. The further interpretations we have heard of for Extra Ecclesiam Etc.? They aren’t doctrines, plain and simple. There is a name for them; they are in fact called theological speculations. There is nothing wrong with theological speculations per se, but if they contradict known doctrine and dogmatic definitions, in this case exceptions to salvation within the Church, they contradict be held as binding or authoritative understandings. If it is a “matter of understanding” what the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla solus means… if that’s what’s proposed, then it can be reduced down to exceptions to the some of the Sacraments, in particular, Baptism and the Eucharist. We can’t do that either, because unless we are born of water and the spirit, and eat His body and drink his blood, we won’t make it. He said so. The case is on solid ground and is completely airtight… not from Emerald’s perspective but from Church teaching and the Deposit of the Faith which was complete at the time of Pentecost.

Anything which attempts to prove otherwise is based on an attempt to take non-dogmatic, non-binding and non-doctrinal statements, concepts and ideas from prelates in the Church and show them as over- riding doctrines and dogmatic definitions. No matter how official the source from whence they came, they cannot be used to call into question what the Church has always taught, and they cannot be presented as binding teachings. No amount of excuse-making, such as a nebulous “action of the Holy Spirit” and misunderstood understandings of how He operates, or such as a “living waters” archetype of the Church as opposed to the always-held Ark archetype… or whatever it is… “the direction of the Church”, the development (evolution?) of dogma taken to mean something other than what it is… the need to follow the “mind and heart of the Holy Father” instead of him holding the dogma of the Faith… the “living magisterium”…

Frank, you’ve got to notice that all these things are proposed in the context of the pastoral, and never, ever in the form of commands and definitions demanding assent because they come from the full, true and binding exercise of papal authority. For God’s sake, see it for what it is.

If you look at the entire reality we call Vatican II and everything which is considered to have flowed out of it under an official capacity, you will find that what I’m trying to tell you is absolutely the truth, that nothing has been declared binding upon us in this council save what was already held as doctrine by the Church all along. That’s why it is a pastoral council, Frank, because the Holy Ghost has stepped in to protect the Faithful… by not allowing such novelties and deviations (I’m talking doctrinal things here and not the Novus Ordo rite of the Mass) from becoming binding doctrines to be held by the Faithful. You can look at it all day and night, and it just isn’t there.

What it does attempt to do, though, is to form an unholy alliance with the world. Ask yourself, what on God’s green earth is so special about us in the modern world? Why are we so great and glorious in comparison to that sorry little existence of an idiot we call the man in the mischaracterized Dark Ages? Because we have cars, and computers, and airplanes? Because we landed on the moon? And this makes us special… how? Why does the church need to be brought to terms with this?

It doesn’t. The world needs to be brought to terms with the Church, because nothing has changed. Technology has changed nothing about our condition. It merits us nothing. It proves nothing about human nature, it adds nothing to the glory of God. It is nothing and it will all burn in the final analysis. We will be detached from the world either by choice or, at death, by force. At that time, we will be no different from the man of the middle ages; cold, hard, immutable reality will crush us into to the knowledge that the same principles that sent a man of the middle ages to Heaven or to Hell will work on us in the same way, the same manner, and with complete disregard to any distant memory we had of a modern world we feel so at home in right now, in the present.

The world has always been able to distract men from things eternal, but in this age, the distraction is phenomenal. It’s like a damnation machine; it is the art of damnation at its pinnacle, with the ability to anesthetize anyone into utter disregard for their eternal destiny. At least in the middle ages, frequent sickness and death and a general all-around difficulty in procuring sustenance, and the relative lack of amusements and distractions would serve as a greater reminder of one’s conditional and one’s ultimate objective. But in our world, we are virtually involved in a Cult of the World, and cult extraction is just about what it takes to regain a sense of the eternal and the divine.

Make no mistake, the post-conciliarism seeks to address this situation, but the solution sleeps with the enemy. We cannot win this war by application of a remedy which is in the vein of the very enemy we are trying to ward off, but by it’s opposite. The point of contact between God and his fallen people is already in existence, and it is the Incarnation. We need nothing else; we never have, we never will. The ways and means of salvation is complete, and there is nothing the Church can do to improve upon what God has ordained at the time of Pentecost… it’s only job has ever been to carry forward in apostolic success these same principles of Faith and salvation intact, without modification or compromise. This will never, ever change because it is the new and eternal testament.

What is clear: That there is no salvation outside the Church, according to the Church itself, without any "special understanding in the light of whatever". Why? Among many other reasons, because it's been stated over and over again in Ex Cathedra statements. Here's an even better one proving your own point, that submission to the Pope is required as a part of actually being in the Church, from Pope Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam Sanctam:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

What is not clear: That Archbishop Lefebvre is in Hell because he was excommunicated and in schism.

What is true is that Lefebvre disobeyed the Pope. What is not clear is that he was in schism because of it:

"Hence such disobedience--which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy--constitutes a schismatic act."

If it was the case that LeFebre rejected the Roman primacy, then yes, he would have been in schism. But the Pope only indicates that this has been implied, not that it was a reality.

Are you getting a clearer picture here? I hope so... that calling jake and those others schismatics is an untruth based upon people's lack of study, because it is clear that one must reject the Roman primacy to be in schism, and they don't do that.

How is it that Archbishop Lefebvre disobeyed the Pope? By:

"the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on June 30 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre"

Not because he said the Mass of Trent. Saying the Mass of Trent is not an act of schism. Guess what? No priest needs an indult to say the Tridentine Mass. That's the fact of the matter. The lie is that you need one. I challenge you or anyone else on the forum to prove that it is necessary that a priest needs an indult to say the Tridentine Mass.

But this situation of Lefebvre is regularly used by forumites and Nuvo's across the globe to claim that the Pope excommunicated Lefebvre (first mistake right there, that it was a sentence that was levied) because of the Tridentine rite of the Mass... that's just not true. Also, it's said of those who attend his sspx Masses, that they are in schism... also not true, and in no way claimed by the Pope.

Again, let's see if anyone wants to take the time to find out the truth. Beating around the bush on my part? Being a sophist? Trying to skirt the truth? No, Frank. It's a matter of everyone else continually making unsupported and false accusations.

There is a question here about whether Lefebvre did the right or the wrong thing in ordaining them bishops. That much is true, and it is no small thing to blow off the Roman Pontiff, as indicated by Boniface VIII's Ex Cathedra statement which I posted first.

So, what's clear: There is no salvation outside the Church.

What's unclear: The status of Lifetree’s soul, and whether or not he really did reject the Roman Papacy or not.

What's a lie: That the above document proves that I, jake, regina and isabel are schismatics; that the excommunication was a clearcut act of suppression of the Mass of Trent, and that the pope actually declared a "Traditionalist Schism".

In the biggest, strangest, most bizarre twist of all, it might surprise you to know that some, not all, priests in the sspx would deny me, Emerald, Holy Communion because...

...I hold the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Solus.

In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre and I would be in disagreement on this matter, according to statements made by him.

On this matter, Archbishop Lefebvre actually agrees with you... bummer.

And that’s where I take issue with in, in that he didn’t imho have his finger on the root cause of the problem, which is that the single and only existing vessel of salvation, the Ark of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, is in compromise; compromise that started not 50 years ago but slowly and incrementally hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. Look at the writings of the Saints from the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th… they express a grave concern over the state of the Church in their times. Imagine that!

What is the departure, and what am I and countless other Catholics who care about truth in pursuit of? Nothing short of the fullness of the Faith, to put it into remarkably NeoCatholic terms. Lots of us; young people in our 20’s and 30’s.

I, for my part, am thrust ever forward but what I imagine an unseen reality beyond the flesh that is more real than anything we can taste or touch, and this unseen reality is a horrific clash of ethereal arms amidst a cacophony of blasphemies streaming out from the opposing side which will not serve, against a loving and untouchable God who is the happiness of mankind and those who serve Him and Him alone. This war rages around our heads night and day whether we take notice of it or not, and by and large we don’t, and this is what concerns me most. This war is fought over us, the little ones. It is a custody battle of epic proportions and like the children of such wars we are suffering from it… we hurt deeply yet don’t understand why. We can’t even express what we feel or how we feel.

My perception, though, is that this anesthetized existence we find ourselves in, far from being a condition which invites invincible ignorance, actually invites quite the opposite. It provides us with a chance to make a truer act of the will, far truer and more pleasing to God than if the heights of heaven and the depths of Hell were laid before us in all their delight and horror. See, the way it is now, one can sin and the morning after, the sun rises, the birds are singing, there is no lightening to strike us down, and life goes on… at least, for a while. But we act like will forever. Under these conditions, if one does seek Truth, forsaking all other temporal objectives, then this act of the will can no doubt be truer in the sight of the Almighty. Having Heaven and Hell laid bare before you would smack of coercion. What man wishes to marry a woman he has coerced into marriage? What man having done so could be truly pleased with the results? In the same way, I figure that our God, in the Divine Analogy of the marriage of Christ and His Church, would not want it any other way.

Nobody gets up in the morning just before dawn, anxious and waiting for the sun to come up, unsure if it will or not… and then break out cheering and celebrating when it pops up over the horizon. This would be ludicrous to the average person, but I’m thinking, you know what? Maybe that’s exactly what we should be doing, because for each and every one of us the day WILL come when, for us, the sun will not pop up over that horizon. That is truth.

I’m not sure of everything, but I am sure of a couple things. I am sure that on judgment day that I will not be sent to Hell for proclaiming that there is no salvation outside the Church, even in the strictest sense of the phrase, the one that disallows for any ludicrous interpretation any other way. I am sure that on judgment day that I will not be relegated to Gehenna for staking the claim that the Mass of Trent is a better liturgy than the Novus Ordo. In fact, I know I will not be sent to the pit for upholding traditionalism and for rejecting the innovations and departures of the post conciliar Church.

If I get sent to the pit, it will be for violations against Charity, for failure to beg the Almighty for the salvation of others, for seeking and serving my own ends while I reject others, for paying homage to the things of this life as opposed to forsaking all for the sake of the hereafter, for not picking up my cross, and yes, for failures in matters obedience. In short, for not pursuing the Truth at all costs.

My God will not fail me. I believe, I will serve, and I trust that He will bring me to salvation. That’s what traditional Catholicism is. That is the mindset of traditional Catholicism, and it is wholly incompatible with the post-conciliar perception of the Catholic Faith and of reality. People will howl and scream that it is in fact reconcilable, but it is not; it cannot be. “Move along, folks, there’s nothing to see here… move along.” But the spiritual body bags of this disaster litter the very earth that the spiritually deceased were so fond of.

If you want out of this debacle, then you have to pray and sacrifice, because that’s the only way you can conquer some spirits.

So there you have it, about as long winded as ever. You did want an answer, and one that wasn’t a regurgitation of prefabricated arguments from websites, because it isn’t. Where I am at is the result of a long and painful process of answering the question ”what in the HELL is going on here?” in the Catholic Church and in the world, and the synthesis between the two. I may get a D or an F on my homework, but at least I’ve done it, and at least on judgment Day I don’t have to claim that the dogs ate it. =)

As for what this all has to do with the Legion: the Nuvo’s have borrowed the word “orthodox” from the traditionalist Catholics without asking their permission. It belongs to the traditionalists, and I’ll continue to do what I can to make sure they give it back.

What got me started on all this? Witnessing lack of charity. The charity of your average post-conciliar Catholic is absolutely appalling, and it isn’t just here, its in real life and all over the places I’ve been. As for here in this forum, part of it what got me wondering and reading and thinking was witnessing the lack of charity against jake and Isabel and Regina on this very forum; it didn’t start here, but it blossomed out from here quite nicely.

“Life IS pain. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling you something.”

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 07, 2003.


No one can be that long winded without messing up html tags. I knew that would happen; sorry.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 07, 2003.

I'll bet you didn't know that the Legionaries in Cheshire (the whole seminary) attended Mass said by Cardinal Kung, in the Tridentine formula. We were never party to the tit for tat fireworks of the T- rite people and Novus Ordo people. Our position was just that we'd follow the Pope (being a congregation of Pontifical rite and all), not that other people are bad for one rite over another.

And in fact, the Mass as said by Legionaries, following the real and actual rubrics and not the fake rules or fads dreamed up by absolutely nutty "liturgists" is pretty close to anything you'll see in the T-rite. Latin. Gregorian Chant. reverence. clarity and decor...

I'll bet you also didn't know that after SSPX broke away, the LoC took in the remnants who later formed their own, and authorized order which celebrates the T-Mass.

As for SSPX and schism why else would you ordain 4 priests bishops if not to further the myth that "everyone else" fell into schism at Vatican II and only our french prelate stayed faithful to the Church of all ages"?

Hasn't it occured to you that being diplomatic with a proud frenchman (called being vague by you) could have been the Vatican's way of giving him an out to save face? We all know how essential it is to let the French save face.

In other words, the LC has no problem with the rite of Mass. They are concerned with fidelity to the Pope - who alone has the special promise of the Holy Spirit, and who alone holds the "keys".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 07, 2003.


You still think it is all about the Tridentine Mass, don't you?

I give up.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), June 07, 2003.


The Tridentine mass situation is just a symbol of the hearts and minds of many faithful. It’s not the problem itself.

Vatican II was a legitimate council, but has been abused horribly. The faithful recognize the abuse and are literally trying to take their church back from weak bishops, liberal priests and rabid liturgist. The pendulum is swinging to the right, and in the case of Lefevre a little too far. Rome typically waits for serious trouble before intervening with her bishops, but he crossed the line.

Rejecting the council for a failure of its implementation is as UNORTHODOX as liturgical dance during the consecration of the Eucharist. The Church will progress into the modern age and those on the fringes (liberal or conservative) will conform or fall away.

I once heard/read that the church takes a minimum of 50 years to settle into a groove, after a council.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), June 10, 2003.


In response to the original post of the thread, yes there are more than just rumors going around regarding child molestation in schools of the legionaries. I know of two priests accused of these deeds in the apostolic school in Center Harbor New Hampshire, USA. Yet parents continue to send their kids there not knowing of these accusations. The founder of this order has also been accused of sexually abusing former young seminarians and the Vatican is still saying nothing while it castigates the American Church with the other hand. This very same founder was supposed to be in Chicago over the weekend for a big conference but couldn't attend. The order stated urgent business in Rome and it has been confirmed that this urgent business was indeed summer vacation with the seminarians there. I think he was afraid to face the American Church on its home soil.

-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.

In response to Emerald's comment “Life IS pain. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling you something.”

I have to disagree.

Live is joy, life is love, life is good. Yes life comes with some pain but it also comes with a lot of other wonderful gifts.

-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.


Regarding the legion tearing families apart i.e. Tony's note above. The legion has done this over an over again while at the same time pretend to exalt the family. Something for Ripley's Believe it or not.

-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.

Moderator,

This helps you to see how our poor little forum is forced to suffer.

I just came to the "Recent Answers" page and was surprised to see the very large number of threads with today's date on them. On closer inspection, though, I saw what was wrong. One of the forum's former "personae non gratae" (James Xwing) came back today to trash SEVEN -- count 'em, SEVEN -- old threads related to the Legionaries of Christ.

By the way, some, if not all of these threads, were illegitimately started to begin with. Prior to the coming of those who live for no reason other than to bash tribunals, the forum had an infestation of those who live for no reason other than to bash the Legionaries.

So, no sooner does the forum begin to benefit by the banning (or voluntary departure) of some trouble-makers, than others come along to take their place and disrupt the peace that wanted to take root.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.


Good to see some activity here.

John, Are you calling James a liar or just a trouble-maker?

Joe, How are the wife and kids doing?

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), July 21, 2003.


I don't think I ever banned Xwing, but don't remember if he was by anyone else.

Frank Tie

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 21, 2003.


Uh....Yeah James. Fr. Macial was afraid to come to the United States to face the Church on American Grounds......HMMMM..... What a ridiculous thing to say JAmes. Remember he has already been here. Wow James, you really are slippin buddy. Hey for all those out there who are possibly worried out there about what J winger has to say please go to the other forums where LC's are mentioned. You will very quickly realize what kind of joke this man is. I have only one thing to say, and that is Thank God James was kicked out of the Legion. See if you don't know the Legion I would highly recommend getting to know them and the RC's. They are a tough group, rather militant, and very forward with many of their tasks. This is because they are men and women of action. People who realize that the time to make a difference is now. That the world is too corrupted to walk on eggshells for the weak and timid, such as James. There is no place in RC or the Legion for those who will accept mediocrity. Only those who see the value of a soul. Both their own and that of another. I thank the Lord everyday for guiding me to be involved with the LC's. So I thank you James. It is reading things such as your letters that make me realize that what I do is the right thing. Because the road to hell is paved. Where as the road to heaven is up hill, rough, covered with obstacles such as ridicule. Iron only becomes steel through fire. Steel can be bent but not broken. VIVA CRISTO REY!!!!!!!!!

-- Chris Suter (suter32@hotmail.com), July 23, 2003.

Chris,

Would you say the Legion of Christ is free from error?

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), July 23, 2003.


Is the Legion free from error? Absolutely not. I know of no organization which is perfect. It is run by men. Look at the fact that they allowed someone like James in the movement. Luckily they fixed that mistake. Every day LC's pray that they fullfill the will of God. And yes I have seen some mistakes. Such as they left a few of us at an airport for a few hours because they had mis-scheduled our flights. It happens.

-- chris (suter32@hotmail.com), July 23, 2003.

Chris,

"Left people at the airport?"

That's an oversight. Are you kidding me?

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), July 24, 2003.


I was being a smart ass about it. Sorry. But no I'm merely saying that sure mistakes are made that is all. Now do I find anything in their order which contradicts Church teachings. NO. And I am not one to follow blindly. I am always pessimistic when learning of something new. It took me a long time to familiarize myself with the LC's. And I now see that they are a sound, structured, obedient order.

-- Chris Suter (suter32@hotmail.com), July 24, 2003.

Chris,

Did it bug you at first that lying to outsiders was generally accepted as long as the lie benefitted the legion?

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), July 24, 2003.


It's never right to lie. But how do you know legionaries lied? Misunderstandings happen. Miscommunications happen. Plans change and sometimes some people don't get the word, go tell so-and-so that X will definately happen, when Y in fact is now planned...

Accusing people of lying is a tricky subject. I've never heard or seen any legionary tell a bald-faced lie. I have heard uninformed novices garble messages, mix up dates, and make mistakes - factual mistakes of number or address. But a mistake is not a lie. Neither is guessing or opining on some subject a lie if you happen to be facually wrong.

How many priests are there? I'd guess there's about 500. But what if there's really 559? Is my guess "a lie"?

Where is Fr Bannon today? I suppose he's in Cheshire. But what if he's not? Is my supposition "a lie"?

Neither is changing plans. If you say you'll be there at 5pm but then show up at 6pm, it doesn't mean (automatically) that you lied. You could have simply been wrong.

Finally, lets talk about the tried and true Catholic ethical argument of "mental reservations"; of not telling someone what they don't have a right to know. If the Nazi's come to your front door and demand, Yes or No whether or not you are hiding your Jewish neighbors...what do you tell them?

What if you can't bluff with "Hey who do I look like to you? Noah? heh heh heh..."? What if they'll only take a Yes or a No?

If you say: "I'm not hiding any Jews" and yet you are, and by saying those words you are intentionally misleading them from the truth of the matter... have you lied?

-- Withheld 2 (withheld@yahoo.com), July 24, 2003.


What on earth are you talking about. That was one of the most pointless things I have ever read! The only thing which you achieved was to fill up space. Come on at least give me something. 500 or 559 Priests? What? Are you the census Bureau. Where is Fr. Bannon? What does that really matter. I mean if you really wanted to know give me 15 minutes and I could tell you where any LC is with a phone call. How long have you known the Legion. What have you done with them. Because I just finished living with them for the past year. So if from your vast knowledge of all their "lies" of which you have never really seen with your own eyes what grounds are your accusations based upon? This time don't make me read a page full of useless dribble. Thanks and GodBless, Chris

-- Chris (suter32@hotmail.com), July 24, 2003.

That was one of the most pointless things I have ever read!

You obviously haven't been here very long.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 24, 2003.


Haven't been where? Why do you keep speaking in riddles and half assed answers? What is it that you wish to prove. Give me some hard facts (hearsay doesn't mean anything). If you are going to bash the Legion do so. But quit wasting my time and yours pretending like you know something and say it.

-- Chris (suter32@hotmail.com), July 24, 2003.

Chris,

I might be on the wrong thread here about general lying. I'm refering to the Legionaries of Christ. I'm talking about small, medium and supersized LIES, designed to deceive and manipulate. A nice clear case is Todd Carpunky's medical care. Please educate yourself with the links at this site.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/loc/loc17.html

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), July 25, 2003.


Yes, please let's talk about this Mr. Carpunky. Look at the facts - not just his word for it or his spin of what other people did or thought or intended to do.

The guy joined with a history of back pain. His doctor sent him to the seminary with a notice of a pinched nerve in his back. He complained of back pain and scolliosis... so far so good. Not a big problem. Not a canonical impediment to entering seminary life, just something to keep an eye on.

Accordingly, when something went wrong later, he complained of BACK PAIN! His superiors apparently like the rest of humanity tend to judge things based on the AVAILABLE INFORMATION. In the absence of any other symptom, and with the person HIMSELF complaining of BACK PAIN (and not gastro-intestinal pain)... everyone kept assuming it was a flare up of the pinched nerve - INCLUDING TODD! So we hear of a superior suggesting he take a swim, to offer it up, to take some over the counter pain killers....all because short of an operation, there's not a whole lot anyone can do about a pinched nerve!!!

But when the poor guy starts showing symptoms that are not associated with BACK PAIN...the Legion sends him to the hospital.

Now Todd ex post facto goes around second guessing them, changing the chronology of events and tries to show that they were maliciously negligent in his care.... We are to believe they intentionally dragged their feet with his medical condition "just because"...or because of some perverse motive of purposely not taking care of seminarians' needs! That's what he charges and that's what he implies, in the face of all other evidence from other doctors and other seminarians whose health needs have been taken care of.

The first doctor found nothing wrong... this happens. It's a pain, it's unfortunate, it's a shame. But it's not malicious or intentional.

When the source of the symptoms was discovered, the Legion sent him to the hospital again, paid for all his medical care, and did not send him home... Was everything PERFECT? No. Could things have been done differently? Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean that what happened was a) intentional b) malicious, c) cruel and inhuman "abuse".

But now they're being attacked for not being clairvoiyant, for not knowing what neither Todd nor the first emergency ward doctor suspected: a gastro-intestinal origin of pain that the patient complained was coming from his back!!

After all, how many 20 year olds do YOU know of who have gall stones? Not many I'd bet. Most young men don't have those kinds of problems, so not immediately suspecting them is not as damnable a mistake as Todd and others seem so eager to imply.

Todd remained in the seminary for years after this episode. He wasn't black-balled, he was still given responsibilities, still on track... no sign that at any time his superiors or anyone else held anything but esteem and respect for him. No indications of any systematic effort to abuse him or harm him. No evidence that any authority figure had an axe to grind or less than noble intentions towards him.

Mistakes happen. Accidents happen. Unfortunate misdiagnosis happen. People tend to make decisions and judgments based on available evidence and cognitive schemes - If a man warns us of a very probable cause of his pain, and we have a doctor's word for it...any normal person would not immediately suspect a wholly unsymptomatic cause of pain that seems to fit the first category.

But for some unknown reason, the kind of slack we cut ourselves, or other groups isn't supposed to be owed to a seminary...especially if they fit some "profile" of groups we're supposed to automatically hate or mistrust: conservative, traditional, Catholic...

-- Withheld 2 (Withheld@yahoo.com), July 25, 2003.


Hey thanks who ever wrote the previous Posting. I appreciate not having to answer to all this hearsay. From people who might read an article and take it for fact. Thanks again, Chris

-- Chris (suter32@hotmail.com), July 25, 2003.

Legionary priests flatly denied that Todd had been taken to the hospital on one occasion. With Todd's permission, hospital records were released to reporters demonstrating that the Legionary priest being interviewed had willfully lied to reporters. No missunderstanding, no accidents, nothing unfortunate, just LIES.

That -my withheld brother- is just the tip of the LYING iceberg. If you were in the Legion, you know the pattern of lying and deception, if not your comments are understandable.

-- withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), August 04, 2003.


To suggest a widespread "pattern" involving thousands of people, based on one incident or a few known incidents, is called bigotry.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 04, 2003.

Lies? That wasn't a lie. That was a "gotcha" bit of journalism: ambush a guy who is not prepared to speak about specific dates and times, throw a fact at him, and watch him squirm... Making a mistake on TV doesn't make you a liar.

The Legionary interviewed on TV misspoke. I saw the interview, the question hit him - he looked like he was trying to recall one event but confused it for another - he shook his head, saying "no..." then they cut to another question.

As far as I know, the LC per se has not claimed he didn't go to the hospital but in fact that he did, and was cared for. There are two hospitals involved: St Raphael's in New Haven and St Mary's in Waterbury. One was the emergency room, the other where Todd was actually operated on.

No one denies that Todd needed medical care. The only dispute was over the superiors' intentions, liability, and if one seminarian's unfortunate experience is evidence of a widespread pattern of physical "abuse".

It's also noteworthy that while the Connecticult based TV program kept hyping "Cheshire seminary" as the locus of problems, the other interviewees talked about unspecified things that supposedly occured in either New Hampshire or Ireland!

So what "pattern" of "abuse" did the program reveal? One, as of yet unproven accusation of molestation in New Hampshire. One, as of yet unproven accusation of a weird penance in Ireland 20 years ago, and one case of unfortunate misdiagnosis and less than instantaneous medical care for one seminarian - who wasn't blackballed, wasn't attacked, wasn't mistreated in any other way before, during or after this episode.

You seem so SURE the Legionaries are bad that no amount of proof to the contrary will matter. And so the flimsiest of excuses, conspiracy theories, and anecdotes are converted into rock solid, case- closed, "fact" for you.

I wonder, do you allow yourself to be judged based on the same criteria? Remember, it just takes ONE case of you making a mistake for the rest of the world to determine infallibly that you do nothing BUT MAKE MISTAKES...

-- Withheld 2 (withheld@yahoo.com), August 06, 2003.


I was with Todd in the hospital at St. MArys for a day. From what I saw he was well taken care of & in general in good humor. Fr. Bailleres came to visit him as well as other LC brothers including myself. I remember Tood as one having many pre existing health problems before he entered. He spoke of his back problems and his previous nueroligist.

Joe

-- jcbiltz (joebiltz@netzero.net), August 08, 2003.


To all who care to read: I attend at a Legionnary school and no, neither I nor anyone I know have been molested. Not only that, but in multiple occasions, my school has proven to be way above average in national and even international contests regarding all physical and academic areas. I can describe my stay at CUMBRES in general as a happy one, although, truth be told, trying to be 100% objective, there ARE things that bother me regarding the Legion:

First of all, RC. Start with the name, Regnum Christi. The Kingdom of Christ. But hey, isn't that supposed to be the Church? (both, the earthly one and the heavenly one.) These guys think themselves the ONLY ones that can reach Sanctity! Then, look at RC's policy. They CHARGE you for it. I attended several pre-membership meets, and noticed that Economy has the same importance than Captation (getting more members) and Formation do. My mother is RC, but she was also doing a charity on her own, which consisted on visiting prisoners. Now, she has been so manipulated by RC, that she wants to grant them the control over HER work!

Second, the Legion's management of money. The school's monthly fee is above the $550 USD, plus a $1600 USD (aprox) annual inscription fee. Multiplied times the 140 in my generation only, that would be more than enough to do several changes that the school needs. Changes like the pool they've been promising since the graduation of Generation 1986, or like the installation of more jacks for us to plug the laptops (that we were forced to buy last year, yet never use) in. I don't intend to say they STEAL it, because they DO have a lot of charities to support, but if they want charity money, they should ASK, not CHARGE.

Third, the laxity in admission control. If you have the money and scored a passing grade in the admission tests, you're in. The education at Legion schools is grade A, but they WASTE it if they give it to grade C students with grade D parents! Many (at least half) of my generation is made up by "new richs" and "juniors" that think too highly of themselves, probably because of a lack of proper parental guidance, and it's THESE guys that get that education. Does the Legion think it can substitute a parent's job? I mean, I haven't seen a change, and it's my 7th year at a Legion school!

And last, but not least, the infamous "Vocational Week." Once a year, we get to pray for the vocations and attend at conferences that explain what a vocation is. That, by itself, is not necessarily bad, but the problem is how they do it. They try to convince you to "try out and see," and they take you in for the summer at Priest or Consecrate study centers AT THE AGE OF 12-13. At that age, and I believe most of you would agree, one begins to realize that the world isn't just our cozy little home, and that there are many wrong things. This tender sensitivity, as if it were bruised skin, hurts whenever touched. That mix of confusion, melancholy, and an idealistic desire for change, drives teenagers to feel a "calling" of sorts, which is DEFINITELY a Christian commitment, and as such, must be inquestionably answered, but it is NOT, BY ANY MEANS, a Vocation to either Priesthood or Consecracy. THAT'S why so many Priests are deserting the Order, because they don't have that Vocation. Why don't they address the problems of marriage as well? I mean, there are many marriages breaking up nowadays because they don't understand the implications of their commitment. That, to kids that may be going, at that precise time, through the difficult process of living through their parents' separation, can be a lot more useful than all this brainwash about Priesthood.

Now, each must put the good and the bad in their own balance, trying to see the fruits of the Legion, contrasting it with their faults (their REAL faults, I mean, not the "rumored" ones,) and choosing their path...

-- Manuel E. Cusi (dark_hero_clansman@hotmail.com), October 31, 2003.


I see quite a bit of intellectual mumbo-jumbo on this website, however, why don't you people just get to the point instead of letting your education get in the way of your intelligence. Don't dare talk to me about "fruits of the Legion." My family experienced emotional trauma first hand from one of their "schools." Enough said.

-- Yvonne (ylinatl@aol.com), November 29, 2003.

you know, emotional trauma is a word that is thrown around rather casually these days. like, im having emotional trauma because my neighbors dog wont stop barking.

why dont you provide a bit of ACTUAL information as opposed to just expecting us to trust your opinion???

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 29, 2003.


Is there any LC/RC discussion board that is NOT run by the LC and RC?

-- Pol O'Concubhair (exlegionaryofChrist@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

Claiming that a group you don't like thinks they're the only holy ones or the only perfect ones is a REALLY OLD TRICK. Fact is though, about the only people who think they're perfect are the self- proclaimed critics who judge these groups.

RC admits more than once that it is merely ONE of MANY church movements. You may as well get angry with the Missionaries of Charity for claiming that they have a monopoly on charity by calling themselves that! Sheeeesh!

Then you fail - what grade are you in? - to realize that because the RC is not funded by parishes or dioceses that its members either must raise their own funds ("economy") or accept that nothing will get done. Now maybe you suscribe to the romantic notion that money grows on trees or that people should just donate everything to a religious cause.... but the fact is, if you want something important to be achieved you most often must pay for things.

Look at St Paul in the Acts of the Apostles and in his letters to the Corinthians...he took up a collection of money to help the church in Jerusalem! He asked for "economy" too! So did Jesus! He asked his disciples to find food for the 5000 people... if you want something done, you have to beg for it... so why is this evil or instantly bad?

Finally your issue with vocational recruiting... Precisely because the world is full of pain, sorrow, and millions of hurting people in need of love, 12-13 year olds need to be exposed to the possibility of a divine calling. Every study done has shown that that's the age group you have to reach - before they get cynical, before they acquire serious addictions or bad habits which would preclude or make vocations highly difficult.

Again, there is this romantic notion that all vocations are the same and that if some men have these Augustinian conversions late in life after "experiencing the world" (i.e. serious sin), that ALL VOCATIONS should follow that pattern. But that's just stupid. St John and St Mark were both young men. Samuel and Daniel in the Old Testament were both youths when they heard divine calls... God can call people at any age - such as the children of Fatima or the Little Flower, St Theresa... Rather than pooh-pooh someone for TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, I suggest you try thinking real hard on the alternative course of action: doing nothing.

-- anonymous (withheld@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.


anonymous, are your preaching, or something? What's your problem? What question are you anwering or who are you trying to preach to?

-- Laid Back (exlegionaryofchrist@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

I'm apparently preaching to the choir :-p

I was responding to Manuel whose claim to fame is his enrollment in a legionary run school -thus giving him omniscience in all things to do with the LC and RC (not!).

Ditto for guys who claim to be "exlegionaries". Not every one is the same. A guy who was a candidate or novice isn't as "in the know" as someone who was a religious for years and year. An expriest who spent all his time in one corner isn't as informed as someone who visited many centers and did many things.

If you're so laid back, why care about these things?

Chill.

-- anonymous (withheld@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.


Is there any LC/RC discussion board that is NOT run by the LC and RC?

is this asking if we'll point you to a discussion board where you can trash on catholics all you want without anyone pointing out your hateful anti catholic sentiments to you?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 02, 2003.


Good to see some activity on this board. Remember to fight nice and be sure to differentiate opinion from fact. For example,

Opinion: Legionary Priests and brothers lie all the time.

Fact: From my earliest days in the legion, lying to advance the 'kingdom' was condoned.

It's also helpful to show where a reasonable practices get out of hand. Example,

Recruiting vocations and raising money is part of any diocese or congregation, but my 12 years in the Legion showed me that the Legionary quest for dollars and numbers was excessive and harmful to some in the Legion.

It's easy to be negative when you're pissed off, and even easier to be unquestionably supportive when you've had only positive experiences.

Most legionaries would like you to believe that their congregation is perfect and error free. They're not. But they have taken a solemn vow that prevents them from saying anything 'controversial' about the Legion or its founder. Legionaries will say positive things about the Legion, or nothing at all. If they have first hand experience with misconduct they are required by a vow to God to be silent.

Have fun with your debates and don't forget to prepare your hearts for the coming of Jesus at Christmas.

PEACE

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.


Opinion: From my earliest days in the legion, lying to advance the 'kingdom' was condoned.

Fact: During my time in the legion, on some occasions it appeared to me that certain persons were lying, and it further appeared to me that their lying was condoned.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 09, 2003.


"Good to see some activity on this board. Remember to fight nice and be sure to differentiate opinion from fact. For example, Opinion: Legionary Priests and brothers lie all the time.

Fact: From my earliest days in the legion, lying to advance the 'kingdom' was condoned."

FALSE: Legionaries learned to obey the Ten Commandments as well as the laws of the Church all of which forbid lying for any reason as well as condemn the heresy that the ends can justify the means. Lying was never condoned. You on the otherhand are anonymously lying about an entire congregation.

"It's also helpful to show where a reasonable practices get out of hand. Example,

Recruiting vocations and raising money is part of any diocese or congregation, but my 12 years in the Legion showed me that the Legionary quest for dollars and numbers was excessive and harmful to some in the Legion."

I was in the Legion for 11 years and just so happened to be involved in vocational recruiting, administration, and fundraising - not as an outside witness looking in but as an active participant. Your first claim is that it was "excessive". On what do you base your contention? What would be "appropriate" in your estimation? Aparently less than what the LC does. Success is bad I guess...

Here's what I saw: plenty of chances for vocational discernment, an extremely tight budget, and many extremely generous lay people who helped support seminarians. Those who think otherwise are literally out of the loop and don't know what they're talking about.

FACT: More men go on to diocesan or other religious groups after visiting the Legionary "test your call" retreats and candidacies than join the legion.

FACT: Most US seminarians come from large families who can't afford to pay for their own son's education which costs $10,000 a year.

FACT: Most non-US seminarians come from 3rd world countries. And about half their parents can't pay the full cost either. The Legion doesn't charge any family tuition.

FACT: The Legion has about 2,500 seminarians. It costs about $10,000 a year to house, feed, teach, clothe, etc. each man. You do the math. Now how in the world would YOU find the resources to keep the lights on? You'd organize a fundraising office. Last time I checked it wasn't illegal or immoral to run a successful fundraising campaign for seminarians.

FACT: building or buying seminaries and centers costs millions of dollars. Just heating or cooling a large building costs thousands of dollars... so having a huge building is a financial LIABILITY not a SOURCE OF FUNDS.

YOUR QUOTE "It's easy to be negative when you're pissed off, and even easier to be unquestionably supportive when you've had only positive experiences.

"Most legionaries would like you to believe that their congregation is perfect and error free. They're not."

FALSE. Legionaries aren't told ANYWHERE that the Legion is perfect...think real carefully. You were a LC for 12 years... during all that time you were informed that we were in a "period of foundation"...every year you saw improvement and expansion of areas of formation, buildings etc. IF IT WERE PERFECT, OR IF WE THOUGHT IT WAS PERFECT WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE HAVE TRIED SO HARD TO IMPROVE THINGS?????

You'd literally have to have been "on the moon" for a decade to not have seen the obvious reality staring you in the face.

As an approved Religious congregation, the way of life may be considered a true path towards holiness...but no body claimed that a member instantly becomes perfect or that all proceedures, all buildings, all methods etc were insuperable and couldn't be improved!

So that claim that we thought we were perfect or the Legion itself was perfect is a complete RED HERRING.

QUOTE "But they have taken a solemn vow that prevents them from saying anything 'controversial' about the Legion or its founder. Legionaries will say positive things about the Legion, or nothing at all. If they have first hand experience with misconduct they are required by a vow to God to be silent."

FALSE. The vow in question commands that if a Legionary sees any misconduct whatsoever, he is bound to inform the proper authorities so that the misconduct is taken care of. This includes informing the Cardinal prefect of religious.

If you think the founder himself has problems...then you were always free to leave. If you think this is a problem then you have a basic 101 misunderstanding of Catholic theology and practice regarding founders. If a Franciscan disagreed with Francis over some element of Franciscan spirituality or life.... who was right? Him or Francis?

Last time I checked it was still OK to go off and try to found your own order...

Secondly, could someone tell me how telling a companion or subject that one's superior has made a mistake will solve the problem? It WILL undermine the superior's authority, unsettle the community, pit groups of people against each other... but won't solve a thing. Only going to the people who can do something solves things in a mature, adult and Christian manner.

Those who claim this vow is a problem either don't know the terms of the vow, don't understand the difference between religious life and bachelorhood, or don't care about division, factions, and inner turmoil. But last time I checked, such things don't come from heaven.

"Have fun with your debates and don't forget to prepare your hearts for the coming of Jesus at Christmas.PEACE"

What?! You come here anonymously, basically broadcast appalling ignorance of the Legion and its practices while claiming to have been a member for a dozen years... and then wish us peace? Are you nuts?

What do you know about the coming of Jesus at Christmas? You believe that vocations are absolutely generic, that money grows on trees, that imperfection is the same thing as sin, and that a chain of command and mature, responsible behavior as an ideal means people think they're impeccable... and then you wish us peace?

Peace comes from justice. You have maligned a religious congregation and your former brothers. You have shown contempt... and now you want peace? If you want peace, you'll get it when you apologize.

Jesus Christ didn't teach his followers to dabble in intrigue, to bicker and complain, to foment whispering campaigns behind anyone's back. He didn't command his disciples to go around lying about former brothers to score cheap points.

I actually think you need to come out in the open, and apologize. If you need help, you have my email and we can talk in public or in person. But what you think you know and what is true are two very different things.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.


Joe...Mi Hermano!

I scanned the first few sentences of your last post and scrolled to the bottom just to make sure it was YOU! Same emotion, same passion - you're a wildman!

If I get the time I'll reply, but I'm thinking of those babies and your lovely wife. How's the family doing?

I'll get back to you. -AB

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.


Hi. If you really were a seminarian for 12 years, I should know you.

And if you're the same "withheld" who has posted above we do have a "history" of back and forth posts... so I wouldn't have any personal reason to not like you, apart from our obvious disagreement over the facts of the matter involving our alma mater.

But I still don't know who you are, and I don't know if I like the idea that you're "thinking of those babies and your lovely wife" and this is why you don't have time to respond... just sounds a little strange to me (as in "honey lock the doors and call 911 if you see some unusual guy peering through binoculars from an unmarked car").

Thank goodness we live next to a cop.

That being said, I know lots of former legionaries and we do tend to have beautiful wives and children. Thanks for the compliment. They're fine.

In any case, it seems that those who defend the Legion have real names, real stories, and real lives. Those who attack it and us are anonymous and don't provide any information that can be verified by disinterested 3rd parties. I think this is odd too.

Not so much recently, but this past year I've tried on many occasions to invite all former seminarians to get togethers. Those who have responded in name and person know that I have extended the invites to "both sides", and that these get togethers have been both formal and informal. Those who have shown up know that we had great times and everything was open and "on the table".

I'm able to disagree but still be agreeable.

But the thing about in-person get togethers is...you are surrounded by your former peers and fellow companions who lived with you and knew the same people... so making some wild accusation won't fly. You might fool on-line audiences with the old "private vow was about snitching" but it doesn't cut it with those who lived the letter and spirit.

That being said, we all wholeheartedly agree that we were imperfect and we made mistakes...as Legionaries and now as lay men. But last time I checked, mistakes and imperfections aren't the same thing as malicious sins or crimes. Nor is it a sin to disagree about how to run an apostolate or the best way to handle some situation... yet online accusations make it seem as though we lived in a stifled atmosphere crushing all personal initiative and responsibility.

Getting together is a big help to clear the air and rectify historical misunderstandings...especially with respect to second- guessing someone's intentions or misunderstanding the chronology of events, who said what, when, and why.

It's a pity those with most axes to grind don't avail themselves of such reality checks (their fellow former "brothers in Christ") as are available.

Still, the offer stands. Maybe over the holidays we can get together. I know several former members want to have a get together at one guy's home (not mine...too small). Making an apology for such sweeping accusations such that you are wont to make would go a long way to helping bring "peace". But as I mentioned last december... it's no sine qua non to being invited.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.


No Joe. You mistook my post, I’m no longer in the fray. I was just cautioning folks (like yourself) to play nice and possibly learn something along the way. A blog of rants is so passé.

My examples weren’t designed to get you (or anyone) riled up, but more to encourage a productive direction. It has been my aim to bring a realistic balance to the discussion, never to wantonly slander the Legion.

The 4th vow –say nothing controversial- colors contributions from pro- legion folks who took the vow. That’s material information to people who post on this board, which is why I mentioned it.

See above where I explain more about the 4th vow. Of themselves the words can be argued to maintain the integrity of reporting within the organization (this is your claim for the vow). This is typically accomplished by making them a part of the rulebooks since the person has already taken the vow of obedience.

If someone leaves the organization he leaves the rules too. The Legion has made a common practice dangerous by incorporating that language into a vow. . . a solemn life long promise to God, never to say anything controversial about the Legion.

This is dangerous because is fosters an environment where misconduct is contained within the organization or taken to the grave with those who have left. The potential for abuse is evident. Notice I didn’t say that I know a Legionary or even heard of a legionary who was misbehaved.

Notice too that after the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, those professing are whisked away to take the 4th vow in private. What is there to hide? Finally think of the language used - not to say anything ‘controversial.’ The controversial things are the very things from which we all need protection.

Love the Legion or hate it. Post here or just lurk, but be informed.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.


First of all you now speak as one who wasn't a Legionary whereas formerly you claimed to have been one for 12 years, so which is it?

If you were a Legionary you would know that the actual words of the private vow don't include the word "controversial". Also have you forgotten that all the vows prior to perpetual were temporary? Otherwise, why would we have repeated them every 3 years? Neither the words nor the implication was that vows were perpetual prior to perpetual vows...

Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that former members aren't trashing the Legion because there's nothing objective to trash! IOW, your personal issues weren't objective, and your "enemies" weren't bad men. You have blown a very small mole hill into an imaginary mountain.

The vows being temporary, no former Legionary is obliged in conscience to "obey" any Legionary, or live LC poverty, or LC chastity or keep the private vows since by definition we've left the congregation. But that doesn't mean as lay Catholics we don't have to obey Church authorities, live as wise stewards of our talents and obey the moral laws of the Church and Gospel! In the same way, show me the evangelical principle whereby gossip mongering and telling the world of your brothers' faults is commanded? Seems to me that the 4th vow has entirely scriptural and spiritual roots.

The vows themselves never forbade anyone from informing authorities about some wayward member including (especially including) a superior. Tell me, how exactly does it help solve a problem - even a "controversial" one by telling the media or your mommy? If your fellow brother or immediate superior sins you get instant response by going to the higher superior. You gain nothing by going to complete strangers who have no clue as to what's going on or authority to intervene. Now, if your goal is to trash the whole congregation...well then the vow would be inconvenient wouldn't it? Just like the vow of chastity is "inconvenient" for those seminarians who try to hit on their fellow brothers for homoerotic trysts...

You may as well oppose the vow of obedience... yet even in the Legion we learned that our vow of obedience was not blind but motivated and it's spelled out in the norms and constitutions that superiors should not give a command if they think their subjects are not ready to obey it! Hmmmmmm doesn't sound very draconian to me. But then, I know what I'm talking about whereas you don't.

Face it, you are clueless - and every time you post about these things you prove it to those of us who lived there, who took those vows, who read and know the spirituality. You can fool on-line lurkers but you can't fool us former members.

Love the Legion - because you know it, or hate it because you don't. I just wish some of the half-dozen anti-LC former LCs would complain about something real that actual happened and that we actually did rather than create straw men, fake vows and fake doctrines that no Legionary ever took or believed in.

Of course, if they mentioned anything real, the world would see the Legion as a normal congregation full of real human beings - including former members just as normal as any others... and that wouldn't be very exciting would it?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.


BTW, My wish for Peace was sincere.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.

In a few short (or long) posts we're right back to the same useless place. You're determined that I'm out to trash the Legion, when I'm really about bringing a balance. I'll check back here next year.

May God Bless your Advent, Christmas and New Year.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), December 10, 2003.


How can "balance" be achieved when your posts are filled with accusations or assertions of things that never happened, or vows that don't exist, or claims about teaching or practices that no one ever made?

What is your concept of balance? If someone praises Mother Theresa, is your sense of balance to claim that she "didn't do enough"? Or that she was imperfect and "probably a sinner to boot"?

Or if someone praises someone's mom, is your sense of 'balance' to anonymously imply that the woman is "really a tramp"?

Where is your sense of fairplay? Where is your sense of justice? Is it balanced to make anonymous and completely unproven claims about a group based on patently and provably false information?

Repeatedly here you have mischaracterised the private vows...even getting the words wrong! Is that balanced?

Or is it... you can't stand the LC to get praised for the good they do and the good they represent...so you have this psychological angst to say something, ANYTHING, to "take them down a notch", including coming up with wild claims and inventing words to vows, or inventing stories about supposed claims and teachings that no one else ever heard anyone make, write, or claim!

How many people know for example that the Legionaries in Rome have routinely hosted hundreds of visiting bishops at their flag-ship seminary? Or that virtually all the cardinals have visited them and most of the Curia have ordained their members to the deaconate or priesthood?

How many people know that the Legionaries have mobilized nearly 100,000 lay people this past year in Latin America to help DIOCESAN efforts to evangelize and win back Catholics to the faith during Holy Week?

How many people know that the Legionaries and their lay members of RC have helped feed, clothe, and house hundreds of thousands of POOR PEOPLE...giving top-flight and subsidized education to over 15,000 poor children? Or that working TOGETHER with rich and poor they have built homes for over 400 HOMELESS families?

How many people know that the Legionaries run a diocese in Quintana Roo, serving the spiritual needs of almost a MILLION Mayan indians...

How many people know that the Legionaries have helped THOUSANDS of diocesan priests AND THEIR BISHOPS with financial aid, support, and solidarity? Or that so-called "liberation" theology (marxism in disguise) was rooted out thanks to their efforts? Or that they're on the cutting edge helping the Church in the Bio-ethics and Philosophy field....

I could go on and on and on... for "Balance" sake. And henceforth, to every one of your wild and unsupported claims, I will.

Your anonymous shots in the dark are not "balance". They're imbalance... and unjust. Hence, you need to apologize, repent of your evil way, and get counselling.

Peace is objective, not a feeling my friend. You can't make peace by throwing mud - or hand-grenades at people.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 10, 2003.


Does Joe Stong run this board too? He seems to have a need to control and dominate. I bet he is still and active RC, maybe even LC employee. How can he have an objective point of view if he is on the payroll. He knows what side his bread is buttered on...

-- Gary Kelly (LeedsUtdFC@yahoo.com), December 10, 2003.

Known Legion Pedophile Ministering to Mayan Indians in Quintana Roo.

A Legionary priest, already accused of pedophilia in Ontaneda, Spain in 1969 has been active on the Quintana Roo Missions since 1970. Apparently, for the Legion, Mayan Indians are less important than white Spanish juveniles...

Thank goodness the ONE MILLION figure is vastly exaggerated. Less sexually abused Mayas...

-- Attorney General Quintana Roo (trapper@yahoo.com), December 10, 2003.


Moderator, please note that Gary's email account is fradulent.

Gary, if you're still out there, answer me this: if I'm wrong, why must all the anti-LC anonymous posters go ad hominem, including you, rather than refute me? Is bearing witness to the truth and defending the innocent "control" and "domination"? What should I do when uninformed and appalingly ignorant people take anonymous pot-shots at a good organization and people whom I know personally?

I'd also like you to give me REASONS, not sound bytes. If I'm right, I'm right, no matter who butters my bread. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Your claim about butter and bread is so old and tired... it also doesn't make any sense. All that matters is what you know in this debate.

Mr. Anonymous spin-meister claims being critical and lying about other people is a matter of "balance"... and I disagree. Lying is never "balance". Is my stating this fact a case of "control and domination"? If so, then what about you and yours?

Dear reading public... how many of these guys are real? How many have real, valid emails? How many are willing to stand by their wild claims? Anyone can claim anything in writing... but proving it with REASONS AND FACTS is a totally different ball game.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 12, 2003.


874,963.

That's how many people geohive.com has listed as living in Quintanna Roo based on Mexico's 2000 Census.

But then, we're talking Mexico and we're also talking a region heavy in tourism, so if you add the Tourists... Joestong's number of 1 million people to be cared for spiritually is not "an exaggeration".

So it looks like Senor Attorney General is wrong yet AGAIN!

Paz con todos

-- anonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), December 12, 2003.


Since when has it been considered legal to refer to someone ACCUSED of a crime as "known criminal, so-and-so"? Surely someone who claims to be an Attorney General would know the difference between "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty as proven in a court of law"?

Or does hatred for someone mean you don't need to be truthful and fair?

-- anonymous legal expert (withheld@yahoo.com), December 12, 2003.


Does anybody have details on alleged sexual misconduct at the Legionary Apostolic School in New Hampsire? I've seen reference to it on the web. Thanks in advance. -Pat

-- Pat (withheld@yahoo.com), December 18, 2003.

Dear Withholding

How many inhabitants did you say in Q.Roo?

You and Joe ARE INCORRECT IN CONSIDERING THESE PEOPLE MAYAN INDIANS. You are behaving like a couple of ignorant "Indios' americanos!

Yo Pedo from Peto, Quintana Roo

-- Yo Pedo (Chaac-Mol@yahoo.com), December 25, 2003.


Um, I never claimed that the people in the census for the state of Q. Roo WHERE "mayans". I never made any representation as to their culture, race, tribe, or ethnicity. I doubt Joe did either. So what's your problem?

-- anonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), December 29, 2003.

Only two people have made claims of abuse at the New Hampshire school since ir was openned in 1983. In that time hundreds, perhaps nearly a thousand boys have passed through that minor seminary.

The first person to claim abuse went through the proper channels, there was an investigation and it came up inconclusive. The brother he accused nearly died in a car accident and was left brain damaged - unable to defend himself.

The person claiming abuse had many classmates who have subsequently publicly denied ever hearing, sensing, or knowing of anything untoward going on while they were there. That doesn't prove nothing happened. But it doesn't prove anything DID either.

But since both the accuser and accused are no longer involved with the school (and haven't been for over 10 years) it'd be hard for anyone to claim the school today is a risky place.

The second accuser DIDN'T go through proper channels (i.e. the local bishop or police) but instead went to the Media (ABC) and made vague, non-commital claims against an unnamed priest. When pressed by the local police and bishop to make specific charges (put up or shut up) he named the priest, but refused to be specific as to anything else which would have thus been actionable....thus leaving the accused priest in legal and canonical limbo with no formal charges made.

This particular student also had classmates who also never saw, heard, or sensed anything weird going on during that time period.

It seems that the common thread between the two accusers was a period of adolescent emotional disturbances which occured AFTER leaving the school. Non-Catholic Psychologists then suggested to both that the cause of this stress COULD be surpressed memories of sexual abuse.

Supressed memory has a dubious psychological history. It happens, it's a real phenomena, but it's not the ONLY EXPLAINATION for every mental illness or problem. Unfortunately, victim-hood in today's world confers such moral authority on a person that accusers aren't expected to have to play by the same rules that apply to everyone else: innocent until proven guilty.

According to Canon Law, (and civil law) if you make an accusation of wrong-doing, you have to have some form of PROOF. This can be circumstantial, character-witnessing, physical, photographic, etc. emotional distress in and of itself is NOT enough.

So Catholics are forced to concede that in these two cases, the accusers a) must be treated with respect but not with naivete. b) that the accused too have rights, the first of which is to be considered innocent until proof of guilt is rendered.

Finally, as neither man accused of abuse is currently teaching or involved with the school, and no subsequent claims have been made... I think we should give that school a clean bill of health and not go rumor-mongering.

-- anonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), December 29, 2003.


Thank you anonymous-fact-checker. You're right, proof should be provided in any accusation. Of course these sexual matters with young boys are complicated in many ways. I'd be surprised if Legionary priest are completely immune from the troubles dioceses in America and Europe have faced in recent years.

We had given some thought to sending our son for a visit to that school in New Hampshire, but any chance for abuse is never worth the risk. Thanks again.

-- Pat (withheld@yahoo.com), January 05, 2004.


Pat, you are dead wrong.

Until a case of abuse in New Hampshire is proved in a court, it is wise for us to assume that the "risk" was almost "nil" in New Hampshire -- even prior to the big 2002 expose's in Boston, etc.. And now that everything is out in the open -- and priests are being watched like hawks, and kids are being told to report abuse immediately -- the intelligent thing for you to do is to assume that the "risk" in New Hampshire is just about 0.00000% percent of any problem for your son. Don't bypass the chance to give him an outstanding education due to unfounded fears.

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 05, 2004.


If my teenage son was interested in the priesthood, I would accompany him on any visit to a minor seminary. The school in New Hampshire probably has events open to families and the general public. Why not call to find out? That's the key question: does he have a vocation? If so, then what are you going to do to protect it? "Many are called, few are chosen". Any vocation is a delicate thing that we shouldn't fool around with. It's not as if we are generic beings or that God really doesn't know what we were created for or good for!

If you're afraid of "risk" you have to ask yourself what alternative school or environment is available for your son...any bording, public or private school can be "risky".

It's risky to have unfiltered internet access. It's risky to have cable TV. In a typical public (and many Catholic schools) the sex-ed courses contain pornographic images. That's risky. Public libraries have open internet access... and zero moral compunctions. Having a subscription to Sports Illustrated SE is risky...

Think about it: you're afraid of someone sexually abusing your son. But the far greater risk is not physical abuse but moral corruption prevalent and made easy in our culture. Far more teens get sucked into moral relativism and sexual activity or unhealthy fantasy worlds than get physically abused.

For millennia young Catholic boys and teens never saw pornographic images...so why should we be so flippant in supposing it's not a big deal or that they can see such images without risk to soul or psychological health? Boys (and men) are highly visual creatures.

If you want to keep a boy innocent especially during his teen years, you do have to take precautions to avoid the obvious pit-falls and dangers. In a public school setting a spiritually minded young man will not: read Catholic authors, get positive peer support for chastity, learn authentic Church history or doctrine... He won't meet priests or other young men his age who also feel some calling to the priesthood... he won't learn what life in the seminary is like.

If my son thought he had a priestly vocation I'd weigh the small risk of abuse (2 as of yet unproven accusations out of 1000 students) against the risk of him loosing his vocation to porn, bad books, bad habits, and the virtually zero supporting environment of friends and peers. It's a virtual certainty that his school and neighborhood environment will not be as "catholic" or wholesome as that produced in a minor seminary.

After all, the Church has approved minor seminaries for a reason: they DO help nurture and preserve the priestly vocation in teenage boys and since not every graduate goes on to the priesthood or religious life, they do equip a young man for adult Catholicism.

All this being said, each minor seminary is different. Some are for boys who are called to a diocesan vocation. The Legion of Christ is a missionary order - so its men could be stationed here in the USA or elsewhere. Typically, religious congregations have more structured life-styles and espri d'corps than diocesan clergy tend to have.

But writing off a school entirely on the basis of unproven claims against the 99% of kids (and families) who have positive things to say for the school is unfair and unwise - especially if your son has expressed interest in the priesthood.

Peace

-- annonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 05, 2004.


Thanks again Checker. There is alot of bad influence out there. Would you say that the NH school rigidly protects their students from immoral influences? What about interacting with girls, are there socials or dances? Thanks in advance.

-- Pat (withheld@yahoo.com), January 06, 2004.

Pat, if your boy feels called to the priesthood....and the priesthood is something which involves celibacy...why would you want a teen age boy hanging out with girls and going to dances? You hang out with girls and take them to dances because for 99% of men, marriage is the norm, and thus those activies help prepare you for your vocation of marriage.

If your son is a normal heterosexually oriented lad he won't suffer any undue stress or anxiety by not going to dances with girls! No child has ever been proven to be morally, spiritually, intellectually, or SOCIALLY stunted by not dating or hanging out with the opposite sex until they were 18. If it's not in fact his calling, then he won't loose out: there is plenty of time to date and hang out with women in college or afterwards.

Besides, the school - as far as I know - has many family days in which their sisters and moms show up at. The boys go on hikes around town...again seeing women and girls. They go home for family holidays... they have daily Mass, sports, classes, etc. They aren't kept in a walled compound. The grounds are wide open, and in town overlooking the lake.

There are lots of former alumni of that school who didn't go on to the Legion of Christ or did but weren't ordained and they didn't have any trouble meeting girls, dancing, and finding good spouses.

And this is because normal men who become mature don't need to hang out with girls, go dancing, and date for 10 years before finding their bride.

Finally, it's a MINOR SEMINARY. It's for boys who seriously think they may be called by God to be priests. It's NOT a boarding school. It's not a Catholic boys academy. I have never heard any one who claims that boys need to date or hang out with girls during their teens PROVE this assertion with anything like evidence. They SUPPOSE it is the case. They don't prove it.

-- anonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 07, 2004.


No Checker, our son doesn't feel called to the priesthood at all. We just want him to be familiar with a vocation to the priesthood as he grows. And we're not likely to send him to NH unless he badly wants to go. He hasn't expressed that interest. Mary and Joseph educated their son at home and he was a part of his local community. We're happy to model our family after the Holy Family in every way possible.

As parents try to determine what's best for their children many factors must be considered. The long and short of it is, the Legionaries aren't the right fit for our son. The Legionaries are young and inexperienced as orders go, and will take some time to mature.

Thankfully the Legion isn't the Church. Her beauty is found in the diversity of orders and charisms. Thanks for your input and God Bless.

-- Pat (withheld@yahoo.com), January 08, 2004.


I don't know how you can say "the legionaries aren't a right fit for our son" if you a) don't know a whole lot about them from them, and b) your son never visited their seminary. It just seems that - unlike Mary and Joseph - you are jumping to conclusions about people based on anonymous on-line accusations and rumor-mongers.

We know that the Pope loves them, as do all the Cardinals and hundreds of bishops. They are young (61 years old) but so were the Franciscans 60 years after being founded!

I just think we as Catholics need to be more careful with WHAT we base our moral judgments on. Without objective facts, any judgment about a group or person will always run the risk of being not only wrong but deeply unfair.

Peace

-- fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 09, 2004.


Thanks again Checker. It turns out that we know somebody who is very familiar with the school in Center Harbor. He had mostly good things to say...very entertaining. He certainly wasn't trashing the school or the Legion.

It was very clear that the school is for boys who want to become priests. Even after encouragement, our son has no interest in becoming a priest. My friend says that there is "certainly a lot pressure" to become not only a priest but a legionary priest. Then we spoke with acquaintances whose son had attended another legionary school who echoed similar themes.

I've already applied enough pressure for a boy his age. I can understand a young order trying to recruit with vigor, but we know the son God gave us, and a pressured environment would be disasterous.

Thanks again, maybe I'll stop by here in the future.

-- Pat (withheld@yahoo.com), January 12, 2004.


My brother get to come home from that school on Thanksgiving, Christmas and for a couple weeks in the summer. They told him his family will try to undo his formation when he came to visit. He acts nice when he's home but he's been instructed not to trust us. I'm pretty sad about that.

Whatever are the good things about that school I worry about the stuff they're doing to my brothers mind. He's just not the same. I think my parents are worried and might get him out of there this summer. I hope so because he's a great brother.

-- RR (rrod43@comcast.net), January 13, 2004.


I've heard anonymous on-line claims about this. Past students, former lay teachers, and townsfolk I've contacted say nothing of the sort. So I think this is one of those urban myths constructed on a half- truth that got lost in translation.

The school does teach the boys to make good use of their time, (i.e. to not waste it), to have manners (don't act like slobs), to forge habits of prayer (they're preparing to be priests after all).

But the school is also aware that, duh, they're boys! And on vacation it's the most natural thing in the world to get lazy. It has no sinister or bad connotations. It just happens. One teacher mentioned that the boys were simply encouraged to not waste their vacation home watching TV or playing video games when they could be visiting relatives, playing with siblings, helping around the home. The key word was "excessive" time spent watching TV or playing video games.

Another ex-student mentioned to me that OBVIOUSLY his prayer life as a minor-seminarian was alot more intense than that of the typical 12 year old (who maybe only prays "grace" before dinner). Visits home typically challenged him to take the time to pray even when his siblings were outside playing.

From one perspective the "family" environment wouldn't be as organized as the school environment. But what does the school actually say about it? I highly doubt that they actually claim that families "deform" their students!

But see the common thread accusation: some outlandish claim, made without proof, that creates a bad feeling in stranger's minds towards "the school". No distinctions are made, no attempt to understand the details or actual policies or even to contact those involved with that policy.

And what of the hundred or so families who are happy with the school and whose sons are happy with the formation? You don't hear about them do you? Yet they're there. Former (and current) lay teachers are around. Local parish priests and townsfolk are around. Plenty of sources of information other than 2nd hand, watered down testimony from an anonymous source.

We Catholics have to take seriously the responsibility to not spread gossip and rumors that can forever tarnish someone's reputation.

-- Anonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 13, 2004.


I was in the legionaries from age 12, but didn't attend one of their schools. I like the priests, the focus on prayer and the fun outdoor activities. I was regularly pressured to become a legionary priest. I voluntarily went on 3 test your call weekends in high school. The pressure there can truly be described as intense.

I'm in the RC but my life hardly permits time to do it justice. I've gained alot, but my experience included heavy persuasion to become a priest, including some negative talk about other vocation opportunities.

-- private (private@private.com), January 13, 2004.


Just a couple of obvious points to keep in mind:

First of all, PERSUASION IS NOT COERCION.

"Heavy persuasion" doesn't mean "wrong" or illegal or immoral persuasion. Anyone who is a minor seminarian at a particular order or congregation's school will be exposed to that order or congregation's charism and spirituality. It's taken for granted that the order's members will be proud of their group (otherwise, why are they members???) and will be happy to promote it with the boys.

The LC - like any other group is entirely (legally, morally, canonically) able to persuade people to become members. It's called "marketing" in some fields and "evangelization" in another.

Persuasion is another form of "encouragement" towards something. In recruiting it's called "putting your best foot forward". Catholics aren't supposed to hang out all the dirty laundry, talk down their faith and orders, mention all the rumors and gossip, then accept (grudgingly) new members! Who does it that way? Yet isn't that the implied "superior" or alternative way of doing it?

No, like anything else, schools, orders, parishes, you name it, put their best foot foward. They persuade. But people are still free to join or not. And clearly as evidenced by all these former Legionaries, plenty of men were free to leave at any time.

Ditto with the LC's Movement. Its members aren't held in draconian slavery. If they don't fulfill committments or attend meetings... nothing happens! It's a voluntary thing. They aren't charged dues, and if they aren't self-starters, no one is going to come looking for them.

Yet you wouldn't know that based on some wild-eyed conspiracy mongering posts.

Finally, what does this difference of attitude say about Christianity? Did Jesus Christ tell his disciples to "Go therefore and suggest that I may be one truth among many equally viable options"? No. He COMMANDED his apostles to go make disciples of ALL nations, making them OBEY ALL his commands, and promised to be with THEM (the apostles and successors) for ALL time.

Jesus Christ stated in no uncertain terms that He alone is the way, truth, and life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. How's that for "heavy persuasion"?

Now, He didn't "force" anyone to believe him, but he did spell out what would happen for failure to believe!

Did the Apostles risk their lives for the sake of an "alternative" life-style? No. They risked their lives for the sake of the only VIABLE lifestyle!

Christianity is the truth about God and man. So the Apostles PERSUADED people to join. They used "Heavy" Persuasion too! Look at all the known homilies in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere: there are consequences for every choice you make. Not all choices are equally valid or good. Some choices are better than others.

It isn't irrelevant whether you join one group over another. Vocations are NOT GENERIC!

Yet, the underlying presumption of alot of Americans is: religion is relative, vocations are generic, one-size-fits-all, freedom is absolute, and any form of persuasion is bad. And yet examples of cultural hypocrisy abound: any time you go to a home football game you see 50,000 fans "persuading" in no uncertain terms which team to root for.

Families generally have persuasion built in along political and ethical lines... some things are approved of and rewarded, other things are disapproved of and frowned on. That's a form of "heavy persuasion"!

Look at alumni weekends... How many parents "heavily persuade" their children to take advantage of scholarships and Ivy League links to their alma maters? LOTS! Of course in the end it's the kid's choice, but parents "persuade" their kids in lots of ways....and it's not all bad!

Again and again, for the sake of your soul and the justice towards your neighbor, Catholics must learn to MAKE DISTINCTIONS, DEFINE THEIR TERMS, base judgements on FACTS, not fiction or rumor. And if you are going to judge whole groups of people, be very careful if the only experience you have is of one or two of their members.

Otherwise not only do you run the risk of sin, you also run the risk of looking foolish and making our faith look foolish.

-- Anonymous Fact Checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 13, 2004.


In retrospect I sense that the pressure was more manipulative than coercive. A few of the fathers seemed to have a definitive knowlege of "God's Will" for my life. It's a little tormenting on a young mind to have a priest tell you that your violating God's will for your life, by not becoming a legionary priest; Especially when prayerful reflection told me otherwise. It's not that I couldn't physically walk out of a TYC weekend, it's that I didn't have the freedom of mind to consider it. Thankfully college allowed me to break free of that influence.

Later I received what I'll call balanced spiritual direction. My director never claimed to know God's will for my life, and always respected my freedom. He still "directed" me, but never was manipulative.

And I go back to the scripture where Jesus was telling the people they literally had to eat his body and drink his blood to have eternal life. People left in droves. Notice Jesus' response. At a time when He could easily have enforced his will, he respected the freedom his Father gave to all men. Even the apostles, the very founders of Our Church, weren't pressured in any way to stay with Jesus.

In light of Jesus' example, I think of Legionary recruitment as un- Christian if not immoral at times. I'm certain Jesus would not approve.

That's just one part of an experience that was pretty good overall. I would encourage Pat (above) no to write-off the Legion altogether, but continue to be an involved parent when it comes to your son's formation.

-- private (private@private.com), January 14, 2004.


You just proved my point: you left the LC, and they didn't come hunting you down. Yet by characterizing their persuasion as "manipulative" (from the Latin root: to man-handle), you give the impression that they didn't respect your freedom - which they obviously did. Disagreeing with their style or manner or "attitude" (as in being sure of themselves) is one thing. And that's OK. But disagreements of taste shouldn't lead to conclusions about their moral status (which manipulation would imput as "bad").

The Rich Young Man asked Jesus about his vocation - and was told, "Come be my disciple." He didn't agree, and went away sad. Jesus let him go. Other people were called too, but had other things to do first...we don't know what happened but it's reasonable to assume some didn't follow. Where they "manipulated" by Our Lord's certainty in their vocation? He was sure, but they weren't. Mystery eh?

You presume that spiritual directors can only be sure about something if it happens to be in harmony with your own feelings. Maybe. Maybe not. Plenty of saints didn't want to do particular tasks but accepted a spiritual director's advice or even command. St Francis Xavier is but one! Was he "manipulated" too?

What about St Peter? He was told point blank that in the end he'd be led where he wouldn't want to go...crucifixion. It was price of his vocation to follow Christ. He didn't like the prospect, but he accepted his "spiritual direction".

In short, maybe your current director is good for you and the LC was wrong. Or maybe the LC saw something in you that you don't (yet). Vocational discernment is a mystery - and a process. It goes through stages. Sometimes other men (spiritual directors) get it right, other times they get it wrong. But Catholic moral doctrine holds that a soul who follows a legitimate spiritual director in good faith isn't sinning if in the end he discovers one path isn't the definitive one for him.

THATS WHY CANON LAW STIPULATES RELIGIOUS TAKE TEMPORARY VOWS prior to perpetual ones, and even then allows for dispensations! Precisely because a religious or priestly vocation (spanning years of formation) is a mysterious reality hard to nail down yeah or nay in one or two years.

In my opinion and experience the LC spiritual directors screen out and suggest other options of life or religious service away from the Legion than they do for the Legion. And even those they direct towards the Legion, the theme of on-going vocational discernment continues...until ordination!

Typically they're good at qualifying their terms. But it is possible in one TYC haste or whatever made someone just affirm one possibility as "highly probable" or even certain for you. As we have seen, no harm was done and you're not a LC. Persuasion and even heavy persuasion isn't "manipulative". They didn't bribe, blackmail, or manhandle you into joining... so it can't be considered "manipulative".

WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. We have to be clear with our words. The measure which we use against others will be used against us... if we fudge on our words implying moral guilt in others...how much more could others fudge on words condemning us?

Something to think about.

-- anonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 14, 2004.


I'm not getting through to you Mr. Fact Checker. But I suppose you don't care much for learning. The Legionaries inappropriately tried to influence me. Manipulative, coercive, pressuring. . . any of these words adequately describe the abusive nature of using the Name and so-called Will of Almighty God to recruit me to the legionaries. That's a serious moral problem.

Discerning a priestly vocation is tricky enough business without introducing the sin of presumtion regarding God's Will.

-- private (private@private.com), January 15, 2004.


Hey, look who's talking about not wanting to learn anything! And look who's making the moral judgments about people... you!

You just contradicted yourself - and thus prove to me and everyone else that for you, emotion, not fact or reason is what drives your choices in life. You earlier posted a distinction between "manipulation" and coercion but now claim the words mean the same thing! WHEN THEY DON'T! Check any dictionary.

You refuse to accept the reality that your little feelings and emotions aren't God's will! You refuse to accept the fact - taught by every saint and spiritual writer in the tradition of the Church, that spiritual directors can help a soul come to know God's will.

Have you never read the Acts of the Apostles? The Deacon Philip "persuaded" the Ethiopian to become baptised! He interpreted Isaiah the Prophet for him, explained God's will for him...and made a new Christian convert! And it goes on and on and on....just because you don't feel called to ANYTHING doesn't in and of itself mean you're NOT CALLED. And just because a man or woman says you are called to some form of service doesn't mean - if they're mistaken - that they're manipulative or coercive.

People can make honest mistakes - without being morally evil. Yet you judge them infallibly as immoral based on YOUR FEELINGS.

You judge a group in the Church as morally corrupt based on your subjective FEELINGS of not being called to a vocation. What did they base their opinion on? Thin air? What did they see in you that you refuse to see in yourself? Did you lead them on? Did you tell them something about yourself that isn't true?

Suppose you come to a priest and tell him that you've always been a morally upright kid, that you pray alot, that you're especially sensitive about spiritual matters, that you're devoted to Our Lady and feel called to do something for the good of other people... well goodness sakes, what in the world do you think this priest or lay person would think? Ummmmm. "I think you God wants you to marry Ms. Kansas and become a successful NASCAR driver"?

Or do you think they just might, based on what you tell them...conclude that you may have a priestly or religious vocation?

Where in the Gospel or in Catholic teaching is it written that priestly vocations have to be accompanied with euphoric feelings and ectasies of supernatural bliss? Where is it written that the SURE FIRE way of discerning vocations (supernatural grace) is to consult one's "gut feeling" (which, insofar as it's physical is of an entirely different order than grace)?

Fact is, a vocation has more to do with your head - you know, the faculty by which you come to know the truth, than with your heart - the power to feel good about yourself or other people. Feelings help, but they aren't the definitive sign or source of discernment.

And here you just blew off a whole group of people who perhaps were trying to help you see this simple Catholic fact.

-- fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004.


If the Legionaries are applying this kind of pressure to my brother, then that might explain why he's talking so weird when he comes home. When he first came back he sounded like he was first spanish and then learned english. This sounds like something for my parents to know about.

-- RR (rrod43@comcast.net), January 15, 2004.

Fact "J.S." Checker

Maybe you could check your facts on how many men were ordained for the Legionaries and 1. Are presently in the order. 2. Didn't truly have a Legionary vocation (I know of or have met 10) and left for another order or diocese. 3. Sense that they were pushed into a vocation but are complacent enough to just stay put.

Number three is guess-work since no one in the order would tell you even if they are disenchanted.

R.R. Get you parents involved in any worries you have about your brother. Many parents think they can send their sons/daughters off to a legionary school and drastically reduce their responsiblity in the formation of their children. Help your parents to get more involved.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), January 16, 2004.


I have said again and again that parents should be involved with their children - if you are thinking about a minor seminary, go there with your kids to see how things are for yourself. Don't just go on internet rumors and wild-eyed-and proof-less claims.

I have also mentioned the FACT that minor seminaries are NOT boys academies or boarding schools. So, DUH, there are going to be major differences in how the students and faculty live and look at themselves and their formation.

How in the world could a kid who thinks he may be called to the priesthood and goes off to a school surrounded by other like-minded boys, go through a semester and NOT change?

Kids go to music-camp and come out "different". They go to Homeward bound or Scout camps and come out changed. Military academies and boarding schools...guess what? even they change kids' attitude and behavioral habits. Does any of this, in and of itself make these schools evil, bad and sinister? NO, OF COURSE NOT.

But somehow when dealing with Catholic minor seminaries we are all supposed to worship as Gospel truth the unproven claims of anonymous internet rumor-mongers who seem simultaneously jealous of the success of this order and hate-filled for their very existence.

A kid will naturally - given all the laws of nature and grace - change over the course of a semester or year at a minor seminary. This is how it is. Now, if the kid seems weird to you...you're going to have to define "normal" for us.

If normal means superficial, only talks about the weather, immediate concerns, sports, and hobbies...then of course some kid who talks about God, his studies and exciting missions is going to be unusual. But weird? You are YOU to make that call?

About your numbers: 1) every diocese and religious order under the sun has ordained men leave. The SJ, OFM, OP, and others lost thousands of priests during the 1970's. Statistically, the LC hasn't lost that many. But some have left. Are they supposed to publish the number and trumpet this fact to the four winds? NAME A SINGLE OTHER ORDER THAT DOES THIS. I bet you can't. In any case, the total number of their priests is STILL growing despite a handful of priests who have left.

2) Vocational discernment: Every diocesan and religious order has a turn over rate. None to my knowledge spell it out and focus on how many men explore their vocation with them and then leave. Why should the LC be expected to do what no other religious order or diocesan seminary is expected to do? Or are you just jealous/petty?

The LC has acknowledged on many occasions that not every man who attends their retreats goes to their candidacy. And not every candidate enters the novitiate or eventually becomes ordained. That in an of itself proves that vocational discernment is on-going and they're not hyping the numbers.

3)Mind-reading: How in the world would YOU know if someone "felt pushed into the vocation but was complacent enough to just stay put"?

This is called "projecting" your own opinion on to other people. It's also called stereotyping a whole group of people composed of men from all over the planet based on a couple of examples from one ethnic or generational group. This kind of judgment also manages to insult both the supposed "complacent" seminarians as well as the supposed sycopant superiors who "push" them.

In short it's mean, nasty, petty, and just plain wrong.

You seem to be one of the two or 3 terribly unhappy and illogical people out there who seem to obssessively criticise this order of priests. But based on your lack of logic, lack of good judgment and use of a priori moral condemnation, I'd wager a guess that you and they have a guilty conscience but won't admit it. So you/they project all blame and guilt on their former superiors or companions, making all their problems "really" someone else's problem. Then you/they fill the internet with anonymous hate-speech, filled with unproven claims and wild suggestions designed to turn us non-involved Catholics into partisans of the struggle.

Unable to prove in broad daylight that this group is wrong, bad, evil, or silly, you go anonymous and on-line... and try as much as possible to poison the wells of natural good-will Catholics (like anyone else) have for missionary orders. And I suppose you feel inspired by the Holy Spirit too.

Well, I for one don't automatically suspect a group of being full of sinners and morally depraved people because some anonymous hack makes claims which he can't back up. If they were really bad, then people would make the claims in person and responsibly.

But from all my investigations into this group, talking with people involved, it seems like for every 20 people who love them, about 1 dislikes them. Out of 100 people who like them, 1 positively hates them but then also hates the Pope, Catholic sexual morality, and standard theology.

One of them told me about a reunion recently of former seminarians. Over twenty showed up - all positive about their former order. Only 1 was negative, and he happens (surprise surprise) to also have issues with the Pope and other Catholic teachings.

I think this goes a long way to explain what REALLY bothers people. The LC is orthodox and supports the Pope.

-- anonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 16, 2004.


Fact Checker, You are doing a wonderful job defending the Legion! Every time someone refuses to buy into your "facts" you attack them personally...tactics that are tried and true by the Legion themselves. If you can't convince with smoke and mirrors, manipulate the words and alleged actions of those who disagree. You and Joe certainly have learned well and exercise this Legion tactic expertly. I can only hope that those who visit this page who have not had actual encounters with the Legion can see through your wordy manipulations and understand what a dangerous group the Legion really is.

-- Withheld in Florida (1234@yahoo.com), January 19, 2004.

Withheld, quote me one single line, one sentence, one phrase in which I or Joe (who's he?) have attacked someone personally, rather than simply disagreed with THEIR OPINION.

Here you ASSERT that the legion is a "dangerous group" - WITHOUT ANY SHREAD OF PROOF! That's ad hominem my friend. I opine that your arguments are based on a priori grudges - because based on your own posts (which offer us no reasons or facts to agree with your assertions) only a priori negative judgments could explain your conclusion about this group!

As for you being illogical...that's not some mean-spirited ad hominem ASSERTION on my part: it's a deduction based on your words and repeated posts wherein you prove that you can NOT discern the difference between an ad hominem and an sed contra argument!

If you say "The sky is green" and I say "no, the sky is blue because that's the color most refracted by the atmosphere" I am NOT going ad hominem. I am merely disproving your assertion based on the known properties of light and refraction.

If you angrily claim the Legion of Christ has misled some parent into thinking their son was going to a boys academy which would include dating and dances, and I point out that minor seminaries are not the same thing as boys academies... that's a COUNTER ARGUMENT, not an AD HOMINEM!

If someone who claims to be an expert or an informed Catholic makes an obvious mistake, and I correct them, that's not ad hominem either!

Most of the on-line critics of this order make fundamental mistakes of judgement in their arguments against the Legion. They either confuse the meaning of words or misuse them. They often extrapolate from one or two personal experiences to sweeping moral judgments against an entire group of people they couldn't possibly know... and that's a basic mistake.

It's a mistake no matter WHAT group of people we're talking about. If the subject was African-Americans, that kind of reasoning would automatically be considered bigoted, racist, and prejudiced. But somehow it's OK for you to do the very same thing with a Catholic order of priests? Base sweeping generalizations on 1 or 2 experiences of 1 or 2 members? And when I point this out...I'm just proving you wrong, not going against you personally!

I correct a mistaken judgement, I don't say "you're stupid". If that's your reaction, then I'm sorry. Being proven wrong or incorrect in one's opinion doesn't automatically mean one is stupid. But there we go again MORE WORRIED ABOUT FEELINGS THAN TRUTH!

This whole thread started with someone dropping a bomb of an accusation on a religious order's minor seminary. The claims turned out to be largely false. Two cases in 20 years, both accused long gone...doesn't automatically mean a school is sinister or the order is rotten to the core. If that's how you think, then explain to me why that's your conclusion.

SHOW ME YOUR REASONS, SHOW US YOUR ARGUMENTS. SO FAR ALL YOU DO IS ASSERT THIS OR THAT IS SO WITHOUT BOTHERING TO PROVE IT.

Then the thread spiralled out of control into general attacks and misunderstandings of the order's spirituality, practices, vows, founder... you name it. On the one side you see people who come on with their REAl names DEFENDING what they know. On the other, anonymous critics who obviously don't know a whole lot but are rather opinionated.

Joe comes out and gets blasted for being biased - as if you're not! But did anyone refute his arguments and facts? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I read some of your earlier posts: you guys went back and forth but in a cordial, respectful manner. When did he attack someone's honor or make judgments of their moral culpability? You make judgments about Legionaries that if true would mean they are maliciously evil people. Joe refuted your claims and at the most only hinted that you or others were misinformed, uninformed, or mistaken. Since he was defending friends from un-proven claims, I think he had the moral high ground to get angry and a little bit heated in his words. But even so, when did he claim any of you were a maliciously evil person?

I just don't see the proportion. One side defends what it knows - either from long personal experience, decade old friendships, etc. the other side (with typically just a short and superficial experience) just asserts or claims that the LC is evil. One of the sides has to be wrong but which side is offering facts, arguments, and reasons to back up their opinions?

I came here to offer my fact checking about Quintana Roo's population and then some pretty basic facts about Catholic minor seminaries, vocational discernment, and the like. If I'm wrong about the population of that state, I think someone could easily prove it. If my understanding of the process of vocational discernment is wrong, again, I think someone would have plenty of resources to draw from in proving me wrong.

You disagree with my facts but you don't refute them. When I refute arguments you claim I attack the character of an anonymous poster???? When? Where? How?

Saying that someone is wrong is unavoidable in arguments but I don't just assert it (like you do!). I offer REASONS, facts, etc. for my part. You just say "LC is bad 'cause I say so" and "there otta be an investigation 'cause I say so" or "Something's bad in there 'cause I say so" or "they refute my arguments so they're attacking me personally".

Confronted with this kind of non-reasoning what else can I think except that you have a priori prejudices against this group, that you are so fired up with anger that you allow illogic to fill your posts and that you don't really care about offering or discovering reasons or facts or truth about the group as much as you care about throwing mud on them.

I can check out the Legion of Christ and defend them with facts. With respect to you, I have only your own posts to go on, and based on those words of yours (in other words, not out of thin air), I opine that you have a guilty conscience and have a personal vendetta against this group which therefore doesn't require you to offer reasons or facts to back up your ire...prove me wrong.

People with guilty consciences attack the Church or Church groups all the time. It's a well documented phenomena. Part of the proof is in their LACK of proof offered to shore up their conclusions. Kinda like the pharisees in the Gospel of John who told the man born blind "Praise God! We know this man [Jesus] is a sinner" (Jn 9:24)

The man replied to their ASSERTION about Jesus being a sinner with REASONS: (Jn 9:31-33) "We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if one is devout and does his will, he listens to them. It is unheard of that anyone ever opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, he would not be able to do anything."

But what did the Pharisees do with this ARGUMENT? They hurled AD HOMINEM abuse on him and tossed him out of the synagogue.

In incredibly similar ways, you WITHHELD, assert that the Legion is bad and its members are morally corrupt and guilty and sinister. You claim that I am bad and Joe was bad. But when have you or others offered anything resembling an argument or series of proofs and facts to shore up and lead to your conclusion?

As far as I can see, the Legion of Christ is doing great work for the Church all over the place. You know a group by its fruits. But they also have enemies - enemies who don't like school children being taught to live their Christian faith, who don't like boys and girls being separated after 4th grade (even though all the evidence points to this being a wise thing pedagogically to do!), who don't like or understand their spirituality and keep applying the apple of OFM standards of poverty or piety to the orange of their unique charism.

You have people who a) don't know the actual words of their vows, but b) have opinions on them! Or people who a) don't know the actual words of their charism's understanding of obedience but b) have negative opinions about it!

In short, misunderstandings, lack of basic knowledge, a priori prejudice, petty personal peeves, running off half-cocked....seems to me to be the order of the day on the anti-LC side. The rest of us take the time to read, reflect, see what the other Catholic orders are doing etc. see what fruits are coming from this group, read the Pope's words of praise, check out the irrefutable news of hundreds of bishops and cardinals ROUTINELY visiting the Legion's major seminary in Rome, etc. and we conclude, based on all these facts, that they are doing alot of good.

But did Joe or I claim they're perfect? No. As far as I know no group in the Church and no person - including you Withheld - has to be absolutely perfect and have no enemies to be considered a saint.

Maybe you should reflect on your habitual use of MORAL judgments against groups or people whom you disagree with. I disagree with your arguments, and opine that you may have a guilty conscience: but I haven't ASSERTED or claimed to know you or claimed that you are evil. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I take apart your assertions, WITHHELD, not your "person". *Which is funny since we're both anonymous so how could I be ad hominem. The only people exposed to ad hominem attacks are those who were unwise enough to use their real names and email-addresses!

-- Anonymous fact checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 20, 2004.


Hi Withheld in Florida, From what I've been reading Anonymous Fact Checker is absolutely right. Everytime he's made an assertion he has usually backed it up with a fact or a personal experience that corroborates his assertion. Everytime someone has refuted what he has said, they have used hearsay, innuendo and hyperbole. Can you provide anything concrete that refutes anything Fact Checker has said or, supports anything that you have said?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), January 20, 2004.

I talked with my dad and he's a little worried like me. There have been a couple too many times we sent him mail or packages from home and the priests and brothers wouldn't give it to him. My brother said that was because they use mail to punish them if they don't obey or something. So the priests are controlling the kids by refusing them stuff from home. That makes me sad and angry at the same time. I hope my parents take him out of that place. It's just not right.

-- RR (rrod43@comcast.net), January 20, 2004.

I'm not sure if Joe's or AFChecker's last tirade was directed at me or not. Like many posters here, I am an anonymous contributor to this board. I have elected not to reveal who I am or who my sources of information are since they could identify me and potentially make things difficult for my friends in the Legion.

As a result, Joe's version of "proof" - where everybody reveals details of their experiences- is a little silly to expect on a forum like this. That's because this forum provides what the Legion won't: A place to voice concern or criticism without fear of retribution.

It also allows contributors and lurkers alike information that can be material to their choice to join or remain with the Legionaries of Christ.

When I get some more time I'll explain why Joe/AFC's obstreperous objections to 'moral problems' in the Legion is short sighted.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), January 21, 2004.


I was replying to "the original withheld".

I was making the point that you never even try to prove your claims - you just assert something as true and leave it at that. And of course how convenient is your new claim that you "can't" be specific because of X-files conspiracies that would endanger you or your "friends"!

But hey, if you come here to criticise the Legion's understanding of obedience, but then don't even get the wording of their vows right...how can you make a reasonable case against them?

If you come here throwing around claims of evil doing...but don't provide the slightest shred of proof (names, dates, eye witnesses)...how much different is this from simple libel?

We're supposed to just take your word for it that you know what you're talking about *(i.e. you are an "authority") without any reason or proof?

Above we have a sibling make a claim that his brother SAYS is the motive behind not getting mail. Fine, but what if the boy is wrong? How would 3rd parties know if the school really "punishes" boys by withholding mail? We wouldn't! So here we're supposed to just take the word of an anonymous poster as Gospel?

Try applying this sort of "morality" to any other group of people or race!

For once try to use this same bit of anonymous criticism against any other group and see if what you get is something responsible and Christian or something prone to abuse.

I check facts as I can find them on the web or in person. Past defenders of the Legion were legionary seminarians and used their real names and emails... nothing to hide, and not afraid to defend their friends' honor. Until you can match them I don't think claiming "freedom of speech" as your motive is going to cut it "original withheld".

You're all smoke and no fire.

-- Anonymous Fact Checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 21, 2004.


Libel and slander require that the statements written or spoken are known to be false. I have always written the truth here. I can't make you face the truth, though at one time I thought you might.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.

I meant to respond to RR as well.

When your brother comes home in the summer for 2 weeks. Do Legionary priests and brothers pay your family a little visit?

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


OK, it's been a long time.

"Withheld" on December 9, 2003 you finally revealed or claimed that you were a Legionary for 12 years. Prior to that you claimed merely to have been "involved" with the LC/RC for 20 some years.

If this statement of yours is true, then you can't possibly also claim to "honestly" believe your other claims (and hence be free of libel).

As a former Legionary (12 years) You'd have taken vows at least 3 times. Which means you'd know that your claims about the 4th vow did not correspond to the actual words, yet you claimed on Dec 9 last year that this vow silences LCs from reporting misconduct when the vow in fact demands that they so report misconduct!

Unless you're mentally deficient (which I'm not claiming), that claim was libel. You knew the terms and teaching surrounding that vow, but choose to misrepresent them on this forum in the name of "free speech" and "balance".

You also - if you were a Legionary - would have learned repeatedly - from the Founder down, that our eternal salvation did NOT hinge on our perseverance in the Legion. Why? Because guess what? As Catholics we know that all sins can be forgiven! If you didn't learn that and connect those dots, it's not the Legion's fault!

Yet you made the claim that the Legion teaches this obviously false doctrine. That is libel. How could you "honestly" think that when we learned as novices (or before) the only unpardonable sin is despair? It'd be like trying to un-learn basic math and then "honestly" believing we taught 2+2=5.

Only by routinely NOT LISTENING to LC superiors or reading the charism or studying theology could you have "honestly" come to believe the claims you've made that the Legion, per se, as a congregation, systematically lies to people and makes seminarians lie as well.

Since when did disobedience to the 8th commandment become standard teaching in the novitiate or house of studies? Had someone told me to lie I'd have (given the 4th vow), reported him to his superior!

Now, it's entirely possibly that YOU systematically lied to people, beginning with your superior and yourself, but that's another matter entirely. Claiming a whole congregation and all your companions routinely lie (break the 8th commandment) is hard to believe "honestly" unless of course you never learned the definition of "lie" which I also find hard to believe for someone "in the Legion for 12 years" and involved with the LC/RC for "20 years".

Months ago you claimed the Legion was a cult (again without defining your terms or providing any proof). Yet, as a Legionary for 12 years, you'd have seen the colossal difference between religious congregations (with clear chain of command going beyond LC superiors to cardinals and the Pope). Only stubborn refusal to know the meaning of this term (a culpable act), would lead you to "honestly" think the LC was even "cult-like"!

So we come to it: either you're lying about having been a seminarian but represent yourself as a former one anyway (breaking the 8th commandment), or you were a legionary but knowingly misrepresent them (*Libel), or you don't have a grasp on reality and need medication, therapy, or both (as well as our prayers.)

Is this why you remain anonymous? I suppose this is why all LC critics remain anonymous... they can't prove any of their claims. But here they are, cheerfully making those claims nonetheless and claiming "freedom of speech" gives them moral cover.

And you or your friends wonder why I come here to defend the LC? If a man can't defend friends from slander such as this, when should a man defend his friends?

1li·bel Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l Function: noun 2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


No no Joey,

In my Dec 9, post I was giving an example of fact vs. opinion and the example said 11 not 12 years. I've been involved in various ways over the years. Maybe you remember I said I'm still involved.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.


NAILED! Hung on his own petard!

"Mr Original Withheld", here's your post from December 9, 2003 which everyone can see by scrolling above:

"Fact: From my earliest days in the legion, lying to advance the 'kingdom' was condoned.

It's also helpful to show where a reasonable practices get out of hand. Example,

Recruiting vocations and raising money is part of any diocese or congregation, but my 12 years in the Legion showed me that the Legionary quest for dollars and numbers was excessive and harmful to some in the Legion."

... "Most legionaries would like you to believe that their congregation is perfect and error free. They're not. But they have taken a solemn vow that prevents them from saying anything 'controversial' about the Legion or its founder. Legionaries will say positive things about the Legion, or nothing at all. If they have first hand experience with misconduct they are required by a vow to God to be silent."

PEACE

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003."

In this post, you - Mr. Original Withheld, unequivocally claimed to have been "in" the Legion for 12, TWELVE, not 11 years as you just claimed to Mr Stong whom you now refer to as Joey.

Further more you affirmed as FACT an assertion that you cannot prove and did not prove, to whit, that this congregation lies as a matter of policy.

You opined (but nowhere "showed") that this congregation raises too much money.

Last time I checked their website, I saw lots of new big buildings and projects. They've built two massive seminaries in Brazil and Rome in the last several years which serve not just their men but also diocesan seminarians. Their seminaries in the US still have mortgages to pay off. Those nearly 600 priests and 2500 seminarians need room, board, and education... and nowhere are they or their families charged tuition.

Yet you opine that they raise "too much money"! Where is a congregation supposed to get money from to cover room, board, and education to say nothing of mortgages if they don't fundraise? If the average annual cost of housing, feeding and teaching a single seminarian is $10,000 and there are 2500 seminarians... you do the math. Now where this kind of money supposed to come from? The trees?

As Mr Stong has explained ad naseam above, your opinion only matters if you can provide reasons for it. If not, you're just tossing insults at people.

You also affirmed as FACT that their vows forbid members from reporting abuses...when Mr Stong, Mr. Biltz, and Fr Maciel in his new book, have explained that that is not the case: those vows are to help maintain charity and morale, not gag anyone from reporting abuse - and since those vows are part of this congregation's approved constitutions and charism they have been approved by Church authorities. If you don't like them that's one thing but intentionally misrepresenting both what they are and do is libel.

You sir, Mr. "Original Withheld", have just been caught in your own web of deceit. You have contradicted yourself, and thus far shown only contempt for truth, not service of it.

I just check the facts. You just peddle baseless opinions.

If you're still "involved" then you're still morally culpable of libel because anyone truly "involved" would know that the Legion has never taught its members to lie, to harm, to destroy virtue, and you'd also know - unless, as I'm begining to suspect, you really don't know that much - that religious congregations aren't cults.

-- Anonymous Fact Checker (withheld@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


abc123

-- abc123 (123@abc.com), January 23, 2004.

"NAILED!"

Well, not quite. To crucify this person properly, you may need either two or three more nails, depending on which account is accurate.

You need a motive to convict this person, imho. Anonymous Trial Lawyer, to you have a motive?

Venture a guess as to the motive behind Original Withheld's alleged crimes if you would. It would help me understand what's going on in this thread.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 23, 2004.


Joey,

It’s clear to me that my “so called” web of deceit is actually your web of confusion.

I consider “in” to be involved. As usual I won’t say specify past or present involvement, but I will give some examples. Suppose (for example) that I was in the ECYD program as a youth and attended bi- weekly meetings and 2-3 retreats a year. I consider that being IN the Legion. Suppose (for example) that I attended the apostolic school in New Hampshire but, of course, hadn’t taken vows. I consider that to be IN the Legion. Suppose (for example) that I went to college and further that I attended a college where there was no legion house nearby, but I resumed my involvement during the summer months. I consider that being IN the Legion. Suppose (for example) that at some point I joined the Regnum Christi – no matter the time commitment. I consider that being IN the Legion. Suppose I gave a year of service at an unnamed legionary mission location. I consider that to be IN the Legion. Please note that these are examples only.

Actually it’s been more than 12 years, but the point is I’m not a liar. There is NO web of deceit. Since you’re not anonymous Joe, why don’t you tell us about your Legionary involvement.

What continues to amaze me is you refuse to be honest about the Legionaries troubles. You are compelled at every turn to publicly defend every Legionary action, to introduce doubt in the face of facts and contradict opinions. You are free to do that! Have at it. But don’t expect us to view you as balanced or realistic.

I love the Legion for what she does well - good talks, challenging retreats, orthodox teaching. I love those qualities. I fault her for what she does poorly (see above). This is why you’ll see me at conventions, retreats and talks, but won’t hear me endorsing legionary recruiting practices, (some) formation principles, and control techniques. There is no inconsistency in this behavior. Every sane catholic does the same thing. A person who excels in certain virtues could tell you about them and promptly say “But I am a sinner because….”

The Legion is perfect and infallible or criticism may not be slander and libel.

The very best rebuttal to this post is to tell me ONE THING that you don't like about the Legion. Out in public for everyone to see, tell me what needs to be improved to make the Legion a better organisation, a better part of the Roman Catholic Church.

-- The Orginal Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


Note to Emerald: Based on OWithheld's posts, he claims to "love" the Legion while at the same time wishing "balance" or "improvement"...yet at the same time he calls it a cult, an organization that lies systematically, and other things as well....which makes me wonder why he'd still "be involved"!

I mean, if I loved good talks and retreats, but realized the retreat master was a Moonie who systematically lied to people and raised money just to have piles of it laying around....I'd leave.

So IMHO, I think hatred and jealousy are his motives, based on what he's posted here. Hatred and jealousy don't need "reasons" or excuses.

Now for you Mr. Original Witheld!

Neither I nor anyone including Fr Maciel, have claimed that the Legion is perfect and doesn't need improving. That's such a bogus straw-man of an argument! What a nut you are! :-D

The LC doesn't claim it's perfect and neither does any LC seminarian or priest! How could they?! The whole point of "formation" is to IMPROVE things! The whole point of "the period of foundation" and being "co-founders" is to IMPROVE THINGS! The whole point of religious life is to become more and more holy! The point of spiritual exercises is to get rid of personal foibles and sin and open one's heart to the grace of Christ and "put on the new man"!

Golly Gee, Mr. withheld, if a life-style is structured to help a man become holy, wouldn't that automatically mean it's assumed that he's not holy yet and thus is improvable?

If Legionaries thought they were perfect or everything they do is perfect, why would they bother building or buying more seminaries? Why bother changing and improving anything? Why waste all that energy opening up new apostolates and taking on new ventures? You see, to think what you think about the Legion, you'd have to absolutely be on the moon - and not KNOW any Legionary!

To think they raise too much money, you'd have to show us that you know they're in the black rather than red financially! To think they try too hard to find vocations, you'd have to show us a real glut of seminarians and priests and somehow also prove that their methods are immoral, illegal and uncanonical - which NO ONE has done, especially you! NEWS FLASH to Original Withheld: YOUR FEELINGS AND OPINIONS AREN'T CO-TERMINOUS WITH MORAL, LEGAL AND CANONICAL GOODNESS!

How you or anyone could get the idea that we thought we were perfect is absolutely beyond me. It's laughable. But it seems like a common liberal (i.e. mindless) claim against opponents. You've made this claim more than once so it's a fixation of yours. But it's a baseless one.

I have stated this above and stated it repeatedly. Things got better in Cheshire from 1988 to 1999. Now, if I thought it was perfect in 1988, how could I also talk about improvements in 1999?

But as you are aware, approved congregations of religious life are approved precisely as "ways of holiness". If a man sincerely follows the charism and uses the means available to him in the Legion, he will become holy. That's the point of religious formation my friend! Now could the MEANS be improved? OF COURSE! And they are constantly being improved.

You want my opinion? Here it is:

The Legion will be a better organization insofar as all its members increase in personal holiness - which is the point of all their formation, acts of piety, and training as co-founders and future priests.

Already their fundraising department has improved to the degree that fewer and fewer Legionaries are needed to run it. This allows them to concentrate on more specifically priestly or religious studies and endeavors. But guess what? They knew that and tried hard to bring things to the present situation.

Already their work with youth and lay people has improved to the degree that fewer and fewer un-trained novices and young religious are required to run youth clubs, leaving this task (following the Church's teaching of subsidiarity) to qualified lay men and women.

So you see? There have been great strides and improvedments already and the LC has all along been well aware of things still needing improvement. Only someone completely out of the loop (or crazy) could think they believe they're insuperable or perfect!

The Legion will be a better organization insofar as all its members and associates learn to base their judgements on the charism as approved by the Pope and not base their actions and judgments on their own little opinions, since it's the charism as approved by the Church which has the guarantee of being blessed by the Holy Spirit, and not each one's individual spin or opinion.

I'm not terribly impressed with the intellectual formation of many theologians and other people involved with the Church. But when I argue with them, I bring facts and figures, arguments and reasons to the table, not baseless feelings and opinions.

Their intellectual formation has improved immensely - again, in direct response to long term plans painstakenly followed. Men need to be trained, new congregations start out poor and with few highly trained men in specialties and over time key positions are filled...it's the law of organic growth! If you don't get this, you're alot denser than I thought.

Anyone want to talk to me about this, my number is 703-475-0211.

I have no problem speaking with or meeting in person ANYONE. I know the truth and I won't let anonymous and cowardly critics lie about and malign my friends. I defend them out of honor.

If you can't understand honor, Mr Withheld, then you have proven to me that you're not 'INVOLVED' with the Movement or LC in any way.

1 or 2 bad experiences with imperfect legionaries (duh) doesn't mean the whole congregation is evil and every member is automatically imperfect in the very same way. And guess what? If one or two Legionary novices or young religious told you they think they're perfect, that doesn't mean the whole institutions does! Basic, 101 logic and charity here folks!

I'd love to see you substitute "African-Americans" for "Legion" in your arguments and see how far you get before RACISM AND BIGOTRY become aparent.

So that's it "Withheld" you are dead wrong about everything. Your involvement has obviously not helped you so maybe you'd better speak with me in private so I can straighten out all your other misunderstandings and illogical claims.

Emerald, how's the wife and kids? Let's talk sometime.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


Joe,

I've got a dozen points to reply on your last post, but there's just no connecting with you. I mean, if I thought there was hope, I'd take the time. Honestly you tire me.

After rescuing my friends from Legionary control, I'll dial that phone number you posted, fly to Virgina area code 703 and straighten your (confused) mind out once and for all. That's if I still care.

Till next time. Peace

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.


Thy Will Be Done!

lol.

They're doing good; you'll have another first-cousin-onced-removed here in about a month.

I named him Gabriel already; to be born and bred such as to keep his brothers of One Mother on the straight and narrow, should he accept the task. =)

You've got my number too, or we could slug it out here. I'm pretty sure the last thing in the world that Original Name Withheld desires, though, is a traditionalist taking up his defense; that's pretty much an assumption of mine that probably also happens to be true.

But the Jesus bolt to everything upthread really consists solely of the issue of doctrinal purity vs. doctrinal degradation. The Legion performed a very reverent Mass in my living room recently, I hear, but I tend to not get fixated not just on what the right hand does, but the left hand as well; it's this wierd talent I have that's more of a pain in the rear than a pleasure.

We could go doctrinal on this... or not. Probably not in the way you think I would approach it either. Not extra ecclesium issues but something more along the lines of what's of essence within the Church; understanding obedience, understanding our charge as Catholic Faithful people; what makes for a magisterium; standing before God on judgment day...

Assimilate or be assimilated.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 24, 2004.


Usally two priests or brothers visit my family when my brothers is home for two weeks in the summer. A couple times I wondered why they do that? Then I figured it was to get more money from my parents, they call or write here all the time asking for more money.

One year they had scheduled a visit but we made last minute vacation plans and bailed out on the priests. My mom said they seemed angry because we cancelled. I thought they were pretty psycho since they see my brother all year and my parents go up for visits.

Last year they told my parents that I might like to go to the school. My brother says he likes it there, but he says it in the same way he says he likes green beans when we're having thanksgiving dinner at my aunts house. I sure hope my parents don't make me go, it just seems too wierd.

-- RR (rrod43@comcast.net), January 27, 2004.


Emerderd: did you say:

"The Legion performed a very reverent Mass in my living room recently"

IS THAT ALLOWED BY CATHOLIC CHURCH REGULATIONS?

DOESN'T IT REQUIRE APPROVAL/PERMISSION FROM THE LOCAL BISHOP TO HAVE SUCH A DOMESTIC MASS WHICH SEEMS TO FLY IN THE FACE OF THE COMMUNITY DIMENSION OF THE EUCHARIST?

Anathasios

-- Anathasios (orthocatholic@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.


Ask the Legionaires.

Community dimension of the Eucharist? What's that?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 03, 2004.


Some masses are public and others are private. Through an ecclesiastical dispensation, Legionary priests are permitted to make a private mass public where the local ordinary is known to be obstreperous.

-- TheOriginalWithheld (withheld@yahoo.com), February 03, 2004.

'Obstreperous'....adjective used in Ireland.

But the point is bullshit; because the LC is going 'over the head' of the Local Ordinary, bishop, which totally unacceptable. A religious congregation, order, must obey the local ordinary in all matter where he has jurisdiction. The Eucharist, Mass, is of prime importance. In case you did not know it is not a 'private devotion'; it is an act of public worship of the Roman Catholic Church. If they want private stuff let them pray the Rosary...

-- orthodoxcatolic (Athanasios@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.


Ah yes, the same old tactic: assume the LCs did something wrong, then condemn it, all without proof either that they did in fact do the thing claimed or that such a thing is banned to them! Isn't it funny how you don't tend to see any other group or person attacked with the same tactic?

Mean and Cowardly are two words that come to mind...

-- anonymous (withheld@yahoo.com), March 01, 2004.


Please take a look at "Vows of Silence" by Jason Berry and Gerald Renner. Read it first before commenting please.

-- Glenn (gfav@mindspring.com), March 01, 2004.

Saw some old legionary friends on their turf recently, met some new ones too. Also got to see some of the inner workings. DON'T send your kids to the Legionaries. What they call formation is coercive and manipulative. They never pressured me as much as they pressure many of the kids today. I swear the younger men would have no way to distinguish between struggle within a vocation, and not having a vocation at all.

Somebody needs to get a hold of the legionary rulebooks and publish them on the Net, so everyone can see how the Legionaries fit the description of a cult. It's more than a little scary.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 02, 2004.


We have a local school run by the Legionaires. Kids come from all over North America to attend including Mexico. Local kids also participate. In my work with the Church I have had many dealings with the Legionaires, been privy to "behind-the-scenes, day-to-day" operations and befriended several young men who are attending the school. Not once, have I ever received the impression or even a hint of any impropriety by the Legionaires whatsoever. Their behaviour and deportment in the community has been nothing short of exemplary. They are a shining credit to our community. We are priviledged to have them in our community. I can only hope that more of our young people choose to associate themselves with such a fine group of individuals.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 02, 2004.

Ed, It's very true that their outward appearance and behavior is astonishing, especially in the case of the young ones. They are respectful and courteous, well disciplined and polite. You've probably noticed how they interact with each other. Their speech is typically guarded, they rarely if ever correct their peers and a fist fight is totally unheard of! Very much unlike typical teens and pre- teens. Ergo the legion is a good formation ground, right? Not so quickly.

In fact the behavior is so stellar as to be unnatural. I mean its natural for teens and pre-teens to get into a little tussle now and again. What motivates them to behave so well? and so unfailingly? as to be contrary to the nature of a boy?

Find a discrete means of inquiring with the boys you've befriended why they behave so well. They'll tell you its for the love of Christ and the Kingdom. Then ask them what happens if they misbehave? Uncover the intricate system of tattle-tales and informers. Ask them to describe how 'spiritual direction' works. Inquire if they're expected to tell their spiritual director the substance of their confession (a violation of canon law). Ask them to explain how membership in the Legionaries is tied to eternal salvation. Good luck though...they're not given to revealing their secrets.

It's very important that the Legionaries appear ship-shape, it's part of their attractive appeal. If they looked and behaved like slobs, who would send their kids to their schools? If they espoused the ideals of liberal Catholics who would desire their company?

The rulebooks will reveal some of the alarming, coercive and controlling tactics used to "form" these boys.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 02, 2004.


Don't you suppose this formation was standard practice from every age of monasticism in the Church? What is the rule of silence, if not enforced by superiors? Just as awakening at the proper hour, prayer and meditation, chastity, the discipline, etc., as practiced from antiquity look enforced. Actually these are standard procedures among religious, it should surprise no one. If the outer world is shocked, so be it. These men live in an interior way of life. They owe no one an explanation except God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2004.

Ah yes, being holy is impossible for boys! Self discipline is unnatural, charity and community espri d'corps is unnatural!And of course YOU WOULD KNOW, right? After all, you're anonymous! Amd you stand by all your claims by...not standing by them or being responsible for them! Brilliant!

Now "Mr. I'm an expert because I say so" Withheld claims to know what he couldn't possibly know: what motivates the boys Mr. Ed has seen on a regular basis! Yes, you know everything. You're omniscent. Every shred of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And the lurking internet public must obey you and believe your anonymous claims because you say so and you're antagonistic and as we Catholics know, people are guilty until proven innocent!

You claim the LC is a cult...but never define "cult using non- partisan terminology. To use universally accepted definitions blows out of the water your claim that this religious congregation (of Pontifical rite, headquartered in Rome, in daily contact with the Vatican and working in conjunction with hundreds of dioceses around the world including the major archdioceses in the USA), is anything but a cult. SIMILARITY IS NOT IDENTITY! Otherwise the Catholic Church, and Bobby Knight's basketball team and the Marines would all be considered cults by your standards!

Yet you AFFIRM it without proving it! You affirm that their schools, seminaries, and centers of apostolate are filled with people who are either naive victims or maliciously evil monsters...yet prove not a shred of this! Incredible.

And those of us who were eye-witnesses and who know first hand the people and places involved are just supposed to do nothing when you malign innocent people? We're supposed to "be nice" and not outraged with anonymous posters' cheap shots and half-truths and utterly false claims?

You affirm that holiness of life isn't possible even for young boys. You think being mature (no fist-fights) isn't possible for boys? Isn't really that for YOU fighting and gossiping are so much second nature that you can't conceive of a life-style without them? You use public-school behavior to judge how boys in minor seminaries or Catholic grade schools are "supposed to behave". I've seen "educators" use the same line of non-reasoning to claim that virginity before marriage is "unnatural" and "probably the result of a repressed and psychologically unstable development". Yet it's your criteria of judgment that is screwed up.

Isn't it really that FOR YOU, gossip and cutting people down, belittling them behind their backs and sneering at their weakness and questioning their strengths is so much second nature to you that you think people who don't act like this must be zombies or "controlled"?

Try "self-controlled" and "mature".

I remember the "funny" brothers...the ones quick to notice small foibles in others and poke fun of them. Oh how they struggled with not making fun of and second-guessing everyone around them including superiors. They felt totally justified judging everyone while flew into rages whenever someone repaid them the compliment. Were they doing anything illegal or immoral? I don't know. But certainly immature for someone studying for the priesthood. Certainly imperfect. Now these 'funny' ex-members are dropping anonymous bombs on their former comrades WHO WILL NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES. But I will and have defended the honor of Legionaries and will continue to do so because I believe people are innocent until proven guilty and that the accuser (following Canon Law) has the burden of proof, not the accused. And lastly, I know many of the people involved and the Legion itself and don't buy the contradictory sob- stories of the accusers.

You see, Mr. Withheld Anonymous, being kind and charitable is possible for kids - and people can learn to be Christ-like at an early age. You think only draconian discipline would account for it? Clearly you don't know a thing about psychology or pedagogy. Violence beggets violence. Boys don't become self-controlled when adult figures are not themselves self-controlled! Yet "Mr. I'm anonymous so believe me" you claim otherwise - in the face of all evidence from Catholic and non-Catholic experience with children. AMAZING.

Mr. Anonymous you basically have a major intellectual problem with real Christianity! With saints. Your judgemental criteria is based on worldly ASSUMPTIONS, not founded on Catholic experience. You think the Legion's vow of obedience is "blind"? Draconian? You're nuts! It's "motivated", and NOT draconian. Members are treated with great respect.

The LC even respects and does not attack even angry, ex-members who go on record lying about the founder and slandering the congregation and all us former members (who know them, who were in the same community with them, who saw what they saw or more...).

I'm a former member. I never saw anything illegal or immoral. I saw daily evidence of real holiness and virtue on the part of many priests and religious brothers. I saw real evidence of good works for the poor in Latin America and Eastern Europe. I saw and participated in real good work on behalf of parishes in many dioceses, working for and with diocesan priests!

I saw men who overcame their natural faults and failings and rose to the occasion cooperating with grace. I saw and experienced the joy of being brothers in Christ.

Yet I was and did know imperfect members - including Glenn, and others besides. But imperfection isn't the same thing as "malicously evil monster" as Mr. Withheld would have the unknowing public believe.

People have to learn to take as a grain of sand the claims of anonymous people on the internet. If they were right, they'd not only use their names, they'd do something about it. As it is, they're not just cowards, they're immature mean-spirited cowards: totally willing to malign and slander former companions without being men enough to stand by their claims or even provide the smallest shred of proof.

That book included... Jake's book is a joke: no smoking gun, no new info, not even enough "dirt" to fill a whole book so he needed to draw in Fr Doyle's story and accuse the Pope! Yet like all the other accusations: long on lurid details and short on any type of evidence that can be corraborated or proven.

So they never, ever, go to the police. They go to the Media and trash their victims there, besmearching their names forever on the internet....all while claiming persecuted status themselves. Cowards.

Anyone at all who wants to talk to me about this or anything else can call me or meet me in person...I'm no coward and I will defend my former brothers' honor - my private number is (number deleted by Moderator).

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), March 02, 2004.


Joe, while I share your love and passion for the Legionnaires of Christ, as a matter of principle, I can't allow you to put your personal number up on the board. Among other things it would set a dangerous precedent for all future posts.

You can however supply your personal phone number to anyone who contacts you at the email address you have listed. I trust this suffices as an adequate alternative.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 02, 2004.


Bravo, Joe!
Notice Joe Stong is man enough to not just speak his mind with no trashing --and sign his name without apologies. A few past calumniators of the Legionnaries did so too, to their only credit. But the last traitorous alumnus hasn't the courage to let his name be shown. He's a sniper, hiding behind a wall of anonymity. Not a sharp-shooter. Just a sniper with bad aim.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2004.

No Joe,

You missed the point. Your still selling the Legion for what it appears to be. All the good works that I did with the Legion and all the good works you did, don't change what goes on behind the scenes.

It comes out in bits and pieces as people leave the Legion. People who aren't motivated by fear (like I am, hence my anonymity). It took Fr. Cronin years to tell the truth about the real Legion, but he did it. Read his letter at (web address deleted by Moderator.) See that he's not angry and bitter. He just lays it on the line. It's been authenticated. He had nothing to gain from concocting an big lie. See his hurt and know that others share it.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 03, 2004.


I'm so tired of Mr Withheld's anonymous tripe. No proof equals proof of the worst for him. All the evidence to the contrary isn't good enough for him.... of course he has no authority and no accountability. He's also seriously wishful in his thinking.

Fr Cronin's testimony is a total joke. Yes, joke. I answered every single sentence of his manifesto line for line showing multiple internal inconsistencies, logical fallicies, and simply appallingly ignorant affirmations that have no basis in reality. When I've time I'll share this with you all. (I probably already did above).

Unfortunately he was like the other half dozen former Legionaries are now: he thought he was smarter than he was.

How smart is it to stubbornly refuse to define one's terms while condeming some group when the definition is the thing to be proven not supposed? How smart is it to confuse apples with oranges or hold a religious congregation in its time of foundation to the same standard of centuries old orders? Not very.

This just goes to prove my point: imperfections exist among men including Legionaries. But the angry exLCs I've encountered have two common imperfections: appalling stupidity and incredible narcisism. They don't know the most basic 101 facts about the LC and its charism and spirituality and they see the world as revolving around their egos. Thus small mistakes become hideous conspiracies and the failings of their companions become calculated persecution in their eyes. Unaware that their imperfections are SO obvious they ASSUME that only a breach of the seal of confession is to blame for their dismissal!

Really, people, if you live with a guy long enough you know what he's capable of and often times what he actually does on his own time. But of course, their sense of victimhood and ego requires them to create these fantasy worlds where the Pope and founder and all the congregation exists solely to make things difficult for them!

I talk about the LC as it is. I lived and worked inside and understood far more about its operations and actions than anyone who comes online to post black-helicopter conspiracy stuff.

The men are good - imperfect like all others, but good and trying to be perfect (why else is religious life called a striving for perfection?) Their charism is approved and it bears real fruit in sanctity and apostolic fruitfulness. I've seen it with my own eyes in several countries on different continents.

Mr anonymous just keeps confusing individual imperfections with institutional (and intentional) evil. Not being able to point to evidence he goes anonymous and vague. He'll affirm as true ghastly tales...without even a shred of evidence. And...we're...supposed...to just...believe him!

Sorry charlie!

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), March 03, 2004.


Hi Glenn.

Since you refuse to reply to private messages and keep posting excerpts of these posts on your site...I say 6 angry former LCs because only 6 of you have real names. Anonymous ones don't count because there's no way to know that they are truly unique individuals.

I happen to know personally over 50 former Legionaries. I knew many of them from before and have seen many of them since at reunions. None to my knowledge are angry at the LC and all are happily getting on with their lives, faithful to the Church's magisterium and morality. They don't agree with the half-dozen's take on things.

Secondly about stupidity. My post about dating is neither untrue nor unreal from a Catholic point of view. Yet you sneer at it. Hmmmm.

If you are a pagan or non-believer then of course dating has nothing at all to do with marriage and women won't have babies so won't need their husband to support them. But a Catholic former seminarian gives Catholic advice. And having dated women myself, I know what I'm talking about.

Finally, narcissism: that fact that you search the web to find (but never refute) my posts regarding this angry half-dozen speaks volumns.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.


Below, I provide the text of the private message sent to me. I do so since it has been made public. Judge for yourselves the questions.

"Hi Glenn. I noticed today that you paid me the compliment of cutting and pasting my post onto exLCs so that Wily and Keith could have fun misreading it, projecting their own issues onto it, and "conclude" by calling me names (of course).

Now Paul thinks I'm behind every successful rebuttal you guys get over there...when in fact, in strict adherance to your clearly stated rules, I have never, ever, posted anything on exLCs.

The only time you guys see my stuff is when you or Todd cut and post it over there...where I won't go to defend myself or explain myself...

But I was just wondering, since you have asked some simple questions, whether in fact you have any opinions about anything yourself?

I mean, are you Republican or Democrat? Is abortion or the Iraq war a bigger deal for you? Dean or Bush in '04? Do you take the LGBT line as gospel or is internal dissent allowed? If it's genetic what are we to make of twin studies?

More to my point, can a seminarian or husband have his cake and eat it too? If a man wasn't generous in the seminary (or in marriage) and was told to go home (or leave the house) would he typically leave rejoicing or angry? If angry, what would the locus of this wrath be? Embarrassment (acknowledgment of fault) or hatred (placing all blame on others)?

Is it possible for a man to indulge his passions and whims while simultaneously growing in holiness and love? Is happiness a wholly subjective state of affairs or is it linked to our existential relationship with God and others which, by definition is objective?

Some men DO leave the Legion in a "huff": how objective are they or their arguments? What are their arguments (as opposed to assertions and claims)?

Finally, what is your issue or problem with the Legion? I don't think you've ever specifically gone into that story anywhere on line. It that's too personal, of course, I understand.

Some pretty big questions, I know. But you're about the smartest cookie they've got over there. And yet.... you don't have anything to say. I find that remarkable. Which is why I'm remarking about it

Of course we're all so busy... law students hardly have time to breath much less post long emails. Still, whenever you get around to it, I for one am interested in what you have to say for yourself.

I hope your studies are going well.

God bless

Joe"

I have asked no questions of anyone. I accept people without so many qualification of politics and such. I would suggest that this vein not be persued. I have tried to keep out of the fray with individuals. I do not believe in that sort of thing. Unfortunately, this was not one of the "questions asked".

Glenn Favreau

-- Glenn Favreau (gfavreau@umich.edu), March 04, 2004.


Glenn, you aren't being on the level here: you aren't "out of the fray" when individual Legionaries are concerned. And by posting a private email of mine (which you never responded to) you're making this a personal thing between me and you.

This follows the typical praxis of your "side": I defend an institution and its founder from proof-less claims, and your "side" goes after me personally both here and over on your own site.

You also don't accept people "regardless of their qualifications" as you DO take exception to us former Legionaries who don't share your as of yet unproven claims against our former colleagues, superiors and friends!

Now I believe that publishers of websites have the right to make their own rules and I respect the rules your "side" made for your website. But those rules do positively forbid anyone except angry-ex or anti-LCs from posting and thus allow people based on their "qualifications".

With respect to my OPINION that six or so of your side are stupid and narcissistic: at least I make an attempt to prove it with examples. There are only a handful of people on your site with REAl NAMES and real emails. All the rest either have no real names or no unique emails.

Your side has set itself up to those descriptions whenever you stubbornly refuse to define the very terms of debate in question (cult, proof, abuse, etc.) and you stubbornly refuse to make distinctions (dialogue and personal experience isn't the same thing as confession or spiritual direction, imperfections in others aren't the same thing as malicious evil, working with one sector of society doesn't preclude helping another etc.).

You fall into stupidity when you confuse apples with oranges, deny evident fact: the Mega-mission DOES help the poor, does support local and year-round efforts and does increase social solidarity. When you mischaracterize such things as the details of religious life, our vows, community life, and the dismissal process (no one is "cut off") you again set yourselves up as either stupid or maliciously forgetful to those of us (your former peers or classmates) who know better.

Every time your side takes a gratuitous pot-shot at the LC like the above you prove to be stupid, gullible, or simply so desperate to throw mud that you ignore every proof and evidence available on the web.

My opinion of your sides' narcissism is based on personal experience of the whole phenomenom of your side getting in high dungeon whenever challenged for answers to straight questions as well as your side's presumption that the whole LC conspired to hurt you.

I have repeatedly posted here and elsewhere that personal, subjective bad feelings are unavoidable. It happens. I won't and don't deny individual mistakes or misunderstandings between a subject and his superior occur. But mistakes are not the same thing as sin. And one mistake does not mean institutional rot - which is your side's claim.

The moment you go from an unfortunate private issue to claiming the whole kit and kaboodle is corrupt and evil is the moment you open yourselves to instant rebuttal: you're no longer in the sanctuary of "subjective experience" but are in the public square of objective knowledge. For some reason none of you have yet to realize this. You have been making "truth statements" or claims for 2 years. And I have been falsifying them (disproving them) for 2 years.

Your side's default position seems to be: all your emotional and spiritual problems are other people's fault and not your own, that you have zero personal responsibility in any of this and thus are total victims whose testimony must be taken unquestioned as infallible. Well, I beg to differ.

Your side only victimizes itself and becomes an abuser of truth and the good name of true victims. Healing (and anything good) cannot come from anonymous (irresponsible) gossip-mongering based on innuendo, heresay, and outright falsehoods or half-truths.

NP is innocent and so is the LC. They won't defend themselves but I will. So guess what? I'm one man who is not afraid of 200 or of 6 because this is a matter of truth and honor.

Your side has attacked friends of mine and me. I will defend their honor. I bear witness to the truth because only the truth (not wishful thinking) will set you free and "regain" you all for Christ.

In the future perhaps we can keep our emails private. If you feel you can respect privacy let me know and we'll take this discussion there.

JS

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.


To A Pinto.

I supposed you were someone else. I don't have your email yet you have mine. Drop me a line and we'll discuss things.

My advice on dating and explaination is self-explanatory: modern day pagans do consider dating a life-style not connected with marriage and family considerations. The whole segment of society that is sexually active outside of marriage regards dating as the main attraction and babies or marriage as assessories. Do I have to bury you with sociological essays and studies?

Which is why, I presume, Glenn thought my advice "unreal".

But typical former LC are young (20's), need to finish school or find a career, and should line up those ducks first before dating because (guess what?) dating is about finding a spouse. "Hanging out with friends" (which I specifically refered to as "different") is DIFFERENT.

Once you start to date though...you have to think marriage is at least possible (otherwise, why date?) Duh! And typically, young married CATHOLICS have babies. And TYPICALLY young married Catholics with babies are concerned enough about children's development that the wife stays home for at least a year if not more. WHICH MEANS THE HUSBAND SHOULD PROVIDE...DUH!

This proves my other point: you guys are either stupid or just plain too narcissistic to actually read posts, facts, actions, events, etc. in context.

Please read what I write in context. It would help you from going off on silly tangents.

So let's see....you claim 3000 legionaries and 80,000 RC members are either naive fools (without facts to back this up) or active agents of evil (again, without facts to back this up). I think 6 people are stupid *(based on their published claims) and narcissistic (based on their reactions and outlook on life, also published.)

I don't think therefore Angus dear that I'm simply your mirror image.

And BTW, I know you guys consider me the boogie man because I was invited to Dallas, and signed in under my own name (not a spy), while not an employee of the LC at all, but was kicked out when the venue was suddenly changed from 'PUBLIC' to PRIVATE' by the dictate of one person.

Mrs. L was there and was witnesses to this. She was open to it being public AS Published ON REGAIN. I wasn't even allowed to check into the hotel or stay in the lobby (they threatened to call the police).

So much for being "weird". Thank God others got kicked out as well so I found a place to stay in Dallas.

Not to beat a dead horse but...your side has GOT to get your facts right before making statements.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.


Hello Everyone,

This conversation has been back and forth on lots of sites and what I have observed is that people remain divided and no amount of arguments will sway either camp.

One question to Joe, "why haven't you followed up by to listen to the recording of Fr. Peter Cronin saying exactly what he says in his famous letter during that now famous interview with Pat Kenny on Irish Radio"? Surely this should at least show you that the content of both is indeed from Fr. Peter and now from somebody else as you alude to.

Joe I find that you just keep saying the same thing over and over which suggests that even if all the bad things were true you would never accept it and are still bound under some sort of legionary blind obedience.

Pax Cristi!

-- Peace Brothers (paxfrates@msn.com), March 04, 2004.


One last time, you do not want to make this personal.

Neither is about my side your side. That is a childish reduction.

But I repeat, I am do not let go once I start and I call things as I see them.

-- Glenn Favreau (gfavreau@umich.edu), March 04, 2004.


Joe Stong has pretty well exposed you two, Glenn. In future, keep private emails to yourself.

You've said your piece. It isn't very convincing. Take your grievances elsewhere. Or-- drop them, remain here on some other subject. Thanks.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2004.


Whoever you are, You don't seem to have much peace to say, and I have not even said mine on this board. What are you refering to? As the "private" email, it was used against me, an email written to me, and then my refusal to answer it announced on a public forum. I suggest that you try to be open minded. Glenn Favreau

-- Glenn Favreau (gfavreau@umich.edu), March 05, 2004.

My trust in God is first; an open mind but true. Take my example and stop your agitating in our forum. We respect Joe Stong. He's an exemplary Catholic with no malice toward anybody. You arrived here with malice, whoever you are.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2004.

Glenn Favreau, I was in the Legion of Christ from 1984-97. And yourself?

As to malice, you are quick to draw. As to YOUR forum????? Do the sponsors have posted rules? Have I violated them in any way?

Thank you.

-- Glenn Favreau (gfavreau@umich.edu), March 05, 2004.


As to respect: Have I spoken of stupidity? Have I spoken of narcissism?

-- Glenn Favreau (gfavreau@umich.edu), March 05, 2004.

Glenn, Is the Legion perfect...NO, But nobody is, and the Legion isn't as imperfect as you would like to make it out to be. You left only a short time before your ordination, I am sure that you wern't totally at peace because you used to rush around the kitchen almost in a frnezy, shouting at the brothers often, living most of your last days in the LC's baking cakes (quite tasty ones at that). Get on with your Life as most of us have, and thank God for the gifts he has given you.

-- Someone who was with you glenn (getalife@injesus.com), March 05, 2004.

I am getting on with life just fine, thank you. Getting on with life does not mean that I have forgotten all the people who make cakes with me in the Legion. Many have left, and I feel a great need to practice the genuine charity that the Legion taught me. The same charity that they deny those who leave by cutting them off from their brothers and their past. My last year in the Legion was not easy, but I really do not need you to analyze it for me by the quality of pastry confections. I did make them, like everything else I did in the Legion, with great heart. Unfortunately, that was not reciprocated by the Legion.

Now, if you want to continue to bring things up about what you claim to have seen about me, I suggest that you do so under a real identity. But maybe you need to get on with life, too. I do suggest it. Life is a wonderful thing....

-- Glenn Favreau (gfavreau@umich.edu), March 05, 2004.


1. Glenn was the first one to post private emails on this site, not Joe Stong. He may have alluded to an email but he didn't quote it. So the claim that "it was used against" Glenn is patently false. If Glenn didn't like the email, why did he post it here?

2. Glenn was the one who made this "personal", both here and on the site he runs by using Mr Stong's name as the subject line, making derogatory remarks about Mr Stong's post on dating, while not in any way showing that Mr Stong's remarks were wrong or inappropriate.

3. Glenn and others haven't answered any straight questions from Mr Stong about their lack of evidence for their claims. They counter with more insults and accusations and even veiled threats such as "you don't want to make this personal... am do not let go once I start..."

4. Glenn claims to have been "cut off" from the Legion...while not offering proof. exLegionaries I know of who don't work for them or follow their movement still have access (it's called a "telephone") to their friends and companions. They also visit. Seems to be personal initiative, and common sense more than anything else.

I think Glenn is being disingenuous: how eager would a religious order be to facilitate communication with an ex-member whose "getting on in life" included running a website designed to attack the order on all levels and promoting a book that makes accusations against the founder and Holy Father? If he thinks this way, WHY would he want to "stay connected" at all?

5. Joe Stong has answered the Cronin testimony on another site, line for line. He's given his email and other contact info. If anyone really wants to read it, ask him. But I won't cut and paste it here.

-- Fact Checker (withheld@yahoo.com), March 05, 2004.


I hold these truthes to be self-evident:

1. The Legion creates a culture of non-criticism inside the Legion.

And by non-criticism, I mean non-criticism of the Legion. The Legion does this principally through 3 ways:

a) The Private Vow, also called the 4th Vow. A Legionary may never criticize his superiors or their decrees, and this very quickly extends to the fact that a Legionary may never criticize the Legion. (By now, this fact is common knowledge in the United States.) This is how they try to isolate LC's from internal criticism of the Legion.

b) The Legion categorically labels all her critics as "Enemies of the Church" and "Enemies of the Pope." In their eyes, all the criticisms are explained by fitting the critics into one of these 2 categories. This is how they try to make LC's immune to external criticism of the Legion.

c) Censoring all media coming into a Legionary. This includes TV, newspapers, radio, letters from parents ...all media. An example of this is in 1997, when an official decree went out that if any LC were to read anything about the accusations against Fr. Marcial, he was to hand it in to his superior right away, BEFORE reading it. This even extended to letters received from home. (The accusations were never even revealed to members of the LC.) This is how they try to isolate LC's from even knowing of outside criticism of the Legion.

Other means exist whereby they try to create this culture, but I won't go into them now. These are the 3 most prominent means they use, IMHO.

2. It is often more difficult to stop doing a habit than to continue doing it.

This is the reason that many ex-LC's get understandibly upset when they are labeled as "anti-Catholic" or "not Orthodox enough" (whatever that means) by other ex-LC's, for stating that there might be problems in the Legion. I'm referring to 1.b above. This kind of naive attitude about anyone who would want to criticize the Legion on a BB is not helpful to anyone, and does not promote the true charity that these people should be the champions of. "Love is patient." (St. Paul) I have too often seen this done.

Facts and arguments, please, instead of name-calling. Personal testimonies also can shed light upon things.

Another thing, if someone makes an accusation, and someone else states, "I never saw that happen", you're not refuting their accusation. You're just making a personal testimony, but you're not really offering anything else about that accusation.

Trying to be impartial, and seeking the truth,

-- Name and email being withheld (ex-lc@yahoo.com), March 06, 2004.


I know you ex-LC's aren't Traditionalist Catholics by any stretch of the imagination, but geez, those tactics aren't the proprietary products of the LC; they are the prime tactic of the entire Conciliar Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.

Nice, Emerald.

I assume you're talking about me. In fact, I challenge you to send me private emails at an address I will provide to you and test whether my views on an array of issues would be classified as "Traditionalist Catholic" or not by the majority of Americans. If so, you will take back your comment. If not, you may publicly post that I failed the test and proved your point.

If you choose not to take my challenge, then take back your post.

Not traditionalist Catholic. Well that applies to Joe Stong too, since he is also an ex-LC.

-- Name and email being withheld (ex-lc@yahoo.com), March 06, 2004.


I wasn't talking about you at all; I got that idea after finding that ex-LC site and read a bunch of the posts over there. Nothing you said here.

What you said here is just completely recognizable tacticly speaking; it can be found in many more places than what you have described in your experience. I'm familiar enough with those tactics, that's all.

The first thing I wouldn't do, though, would be to consult a cross section of Americans regarding the things of Catholicism. The second thing I wouldn't be doing is matching someone up to a checklist; that way repulses me.

I just don't believe the LC's claim to orthodoxy, that's all.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 06, 2004.


Thanks for the clarification, Emerald.

I'm sorry I misunderstood your previous comments.

-- Name and email being withheld (ex-lc@yahoo.com), March 06, 2004.


Hi Joe,

I have to reiterate my question:

One question to Joe, "why haven't you followed up by to listen to the recording of Fr. Peter Cronin saying exactly what he says in his famous letter during that now famous interview with Pat Kenny on Irish Radio"? Surely this should at least show you that the content of both is indeed from Fr. Peter and not from somebody else as you alude to.

Pax!

-- Peace Brothers (paxfrates@msn.com), March 08, 2004.


Joe knows that Fr. Cronin's letter isn't a manifesto and that it is authentic. He recognizes the the danger in the 4th vow. And he knows that orthodoxy doesn't equal the practice of preconiliar catholocism.

So relentless and tenacious is his defense of a group that he left, that something is certainly amiss. I have considered that the legionary spell of infallablity haunts him to this day.

But the qualities that cause him defend the harmful behaviors of a cult are the same ones that are incompatable with religious life. I don't mean to sound ad hominem, but I would never have worked. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to leave the Legion was more of a dismissal than a mutual agreement.

Either way, nothing he says will remedy Legionary problems. Denial will only harm the cause of needed reform. More later.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.


I think Joe's first point was that the Cronin testimony doesn't read like a radio "interview" but more like a letter or "manifesto" as he puts it. Makes sense given the vagueness of the internet for him to doubt its source.

But even if it's a word for word rendition of a former LC, we have this former LC (Joe) rebuting it point by point. You can hate him for it, call Cronin a great guy, etc etc. but until someone actually rebuts his argument he's won.

I also don't think his defense smacks of "preconcilliar" whatever. If he's wrong about something, let's have it! I don't see what his critics or opponents are upset with other than the fact that he disagrees with their "infallible" beliefs that something is wrong with their former order just because they say so.

He says he's defending his friends' honor. What's so weird about that? Is honor a pre-concilliar concept?

-- anonymous (withheld@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.


Joe's response to the Cronin letter is no refutation of its contents. He systematically introduces doubt or a contrary example, not unlike Johnnie Cochran did in the O.J. trial.

All Joe does is obscure the truth. But I wonder if his experience in the Legion was so tainted him that he can't see the truth. Fr. Peter's letter was in service of the truth. Everyone who ignores it suffers ignorance, especially if they buy into Joe's so-called refutation.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 10, 2004.


So Why doen't Joe comment for himself? I haven't seen him accept this as Fr. Cronin's own words. Yet he has never tried to hear Fr. Peter's own words on the matter. The letter and the interview are strikingly the same in general content. What amazed me is how Fr. Peter could talk so rationally and with emotion about something which really did effect him and others greatly. Most exLCs find the ineffabilty of words when trying to describe their experience as a legionary and as a result they tend to come accross either angry or a little strange, yet Fr. Peter manages to do exactly the opposite. What a great pity he isn't here to defend himself, I'm pretty sure he could write and speak better than all the pros and contras put together. Fr. Peter spare a prayer for us all.

P.R.C. A.G.D.!

-- Peace Brothers (paxfrates@msn.com), March 10, 2004.


Wow...I come here after several months to find ut about the Legion...and boy did I! Many thanks to all who have been on this thread for the better part of what, 2 years?

The reason I made a new post initially before I found this site is because a good friend of mine has two children in a Legion school, and he is now raising some concerns:

The school only allows certain books and teachings to be read that support rheir way of thinking.

The school is discriminating against those children who do not want to be part of the Regnum Christi movement.

The school is discriminating against parents who will not join RC, and only allows RC parents to participate in activities.

The school is here in Atlanta (rather infamous I am gathering from looking at the Legion web site) and is run with the blessing of the Archdiocese here, but is not an Archdiocesan school.

JFG, in deference to you, these accusations are, to me ,hearsay, but they come from a friend who is a devout Catholic and I do trust what he says. And they are in line with similar accusations of this organization which they refute on their website.

Having read much of this thread, a conclusion cannot be drawn either way about the Legion. It is like any other movement - those who support it do so strongly, and those who oppose it equally so. I am best to follow the advice I gave my friend - when in doubt, pray a Novena.

God always has the correct answer.

Thanks to all for enlightening me on both sides of this issue.

Pax et Bonum.

Thomas

-- Thomas (tcdzomba@excite.net), March 10, 2004.


Thomas,

I don't think all censoring of materials is bad (I'm not implying you do, btw), but at my daughter's Catholic school their fourth grade health book was bringing up oral sex as something for children to discuss with their parents. I personally think this isn't a topic a fourth grader needs to be well versed on, and a little better censorship on the school's part is in order. I don't know enough about the Legion to say anything on them, but don't think that every organization that censors materials for their students is wrong to do so.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 10, 2004.


The Legionaries have taken censorship to new heights (or depths). They cut article out of news papers and magazines. They edit or refuse to deliver letters from parents if they don't like the content. Imagine having somebody mess with a letter to your kid. I agree with you that some censorship, especially for young kids is appropriate.

But the biggest problem is that censorship in the Legion isn't designed to protect the kids and seminarians as much as it is designed to control them. There is absolutely no room for critical thinking when it comes to the Legion. This is an abuse of censorship.

Fr. Bannon sent around a letter alerting us that there is a new book detailing child molestations charges against Fr. Maciel. Fr. Bannon is doing a little damage control and hoping -subtly- to censor what we read.

There's a bit of discussion on this subject of censorship at exlegionaries.com with some specific examples cited by seminarians who have left recently.

-- The Original Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), March 12, 2004.


I just thought any former Legionaries out there would be interested in this. Somebody just started a new site, called www.exlc.org, where you can go and sign up, and see all the other ex-LC's. There's a lot of ex- Legionaries signing up now. You just have to send an email to webmaster@exlc.org, and tell them your full name, and the years you were in the Legion. Then they send you a password to get into the site. Anyone can join, even if they were only an apostolic!

-- For All (mcglt@hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.

it does appear that the new club or whatever exlc.org is trying to run a tight ship; you just cant be anonymous like here.

The Name of the Book: Vows of Silence, the abuse of power in the reign of JPII; they could have ommitted the subtitle which is pretty stupid; but the book has some interesting information and there is not much else out there as regards serious reporting --begging to differ with Fr. Bannon!

-- thorn Intheside (thorintheside@yahoo.com), May 21, 2004.


One of my friends, from a large and supportive family has decided to enter the RC and everyone is really happy. The aggressive atheistic and hedonist culture haven't put a damper on his faith, hope and loving zeal to help spread the Gospel one soul at a time.

Of course, his college peers and professors keep insisting that Christians who really believe in Christ's presence in His Church are naive or victims. But by their fruits we know them! My friend is really a happy, balanced and active guy.

-- happy Catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 16, 2004.


The Legionaries of Christ and the Regnum Christi are the fullest expression of the Catholic faith in modern times. Diocesean priests around the world fail the Church, and other orders (e.g. Jesuits) are unfaithful to their vows.

All the world will see a surge in conversion from the work of the Regnum Christi. Like the sun rising over the ocean her light will eclipse the present darkness of our Church today. When Fr. Maciel's vision is finally realized the power of evil will be overcome and peace will reign. Thanks and praise be to God.

-- Louis King (lking@hotmail.com), June 18, 2004.


Fr. Maciel's dream is to rule the faith through lies and intimidation. We can only hope that it DOES NOT come true!!!

-- I Hope Not (anon@yahoo.com), July 12, 2004.

Can't imagine the LC taking over the faith/church. They're out of step with legitimate Church advancements. Plus they've got more secrets than you can imagine.

They may come around, but it won't be for 50-100 years after Fr. Maciel's death. Enter at your own risk.

-- sometime (anonymous@anonymous.com), July 14, 2004.


"They're out of step with legitimate Church advancements"

Oh really? Like which? Being routinely called to serve the Holy Father's masses, sing in the choir, cooperate in various Vatican offices - including the CDF? Being routinely involved in major ecclesiastical events, synods, conventions in Rome, housing hundreds of bishops, working with hundreds of dioceses on various projects?

I think someone doesn't know what the heck they're talking about! The LC is very much "in step with the Church" - that is, the Church united to the See of Peter, not the See of Hans Kung or see of Fr Skip and the church of "what's happenin now".

In 1998 they were welcomed to and took a good part of the Pentecost celebrations in Rome with all the other movements - with whom they have friendly relationships and cooperate with on occasion.

Today as I write this, the LC is happily accepted into hundreds of dioceses - both their men as well as their lay movement.

Not liking them or appreciating their spirituality is one thing. Claiming on the basis of this little personal opinion of yours that they aren't in step with the "the Church" is hogwash. What more could the "Church" do to praise them?

-- surfin catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), July 15, 2004.


The legion is 'involved' but still out of step. Just think of the gatherings from which she has been excluded. But don't worry, she'll be on-board in 100 years.

I was just talking with a legionary last week about this very issue (out of step with Rome and the Pope). We arrived at some difficult truths that silenced him, but I bet they wouldn't silence you.

The melody of Legionary praise is often sung by its members. The silence was awkward.

-- sometime (anonymous@anonymous.com), July 16, 2004.


Ooooooh I'm scared. I guess based on your assurances I ought to question my certainties. (not!) So let's see, how many events have the OMIs not been invited to? By your standard this would mean they're NOT IN STEP WITH THE CHURCH OR POPE!

But that's nuts. The LCs have and are favored by Rome and the Pope. He doesn't have to praise them every day and mention them in every breath for this to stay true.

Every ordination they've had in Rome - which is every year - features a major archbishop or cardinal from the Curia doing the ordainations. THAT speaks volumes.

Every major convention and gathering short of Synods in Rome has LCs involved either as hosts or assistants. The Diocese of Rome involves them -again, this says alot! They still are invited over to serve Papal masses and sing in the choir. With all the seminarians in Rome to choose from... this says alot.

They're also favorably received in major archdioceses around the world. Maybe some diocesan priests and lay people don't like them. (I personally haven't met many who really know them who don't like them.)

So you have quite some work cut for you to "silence" the truth! You probably just mis-read your LC friends... in the face of some wacko conspiracy theory, breathlessly related by some wild-eyed person, I'd hold my tongue too. They probably were praying for your sanity.

LCs don't argue with people. Nor do they slam other groups or render judgment on them. This makes for awkward silences. It's called Christian charity and the refusal to gossip and judge. Our Lord too was silent and the Proverb says there are times to speak and times to be still... so I don't see how any rational man can ASSUME that silence is admission of guilt!

-- surfin catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), July 16, 2004.


Hey y'all, check out the LC's website for some photo-graphic evidence of their continued favor with the Pope and Church.

Evidence of Vatican approval of the Legionaries: 2003 "On December 24th Forty-four Legionaries of Christ were ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, Substitute for General Affairs of the Vatican Secretariat of State. The ordination liturgy took place in the chapel of the Legion´s Center for Higher Studies in Rome."

Evidence of Vatican approval of Legionaries - in step with the Pope! 2004 "The Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, together with the Pontifical Council "Iustitia et Pax" and the Guilé Foundation, organized on January 26th and 27th an international congress on the Christian roots of Europe and its cultural identity. The Congress entitled “The Christian Roots and Cultural Identity of Europe” brought many important European political personalities together." 2003 "The congress began on Sunday the 26th with a talk given by Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, Secretary of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace. A round-table discussion followed led by various European parliamentary representatives who answered the many questions raised by the students on a great number of issues. A symposium with more than 500 people in attendance was also organized. Intellectual, ecclesiastical and political personalities led the discussions including Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, President of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace."

So let's get this straight...the Vatican's top men keep showing up at LC sponsored events...but us lay people can rest assured that they're REALLY not "in step with the Pope or Church"?

I'm begining to think that the anonymous poster who claims this isn't talking about Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church but some other pope and church!

-- surfin catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), July 16, 2004.


I just got it. Surfin' is one of those poor legionary rejects who was roped in as a young boy, instructed to love the legion without question, praise Fr. Maciel and adore Mama Maurita above his own mother.

But a principally independent spirit would never fit in the docile and uniform spirit of the Legion. He really WANTED to be a legionary, but they didn't want him and after much aprehension his destino arrived. Delivered by Donald Trump it read 'You're Fired.' If you can't make it in the Legion they implied, you can't effectively serve Christ in the religious life -- Get Married!

But Surfin' couldn't take the hint and signed on full bore with the Regnum Christi. "Hey!", thought the legion we can use this guy to our advantage better than before. Now with all his vigor he tries to be was God never intended - a civilian legionary lacky.

It's not Surfin's fault his young mind was swallowed up in the formative years and he hasn't reclaimed it. Sound's mean I know, but Surfin' here is the perfect example of the Legion's single greatest flaw (out-of-step with Rome & Pope). And there are many more like him.

The Legion will get it right, maybe in the life time of the last few cofounders, but not much before.

Break free Surfin' it's not too late.

-- sometime (anonymous@anonymous.com), July 16, 2004.


Yeah sounds like you have armed yourself with a fact-proof conspiracy theory, the kind that makes people fanatics: no amount of proof is proof enough for good and innocence and absolutely ZERO proof is proof positive of evil and sin.

It's this kind of non-reasoning that makes for really awkward silence. I mean, with such arrogant antagonism without a shread of proof of guilt or even one example of wrongdoing, and zero list of reasons for believing what you do what should good Catholics do but just smile and silently pray for your sanity?

Dude (or dudette) the LC is here to stay, the Pope loves 'em and they're doing more good for the Church than you even know - much more than meets the eye 'cause they don't blow their horns. You'll call it secrecy, they call it humility.

I've waded through the surf of this thread and it sure looks like those who were seminarians and still appreciate the LC run circles around you conspiracy nuts. Of course you think they're psychologically damaged goods. Conspiracy buffs always think the evil machine has only evil henchmen or zombie drones. But the only zombies on this thread are guys like you who dislike the LCs but can't explain why and can't point to any proof of their being bad.

I wonder how many of the anti-LC people are just angry exmembers who got nailed for either crimes or sins and are on a self-destruct mission to drag them down? How many of you anti-LC folk are homosexual? How many don't believe what the Pope teaches and don't care? Prick an anti-LC person and eventually you find someone who doesn't like the Pope or other groups either...but they're all over handing out judgments and presuming to speak "for the church".

-- surfin catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), July 16, 2004.


Oh, Surfin' what a sad reply. Post your last destino for us, will you please. If you don't have it you surely remember its contents.

Walk tall Surfin' you didn't 'loose' your vocation. You just didn't fit in.

At least you weren't one of the angry ones. They get pissed at the Castro-like system of reporting and informing. They realize that they were talked into a vocation that they never really had and they blow a gasket. It's real emotion, something they haven't been allowed to express for years. Like a flash they're gone, they lost their vocation, what a shame.

I acutally prefer the quiet and discrete ones who waited for ordination and then left quietly. They speak with an orthodox bishop or two during a visit home and find a place where they can live with a clean conscience.

They don't hold any malice, but they know the life they lived in the Legion is inconsistent with the spirit and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church critical ways. They see how the rulebooks pressure young PCs and seminarians. They're conscience won't permit them to blur the lines between internal and external forum. Maybe they've even been chastised for pointing out these inconsistencies. The benefits of their legionary years....the prayer, the little visits, the virtues, the fun and the brotherhood, these they will miss. They know they can't continue in good conscience. Maybe they make a little peace with the legion and leave quitely. Maybe they never return from home visit. They're usually discrete when they speak about their legionary experience. The Church would be a better place if their reasons for leaving were made public.

Now Surfin', you're clearly not one of the discrete ones, and you were never ordained. So why not tell us your story?

-- sometime (anonymous@anonymous.com), July 19, 2004.


You misinterpret everything dude. Why can't men just be mistaken? Why can't men think they're called, try something out for a couple of years and then leave in peace, no hard feelings?

The fanatic in you won't let you see how normal it all is! You're all inconsistent: they don't accept a young guy...so it's a crime, cause he feels so good about himself having the call... then they help someone else see the light and go home...and you see a crime, cause it took so long! It's your perspective - your need to spin everything negative, to find a dark lining in every silver cloud!

You haven't told anyone YOUR story, and I sure aint tellin you mine! But it doesn't matter. You hate em, and no amount of proof or explanation will be enough. Everyone else is wrong, Pope included, but you're right. The majority of guys who leave...are wrong, duped, don't even know what hit them...but you're smarter, you're right, and no amount of proof or lack of it matters.

Face it, the LC isn't some draconian gulag - but it is demanding and men do go in and leave at different times and ways (so much for them all being clones!) You just can't accept that men makes mistakes or that a priestly or religious vocation involves mystery. AND you are a control freak, wantin to know everyone's stories!

-- surfin catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), July 19, 2004.


Poor Surfin’ is neck deep in the swamp of denial. Dude…jump out and have a look at your past. You’re not in the seminary and you’re not a legionary priest, but your mind and heart are behaving as if you are. The Legion owned you and determined your vocation for you until they decided you wouldn’t fit. First acknowledge that fact. Second, acknowledge that it’s manipulative. That little exercise is really freeing. More importantly, it’s healthy.

Until you do that, you won’t be able to let go, and that’s not good for the other parts of your life. If you’ve got a wife and kids, you could drive them crazy. If you’re working for the LC at a school or office they run . . . find a new job. It’s the only path to freedom.

Only then can you take an objective look. Then you’ll be able to bring much needed balance to your posts. And if you’re really smart you’ll be able to envision the ways the Legion must change to integrate their operating style with the spirit of religious life endorsed by the Pope and Church.

-- sometime (anonymous@anonymous.com), July 20, 2004.


Good to see some activity here again. Sometime seems to be jumping to a lot of conclusions about Surfin' here. Sad to say, I know a handful of former legionaries in the unfortunate rut Sometime describes.

God Bless Us. Every One.

-- The Original Withheld (originalwithheld@yahoo.com), August 02, 2004.


I came to this site looking for information regarding an apparent controversy involving the Legionaries of Christ. I am a fourth year FAMILIA member, and today we were told by our Parish Priest per instruction of our Archbishop that we can know longer use Parish premises for our FAMILIA meetings. We have several meetings, men and women in our town. We were not given any information other than that there is a conflict between our Archbishop and the Legionaries. Many of our FAMILIA member are a littled shocked, and we are searching for answers as to what's going on. So far from this forum I have not been able to figure out specifically why our Archdiocese (St. Paul, MN) has made this decision, and if there are other dioceses out there doing the same. Thanks Peace in Christ +

-- Joan Anderson (jjanderson@myclearwave.net), December 03, 2004.

Until we all hear from both sides, it is pointless to search for truth on the internet (unless the both sides post something official here).

All we get is conjecture, suppositions, etc.

What we know is that things like FAMILIA are hardly secret - to found a FAMILIA group the parish ALWAYS KNOWS. So if the chancery chooses to claim it didn't know, then the problem is one of communication between the parish and the chancery, not the LC and chancery.

Communication is probably the biggest weakness right now in the Church in general. Just because we Americans know something via the nightly news or websites doesn't mean that the Pope or people in Rome know about it.

That's why the priest scandal thing took so long to settle - the European press didn't run the story 24/7 as the American press did and thus the Vatican didn't get the details until later. Once it did, then things got done.

Ditto with lots of things in the US. If a bishops gives a local politician or person an honor, and a pro-life group knows the guy is a bad apple with a record a mile long...it doesn't follow that the Bishop knew that but gave him the honor anyway.

Sad truth is, lots of pro-lifers know alot more details and who's who trivia than the chancery officials and bishop - since it's their job aslay apostles to know the day to day stuff.

So what to do? Well, communicate! Make sure the bishops and pastors know who is who, and prove it with public source data if possible. That way the leaders will know "what's going on".

There's also the problem of communicating with the RIGHT people. If a bishop calls the 1-800 number and gets a LC novice on the line, that's not the same thing as calling the LC's territorial directorate. The message can get lost or mistranslated from the novice, but chances are better it won't get lost from the LC's HQ.

Similarly, if the LC communicates what it's doing to the local pastor, they can't assume the pastor will inform the chancery of all the details.

If a local RC group decides to hold an event at a parish, it's not always the case that they will run that idea past the LC's territorial director who will then run the idea past the bishop - it would be ridiculous to suppose anyone wants such micromanaging. Nothing would ever get done!

So until the Archbishop explains what exactly he means by "communication" as we find out what the LC means by informing dioceses of their plans and the degree to which all sides are using the same method and language, we're not going to solve the mystery.

Rather than run off on wild conspiracy theories that people are PURPOSELY keeping information from each other, you have to honestly look at the process of communication, who is involved, how they communicate and what gets presented.

I would imagine that the LC presented the bishop with the general overview of what elements they have in the diocese - a school, a couple of groups, a youth club or two, etc. But if the bishop is expecting a 1000 page up to date D ring binder with photos and names of everyone involved, he may be asking something that not even the LC has!

If he wants to know each groups member list, their contact info, and what they are actually doing on wednesday evenings between 7 and 8pm... then it's possible that the LC could compile this info. But again, we don't know what the Bishop was looking for so we can't judge whether the LC was criminally negligent.

We just know the bare (*uncommunicative) bones that he wanted something, didn't get it, so banned the group.

-- Dude! (Surfin@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ