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.)

« "Close help" from pope continues | Main | Thinking "inside the box" »


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

1. I am somehow speechless when the whole justification of the reform/renewal is that somehow the Maciel effect (acknowledged here to be in his personal life and in his writings, etc..) is somehow neutralized by the reading of charism solely from each member's memory, an experience that MM historically authored just as much as any book he wrote. It is just a non-sequitur.

2. When Gil says- "It may be difficult to accept that God may use a flawed individual to start a congregation, but that’s how it is" This is a kind of fatalism, an imposed resignation to a tragic loss of any tested ideal of holiness worthy of the name, an ideal that every other congregation owns but has eluded those "stubborn Legionaries." Where is good morale to come from- if all members have are their individual and divergent imaginations to draw on? for no honest history will support it! So if one is using the tradition of religious life in the Church as a measure, the glaring omission jumps right out-- LC has NO objective tested historical witness of holiness to reference in foundation.

3. On the Jesuits and Opus etc... The Maciel effect is so very much here, in as much as MM wanted the LC and himself to have the prize of being the best and most powerful in whatever was the most important ecclesial structures of the day. He worked to make the LCs measure up to and "be better" than the Jesuits, and when Opus Dei was a bright shining star for laity, he made Regnum Christi to be like them, and to surpass them. Is that a charism?- merely trying to be better than any of the more influential groups in the Church? Is this not why the LC still cannot articulate their place in the Church,or their specific apostolic charism?

Circular reasoning and gobbledygook.

Nothing has changed - the denials continue under new leadership.

I add two more questions. Will the new Constitutions be public or only "ad usum privatum"? And how come you've done away with one of the two private vows? Maybe the first one didn't belong to the charism but the second did?

@Scipio's Buddy, the Constitutions will be public once approved as has been stated in various venues:
One of the vows was supressed even when you were in the Legion. The other one was not. God bless.

I would argue that as long as there are no provincial chapters, who elect their provincial superior unencumbered by the superior general, that a 'shadow private vow' to never critique decisions of the major superiors will exist. No promotions will be had, no appointment to higher authority will occur until one has met the loyalty tests of all powerful General Director, reigning from his throne in Rome.

Question for Jorge:

In your above comment to Scipio's Buddy, that's the second or third time that you have placed a name in parentheses when addressing him. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to disclose the identity of another commenter on this board who prefers to remain private? Must be more of that lc/rc charity and that terrific formation you received in the Legion.

Since you feel at liberty to violate the privacy of others, Jorge, why don't you tell us who you are? Tell us your first and last name, and your role/connection within the Legion and its lay branch, Rectum Ecclesia? If you're man enough (-not!) to reveal someone else's identity but are too afraid publicly state your own, then you have shown yourself to be a total weasel.

I have no identity problem. I used an alias while a Legionary and then I continued to use it. Thank you, Jorge, for the answer number one. The answer number two is no answer.

Giselle, kindly remove what is in parentheses in my post. I was not aware this was against the rules of this blog. I will refrain from this in the future.

Welcome back Jorge, Just wanted to greet you with this news:

the abusive Mama Rosa was a disciple of Maciel and the legionaries supported that pigsty, disgusting center where sexual and physical abuse seemed rampant. She was directly formed by Maciel - hard to deny that I think.

I am urging dioceses in the US to ban the Legionaries and Regnum Christi. They are a danger to the Catholic Church that Christ founded.

Little Light: what you state is total nonsense and full of ill will.

Did you read the article? She met Maciel in Cotija, she was trained by Maciel and then he gave her the money to start her house for unwanted kids. Where does the ill will come from if this is historically correct? And the awful conditions have been confirmed - they are all over every newspaper in Mexico. There were literally tons of garbage, rats, bed bugs and cockroaches everywhere. The abuse is fully documented with the PGR. Where are you getting that this is not the case? Are you a member of the family of Mama Rosa? Are you related to Vicente Fox or his secretary turned lover turned wife Martha Sahagun? Are you related to the alcalde of Zamora, Michoacan? I can't see any reason to deny hard facts and no ill will intented ehh !! Just the facts please.

The Legion was giving money to support it and this has Regnum Christi written all over it. Again, no ill will - just facts, facts, facts. What have you got Luis?

Now if I was to say that she paid favors to Maciel to get the initial start up money for her pigsty, disgusting house of horrors that might be stretching things a bit. So I avoided conjecture and just stuck to the facts. Please do the same. Thanks so much for being a good sport.

Father's answer: "I think the founder was very, very present in the general chapter, not his person, but the foundational inspiration he transmitted. He was present in the Legionaries who are today the bearers of the charism." That is the whole point. Maciel was the inspiration for this order and he was doing evil things. The order was started for ulterior motives: access to children and money in the name of the Church. He was not just "flawed" as Robles Gil says, MM was engaging in criminal behavior from the beginning. It is not that he will not be declared a saint because of venial sins - he was engaged throughout his life in mortal sins, including the abuse of children and sacrilege. There can be no future in the Church for a movement started by a pedophile/womanizer/drug addict/thief/con artist/liar. The roots of this order are corrupt and demonic. Get out before you lose your soul!

And your sources are...?

Agree, A&W! Yet the Church continues to prop up this outfit. Sickening.

@luis_a: are you seriously asking if A&W can prove that MM was engaged in criminal activity? Have we come this far to have persons unconvinced of his depravity? Surely I must have misunderstood your request for sources...

Giselle: I only want to know how on earth you are attributing the miserable paedophile Maciel's evil deeds to Mrs. Rosa Verduzco and her fantastic work of decades for the poorest of the poor.
I know her, I have been to her orphanage. This is just a disgusting lynch mob due to the US alarm over the catastrophic influx of unaccompanied children from Central America and Mexico to the US.
Please try to separate things. Maciel has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

And in case you are really interested in reading about this case, please go to the following sites of two of Mexico's main literary magazines and other papers, where you will find some of the most serious intellectuals and journalists absolutely incensed with this blatant injustice.
I take it for granted that you have already read extensively on the case, and know very well who Le Clézio, Poniatowska, Meyer, Aguilar Camín, Lydia Cacho, Gabriel Zaid et al. are... But just in case Little Light (whose Spanish I'm sure is perfect and has also read extensively on the case) would like to review his irresponsible and thoroughly unfair statement.
(Links in following comment)

I do hope the machine will accept these links:

And, Little Light, the paedophile's sorry outfit wouldn't touch Mamá Rosa's orphanage with a bargepole... These were POOR, DESTITUTE children... And again: PLEASE QUOTE YOUR SOURCES. You are committing a grave sin of calumny.

I quoted SDP noticias. I think they are a serious media outlet, but maybe not. This story has inspired strong feelings of both anger and loyalty. I am sorry if I have offended your sensibility. However I based my conclusions on what has been presented as the facts.

I once visited Covenant House in NYC and thought the world of Fr. Ritter. Then I found out that he was committing sexual abuse and financial improprieties.

Martha Sahagun whose personal confessor and spiritual director was Marcial Maciel is up to her eyeballs in LC/RC projects. I don't trust her so her ratification of Mama Rosa was a negative factor. I hope she is innocent, but another story has come along:

Maybe we can wait for the dust to settle and then revisit this later since you feel so strongly about it. I hope you are right, but I think best to suspend judgement until all the facts come out. If she was connected to Maciel then her goose is cooked.

"If", as you just wrote.
Who was judging and condemning?

The facts are pointing in the same direction I am. Actually it is an avalanche. Just doesn't look good Luis...

"The facts". Aha. Which "facts"?
Where do you live? Are you so cognizant of Mexican politics -since when? Have you ever lived in Zamora?
Do you at least read Spanish fluently?
Have you consulted the links I posted?
You are writing out of spite and ill faith. And being calumnious.

The comments to this entry are closed.