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.)

« "Feel the competence" | Main | The "disembodied charism" »


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

Nothing new here yet.
The case still has not gone to trial. It also has political overtones.

Well, yes, there is something new. Charges have been officially filed by the Attorney General. The investigative phase is over. An announcement has been made regarding the sentence being sought. Now court date will be sent.
I fail to see evidence of any political overtones. Can you be more specific please and present your case.

Monk, are you saying the accusation and his arrest are politically motivated? Does this mean the accusation is false, in your opinion? And if so, who benefits, politically?

Off topic

Deomar Deguedes that was number 2 in LC, has left the priesthood ...

Another testimony of lack of discernment and induced vocations.

It is a knee-jerk reaction for a legionary to defend the legion/other legionaries without thinking.

Someone else reminded us of cults using thought-stopping phrases when the cult is challenged. "Politicial overtones" is a great example of this. It used to be the communists - Maciel blamed them for many things, including plane delays. I wonder who it is now?

What I find disgusting about this story, among many things, is the Media defence that O'Reilly launched way back at the start. He pulled a few favours with journalists and had glossy pictures and articles published in his own orchestrated defence.

Can a man defend himself? Of course. But you release a statement, maybe through a lawyer or spokesman. You don't take pay to take out a few pages in a national newspaper and model for photos.

The phrases "Nothing new here..." and "political overtones" are definitely class cult thought-stoppers. So classic that their use in the comment would be laughable if the subject weren't so tragic -- so many people have been fooled, manipulated, and abused -- so many souls twisted.

Deomar finally discerned his vocation...more will follow.

Regarding Chile, does anyone have any contact with Patricio Jaramillo, Marcelo Venegas, Patricio Cerda or another chilean? It would be good to get a chilean to explain the situation.

I bet they are on facebook...

Has RC withered up and collapsed in the Atlanta Archdiocese? Or are they still snaring new victims into the cult?

The statement that Fr Deomar Deguedes has left the priesthood is unfounded. As a member of the priestly council where Fr Deomar is presently exercising his ministry, no mention has been made of his desire to leave the priesthood. If estatua has any other documentation, please post.

Good to know Fr. John.

Not saying this pertains to Fr. Deomar- but I think it would be normal that some of those departing, given the pressure created to stay that sadly escalated with DePaolis, would need some time of decompression, and a very gradual transition into parish ministry.

So there are productive leaves of absence that are not the same as someone initiating the process of laicization.

So you want these priests to transition gradually or any other way into diocesan life? Assuredly one faking holiness has infiltrated. A wildly popular pathological liar like his ex-founder who uses people for his own gain ...fooling merciful Catholics with a collar. What's a priest without a conscience? A wolf in sheep's clothing.


The case has not yet gone to trial so, innocent until proven guilty. Or, do you believe otherwise?

Knowledgeable friends in Chile, who are neither LC nor O'Reilly supporters, tell me that there is lots of "political" motivaton behind the allegations. O'Reilly, and the LC were cozy with the rich and influential. Lots of people don't like them.

As an LC, I was never an O'Reilly fan. That does not make him guilty. So your assertion that these points of mine are "class cult thought-stoppers" is unadulterated horse-radish. It's so easy to make those blanket, self righteous, statements. There is nothing laughable about the case; I have no idea if the man is guilty or innocent. However your moniker of "HonestyPlease" doesn't seem to apply when you apparently condemn the man without formal proof. That's a peculiar sort of honesty. Let's hear the evidence and get through the trial before we condemn him, or any other priest.

Yes, "many people have been fooled, manipulated, and abused -- so many souls twisted"... however it seems very "twisted" to me to condemn someone without hearing the evidence first. Just because he is LC does not make him guilty. To assert otherwise smells of the very fanaticism we condemn in the congregation. Time will tell. But let's wait for the outcome of the trial.

"Classic cult thought-stoppers" is a condemnation of the phrases, "Nothing new here yet" and "political overtones."

We parents won't be lulled into enabling perpetrators of these vicious crimes against innocent children -- certainly not by dismissive phrases like "nothing new" and "political overtones" -- which imply that the charges are most likely false -- and that the case doesn't deserve our attention.

Been there. Done that.

Honesty. Please.

'Phrases like "nothing new" and "political overtones" -- most certainly do NOT imply that the charges are most likely false -- nor that the case doesn't deserve our attention.'

The case is not new and there has been no significant new evidence made public. Like it not, there are political overtones when priests are accused of abuse. Nor does this mean they are not guilty. I don't know how familiar you are with the background in Chile?

Until you have more information, upon which to base your judgement, your implication that O'Reilly has actually engaged in "vicious crimes against children" is your personal speculation which you choose to broadcast suggesting that only you are being "honest."

I too am a parent and grandparent. Please don't try to suggest that I might be lulling you, or anyone else, into enabling perpetrators of these vicious crimes. I choose not to condemn publicly until I have my facts lined up. That's very different.

O'Reilly has been removed from ministry and, I believe, the children are out of harm's way as far as he is concerned. Is it too much to ask that we wait for the outcome of a trial?

Monk, the problem I have with what you said (Nothing new here yet.
The case still has not gone to trial. It also has political overtones.) is that it gives a very strong impression that we should disregard the news article as not being worthy and that we should not even discuss it.

It is not your fault, of course, what people infer from what you say, but I see it as defensive.

You imply much more than what you have stated quite simply, whether you intend it or not. You say:
1. There is nothing new in this article.
2. It hasn't gone to trial yet.
3. It has political overtones.

but the article does indeed present new facts: the presentation of the warrant of prosecution made at the start of this month and also the alleged requests to be made for two sentences of ten years etc. This is new.

The article is about the process underway leading to trial, so obviously we know it hasn't happened yet.

There is nothing in the article about any political sway or bias. You brought that fish up in a sweeping statement and it stinks. Later on you beef it up with generalisms but I don't buy it at all and think it is a smoke screen.

You may bring up your ideas and opinions, of course you can, but I get a very strong whiff of trying to influence thought.

I repeat that a legionary will immediately create and look for, AND BE TOLD, excuses to defend any "attack" or scandal on the legion. I believe that you are doing this here. How many LCs have informed your opinions on this directly?

And, FYI, anyone can make a decision about whether they think someone is guilty or not. That is quite common. It is voicing an opinion, not a fact. It would be a strange thing to not have an opinion, to freeze our judgment capacity and prevent critical thought.

I don't KNOW if he is guilty or not, I know what I BELIEVE. I know that others will and do believe differently to me. Some may indeed not know what they think, but we are allowed to think about it one way or another, reach a decision and talk about it.

It may be your opinion that there is a political bias in this case, but even if there is one (which I have no evidence of apart from your friends who also are simply voicing an opinion, not any facts), it does not mean that he can't be guilty. He may be guilty and be a victim of political prosecution at the same time.

I don't come by too often, I stopped by to see if anyone was commenting on the new American appointment.

Aaron, you are exceptionally articulate. I always enjoy reading your comments and I have always sensed you are a very good and decent person.

I think we should stop focusing on priests and worry more about protecting our country from non-Christian influences and supporting our troops. Defend our country and friends.


You found the wrong blog. Go to a rehab center and see what these wars leave on soldiers before you come on here to proclaim the need for more wars. There is no country better off today, including our own, after so many years of a Bush inspired war frenzy. Much of the positive results are simply churned out by a highly advanced propaganda machine.

This blog is about justice and truth for ex LC & RC members which the Church never sought.

The situation in Chile is important b/c it shows that countries are starting to believe that the Church is no longer exempt from the process of justice.

How can you be sure we haven't been focusing on non-Christians? Certainly a priest is called to be a Christian but wearing a collar doesn't make it so. The xLC I know resembles satan far more than Christ. This is not rash judgment but based on facts of his behavior. And the way to defend our country from any enemy is through holiness. We need holy priests of heroic proportions to lead us & show us by example rather than relying solely on impressive words in polished homilies. Where are the modern day St John Vianneys & Padre Pios? If there is one out there, please pray for us. Yes, this blog is for justice, but will I feel justice was served if my priest is removed from ministry so he can't abuse others? Although I may think that needs to happen, the only real justice for us is the complete conversion of the LCs & xLCs who need it because God desires nothing less.

@USA: it's not an either/or situation. We could just as well say let's stop worrying about cults in the Church and focus on what the latest Kim Jung So-and-so is doing in North Korea. There are lots of ills in the world, and the one we focus on here is the Legion of Christ. It's our Christian duty.


As usual, I don't think we are far apart. I appreciate your comment that I have no control over what others may choose to infer... from something I am not implying.

Anyone who saw the RTE documentary or read my book (including the prologue about MM's "leadership' in the new Kindle editions) knows my position vis a vis the LC.

I have not spoken to any LC about O'Reilly. My knowledge of the case comes from my reading of Chilean news clips, business trips to Santiago, and the comments of informed lay people who are not LC supporters who have met O'Reilly at a religious service he performs (Way of the Cross). That's why they too have followed the case from a distance.

My personal perspective is that grave harm has been done to some priests who have been falsely accused. Subsequent "acquittal" hardly undoes the damage. I feel much the same about those heart-rending cases of people falsely convicted of murder - only to be exonerated 20 years later by DNA evidence. O'Reilly may very well be guilty; I am in no position to "defend" him. The judicial system is working in Chile so, on this Holy Thursday, I am inclined to wait for a judgement while, meanwhile, I give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

Getting back to "inferences." The fact that I believe one is innocent until proven guilty (not a principle of justice by the way in many countries including Mexico) does not mean I am defending O'Reilly. I realize that we can be hypersensitive about the guilt of priests in general and LC in particular and God knows there is much to be angry about. But I don't want to engage in a sort of mob reaction that I know can do so much damage. I believe in justice - a commodity that has been sorely lacking in all of the scandalous affairs related to the LC.

So please accept this explanation for what it is. It is not a defense but rather a plea not to rush to judgement. MM knew little of compassion, mercy, and charity. He taught us not to trust each other, to snitch on one another, and not to engage in critical thinking. Those of us now happily outside the LC, I think, should break cleanly with his form of thinking and revert in as much as we can to the ideals of Christian charity - hard as that may be.

I wish you and LARC readers a Happy Easter.

It is manipulative to draw a similarity between "rushing to judgement" and linking that to Maciel (universally acknowledged as evil)--what a sneaky, indirect way of saying those who believe the accused/suspected child abuser is guilty are being like Maciel.

Like or not, Monk (and yes, I've read your book--in fact I'm curious how many references to it you've made on this website since you so often remind readers of your position as a former LC form the good ol' days who was very close to Maciel, but you have left and are healed and free of those petty little LC problems we all keep bringing up--just like our aversion to child abusers…), people will decide for themselves what to believe--whether an accused child abuser is guilty, whether a suspected sex offender should be shunned, and whether the LC/RC are capable of reform or not. As you pointed out, not all subscribe to "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to cases of sex abuse so perhaps it's time to accept and respect the thoughts of others. Good Friday might be a good day for that.

Thank God for mothers who have suspicions and act on them to protect children. I have not seen that type of caution on the part of Holy Mother Church, and many, many children have suffered as a result.

As regards priests who are innocent being condemned, it does happen, and not only in the case of priests. However, I have read in several solid studies that approximately 95% of the cases reported are actually true. The problem is that victims find it extremely difficult to go through the trauma of court cases, media spotlights etc.
As regards the JOR case, I have it from a sound source that there were others also, but the partents are afraid to come forward. He has the best law firm in Chile to defend him and the fact of hving placed an ad in the countries's major newspaperr with 1054 signatures in his favor is also to be considered pressure in his favor. If he has so many friends in high places, which he has, including the ex-mayor of Santiago, then it is not surprising that families of possible victims wouldn't want to come forward, as it might mean economic ruin for them.
I don't know whether he is guilty or not, but I think the prosecution will have a hard time winning the case, if he actually did what he is accused of. He was the most high profile priest in Chile, so I can imagine that not all folks there were fans of his and that some might want to harm him.
One strange thing is that he was appointed chaplain and spiritual director of a school with 5 o 6 year old children and he used to pull them out of class for "spiritual direction". Isn't this weird?

Spiritual direction to a 5 or 6 year old is beyond weird. However it is also true that LCs were programmed to plant the message at an early age and never were troubled with speaking with mom and dad to get their permission. God gave them permission and I guess that was enough. One priest used confession to invite kids to the apostolic school. They were about 8 or 9 years old. The Church has still not put its foot down and this sends a bad message no matter how the JOR case comes out. LCs and kids don't mix - the temptation to manipulate kids during spiritual moments is just too great while they are starving for affection...


I've been away for a few days, and I see that you've provided a response that is much better than anything I could have said.

Your courage and sincerity are refreshingly un-cultish.


The comments to this entry are closed.