Most Helpful Posts

Helpful Articles

Blog powered by Typepad

Comment Policy

  • All constructive comments will be accepted.
    Commenting anonymously is certainly permitted as long as it adds to the understanding of this topic. The point of this site is to foster love for Christ, while analyzing the place of Regnum Christi in the Church. (Please know that no one will be able to track your comments -- neither the readers nor the webmaster. We all understand the hesitancy in speaking about this experience and the fallout that can accrue. All comments will only bear the information you choose to reveal.)

« Support apart from the Movement | Main | What is bitterness? »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My son, who was in ECYD, folds his arms when we say grace before meals. He said others he saw at Conquest/Club did the same. I never knew this was a personal habit of NP.

What else don't I know, I wonder?

OH wow, my daughter, after she came back from Rhode Island (just a Holy Week retreat thankfully), folded her arms after Communion and while kneeling at Mass. Are you telling me this was dear NP's posture? That makes me ill. I need to tell her. UGH!!! I feel like we will never eradicate this from our lives.

"The Formation of An Apostle" - by Fr. Evaristo Sada, LC

Chapter one: The Engine of an Apostle.

"Do you know what mystique is?"

"The concept of mystique as we understand it in Regnum Christi does not appear in the dictionary. It has more to do with the definition of "spirit".

Key phrases from this chapter:

1) Mystique: "A passion of love for Christ and the mission."

2) Passion of love for the ideal: energy that comes from within, on the human and supernatural level. It is a heartfelt loyalty to convictions.

3) When a person comes into contact with RC members, he perceives this spirit, whose fundamental elements are:
A strong passion of love for Christ, the Church, and souls.
Family spirit, universal charity, speaking well of others.
Personal attention, love and sincere interest for people.
A sense of mission, fighting spirit in the apostolate, the confidence that you give to other people.
The sense of a vocation, a calling.

4) One component of mystique "Principles of Action" is described as "our own methodology, blessed by the Pope."

5) "What are the expressions of mystique?"
Passion and ardor for the ideal and the mission.
The plenitude with which a motivated apostle lives: it is something existential, a lifestyle, a demand of fidelity.
The communion characteristic of a group with an identity and some shared principles of action: mystique is not lived alone. It comes about in the union of a body around a shared ideal. A union of wills that put the whole above the parts. A monolithic union without fissures.

In sum, "Mystique is a fire that comes from the love of God. It is the soul of the apostle. It is the engine, the heart. Living and promoting it is the task of each and every one, but it is especially up to the formators to burn and ignite the hearts of each Regnum Christi member."

Danger - Mystique is NOT:
Fanaticism; one more hobby.
Collective brainwashing or euphoria.
Belonging to a sect.
Institutional pride.
External elements (campaigns, posters . . . )

Mystique is a core attachment to the cult created by a pedophile in the face of all reasonable evidence, witnesses, or authority.

Its greatest defense is ignorance - the less you know, the better.

Trust your superiors, and obey.

Still RC - For Now, Anyway,

Are the points about what Mystique is NOT your own observations? I had a very different take when I read the "key phrases", especially no. 5. "A union of wills that puts the whole above the parts. A monolithic union without fissures." That leaves no room for individuality or questioning, among other things. I absolutely think Mystique IS "collective brainwashing or euphoria".

Sane,

The "Danger" points I listed are from the same "Formation of an Apostle" course designed by Fr. Evaristo. No doubt they have heard and anticipated some very valid criticisms and so wanted to get the formators "prepped" to respond when asked.

What I noticed is that in these 3 pages of "talking points" about mystique, the passionate love of Christ is equated to the passionate love of an ideal. Nothing wrong with that, if the ideal is to imitate Christ - but it's not. It's the ideal of being part of the collective. You know - "In Christ and in the Movement." Also the whole thing about "this word the way we in RC know it really can't be defined - it's just that secret something that we all share and know". Secrecy again.

In truth, there is nothing new in Fr. Evaristo's spin. He just took good old NP's thoughts and expressions without attributing them to the appropriate Envoy letter. It's just what Fr. Karras said - they haven't really gotten rid of the founder nor do they intend to. They can't repudiate MM because their entire way of looking at Christ, the Church, their mission within the Church, and really their entire way of living and being, is based on that of the founder. It's just too ingrained.

I agree with an earlier comment as to why "mystique" is popping up now. As I noted it was "Chapter One" of this formator course. Why is it so important? Well, one reason may be that "mystique" will eventually replace "charism". The latter belongs to the Church but "mystique" is all their own, regardless of their status.

Random question-- Why aren't any of the mainstream Catholic Media services (CNA, CNS, etc.) covering all of this?

I have a lot of friends in RC. Most of them are HIGHLY UNLIKELY (understatement of the year) to read anything posted on this site or exlc blog.

They're trapped in a web of lies, and by ignoring the story the 'legit' news sources are giving them cause to think everything's OK. I mean, shouldn't this info be showing up in Diocesan papers, on mainline Catholic news sites (First Things, Inside Catholic) and in other places they might actually see?

How can they get out of the bubble when the few non-legion news sources they read are helping to shore that bubble up????

Wouldn't it be better (more charitable?) to let them know what's happening and what's coming, rather than waiting to hit them over the head with it as a bolt from the blue? It seems like these other news companies are helping to CAUSE schism rather than avert it.....

Excuse me if I sound like a broken record, but I can't help pointing out again that true charity does NOT entail always "speaking well of others."
This is almost THE foundational lie of Legion formation, the one that twisted the consciences of thousands of followers and allowed evil to persist for so many decades.
Not only did it mean that people in the Legion were silent about the bad stuff they saw and experienced, it meant that members felt positively virtuous about shutting their ears to the critics on the outside. Not only would they not hear it, they would feel that the critics lacked Christian virtue, which increased their belief in the superior holiness of LC/RCers...

If we don't want our children to fall for this sort of thing, we have to teach and practice critical thinking and frank criticism, which will involve, inescapably, saying things on occasion that aren't nice.

Maybe RC members should buy the book, Founders by Fr Patrick Langan LC, and study several lessons from it, to wit:

1) all the ways real founders are different from the lech Maciel

2) all the things these people now running the legion claimed Maciel did

3) How the Legion lies again and again and is almost institutionally incapable of just telling the truth.

available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Patrick-Langan/dp/0965160114/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250774285&sr=8-1

Still RC,

Thanks for clarifying the Danger points. It seems that whenever a group has to anticipate and prepare its members for negative reaction, there is reason to worry.

I still cannot understand how RC members could hear their superiors NOT speak well of others (stir the pot with character assassination campaigns) and not hear the double-talk going on.

I will have to say, though, that having been around many RCers, there was a certain level of comfort that came from knowing (or believing) that they would not immediately whisper behind one's back the minute a person left a conversation. Am I wrong or naive in thinking that's how it was/is? Did the back-biting start as soon as someone left a conversation, even when it wasn't "approved" by the superior?

Another Ex - I'm curious about your reference to the "Founders" book, as I always thought it was a propaganda piece to somehow vindicate Maciel. RC women in my section breathlessly encouraged me to read the book so I could "understand" that the "false accusations against Nuestro Padre" were really just what other saintly founders experienced. Hmmmmm....

It is precisely that. It is a documented lie that the LC told the RCs. It was "written" (ie plagiarized from other sources) in response to the Hartford Courant article.

But now it is the funniest joke I can think of, and offers the advantage of being approved by LC authority.

Katie and Mouse,

The membership takes very seriously the obedience to their LC superiors. Hence, if the superiors are telling the LC NOT to read the news, you can bet the RC membership is obeying that "directive" as well. It's all part of "charity above all things" and "believe all the good you hear and only the evil you see" (so if you don't read it, you can't see it).

Whether there is any legitimate justification - canonical, theological or other - for this obedience is another matter. It contradicts our responsibilities as Catholic Christian adults and, in many cases, as married spouses and parents. It encourages willfull ignorance and an infantile dependence on our local RC leaders (who only disclose with permission).

On the bright side, you can bet that any "unflattering news" disclosed by the RC leadership is absolute fact. For instance, there has been a lot of outside news in the past week or two about MM having multiple numbers of children. But how do we determine what is fact and what is merely alleged? Well, since we know that anything the RC leadership discloses either locally or nationally to the membership has been done so with permission from their LC superiors, and further that the LC superiors are following the "Clinton strategy" per Peter Vere (ie disclose only what is necessary, already reported and can't be disputed), we can conclude that if there is a discloure that MM "may have as many as six children", it is an absolute fact that he has AT LEAST that many.

So watch for any further disclosures from Jim Fair, Fr. Scott Reilly or your local RC leadership because there's truth in those words, no matter how vaguely put.

"I still cannot understand how RC members could hear their superiors NOT speak well of others (stir the pot with character assassination campaigns) and not hear the double-talk going on."

Sane, let me explain how it was done, at least in my section: RC formator, well liked and trusted by her sisters-in-Christ, and recently returned from some RC leadership conference with many LC's and RC consecrated in attendance, brings a wonderful case study to the Encounter with Christ. It's a story some LC shared with her, confidentially no doubt - probably whispered! - about how the LC hierarchy had tried to pursuade "NP" to disclose "the truth" about the accusations against him, rather than maintaining silence. "Please, NP, this is getting getting out of hand - you must tell the truth about your accuser and expose him for what he is". The pressure is quite high. But "NP" quietly responds with something to cause them to reflect on their "charism of charity" and agree with his decision not to speak poorly of others: "The man who accuses me has a wife and family now. I will not destroy them by exposing him."

So you see, Sane, how efficacious are the methods of the movement - character assassination cleverly packaged as "charity" with a case study to boot. Note how the story could now be passed on informally - in good faith, I might add - for all the membership to hear. What RC team would NOT choose that case?

All for the Kingdom.

Sane, since we are in the same area, I think I can offer some relevant experience.

You asked: Am I wrong or naive in thinking that's how it was/is? Did the back-biting start as soon as someone left a conversation, even when it wasn't "approved" by the superior?

In my experience, in general, the people were actually much better than normal about gossiping. I too really liked that about them. Where I've found a problem is with people that have left and with this whole situation about Fr. Maciel. Here is an example:

"Well, Saint Josemaria Escriva also faced numerous charges of misconduct." "Yes, and isn't it is surprising that some OD members aren't a little more understanding of what we are going through?"

It's like, I'm not saying it, but I'm saying it and that is what I've found rampant in the leadership. What was especially distressing was watching it continue and even increase at a time when you'd expect more humility.

To clarify, when I say I've found a problem w/people that have left, I do not mean those people, I mean that that is where I've heard out and out lies about people from active RC members.

Scientologists have their own weird vocabulary, too. When children raised in the cult grow up and leave, they are often embarassed to find that many of the words they use aren't real words at all. Or, that the legitimate words they use have entirely different definitions in the real world.

I appreciate all of the insight into "charity". I'm just still so floored at all of the time, energy, and "silk" (money) that went into spinning MM's web! Every question begets more and more questions. For example, did ALL of the excuses come from MM himself, or was there a Ways and Means Apostolate that cooked up all of this? Did he sketch the basic image of an excuse and leave his minions to color it in? If nothing is passed along without a superior's permission, who is at the top of the heap of the information filtering system?

I hope I"m making sense.

Sane, you are definitely making sense. To answer your last question my best guess would be "NP's" minions Sada, Gaza et al. who were not removed from their positions of authority with the election of the new General Director a few years ago. I do not put Fr. A in that category - I personally believe he's a puppet (and elected to be such) and so was basically in the dark. The minions being in charge is precisely why they are in such trouble with the Holy See - they would not, and did not, separate the "worthy apostolates of the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi" from the person of the founder, as the 2006 Vatican Communique strongly hinted that they should do. Because they did not do so, they proved that they are phony - since the founder is a phony, as the Vatican had already concluded. Hence the whole thing is over - the web is quickly unraveling.

BTW - my answer to your other questions is that the devil is just smarter, faster and more organized than we are and can act in ways we can't even imagine nor keep up with. That MM was the devil's representative I have no personal doubt. Only satan working through a "holy priest" could succeed in blinding JPII, when the communists, the nazis, the liberation theologists and all the other "20th century experiments" failed to do so. It took ssssomething a bit more ssssubtle and clever to fool this very holy pope.

Speaking of mysteries worthy of a Scooby-Doo investigation:

http://tinyurl.com/n5gtgq

Speaking of Mystery worthy of a Scooby-Doo investigation, wasn't the Legion banned from Franciscan University Steubenville? So what's this about...

http://tinyurl.com/n5gtgq

oop, sorry about the double post, my first one didn't show up...

The link to Pete's site is gold. My 5 second recap:

If the response from the Legion's leaders seems surreal it's because the Legion was severed from reality by its founder. Unreality is the charism Fr. M gave them.

And the legacy keeps on giving. I just saw a blog response to the latest fundraising effort that said - what are the LC/RC supposed to do, not eat? They called all of this, 'bad stuff.' Indeed!

People, please - the correct expression is "Current Difficulties". Oops, no wait make that "Sorry Chapter".

Sheesh - let's try to get the nomenclature right.


The comments to this entry are closed.