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.)

« MM and MM: twisting the narrative | Main | Question about Our Lord »


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

And forgive me, but ugh. Beyond the canonical questions, we have more of the "look at me!" generation. Can you imagine a medieval novice offering for sale his thoughts on the Gospels? He would do well to keep his head down, say his prayers, and storm heaven that he be allowed to stay and serve God, unworthy creature that he is.

This isn't unique to Regnum Christi; all youngsters believe that they are awesome, and that the world has not grasped the privilege of their presence. Hey, I like kids, but to sell their very "green" meditations is one of those red flags that reminds us that RC still hasn't come to grips with the fact that they're relatively new in the Church, under a cloud at present, and enamoured enough with what's shiny and bright to make folks wary.

I know they need money, but this is not the way.

Wait a minute.. so now they are making temporal vows? Did I miss that memo? While I suspect a formal approval at some point, I wonder how can vows be received in an institute that has received no canonical recognition to date? (Did it happen and I missed it?)

What of everyone else who made promises under the old regime? Has their relationship or status been changed?

Keep in mind that the normal process is no vows or promises of a binding character may be made until the institute has been explicitly approved as such. If the life is restructured and discernment must be had in earnest, then every current member must go through at least one year of candidacy/novitiate before being permitted to profess any vow.

So what are they, who now make vows? Free wheeling religious without habits and without a defined mission? hmmmm Can they not see this is going to end badly if this is the way they are operating...?

Totally agree. Meanwhile, silence has been deafening regarding the incoming numbers into nLC, pcLC and aLC. I imagine that we are dealing with single digit numbers...otherwise I think they would have been churning out the "good" news by now. The candidacy finished on Aug 23 which is extremely early for them and rather strange since they were normally received into the novitiate on Sept 15 after their 8 days of legionary concocted imitation spiritual exercises.

This sounds to be equivalent to the old "trial marriages".

Is a vow really considered a vow if people are manipulated into saying "yes"? I am wondering how much things have changed over the last few years since 2009. It seems to me there has been an improvement in the control of behavior, information, thoughts and emotions but it still seems to be there. There seems to be somewhat less isolation but they are still somewhat isolated. Can anyone advise on this? Is there less deceit? less control over peoples' time, i.e. less cult like?

The formal canonical establishment of the institute requires 3 steps: 1) Vatican Approval of Rule/Statutes 2) Election and Approval of Supreme Moderator and council 3)The reception of vows by the appropriate ecclesiastical authority (of major superiors at least) then as specified by the rule of all other members by those declared capable of receiving the vows of members.
4) No profession of vows can take place without a trial period. Canon law specifies a minimum of one year.

Let me draw a comparison with Fr. Feeney's group from Still River,MA- Slaves of the Immaculate Heart. When their situation was normalized, everyone in the group was required by the Holy See to go through a one year novitiate, regardless of previous status or commitment level. This was necessary so true discernment of personal commitment to the newly approved rule could be carried out.

Well, on the bright side, at least their current income, however miserable, will be enough for milk, shoes, roofs, whathaveyou. No more fundraising letters, right?

Well, whether they call them vows or promises, isn't 4 a rather puny number? I'm actually surprised they'd publicize that number at all.

The problem I see is their age, and that they were probably from the ME high school environment, which has been in an existential crisis for some years. Hardly a healthy, mature foundation for a life-long commitment.

They don't have vows. Maybe it's a language trick.

I can't find this article on the MEC website. Is it gone?

No, it was an email.

The Statutes were approved by De Paolis, that is enough at least to be binding but they need further approval by the Vatican. In fact, the Vatican sent back all of the three documents: 3GF, 3GM and LC because they need to be adapted to the configuration of RC as a whole. Ghirlanda was sent just to do that, so what they presented was not liked

In their stautes, 3GF adopt the praxis of religious institutes since they want to be really consecrated people in the Church, that's why they have temporary vows and then perpetual vows.

Let me see if I understand, they are not making promises any more? They are religious now? Or was that just a mistake they made when delivering the mail.

They are lay consacrated that make vows rather than promises, that is what the Statute says Hope

Sorry I am trying to understand. I thought only religious and alike took vows. I know there are Virgins who may profess their vows before a Bishop, but I think they are considered as a form of consecrated life not oart of the laity. I guess my confussion likes on whether you may be a lay person and consecrated at the same time.

"The Statutes were approved by De Paolis, that is enough at least to be binding"

I am not so sure of that Scipio, did not DePaolis himself say at the end of their 'chapter' certain things could not go forward for the 3GF without the approval of the Holy See?

Second, I did not see in DePaolis's mandate the authority to establish a new institute which is precisely what is being done in the 3GF, since no official act ever proclaimed its existence as an institute of lay consecrated life prior to 2009.

I suspect down the road commenters on the nature of consecrated life will have a field day with this decision. Essentially they are religious, but they are being called "lay" so as to avoid prior norms of religious life- like true autonomy, wearing of a habit etc.. And all for what?, For a founder who thought it best to ask for pardon rather than for permission, or better, wait for the members to ask for pardon... Breaking the tradition would be fine for exception witness, but here witness serves only to perpetuate a memory of abuse and manipulation.. and all without ad experimentum phases of 5 or 10 years to see even if they have what it takes to truly go forward.

Off topic: two more high level legionaries chasing their conscience. They are not fresh exLCs but the local media in Merida Mexico is running several articles on José María Sabín leaving the priesthood and Legión.

He was rector of Mayab University among other political charges in Merida.

Paolo Scarafoni founder of LC university un Rome, is thE other one.

Voices are pointing fingers to Pedro Barrajón as the next one...

Anon: 3GFs and 3GM are association of the faithful so they are approved in first instance by a local bishop, in this case, the pontifical Delegate which gives them automatically approval for the Universal Church. Since 3GFs want to be a Public Association of the Faithful they need further approval from the Holy See. The 3GFs and 3GMs were a Third Order of the Legion according to 2004 Statute, son they were not consecrated life as such as they are trying to be now. Lack of Pontifical approval does not mean, though, that they cannot take vows. Anyway the big problem they face now is how they will govern the apostolate and the economy of the whole of RC

Scipio, they can certainly make personal commitments but whether they make vows is a matter of canon law I thought. Aren't they still throwing that word around a bit casually?

Also, this might seem petty but I'm just wondering whether that e-mail is, in fact, a solicitation for money. It certainly sounds like it. I highly doubt that "Behold My Lord" is just free for the taking.

Sorry Scipio I am very confused now. All my time in the Legion we were taught that 3rd Degree was not a third order, they were consecrated men and women belonging to a Movement, of which the Legion was part.

Around the time of the visitation, superiors were beginning to tell us that the Legion was not part of the movement at all, and that it was very unlikely RC would change at all.

I will try to search about what an Association of the Faithful, I hope to understand what they are doing now.

I just find it very annoying that 6 years after the Legion confirmed Maciel's deeds, 2 visitations, one Pontifial Delegate, two outside counselors, three General Directors two Popes, two prefects of the Congration for Religious and a General Chapter later, we remain unable to fathom what they are. I see no clear charism, and by what I am seeing in the comments 3GF/M remain as unexplainable as ever.


Took me awhile, but I finally found it

Thanks Hope.

A quote from the article as to #'s from one of the newly consecrated:

' “It’s amazing to see how God works,” she said. “We started with 12, and this is what He wanted. He has a plan; the best one.”'

At least they are given a lot more time to discern now. Wasn't it the case that they used to profess their first round of promises only after a few weeks or even after a few days? Fortunately, we don't see 12 young ladies here - only four.

Also, I note from the reading of the previous comments that others picked up on the pecuniary purpose of the letter. So by announcing these new "consecrations" they are able to toss in a pitch for funds. Very efficient. Some things never change.

Hope, your last comment says it all.

Let me say Scipio's confusing statements are not his fault, its the very process the Holy See has administered in this 'Oh so' special case...

Scipio-- I can only say that ordinarily vows are precisely what establishes the existence of an institute of consecrated life at whatever level. Those of diocesan right still require the Bishop receive explicit authorization from the Congregation for Religious/Holy See to do so, and once the vows are made before the receiving Bishop, only then does the institute begin to exist canonically (as an institute of consecrated life).

Further inquiry would be who received the vows? Did the Bishop of Providence come? If not there is no duly appointed representative to receive them for none in higher authority have made a profession of vows and hence do not pertain to the institute as its legitimate superiors, nor has the relationship with the LC been defined for such a purpose, as you say.

I underline that the motu propio of DePaolis was to renew and reform pre-existing associations/institutes, not create and establish new forms of consecrated life, or establish a new institute. He simply did not have that authority as an Apostolic Delegate- it is just not there.

The comments to this entry are closed.