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.)

« Question about Our Lord | Main | "Unviable in the foreseeable future" »


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

"Private" vows??????

Didn't the Legion have a little problem with those?


This is a true account recorded in the Police Log of Sarasota, Florida:

An elderly Florida lady did her shopping and, upon returning to her car, found four males in the act of leaving with her vehicle. She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, proceeding to scream at the top of her lungs, "I have a gun, and I know how to use it! GET OUT OF THE CAR!"...

The four men didn't wait for a second threat. They got out and ran like mad.

The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags into the back of the car and got into the driver's seat. She was so shaken that she could not get her key into the ignition. She tried and tried, and then she realized why. It was for the same reason she had wondered why there was a football, a Frisbee, and two 12-packs of beer in the front seat.

A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four or five spaces farther down. She loaded her bags into the car and drove to the police station to report her mistake. The sergeant to whom she told the story couldn't stop laughing. He pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a carjacking by a mad, elderly woman described as white, less than five feet tall, glasses, curly white hair, and carrying a large handgun.

No charges were filed.


Between what we intend by our actions and the objective reality there can be quite a gulf... Could Nancy Nohrdren be having a Senior moment?

People can promise whatever they want to God, but it is only when the Church receives the promise, which she does under her binding and loosing authority, does it become a vow, binding the subject to its obligations, in the Catholic and ecclesiastical sense of that term.

So please tell us- what legitimately constituted authority received the vows? Did they have the faculties to do so?

What part of "(…) el Cardenal nos hizo ver que no era posible firmar un convenio con valor jurídico mientras no estuvieran erigidas canónicamente las asociaciones de las ramas consagradas por la Santa Sede" do they still not get?"

The Cardinal made us see that it was not possible to sign the document [of the General Assembly] with juridical weight while the two branches of consecrated life were still not canonically established."

Here's an example of a pretty heart-felt private vow. It should be noted that she was still free to change her mind at anytime afterward:

Haha. Another clip comes to mind but I can't find it on youtube: the wedding scene (Charley and Jean) from Brigadoon, where they simply say (breathlessly), "I'll love ya, till I die!"

It was a promise within the community because no priests/ministers were available. No Church to back it up, nothing but good intentions of each partner.

It just occurred to me why this is a delicate theme for them- DePaolis had to treat them as if they were under vows to keep them all from flying the coop in the days of the start of Totus Tuus. The truth is that was a lie to make them stay. No other way to put it. In that moment not a single one of their promises was binding or valid in the Church. Now maybe the Church will do some radical sanation- retroactively- to fix it up, but it will not take away from this truth of history. They were lied to by MM and DePaolis and they show no interest in stopping the cycle.

Very clever point AnonObserv: People can promise whatever they want to God, but it is only when the Church receives the promise, which she does under her binding and loosing authority, does it become a vow, binding the subject to its obligations, in the Catholic and ecclesiastical sense of that term.

The change of words means nothing new. They still are lay people with promises made to God which whatever priest can dissolve.
In this sense the vow of virginity taken by some girl before her bishop has more "value" (ecclesiastical sense of term) that this 3gf vows made before some superior who represents a non-existent institute. The "value" before God, only Him can say...

Then, they say that the intention before God is the only thing that matters... So, they are throwing the whole Church with that sentence.

Estatua: even then in most cases among third orders and by prior statute in RC, no dispensation from a priest is required, but may be sought for peace of conscience. Only a letter from the departing member is asked for declaring their intentions.

By their own definition a vow is not a promise. As they said, it is a SOLEMN promise.

I am unaware of how much of a theologian is Ms Nordhen, but my gut tells me that the word "solemn" does add some weight to it, theologically speaking.

I think it is like the pledge allegiance. You promise an allegiance in a devotional manner, but doesn't mean you will go to jail if you hold dual citizenship and you decide to join the Israeli army for instance.

An oath made by a Marine, will defenitively get him into big trouble if he considers to do something like that.

Sure, maybe the former soldier might say the pledge of allegiance even while serving in a foreign army. Nonetheless he is not bound, he won't be able to take the oath of enlistment.

We might say we might be too picky and claim that it all boils down to semantics. I think it is very true that sometimes we shouldn't focus on words too much. But sometmes even a small iota can make the difference between orthodoxy and heresy, eg "homoousios" and "homoiousios".

Basically "vows" under "spiritual direction" that does not need to follow canons that that mitigate abusive, coercive practices that infringe on the conscious and privacy of individuals (in contrast to religious orders, where SD is regulated under canons 240 and 983, for example).

Just a note on terminology to avoid confusion:
-Temporal vs Perpetual Vows: Temporal are for a set period of time, Perpetual are for life
-Simple vs Solemn:
Religious Orders (typically monastic), make solemn vows wherein the religious cannot own personal property of any sort; simple vows, more proper to religious congregations- are those vows where the member still retains the right to own private property, but can only use it or dispose of it with permission.

The anchoress site was not all that clear on this last point.

The custom of signing the vows as part of the ceremony is proper to religious orders, and perhaps more the custom of monastic communities, not so with religious congregations, who sign a document after the ceremony that is kept in the group's archives.

Well, in spite of their not very clear disntinction between promise and vows, the RC are going to begin reviewing their statues (which apparently "remain in force"). A process of at least two years, if approved.

I am a bit surprised, the Lc's do not have approved contitutions. Not to mention that the question regarding their charism remains as fathomless as ever. And with the 3GF latest cannonical "understanding" of vow and promise, I feel this will be them just pretending there's a reform. Sure, some things have change. Some Lc's can have their Facebook accounts, and they use clerical shirts instead of suits. But their core remains the same. Look at the people in charge of the Legion, many of them are superiors chosen under and by Maciel (including their General Director). And with people like Solana in charge, I do not expect this to be a revolutionary makeover. If anything it looks like they are just adding some make up to cover their true selves.

I can only hope this time they don't try to blindside their members again by adding unapproved cannons.

So reading the letter to The 1st and 2nd degree members, Fr Gil refers to the Charism ..... Have they got one now? Has it actually been defined?

"Following this reflection period, during Pentecost 2016, a new phase will begin involving the entire RC family, including Legionaries, consecrated members and 1st and 2nd degree members, to determine 'the canonical configuration' or that is, 'the most appropriate juridical expression in order to foster communion in the mission we share,' writes Fr. Eduardo."

They really are "neither fish nor fowl" at this point, aren't they? Through this renewal process, are they hoping to arrive at an answer to what "canonical configuration" best suits them? It's hard to begin a journey that actually brings you from Point A to Point B if you don't know where you are heading.

- Wait a minute: Is not the period 'revision and reform' over? Was this not a supervised process by the Delegate?

- I think Gil has copped on to what DePaolis was onto, by getting the members imagination all wrapped up in "reform" meetings and assemblies, they can prevent departures and bolster commitment among the wavering.

- Such a revision is not a reform, but a gimmick for a group that is dead in the water.

Fr. Gil is not governing; an insider told that like Fr. Corcuera he says Yes to everything and everybody... He is so manipulable... like Corcuera. They just elected the same pattern, and even recruited and formed by Maciel himself. That last letter it's a prove of that. Fr. Arrieta handles Fr. Gil very well. And Fr. Arrieta looks only for himself... «La vida sigue igual» as the spokesman said.

Just a note. Religious life is not restricted to vowed religious life. many congregations make what they call promises.

Mary Ann-
The key is the profession of the evangelical counsels and the perfection of charity whether done by vows or "some other sacred bonds" for all institutes of consecrated life.
However Religious Institutes by their very nature must profess the counsels by vow. Secular Institutes and any other form of consecrated life can opt for other expressions of sacred bonds. The universal tie among them all are the counsels.

As an aside, happy feast day, especially to Pete V. I know he has entrusted the whole difficult challenge of the Legion and RC to the care of Saint Bruno. God willing, the holy man is still working on the situation, and interceding for the good of all involved!

A "great" opportunity is the upcoming family pilgrimage to Rome with Dr. Elizabeth Lev and company. From their blurb - “Leadership” and “Feminine Beauty in the Arts” are the focus of this joint Mother/Daughter and Father/Son trip. So the leadership is for the father/son and the feminine beauty is for the mother daughter. These guys are still pretty darn clueless, but worse yet anyone who decides to go on this trip for anything more than a cheap trip to Rome.

I wonder if Thomas Williams will tag along on this wonderful pilgrimage?

So Regnum Christi has no problem employing the woman who had an affair and a child with one of the "Golden Boys" of the heyday of the LC? But then again, why would they, if they knowingly welcomed one of Maciel's wives and daughter into the 3gf residences while Nuestro Fraude was still alive?

That seems harsh, Concerned. I personally am not judging the Williamses. I assume they confessed all their sins and are doing the right thing with their new life. Are they to be treated forever like outcasts? Lev is eminently qualified for the role of tour guide for this particular pilgrimage. I don't know, but if we shunned everyone in the church with a past littered with sins, big or small, the Church would be a very empty place.

I have no issues with Lev doing what she does here, this was her profession long before things went south.

What I do have an issue with is Haydu carrying out such an overt apostolate for elite donors of the Vatican. As the "Director" of The Patrons of the Arts in the Vatican Museums, the LCs having trotted him around on their website for the public to gawk at? Ever heard of this world renown figure?

Looks at the pics on the Patrons website with wining and dining inside Vatican Museum courtyards.

And then get this line: "the men will learn lessons about leadership from notable Catholic role models such as Fr. Mark Haydu LC, author of the award-winning book Meditations on Vatican Art."... Seriously? So meditating on Vatican Art is the Haydu-yoda way to manhood?

You would think tireless preaching and effective formation of the laity would be their central focus in humble and direct manner, i.e. if we followed their jargon-- not spiritually schmoozing the moneyed in their own unique brand of silver spoon evangelization. Sadly once again, they have not changed a bit.

The comments to this entry are closed.