We. Will. Not. Play.

Friends, let's consider this comment and the positive response it received on this thread:

A concern is that the dioceses that ban or restrict LC and RC are seldom bastions of orthodoxy. Saint Paul-Minneapolis and Miami come to mind. Will this not play into the LC/RC claim that they are persecuted for their orthodoxy?

The Archbishop of Miami made it clear in his terse letter that the Legion had broken established rules. It broke rules -- which cannot be justified by orthodoxy. An ordinary has authority over his diocese by right of an unbroken line of succession from the apostles. Yes, there are liberal bishops, flakey bishops, inattentive bishops and down-right bad ones, but that doesn't justify deception by the Legion.

The same thing happened in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. The archbishop left town, and came back unexpectedly to find the Legion rifling through files and accessing information to which it had no right. The archbishop went from being a supporter (who assisted at LC ordinations) to an enemy in the flash of the eye. That meant that the Legion did like-wise: undermining the archbishop's support among the faithful by pointing out the access that Dignity had to the archdiocese. Yes, they did. Yes, sometimes it's difficult to keep the darker elements out of the Church (to which they cling for legitimacy and a perverse pleasure of corrupting).

BUT: What is the difference between the tactics of Dignity and the tactics of the Legion??

The Archbishop Flynn called the Legion out for creating a "parallel church," and from then on, the Legion waged a constant whisper campaign with the intention of undermining his authority. I don't give a fig about "orthodoxy" if it's touted through a methodology that carries the same amount of fidelity and duplicity of irreverent homosexuals. We cannot play this game.

People saw the light when Archbishop O'Brien (with good "orthodox" credentials) noted that it wasn't the theology but the methodology. We maintain that charge -- and cannot fall into the slippery crevice of promoting orthodoxy through devious methods.

I am reading the horrific account of the North American martyrs, whereby the lives of heroic Jesuits were made even more awful by the neglect of the ordinary back home: Cardinal Richelieu. That Machiavellian old fox back in France was, ahem, distracted, and thereby the men were denied the safety they needed to further their mission. And so they furthered their mission through greater hardship, brutal tortures, savage treatment and exposure to the elements. NEVER once did they bad mouth the Cardinal or betray the integrity of their Jesuit formation by deceit or stretching the rules.

That the Legion mentions their mission in the same breath as such Jesuits is blasphemy. We will not become distracted by "orthodoxy" or the purported lack of integrity of various bishops. That's cheap, duplicitous, distracting and unworthy of real Catholics.

Comments

[Molly Callahan]

I am particularly cynical today with regards to all of this mess. I am beginning to think that LC et al are heretical.

[Anon in STL]

Sadly, as I surf around today, I find that there are still some True Believers touting the Uber Catholics that the Legion schools turn out and how the Bishops should be so thankful for their formation. UGH UGH UGH

http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/10/update-more-details-on-miami-expelling.html

[Hmmm]

"The same thing happened in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. The archbishop left town, and came back unexpectedly to find the Legion rifling through files and accessing information to which it had no right."

Some LC's were LITERALLY doing this???

[giselle]

Yes, I have it on good authority. I've known it for years, but only decided to nail them on it now. Something about the "we're shocked and stunned" response of the Legion makes me see red.

I also have it on slightly less firm authority that they are banned in San Diego. It was never written but was given as a verbal instruction to all priests at a convocation. No paper trail, no way to verify.

[SS]

Against the LC's utilitarian use of "orthodoxy" (i.e., using the appearance of orthodoxy to gain favor, impress people, etc.), might I point out our Holy Father's beautiful elucidation of the term:

“It is perhaps useful to recall that in the term ‘orthodoxy,’ the second half of the word, ‘doxa,’ does not mean ‘opinion,’ but ‘splendor,’ ‘glorification’: this is not a matter of a correct ‘opinion’ about God, but of a proper way of glorifying him, of responding to him. Because this is the fundamental question of the man who begins to understand himself in the correct way: how should I encounter God? So learning the right way of adoration¬, of orthodoxy, ¬is what is given to us above all by the faith.”

From his preface to volume XIII (the volume on the liturgy) of his collected works.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/208933?eng=y

And more, from The Spirit of the Liturgy:

“In Greek, the word doxa means, on the one hand, opinion or splendor. But then in Christian usage it means something on the order of ‘true splendor,’ that is, the glory of God. Orthodoxy means, therefore, the right way to glorify God, the right form of adoration. If we go back to the word’s origins, the modern opposition disappears. It is not a question of theories about God but of the right way to encounter him.”

In light of that, I would say the LC's methodology *and* theology are flawed, inasmuch as they can't be properly orthodox if their central pivot is themselves instead of God. The very fact that they have a flawed methodology implies a flawed theology.

[giselle]

"It is not a question of theories about God but of the right way to encounter him.” In light of that, I would say the LC's methodology *and* theology are flawed, inasmuch as they can't be properly orthodox if their central pivot is themselves instead of God. The very fact that they have a flawed methodology implies a flawed theology."

** SMACK **

SS: that's me kissing your keyboard for typing out such a marvelous thought. It's all about the "pivot!" Bless you, bless you, bless you!!

[SS]

Bless back on you, too! It all came together in my peon head reading your original post.

[Still RC - For Now, Anyway]

I can also back up Giselle's information because I, too, have it on good (non LC/RC) authority that in the Minneapolis/St. Paul archdiocese the LC's were caught rifling through files (including computer files) probably looking for names and addresses of potential benefactors. This action is tantamount to theft. This must have happened sometime in 2003 as the LC's effectively stopped visiting the MSP section at the end of that calendar year. It was approximately one year later, late 2004, that they were officially banned from ministering in the archdiocese and Regnum Christi asked to remove it's activities and apostolates from archdiocesan facilities.

Giselle may have the info. to confirm or clarify why there was such a time lapse betw. the crime and the consequence (almost a full year). I had always assumed that Archbishop Flynn was trying to get an explanation from the LC and, when that failed, resorted to banning them from the archdiocese. Hardly a rash or unreasonable move on his part.

During this time lapse, the LC was allowed to return to the archdiocese in April 2004 in order to minister to the ladies attending the national formators' conference there (this had been planned months in advance with large financial and other commitments already made and could not be easily relocated).

My source mentioned that the location was a parish though could understandably have been protecting the identity of the archbishop. At the time, one of my RC colleagues noted "gee, something really must have set him off". Indeed.

[Steve]

Mouse from Am Papist:

Since I have several friends in RC in the South Bend area, what is Bishop D'Arcy's position about LC/RegC?

[Lauren]

A friend that lives in San Diego diocese says they cannot operate their apostolates there. But they still meet for encounter. And I think the Hombre Nuevo is still allowed since it was begun awhile back....that's what a current member tells me about that diocese

[CindyB]

Bishop D'Arcy is counseling his flock to leave RC. He's not real vocal about it but if he's asked, he will recommend leaving. A friend has had a meeting with him about it, I'm waiting for an appointment to talk to him myself. I don't think he has ever been in favor of the LC or 3gf, they aren't allowed in our diocese. A lot of my questions about why he didn't want the LC/RC in our diocese has been answered through these forums. I have always had a lot of respect for him and now it's even greater!

[Lauren]

Loved the reflection on orthodoxy. It's so important for me to keep seeing how the faith is so integrated. I never thought on a gut level you could separate out their supposed orthodoxy from the methodology. But this was good....God loves us so much; he wants us so much to be transformed on such a deep level -- that level of our very being -- so that we can really worship him wholly and fully and experience him in our daily living of life. I never had that in RC. I had such a fragmented life. A life of "prayer", A life of apostolate, a family life...no real personality....it was all fragmented only touching each other in forced ways. Never natural, never from a heart that was supple...I think this is all related...even if I cannot articulate it well

[Claire]

Rifling through the files of the diocese -- not surprising. A a friend of mine applied for a fundraising (what else?) job at LC/RC headquarters (New York or Connecticut?) a few years ago and was shocked at the peronal information they kept on people. My friend's comment was "The dossiers LC/RC has on people would put the FBI to shame."

[Far West RC]

II'm sorry to go off topic with this comment and observation but...
Today I had a talk with an LC about the scandal and his overriding position is that the order has been approved of by the Church and so has their charism. He firmly believes the order will not be disbanded based on that one point.

Any thoughts on the permanence of prior approval?

[Steve]

Far West RC:

The many threads on this blog hint at the possibility of dissolution as a "possible" outcome. No one claims to know the final decision of the Church on the matter.

The LC is telling you what he has been told. Whether it is wishful thinking or established fact remains to be seen.

And the same Creator God who presides over the birth of star constellations with billions of stars in them probably has everything in hand, at least in the grand scheme of things.

[PaulM]

Steve:

You and I think alike. I often consider this vast universe to help me contemplate Our Lord's immense power of creation and eternity. I've often thought "If God put us on this little planet, why creation such an unimaginable and inconceivable universe?" I think because it was to help give us some inkling of His nature and infinity.

Quasars, pulsars, black holes, galaxies. If we look outward to all of His visible creation, we can only start to understand His power.

And this God who effortlessly creates out of nothing the stars, also waits for us in the tabernacle and watches over the Apostolic Visitation.

Pray and don't worry.

[Mouse from Am Pap]

Far West-- The Templars had Church approval too! So did the Jesuits (though they DID come back from supression).

I'm not sure if the Beguine movement ever had offical approval, but it DID spread pretty quickly, it had some good writers (Mechthild of Madgeberg (sp?) shows up in Magnificat fairly frequently) and it STILL got shut down.....

The LC doesn't know his history. Ask him about the Templars, and see his response! :)

[Mouse from Am Pap]

Beguines and Beghards, in case anyone is interested:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02389c.htm

[Ex aedibus]

Speaking of the Visitation, John Allen recently interview Franc Cardinal Rode', C.M. for the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Anyhow, as he points out, there is a possibility that Cardinal Rode' might not even be around by the time both visitations are finished. He has, after all, reached the age of 75.

http://ncronline.org/news/man-center-storms

[Anon]

Someone on an earlier blog brought up the Piarist order in the 17th centuary that was suppressed by the Pope after sexual abuse was leaked...at first the sexual abuse was covered up by people in charge. This article from 2004 on a book about this is interesting and gives some good historical insight.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=989

[Lucien Tenebrae]

Yes, Giselle, they were banned from San Diego, but that didn't stop them from operating sub-rosa for years (and they still do).

I know some parents involved with Sierra Madre, the parent-started, and parent-supervised school in San Marcos, which some unofficial help from the LCs.

At some point, the LCs decided to stage a take-over of the school, and make it much more "professional" (they didn't like all the parent involvement, and they didn't like the storefront location (no one did, of course)). Luckily, the wife of a board member saw the email from the LC directing the board take-over, and she blew the whistle, and got the board to kick them out permanently.

Typical LC operation. Bastards.

[TJW]

The business of the Legion poaching in one diocese or antother without the knowledge or approval of the local Bishop is a very serious matter which has theological ramifications. These have to do with the nature of the Church as understood by Vatican II, which is it its turn based on Scripture and the traditon of the Fathers of the first centuries. St. Paul writes to "the Church that is in Corinth, Tessalonica, Galatia, Rome and so forth. He also presents the Church as the "body of Christ". The Church is Catholic, which means universal, spread throughout the world, but it is a communion of local churches under the bishop, as St. Ignatius of Antioch, martyred in Rome in 107, never tires of repeating. The local church is represented by its bishop who is like the Paterfamilias (or father of the family. He is assisted by the college of elders (presbyters) and by the deacons. There is a tight communion between all the churches throughout the world. According to Ignatius, the Church of Rome "governs in charity" "agape". He is the first of all the bishops due to the importance of Rome as the center of the civilized world of the time, as well as the fact that both St. Peter and St. Paul preached and gave the supreme witness there. The Roman Church did intervene in orther Churches, such as the case of a dispute in the Church of Corinth at the end of the first century under St. Clement I.
Things developed in a different manner in the Middle Ages particularly with the foundation of the Mendicant Orders, especially the Franciscans and Dominicans. These were granted special privileges by the Popes.
Vatican II went back to the original understanding of the Church as a communion of local churches under the bishop. Of course, it reaffirmed te dogma of Papal infallibility with its necesary precion as promulgaged by Vatican I, but placing it in a broader context, as was needed. This translates practically into the fact that each bishop has his "presbyterium" which is the body of the priests be they religious or diocesan. Then there is a pastoral plan for the diocese, which is often in coordnation with pasotral plans of the Episcopal Conference. The Espiscopal Conference is an organ of coordination and support of the individual bishops, not their hierarchical superior. All pastoral initiatives of religious, movements or any associations, whilst they promote their charism for the good of the whole church, must be within carried out within the context of the one local church under the authority of the bishop and the pastoral plan approved and promulgated by him. Thus, poachers like the Legion coming in on a fly by night basis have no place in this ecclesiology of Vatican II. The bishop, in a big diocese, doesn't necessarily attend to all matters personally. He has his vicars and organisms which operate in his name and in accordance with what he has established. So, as St. Ignatius of Antioch clearly stated, nothing can be done in a diocese unless it is in communion with the bishop.

One would need to be careful in dubbing bishops as "orthodox" or otherwise. If they are considered not orthodox, does that mean that they fail to profess the faith of the Church, or defend the received teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of which they are a part? I would assume that it would be hard to find a bishop who actually does such. Application of such political terminology as liberal or conservative, right wing or left wing is not very helpful in the Church. I would venture to state that it would be impossible to find a bishop who is not both a defender of tradition and at the same time open to new developments or as Pope John said "aggiornamento", updating. The Church is not a museum or a deep freezer.
Comment on Lucien Tenebrae's post:
I remember back in the 1980s, Fr. Bannon told us how they were going to infiltrate the Home School Movement and also suposedly "help" small groups who were starting their own schools. That was when the only school they were involved in was the one in Dallas.