An astute reader found an even more astute article here, which brilliantly shows how the Legion methodology reflects the methodology of the Communist Party. Please read the whole thing, but this is the most salient portion:
“[His] life has become so intertwined with the Party that his friendships, his associations, perhaps his very career or job, can be blasted by an expulsion. It is not that this threatening aspect is important to him at the time. He could never commit the sacrilege that Comrade X has committed; and the Party is fully justified in dealing summarily with those who endanger the cause of the future. Nevertheless, a gulf is created between him and the world around him. The image of burned bridges is apt. … Commitment creates in turn a deep sense of separation from ordinary people, a sort of inner mark of Cain.”
Now and then a trainee will give senior apparatchiks grounds for unease. As Meyer puts it: “‘He has personal problems’ is the nearest Communists ever come to admitting that perhaps there are some fortresses Bolsheviks cannot conquer.” Some, yes; but on the whole, amazingly few. Meyer gives a fairly flabbergasting account of how one comrade known to him was hauled before the relevant Party tribunal because of his homosexual tastes. Back then, Communists had no qualms about “homophobic” attitudes, and they assured Comrade H that his continued Party membership depended upon abandoning his blackmailable practices.
“There was not a trace of resentment or anger [in Comrade H] against the Party. What private hell he went through in the next two days I do not know; but when I met with him again 48 hours later, he had made his decision – for the Party. I knew him and worked with him over the next seven years. From every indication, he completely transformed his life. When I last saw him he was married to a very charming woman and was the father of two children, and he rose steadily in Party responsibility.”
Nobody knew better than Meyer’s fellow Party minders the absolute contempt – which the cadre member must at all costs internalize – for ordinary human nature. Contrasting this contempt with Kant’s Golden Rule about treating individuals as ends rather than as the means to ends, Meyer writes: “The whole of Communist training … drives towards the acceptance of the revolution as the end to which all things and all persons must be strictly subordinated as means … The good or evil in any situation is determined by whether it helps the revolution or impedes it.” And to bring about this happy outcome, no chance must be lost to keep the rank-and-file as purposelessly busy as possible. In this, as in so much else, those who run the Legionaries of Christ have proven remarkably devoted students of Marxist-Leninist praxis.
Indubitably Meyer, if he had lived to learn of the L.C.’s horrors, would have been appalled. But whether such horrors would have been altogether unimaginable to him, we may legitimately wonder. As he of all people knew: place any purely human organization “beyond good and evil” – to coin a phrase – and, sooner rather than later, that organization will become a cash-cow for the Maciels of this world. No-one who has read The Molding of Communists can retain a particle of doubt on this score.
L.C. hierarchy who continue to defend the indefensible evoke Boxer in Animal Farm, who greets every official outrage with the stoic words “If Napoleon says it, it must be right” and “I will work harder.”
I don't know who R.J.Stove is, but he's made his point well, that being that -- in the end -- a cult is a cult is a cult. The only quibble I have is his reference to "the sheer diabolical creativity." Technically, the devil doesn't create. He can copy creation with his mawkish duplicity, but there is nothing new in his work. Evil is evil is evil. Well done!