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.)

« LC comment on the reform | Main | "Manipulate or die" »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345201d369e2017617583699970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "I trust in our papal delegate":

Comments

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

The "faithful" 3gf's seem to have a simple idealized understanding of what the hierarchy of the Church is like. Obviously a cardinal representing the Pope has to be trustworthy, high minded, virtuous and probably saintly so it is best to just gobble up anything he says as absolute truth.
And of course no cardinal could be influenced by any amount of money or power or other favors. Twenty years of mind control, isolation and life of obedience reinforces this child like trust and gradually erodes critical thinking.

It is interesting that the Pope's butler recently testified that he saw evil and corruption everywhere in the Church and claims that was his reason for stealing documents. His true motives will become more clear as his trial proceeds but very few mature, thinking Catholics would be shocked to find that in the midst of all the power and riches in the Vatican there are some rotten apples in the hierarchy and power has a way of corrupting people.
What has DePaolis done to earn anyone's trust so far? Temporarily at least, he has inherited MM's power, control, use of vast wealth and it is quite probable he is influenced unduly by powerful and / or corrupt people not excluding organized criminals, Freemasons, communists and other powerful members of the Vatican hierarchy who have their own agendas. 3gf's please don't trust someone just because he wears a red hat. MM proved to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. His current successor has not yet proven that he is a straight shooter. You have been cheated, manipulated, used and deceived. You have been made overly dependent and your innermost secrets shared in mandatory spiritual direction may have been blabbed all over. DePaolis has spent two years with not much yet to show for his efforts and after he leaves the few minor improvements he has made could be undone.

Think for yourselves. It is your life at stake, not the guy in the red hat who is doing quite well for himself. What has he really done to improve your conditions?

Specifically, though, the delegate has used the same manipulative language to tie members to the status quo, bullying those who leave and misrepresenting the situation inside. For those reasons, he seems less trust-worthy -- although the 3gf's, with their self-imposed rules about what to read, couldn't know that.

Pardon me while I go to the vomitorium.

OK. I feel better now.

Where was this published, BTW?

Anyway, it's just more of the LC/RC PR: "I love the vocation that God gave me through the LC/RC."

Like I said before, it's just plain old FIDEISM. It doesn't matter what happened as long as we trust in the Papal Delegate, ie., God's will.

You see, they say they are reforming, but nothing has changed. That kind of fideism is open to manipulation by the superiors.

Oh my. I think I need to go to the vomitorium again.

OK. This article was published on live.regnumchristi.org

Out of curiosity, I clicked on some of the Blog Authors. It gives you a list of the articles each LC/RC has published and the number of comments. Almost all articles have " comment/s". That means almost nobody is reading their blog posts. TBTG

Thanks, Father. I did forget the link (inserted now).

I've been reading Mockinjay (the 3rd book of the Hunger Games series), and after watching Burtka's video and reading this I couldn't help relating their behavior to that of the Capitol (for those on the know, otherwise I highly recommend it). You know, nice propaganda, controlling what everyone can see, and when to see it. It didn't matter how bad the capitol is doing, they were always wining. And, were anyone to challenge the Capitol/Superiors, you'd immediately be screened and punished, either by death or humilation. Feel sorry for them, fire has been catching, they have been burning for long and they just want to keep going. Sad.

Excuse, but I am confused. Perhaps some one like Pete Vere could help.
There are at least 2 other groups of lay that make vows/promises of chastity, obedience and poverty that are not under any Canon law, including those of Secular Institutes. Those are lay members of OD, the Numerary, that sign a ”spiritual contract” and members of Memores Domini (CL) that take “counsel”.
Neither of these members are “consecrated virgins” since they do not profess these “promises” to the local bishop.
So how are they different from the 3gf that make “vows” in LCRC?
To me, all these groups are in a similar category of lay groups that profess private vows of chastity, obedience and poverty, mostly outside of canon law (there are canons for private vows and promises).
But there is historical precedence for this.
For example, Societe des Filles du Coeur de Marie was formed during the French Revolution, to circumvent persecution of religious orders.
They only became a Canon law defined group much later (Secular Institute).
It seems to me that the Curia is hedged, keeping some lay groups out of the Canonical sphere for a reason.
One reason maybe that is that it’s more flexible, from a curia organizational point of view, since in general, members of these groups say that they “all love the Pope”, and thus bypass at times pesky bishops (from a centralized point of view).
However, it seems to me, that there is a need of some general rules/canons regarding vows of chastity, obedience and poverty in any Church approved groups in general, in order to avoid manipulation of individuals, like seems to often to be the case. Its time to grow up, it seems to me.
Please correct if I am wrong.
List of US based Secular Institutes
http://www.secularinstitutes.org/directory.htm

Is it the term "consecrated" that is causing confusion? They are not "consecrated" as the Church defines what a "consecrated woman" is. Also, I have never really heard a 3gf describe what a consecrated woman in Regnum Christi actually is adequately or even clearly. One would think that should be a very clear explanation. They have always stumbled in the telling. Why is that? And then,there's consecrated men, as well. Sometimes I think that the lack of clarity (subterfuge) is their charism.

That is a good point, "consecrated", implies that 3gf are part of “consecrated life”, not some extra canonical ill defined lay group. Unfortunately, twisting the meaning of words seems to be part of the “new” pseudo orthodoxy in general, with “outside threats” as a cover. Things are not great, but certainly not to the level of the French Revolution. Thanks for the clarification, Seeking Truth.

The Church views private promises benignly, when undertaken freely and after good discernment. Women who make private promises of perpetual virginity sometimes decide, after years or decades of living out their promises, to make these promises more "official" and will then consult with the local bishop who will guide them to formally becoming Consecrated Virgins Living in the World, according to Canon 604. The women have jobs and support themselves financially so their ties to the diocese are spiritual; their "extracurricular activities" generally would be geared toward the spiritual life of the diocese.

Several brand-new lay groups have come up with a version of this of their own; the "consecrated" work for the group rather than the whole diocese though, and they don't receive the sacramental of "consecration" like "real" Consecrated Virgins. As long as the persons understand fully that they aren't clearly defined in Canon Law and that their status is informal as far as the rest of the Church is concerned, they can be "not quite Consecrated Virgins" all day long and we don't have to be terribly impressed. I have a personal suspicion that these spiritual reinventions of the wheel will not pass the test of time. However, any official Catholic group that wants to have their own version of "not quite Consecrated Virgins", has to submit their rules etc to the Vatican for approval. And Consecrated Virginity itself is not available to men. So that's the Catholic way...

I wonder, do other religious groups feel the need to constantly publicize their personal testimonies about their (so-called) vocation and beautiful experience with the group they joined? I think they doth protest too much. That, and they use these witnessing opportunities as booster shots to the faithful, to keep them swooning over the oh so beautiful RC (so-called) vocation.

In Regnum Christi, girls are pressured into making private promises that they don't understand, pressed by a LAY spiritual director (the sd problems are a whole nother post) not of her own choosing! (cue "Psycho" music). The girls live a hybrid lay-nun combo, in which they depend on the Movement for their financial support like nuns and their orders, but without the reciprocal promise of support in their old age like nuns have. The rules they live under, it turns out, are mostly extra ones "stuck in there" after Vatican approval; only about 10% of the rules they've been living under were the ones approved. (No wonder they sued Paul Lennon for posting the rules on exlegionaries! We thought at the time it was because they didn't want you and me to see them, but it turns out Peter Hopkins didn't want ROME to see the rules lol). Since their founder was a "False prophet" pedophile, their formation and SD is set up the way a pedophile goes about "grooming" his victims. The girls have evidently been told that they ought to give unprompted "spiritual direction" to laywomen, even if the laywomen don't want it. (Or, the Legion preys on the laywomen's pride with the "only special Catholics get SD and of course we're the mostest bestest of the bestest Catholics so you get SD!!!!111!!" hook). So, in Legionism, discernment is imposed from the outside, rather than organically arising from within like in Catholicism. SD/formation dialogue looks more like "grooming victims" than Catholic SD, and there are rules that weren't supposed to be there. (Even if those are gone now, the leaders were formed by these rules.) Also, 3gfs were told that they were better than real nuns, when they're a tolerated, quirky, asterisk status within Holy Mother Church. So Velasio de Paolis is crazier than a bag of squirrels if he thinks this is a good thing. Or he doesn't know what he's talking about. Or he's corrupt.

Okay, I'm a housewife, so this might not be 100% spot on but I think these posts describe the situation in conversational English pretty well.

The princes and other clergy of the Church would look pretty damned silly if housewives and the rest of us laity who just hold jobs, get married, and raise families weren't around. Good comment, Jeannette.

I do not think the matter as of late deals with whether or not they pertain to the order of virgins, rather in what manner they pertain to consecrated life in the Church as such.

It falls to Church to approve new forms of consecrated life- but there are amorphous unregulated expressions of it as 'lay consecration' that have a very tenuous nod from the Holy See, and these mainly emerged from ecclesial movements. They have provoked many problems. Scipio and I exchange on this matter here:
http://www.life-after-rc.com/2012/03/pressing-for-an-investigation/comments/page/2/#comments

I make the case that once a lifelong consecration under the evangelical counsels is carried out it must be regulated to protect the good of the person who is living this state of life with all that is canonically normative for consecrated life-- in this case a structure akin to a secular institute. BUT these groups think they are too special for such a designation. They say 'we are lay' to merely defend how they wish to be unregulated. It is ridiculous- the real distinction is that between a public form of consecration (as in religious) or a private form (as in secular institutes) - but regulated they must be.

I believe in that discussion I ended up concluding that in all truth these 'new forms' were really just rogue attempts at secular institutes, and the sooner they were given the protections and normative traditions of such institutes, the better off they would be.

Nonetheless such words are wasted on the 3GF who are just afterthoughts of a twisted attempt at consecrated life. Without a rich spirituality/charism that carries the proper characteristics for women in a lifelong commitment under the counsels, it all make little sense.

Cannon Law cannot foresee all the forms of consecrated life that may come up in history, so new groups are given a degree of freedom during a period of discernment. Discernment here is an unromantic process of trial and error.
In a hundred years people may look back and say that this was a period in which the Church discerned that some forms of consecrated life are very, very bad ideas.
On the broader point of trusting the hierarchy: the Holy Spirit does grant a charism of governance to members of the hierarchy, so cooperating with the Papal delegate is the best path for LC/RC, if the other option is NOT cooperating with the Papal Delegate.
LCs use Church approval, or nowadays Church life-support, as a way to shut down discussion. "We are approved by the Church so that is that." was a typical LC retort when they were losing an argument about the validity of their operation. This is not even fideism, it is a defense mechanism.
Had MM broken down and just for a minute sincerely cooperated with the Church instead of lying, bribing and manipulating, the Legion would never have existed.
The Church today is trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Spot on, another ex. The best of a bad situation that has to be solved by the LCs and 3GFs. In De Paolis' own words he is not here to do the reform but just to accompany it. So Jill Preisack is heavily mistaken when she thinks reform can be done in spite of LCs and 3GFs. Their form of lay consacration is yet to be defined, but they do not belong to consecrated life in the Church, but rather remain lay, canonically speaking.

"I wonder, do other religious groups feel the need to constantly publicize their personal testimonies about their (so-called) vocation and beautiful experience with the group they joined?"

Yes - the Mormon church, for instance, encourages its members to bear their testimony publicly and with regularity.

Allow me to briefly clarify a few things.

Consecrated Virgins do NOT make promises or vows of any kind to their bishop. Like a priest, the bishop prays the prayer of consecration over them and they become the Bride of Christ. The Consecrated Virgin is a member of the Order of Virgins (like a priest whether he's diocesan or religious is in the Order of Presbyters), but it's not a Religious order. She reports to her bishop directly, who represents Christ to her in her apostolic works.

A laywoman with private promises is not in the consecrated state. She *might* be imitating those in the consecrated state (like apostolic society members imitate religious life but remain lay or ordained), but she is not living a Church form of consecrated life (except approved forms and apparently RC is not one because they were approved as a third order kind of movement with LC) and she is not in the consecrated state.

Private vows are just that. Private. You can make a private vow to make a pilgrimage to Our lady of Knock shrine. You can promise poverty, chastity, and obedience (I do NOT recommend this if you are a layperson not attached to any Church recognized group that is capable of receiving the promise - and the RC groups do not qualify as being legitimate superiors to whom one may promise obedience and have these promises received in the name of the Church which is a requirement for consecrated life (not to mention consecrated state which is an entirely different thing altogether). Your pastor can dispense you from any and all private vows that don't harm the rights of another. As a matter of fact, I discourage all laywomen who ask from making any private vows of obedience and poverty because it doesn't make sense outside of a communal environment with an authentic superior and the ability to share the burden of administering property.

Again, CVs are not 3gfs nor or 3gfs CVs for the simple reason that they are ontologically different. CVs do NOT make vows or promises as part of their vocation. NONE. They represent the Church. They are given a special annointing of the Holy Spirit. They alone specifically share the title of Bride of Christ with the Church (as one CV pointed out in a post at Phatmass. They are commissioned to be "apostles in the Church and in the world", they are told to do the works of mercy. They have a special bond with the bishop. They are in the consecrated state not lay state. They are consecrated body and soul as a bride of Christ. None of these things are true of 3gfs. They are laywomen making private promises to God that in all probability are invalid anyway given the circumstances, bound together in a rather destructive social group with only a slightly higher standing in the Church than the local parish bingo group or the some other random group. They were not and are not consecrated. They are dedicated. Consecration comes from the ministry of the Church upon those to be consecrated in approved forms of life or institutes.

I would say the the RC structure - if it were to become a form of consecrated life - would be most similar to a Secular Institute or even a Society of Apostolic Life. They don't even come close to imitating the Order of Virgins (consecrated virgins).

It's the Duplicity - I should have been clearer. I meant "Catholic religious groups". For example, do we see Carmelites, or Claretians, or Benedictine sisters writing glowing articles about their own lovely life in their respective religious order? Do they post these articles on their own websites, offering testimony to their own members?

Thank you Teresa Ivers. So in a nutshell (and please correct me) a Regnum Christi 3gf is not a consecrated virgin anointed by the Holy Spirit and therefore not a bride of Christ. She is merely a lay person who has made a promise to live a certain way. She is not under any true order of virgins. However, she, like any layperson, is under the protection of her Bishop in case there is any type of abuse.

According to Canon 207, there are only clerical and lay states or orders. Either one of these may be also consecrated by professing the evangelical counsels.

St. Brendan the Navigator Catholic Community
August 12, 2012 Bulletin

http://www.stbrendansatl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/August_12_2012.pdf


Consecrated Women Open
House – Today!
Sunday, August 12 from 1:00 -4:00
p.m. (995 Peachtree Parkway - next
to Pinecrest Academy).
Come take a closer look at where
they live, work and pray. Find out
first hand just how they bring Christ
to others through their missionary
work, evangelization and their work
in local parishes like St. Brendan the
Navigator!
This family-friendly day has
something for everyone, with food,
activities for young children, and
volleyball and basketball for the
older kids. Please join us as we
learn more about these beautiful
women, consecrated to Christ to
serve His Church! Questions can be
directed to Monica Frese at
monicafrese@me

@mary ann- True, but there is another canon that discusses the consecrated state as being distinct from ordained and lay states!

@ Dingledore

Yes, RC members are like any other of the laity who are also under the care of their bishops. But the bishops are unlikely to assist women who did not properly discern and become victims anymore than you see bishops help the poor on the street. Don't get me started on that subject. I rant about a similar problem with religious orders in my dowry post on my vocations website.

Consecrated State members = religious (men and women), diocesan hermits professed under canon 603, and consecrated virgins consecrated by their bishops.

Consecrated Form Of Lifestyle Members (all the above plus):

Secular Institutes (members are clerical for clerical institutes or lay) These people are the only people who can be called "Consecrated lay persons". They don't belong to the consecrated state but they are given a true consecration upon their profession of vows or promises. (Sorry RC people!)

Societies of Apostolic life actually just "imitate" consecrated life. They are neither consecrated nor are they in the consecrated state. They are dedicated bands of persons with a common mission.

Again, Secular Institutes seem to be the closest church vocation which RCs are aping.

P.S. Dedication or privately dedicated layperson/cleric is a correct way of defining the lay person or priest/deacon under private vow(s). Consecration is more specific. It is a gift from God. You don't consecrate yourself, you can dedicate yourself and you can vow something, but you can't consecrate yourself. Only God can do that. One reason why 3gfs get confused with consecrated virgins is that 3gfs say that they "consecrate themselves". Well, they don't, theologically and canonically speaking. Their claim demeans the real consecration of persons (bishops, abbots/abbesses, consecrated virgins, religious, etc.) because of their sloppy use of the word. I could claim that I'm a priest. I am indeed a priest. But I am not an ordained priest! Bit of a difference isn't there?

The comments to this entry are closed.