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.)

« The long healing process | Main | What colour is the elephant? »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A critical distinction:


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

A crucial fact is that Pope John Paul II called the perverted criminal "founder" of reglegcorp an "efficacious guide for youth".

That's an issue that needs to be addressed, because only an idiot or a fool (or -- more pertinently in this case -- a liar) would say that that kind of statement should be embraced as true.

And if that Papal statement was so patently false -- how are we to evaluate other Church statements (the ones that are not delivered ex cathedra and therefore infallible)?

Because maybe the current Vatican statements about reglegcorp "reform" and "soundness" are just as false as the "efficacious guide for youth" statement.

How do we know?

The Lord did give us our brains, after all.

It is incredibly puzzling how one can call him an "efficacious guide to youth" and the other, the successor, calls him a "false prophet."

What the heck?

Please see this

Is in Spanish.

Velasio is saying ther will be an investigation.

Time for another Novena!

Thank you, Paloma. Perhaps you can provide the meaning of this statement for our readers.

After years of multiple investigations what kind of a message does this whole exercise give to outsiders and to people who have been hurt by legregcorp? The very top leaders of Holy Mother the Church are saying either that they don't want to carry out this investigation further because they are afraid they might find things they don't want to find out or they don't trust their own judgment and might punish an innocent party. Hello! Is there anybody else up there?

Again, there doesn't need to be evidence. Those at the top, if they weren't complicit, were culpable of sins of omission or dereliction of duty. Even if they were naive idiots programmed to see only rainbows, they should go, as an example and because of their abject FAILURE.

It seems that the Vatican hierarchy wants to keep the Legion around and are only going through the motions of an investigation to buy time for people to forget about MM's mistresses and children.

I'm with Mary Ann.

No combination of 1, 2 and 3 is mutually exclusive, by the way.

Off-topic but relevant when it comes to the subjects of dissolution and obedience:

I don't see how there is no evidence of wrong doing. Father Luis Garza's conferences were taped when he says that Father Torres bought the apartment for Norma and that he knew Maciel went there often.This is a fact that has not been investigated, what money was used for this? Surely the legionaries were supposed to have no money. He also says that some legionaries knew everything years before. Can someone post an Email for the Cardinal Velasio?

"Porque no se tienen las pruebas" means they do not have the evidence. I interpret that particular paragraph as saying that DePaolis is rejecting the notion that he doesn't want an investigation because of lack of evidence. This suggests to me that he does want an investigation but is being hampered by those who don't want their skeletons in the closet revealed. Seems to me that DePaolis is starting to face resistance from Alvaro et al.

Giselle, here is a precise translation of the second paragraph...

“Hemos reflexionado mucho sobre esto y seguimos debatiendo entre todos nosotros. Hay quienes están de acuerdo en crear la comisión y quienes hacen hincapié en los problemas que ello provocaría”, considerando la falta de elementos que prueben la complicidad de éste o aquel legionario.

"We have reflected much on this, and we all continue debating among ourselves. There are those who agree on creating the commission, and those who emphasize the problems that this would create," considering the lack of evidence that could prove the complicity of this or that legionary.

So in one sense, it could almost be interpreted as the 'laying of a gauntlet.'

I think VdP is just reacting to save face from the criticism he was getting for his previous comments. Nothing will come of it, I bet.

The Cardinal is very hesitant in this issue, seeing the pros and cons. He wants to move forward and carry on his Velvet Revolution transforming the Congregation throuhg the rewriting of the Constitutions. At the end, Maciel will only be wiped out completely if his hard core thinking is cancelled from the text. So much for the future. But thinking about the past and the present, the truth comission could be conducted privately and obtaint the removal from commanding positions whoever will have been proved gravely involved in abuses.

from Giselle's link to Sacro y Profano:

"La comisión de la economía
Nació por las dudas sobre la administración que había (enumera una serie de acusaciones exageradas). Hay que aclarar las cuentas. Parece que no hay nada más que problemas de administración y dificultades económicas."
This excerpt quotes de Paolis re. the Commission for Economy, in part saying, "We must clarify the accounting. It appears that there is nothing more than administrative problems and economic difficulties." He goes on to say that Integer is not so bad as he had heard, that it's actually a good thing because it protects them from being ripped off and because of the complexity of finances.

His statements regarding the Commission to rewrite the Constitutions are just as alarming. Part of what he says regarding the abuses of privacy (reading mail) and the private vow is "Pero hay un peligro, creer demasiado a los visitadores en el sentido que se puedan pensar exageradamente que los abusos son generalizados, cuál es la consistencia de los abusos, eso es lo que hay que verificar."
Or "there is a danger in believing the visitators too much in the sense that the general abuses will be thought exaggerated, or the content of the abuses, that is what must be verified."

De Paolis's tone is the most frightening--he really appears to be downplaying concerns and simplistically reassuring Legionaries that things are basically OK, we just need a little tidying up of loose ends.

It may be very helpful to have MexRC translate in entirety.

Following the monkey in this circus is a fool's errand.

Who is having this debate with De Paolis? Alvaro? Garza? !!!

Surely it would be up to a commission itself to seek evidence and then to decide whether there is enough: the police gather a case and then the department of public prosecutions decide what to do with it.

It is a farce, the whole thing.

The victims commission was set up purely for the sake of the Legion. It is not victim oriented but Legion oriented: the Legion sets out its own terms and once again is in control of the victim.

Part of me wants to say that I don't care - the Legion can continue to self-destruct and miss this time of opportunity if it so wishes, but it translates to real people and real lives: I no longer believe in reformation - the Legion must be shut down.

Yes, the Legion MUST be shut down; I totally agree with you, Aaron. However, I think that Card DeP is playing out for more time, which he has insisted on from the beginning. In returning this to the LC top brass, in keeping the appearance of going along with the status quo, the lie itself has to unravel, and it is doing so. ONE person, trained and paid at the highest corporate level can spin out the websites in all their glory; there need not be a single living and breathing human being behind the cyber-reality. Steven Reilly and all other Legionaries who read this site: JUST GET OUT. Walk off the ledge and out the door. Breathe the fresh air and don't keep this diabolic lie going any longer -- there is, as we testify, LIFE on the other side, after the LC/RC. Commending all to Our Lady on her feast day.

And that life is pretty darn good!

So, in a nutshell we have:
1. The Pope says Maciel was a false prophet.

2. The Delegate says the false prophet's lieutenants and the false prophet's formation methods will remain in place.

Is the delegate there to stop the meltdown, or just to try to get as many civilians out of the way BEFORE the meltdown?

We need a mass exclaustration. There can be no reform or healing until these men get OUT of there. (Also, even if this is meltdown mode, this strikes me as an awfully uncharitable decision. Shouldn't the leadership be admonished and punished so they can become contrite and ask forgiveness for their sins? I mean, their immortal souls are on the line here... doesn't that MATTER?)

I don't understand why the delegate would go in there with an agenda to stop meltdown and continue to play games. The time for games is over. Jesus is a straight shooter - not a game player and he does not let the guilty go free to protect one innocent. He actually expects Catholic priests to be honest so we should not even have to go there. He does not sweep things under the rug and does not worry about saving a group or saving face. He is all about love and truth.

No sense figuring all this brain hurts even thinking about it. I know what the Gospel and Christ says about truth and justice and taking care of the least and he will bring light to all the wrong either on this earth or in the end. That brings me peace.

Prayers to all. Happy Feast of Annunciation. Mary watch and guide all.

John Paul II's quote that Maciel is an "efficacious guide for youth" reminds me of a story about St Tomas Aquinas whens his brothers told him a cow was flying outside, he ran out to look and they laughed at him. His response was he would rather believe a cow could fly than his brothers lie to him. I can see John Paul not wanting to believe his brother priest would lie to him so bold faced. The wreckage that St Francis left his community seems to be a parallel. Sometimes holy people don't handle worldly things well. And the worldly take maximum advantage. Fr Maciel was a master liar and manipulator and the victims need to addressed. The guilt falls on Fr. Maciel and those who knowingly layed cover for him. There needs to be justice.

Deirdre you are very kind, however I would not make such a sharp distinction between what the Pope is indicating and that of DePaolis. Remember that the Pope has been bold, and beautifully so in certain moments, but he has not been clear. On one hand he calls MM a false prophet, on the other hand he says that the LC as a work is in effect a righteous one (albeit with a few corrections). The May statement also wanted to create this point and counterpoint tension though it was a little more direct to target the LC structure as well.

My point here being that the Holy See, Pope included perhaps, are still stuck on the Sodano-Rode compromise of 2006, Founder bad, Order good. I believe they have at present made all reports, all processes simulating reform (which they call renewal) coming in somehow try to fit this conclusion. All the language crafted has gone out of its way to support the status quo and neutralize opposition by giving them no voice- that one can only say they really think the problem with the LC is that the founder was bad, but not the structure. There purpose is just to be around long enough in the LC until all the emotivity over the founder's scandal, has run out of the situation, which is their only problem.

Like any lens, sometimes it permits us to see clearly, and perhaps in 2006 it helped them to take the step that they did, but if applied at the wrong time, it can cloud our vision and make it difficult to solve problems.

I would say there are three contributing factors to this:

1) Years of being taken in with the good form and 'puppy-dog' cultivation of the curia, with the show and flash of numbers and youth. I think this is much harder to get past for these old war horse of the pre and post Vatican II era than most people think.

2) There is a basic concern of the Latin American vacuum that the LCs filled after the council in forming the elite. This is why DePaolis has made it clear the LC must continue to the 'charism' of working with leaders..

3)The Holy See never really expected much to come from the Visitation. Remember it was an outsider, Cardinal Pell who voiced the obvious need for it,along with an escalation of the scandal in the press. Remember it started off as a confirmation party to give the LC some affirmation, i.e. help a wounded warrior. The number of personnel dedicated to it was still quite small, and the deadline short term, so as to bring it to a quick conclusion. As news rolled out about certain conclusion of the Visitors, this may have also added to a Curial perception that perhaps the Visitation itself was provoking the problem- rather than the cure. The Sodano-Rode party could easily say that it's interviews were reading the emotivity thermometers but not the objective facts of the institute. So there are many reasons to discount the Visitator- both by the original intention and the circumstances from which they believe their conclusion were drawn.

For me one word says it all- DENIAL. The unclear language, the perpetuation of a closed atmosphere of outside information around members, the tight management of processes of renewal. The control is there because taking it away would lead to the conclusion that the structure is not so good, the system for all its surface accommodation to the new evangelization and vocational renewal, is vacant of charism and spirituality. The very things the Holy See cannot give them.

If the Holy See had to accept in its completeness the 'finding of the fact' (US legal jargon) of the Visitation, it would have to have moved to dissolution/refoundation. We know for example that the Visitators themselves were recommending some path of exclaustration/ refoundation. It was just logical, it was the clear logic coming from the discovery of the facts.

The Holy See is just not there, and it seems to me they will only get there when it has become woefully obvious to everyone else in the world. The above being the reasons why I think they are slow to man up.

Hmmm... it seems to me, then, that the answer is to write letters to the CDF asking for clarification...

(Don't laugh... once, in college, I had great success writing to the head of the SJs! Twice! When God wants the letters to make it through, they will!)

The comments to this entry are closed.