life-after-RC

The "ambience" of the Legion

The Legion offers a new encyclical ("Principal Traits of the Apostolic Charism") and what members are told once again is that the current difficulties this Movement faces indicate that they're on the right track, because these painful years of reform and renewal are God's gift. It's only partially due to the founder, and just as much due to the fact that they're new. The newness, in fact, causes problems universally with communities, especially if charged with the impossible task of trying to state their charism in a simple phrase. That's asking too much, but if the Legion begins with its own atmosphere, much can be inferred about its charism:

However, each institute has a life which distinguishes it and is proper to it – a certain way of doing things, a way of imitating, following and announcing Christ in communion with the Church.12 This ‘life’ is what unites the members of these communities. This character, this way of life, is composed by many different aspects:13 its liturgy, discipline, community life, fraternal charity, apostolate, formation, genuine traditions, and so forth compose the charism. The way all these aspects relate to each other produces, in a way, the “air” that all those who live this charism have about them. This is what we must try to put our finger on (p. 4).

Unfortunately, given the level of "fraternal charity" already manifest over the decades, this might not be a good thing, and until the myriad victims find consolation and restitution (of any sort) the Legion might not want to think too much about  the oppressive "air" that has created such a stifling of accountability.

I found this paragraph deeply troubling:

The virtue of charity helps us to strive to be always magnanimous when dealing with others, trying to create and foster a positive environment of esteem, mutual respect and help for all. For example, when the Archdiocese of Montreal assessed the ministry done the last three years by Legionary priests and consecrated members, it found that the people with whom the consecrated and priests have worked and lived (both laity and priests) remarked that they never saw dislikes or intrigues among them. And this, they said, is a sign of love. This love is what makes community life easier and in some ways a piece of heaven on earth (p. 8).

Although perhaps to some, the lack of backbiting or intrigues sounds like a good thing, the well-known suppression of all independent thought, the constant promotion of "serenity" and the mandate (in the norms) to present a cheerful face at all times make such an impression less credible. Sounds like sniping, I know, but "Gee, they all like each other" isn't necessarily, "Wow, they really built a solid foundation to spread the faith in Montreal."

I haven't begun to summarise, for there's plenty more, but I'll leave it in your capable hands for now.

Sacrilège à nouveau

Father Garza, settling into his new position as territorial director of North America, has issued a letter to members of the Movement, and I hadn't gotten past the fourth paragraph when I began to steam. Please understand that everything is slowing down, people are taking time away and I'm happy to leave the entire matter of reform on a back burner while they sort things out. But then we have a statement like the following, and must conclude that  n o t h i n g  will change -- the Legion has ever conflated itself with the Church, and they bluntly reiterate that a vocation to the Movement is no different with the very baptismal call itself. Consider this:

I have witnessed the love and self-giving of so many Legionaries, consecrated members, and other members of the Movement, and I know that everyone wants to live according to what God is asking of us. I know that everyone is making a big effort in this process through which God is leading us, and I admire each one's perseverance and fidelity to God's plan even though, in the concrete situation, the more "reasonable" option would have been to leave everything and go somewhere else. I know that God sees this faith and hope and that Christ is telling each and every one of us, "Blessed are those who believe without having seen" (Jn. 20:19-31). It hurts me to think that some have left, and I will continue thinking of them as brothers and sisters. In the end, we have all sought to do God's will and we can't forget all that we have shared and lived through together.

This is not even the meat and potatoes but the prologue, and already we find a slap at those who left, who didn't have the faith of the apostles remaining Legionaries, and a reminder of his own pain. As has been stated over the years, it's always painful for Legionaries to live (unless they're actually victims, and then they are marginalised and forgotten because of the sorrow caused by having to remember them).  

It's late, the link is here, and perhaps you can wade through it yourselves -- though their trials and difficulties seem to have nothing to do with expressing contrition (or making restitution) but are related to the "beautiful task" of "returning to a foundational charism." How that works when their history is what it is remains a mystery, but they are resting securely, knowing that Jesus' words seem to have been precisely tailored to this situation.

UPDATE from "AnonObserv" in the combox:

Garza's absolutes have been part of the nomenklatura's strategy for some time. Those absolutes: 1) To keep insisting on a pre-existing charism, perfect and beautiful, even glorious for those suffering the present humiliations because of its supposed existence. 2)Power and authority at the end of the day are more important than charism. "Togetherness", all being under the same tent, is achieved not by the charism itself ofcourse, but by the supreme moderator controlling all. Authority is how they keep unity since in effect there is no charism.

I find it odd that LG should all of the sudden appeal to the history of 3rd orders, when for decades the LCs insisted that the RC was not a third order. Ofcourse I would agree with the latter given you need a charism for that, and even now when the Holy See's delegate is asked what that is, his response is, "Una Bella Domanda."

So we see the cult dynamics in full force still in this writing, especially in the insistence on the exercise of surrender to God's will which always goes in line with the organization's self-interest. Those who leave are considered, subtlely or implicitly, failures, heretics to the great cause.  Note that everything is about the virtue of faith, nothing about the content of faith. The shot he takes at reasonableness is meant to keep membership from going there, from discerning the signs about whether God has been present in the historical witness of founder; about what really lies underneath the facade of orthodoxy and youthful glitter.

Fanaticism comes from suspending the judgement of reason enlightened by faith- and here we refer to the content of solid theological faith. Just as Jim Jones put his people above the Bible, so the LCs put themselves above an authentic charism shown in its witness.

UPDATE II: A recent comment has jogged this thought loose, or at least framed it in a way I hadn't adequately understood previously. As Christians, we submit to divine revelation and attach ourselves to manifestations of the Spirit, because we are weak, defective creatures. These gifts are treasures which guide us to holiness and invite us to be humble instruments in a larger plan.

Garza's premise is exactly backwards, because it says that the Holy Spirit hasn't made himself known yet, but since the members are good, well-intentioned and virtuous (being tenacious and charitable) then the Spirit is bound to follow and clarify the mission. Unfortunately, not only is "the cart before the horse" but there is grave pride and presumption in banking on their own human strength to drive the reform. It is backwards because they are not only not responding to a legitimate invitation (remember, their leader was "devoid of religious sentiment") but barging in, saying "we're here (and we're pure of heart!) so you must make room for us."

Back to the "Kingdom"

ADDENDUM added below

Over the years, we've parsed the theology used by the Movement that sounds very orthodox at first glance, but then may not be so. For those inclined, could we reconsider the foundational use of the word "kingdom," for example used in Fr Oscar Nader's letter?

It is up to you to extend the Kingdom of God in society; the depth of that extension depends on the priests and consecrated members. You are called to make as many souls as possible participate in the richness of our faith, sharing it through your witness and apostolic action. Their task is to help you and the others to live it to the full.

From the Universal Catechism:

543 Everyone is called to enter the kingdom. First announced to the children of Israel, this messianic kingdom is intended to accept men of all nations. To enter it, one must first accept Jesus' word:

The word of the Lord is compared to a seed which is sown in a field; those who hear it with faith and are numbered among the little flock of Christ have truly received the kingdom. Then, by its own power, the seed sprouts and grows until the harvest.

2816 In the New Testament, the word basileia can be translated by "kingship" (abstract noun), "kingdom" (concrete noun) or "reign" (action noun). The Kingdom of God lies ahead of us. It is brought near in the Word incarnate, it is proclaimed throughout the whole Gospel, and it has come in Christ's death and Resurrection. The Kingdom of God has been coming since the Last Supper and, in the Eucharist, it is in our midst. The kingdom will come in glory when Christ hands it over to his Father:

It may even be . . . that the Kingdom of God means Christ himself, whom we daily desire to come, and whose coming we wish to be manifested quickly to us. For as he is our resurrection, since in him we rise, so he can also be understood as the Kingdom of God, for in him we shall reign.

I don't think we extend the Kingdom, per se, because it's already in our midst. It's all around us. We can explain it to those who don't know it exists, or invite them to enter, but I don't it's like an elastic band that grows the more people who step inside it. 

Furthermore, now that I look more carefully, I don't like the language of this, "[making] people participate," and "as many souls as possible." Both thoughts are insidious, as we cannot make anyone do anything, and the call for numbers harkens back to "efficiency" being a part of the charism.

Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it's semantics, but it would seem as this sort of language allows the pride and self-righteousness to enter in, no matter how good the initial intention. At least this is what happened with me.

[And offerings like this only add to the possibility of such pride. I cannot imagine any of the newer priests in our diocese publishing their vocation stories, and I doubt that these men would have done so other than out of sheer obedience. It reminds me of a certain young president who had written two autobiographies before he was 50.]

ADDENDUM: From today's Office of Readings (for Saint Nicholas)

When those who are tending Christ's flock wish that the sheep were theirs rather than his, they stand convicted of loving themselves, not Christ. And the Lord's words are a repeated admonition to them and to all who, as Paul writes sadly, are seeking their own ends, not Christ's.

Do you love me? Tend my sheep. Surely this means: “If you love me, your thoughts must focus on taking care of my sheep, not taking care of yourself. You must tend them as mine, not as yours; seek in them my glory, not yours; my sovereign rights, not yours; my gain, not yours. Otherwise you will find yourself among those who belong to the ‘times of peril’, those who are guilty of self-love and the other sins that go with that beginning of evils.”

So the shepherds of Christ’s flock must never indulge in self-love; if they do they will be tending the sheep not as Christ’s but as their own. And of all vices this is the one that the shepherds must guard against most earnestly: seeking their own purposes instead of Christ’s, furthering their own desires by means of those persons for whom Christ shed his blood.

I write the above with trepidation, for one can never judge the motives of others. I am making no firm accusation of anyone, only noting what struck me about my morning prayer. There are hints that the Legion conflates its mission with that of the Church, and then arrogates to itself the members of the Church, confusing the "vocation" the Movement with the foundational baptismal call.

Non nobis, non nobis, Domine
Sed nomini tuo da gloriam.

Whenever the Legion is glorified for its virtues, it should trigger alarm bells. And whenever the members speak of their own suffering as a reason for the group to be supported and glorified, they are robbing others. We all suffer, we all stumble, and we all need prayers -- but we cannot market those wounds for particular gain. These are the troubling signs I see in the kingdom of MM. Still.

More on "charism"

An important exchange in a recent interview:

The American Redemptorist Joseph Tobin, who has served a year and a half as Secretary of the Congregation for Religious Life, just below the Cardinal Bráz of Aviz, spoke with us about the sad cases that require discipline and discernment on the part of the Vatican ministry that oversees Religious.

- There have been cases of founders who were disciplined: Maciel of the Legion of Christ, Gerard Croissant in Beatitudes, Alphonsus Maria Duran in Miles Jesu ... Who supervises the supervisors? What we learn from these cases?

- Our Congregation, in order to approve an Institute, judges that its charism is an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit and that the Institute has the maturity to develop this charism. But there are cases (I'm not talking about these in particular) that I think misled the Congregation with lies, and likewise deceived the fellow brothers in the community. In addition, the Second Vatican Council, Decree Perfectae Caritatis always asks to see "the original spirit of the Institutes," and the example of the founder. But how can a founder who had a messy life remain a point of reference? I have no answer to this perplexity.

Legion response to the AP

The Legion has distributed talking points to help clarify the present situation:

As for the arguments that address the points [made in Nicole Winfield's article], the following items should be taken into account:

1) Renewal process, content and speed: Everyone knows how the Papal Delegate has explained his role and work. He has repeatedly reminded us that progress is to be measured according to the objectives set by the Pope and the Church -- and not by personal expectations or the public opinion.

Read and share [with others] what these steps are and what has already occurred.

2) With regard to the alleged "mass defection," the numbers for the Legion were already released a few months ago, and were made public here. The discrepancy with the numbers indicated by the AP is the fact that the journalist was only concerned with the number of 232 novices and religious who have left the congregation for any reason, including the normal process of discernment which is necessary over the formative years. However, to calculate the variation of number of brothers in training in 2010, one must take into account incoming (143) and ordinations (62, which are no longer in training). This is the change of the total: +143 - 62 - 232 = -151. Trying to explain the unexplainable, she talks about those who have dropped out, which is the only data of interest.

The numbers for the consecrated members are as follows: Currently (October 2011) there are more than 900 members in the Regnum Christi consecrated -- more than 800 women and 100 men. In comparison, in December 31, 2008 there were 1064 consecrated members (956 women and 108 men). From late 2008 to 2011 more than 200 have left the religious life for many reasons. Therefore, taking into account the income, it is a total decrease of about 150 (of 1064 to just over 900). [Giselle here: life with the 3gf's is NOT religious life. These are lay persons, which is a large part of the problem. The Visitation concluded as much.]

3) Some Mexican media have focused on the question of a PA who speaks of "financial arrangements with four or five people who say they have been sexually abused by Maciel." In this regard, it is known that the Papal Delegate has instituted a Commission to address these cases, in which people listen and propose responses according to the criteria of justice and charity, taking into account the various factors (his personal past, current human needs, etc.) It is not an award of damages or strictly legal.

The work of the Commission has not yet been completed and therefore can not provide information on all of this work.

4) On the issue of charism: We know that Cardinal De Paolis, with great theological and canonical insight, does not see the charism of a congregation as something that can be defined in a word or a famous phrase, but believes it consists of a set of characteristic elements for their spirituality and apostolate. So the question of "defining the charism in a phrase" is out of place.

5) For any investigation on who aided or abetted MM, it is enough to remember the explanations of the papal delegate conference last March, and the fact that canon law states that alleged minor crimes (usually prescribed 3-5 years) or simple judgement errors trial in complex situations can not be investigated or draw canonical sanctions.

As is always important to read the news critically and to look for opportunities to communicate in truth, charity and humility with the people around us who are interested in our journey, which is in the hands of the Church, and for whom we wish to bring to fulfillment the mission God has entrusted to us.

UPDATE: here is a response written specifically for English speakers (The memo above was not originally English)

Ten Reasons to Worry about the Legion

In case the Movement doubted its perfection, there are many who are still willing to tell everyone how great the group remains, despite its founder, despite the massive defections, despite the closing schools, despite the lack of leadership and despite the fact that it will take years to sort through the constitutions to see what can be salvaged. Fr Moreau is the latest to discern that God wants him elsewhere, and Monk left decades ago, but both assure us that the Movement is awesome on stilts.

Jeannette responds specifically to Monk's list of "10 Reasons to Like the Legion of Christ" with a reality check (and my additions are in red):

1. Professionalism. [I beg to differ, because every discipline they enter has a penumbra of questionable credentials, hijacking of other's initiatives and the grave side effect of making alert Catholics paranoid about what apostolates they can trust to be Legion-free]
2. They attract people who think they're the best and brightest. In Catholicism, we don't actually consider this a good thing. In fact, we refer to Pride as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
3. Professional celebrations and Well Fitting Garments! Again, in Catholicism, Vanity isn't a plus. [I'll take the shabby garments of the Cure of Ars any day. As for Gregorian chant, all we ever had in RI or GA was a single piano, a couple of guitars and nouveau hymns in Spanish -- did we miss something?]
4. Numbers. They're popular! Again, not an actual virtue in Catholicism. [And further, now we know those numbers were not only massaged, but the whole "sell sell sell" mentality was fueled by lies about "memos from the Holy Father!"]
5. Those Legionaries who aren't willing to practice Legionism? They're banished to Quintana Roo, where they do a pretty good job of practicing Catholicism [and providing photo ops of humble, pious natives for whenever a fundraiser comes around] 
6. Lots of news outlets! This isn't really a major sin, but it's just not something that Real Catholic orders usually trumpet [post scandal, of course, we find that owning news outlets was a crafty move to allow the Legion to play gate-keeper with the facts, and selling off NCR and F&F would undermine the point, no?]
7. Many Schools (many currently closing, many are accredited by fake accreditation groups (like NCE). Education doesn't appear to be acknowledged by real schools, when students attempt to get transcripts [and this point is further undermined by the notes from General Chapter that said that the primary purpose for the existence of schools is not education but recruitment] 
8. Loyalty to the Pope. Seriously?  Not in 1956, when Luis Ferreira was fed laxatives so that he couldn't do his job during the Great Blessing, nor when Maciel snuck back in after Pius XII's death. Nor in 2005, when the LC leadership produced a paper from "the Vatican" saying there was no investigation (in fact, Msgr Scicluna was at that time already interviewing "more than 20, less than 100" people in his investigation of Maciel. Nor in 2006, when the Pope was compared to Pilate for his censure of Maciel. They don't appear to be respecting the May 1, 2010 letter at this time either. Does Legionism have a different definition of loyalty, or do they maybe have a different pope??
9. Efficient fundraising. Ooh, yes, this is definitely a Legionist virtue [and yet how many claims exist that the intention for which the money was raised was not its ultimate destination? How much have they really sent to Japan for the relief of tsunami victims? And what about the new fundraiser to pay for their "free housing" for 3rd world bishops at JP2's beatification?]
10. Attract many youth. Unfortunately, recruiting the young is actually a cause for alarm to many of us because it's a polite way to say "preying on youth because they don't recognize red flags as well as wiser adults do," and often, children are encouraged to keep secrets from their parents in sd, etc. which violates "Honor thy father and mother." [Furthermore, when complaints about intergenerational abuse remain unanswered and unresolved, their broad access to youth adds another red flag to the whole setup.]

I do love my brother Monk, who in his combox suggests a truce for Holy Week, which I respected, but one cannot allow the ten points to go unanswered. As for the three additional points provided by one of his readers, those are Catholicism 101 -- which can exist apart from the Legion. The question remains: what unique and beneficial elements do the Legion provide to the Church, and as of yet, apart from its scandalous foundation, we have yet to answer it. Charism to be determined (CTBD). Peace.

UPDATE: Frank offers his own response, which he posted at Monk's site as well.

Jack –

I have always believed that you bring a unique perspective to the entire Legion/Regnum saga. Though I don’t always agree with you, I have always believed (still do) that yours is a voice worth hearing. With that in mind, it is with great disappointment that I read your “10 Reasons to Like the Legion,” as your reasons are patently absurd. Rather than focus on the entire list, I would like to focus on the second reason you offer: “They attract great vocations: One can complain about the methodology but historically they have had a great ability to attract the best and the brightest.”

Now Jack, I would like to offer you the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps you wrote this in a hurry without thinking through the logical implications of your statement. If you did, and will acknowledge such, then we have no issue. I, at times, have been guilty of the same thing. However, if you really believe this, then you, and any Legionaries who believe this, should prepared to defend this assertion.

Do you really believe that this year’s newly-ordained Legion priests are superior to those priests ordained for the dioceses of New York, Arlington (VA), Denver, Witchita (KS), or any other diocese? Are they superior to the men who will be ordained this year for the Dominicans, Oblates of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Fraternity of Saint Peter, Jesuits, or Fathers of Mercy? If so, please explain. Where is your evidence that Legionaries have superior education, talents, credentials, and abilities when compared to the men of other orders or dioceses?

You, Jack, are the one who made the assertion that Legionaries are the “best and brightest.” Again, where is your evidence? Has the Legion yet produced a theologian on par with Ratzinger, de Lubac, or von Balthasar? How about philosophy. Where is the Legion equivalent to von Hildebrand, Gilson, or John Crosby? Or in canon law, is there any Legion priest whom you would rate as an equal to Raymond Burke or Edward Peters? And since you are impressed with the Legion’s well-tailored vestments, let’s examine their liturgical achievements. Can you name a single Legionary liturgical expert on par with Josef Jungman, SJ, Msgr. Klaus Gamber, or Giles Dimock, OP?

Regardless of whether you consider the Church-related disciplines (theology, philosophy, liturgy, etc), or the secular disciplines (law, medicine, architecture, psychology, etc), the Legion has yet to produce a single man who has either achieved a broad-based respect from his academic peers, or has produced any definitive body of work that is commonly referenced by fellow scholars.

Take the Legion’s Institute for Psychological Studies. While the Legion, in typical poser fashion, attempts to thrust itself on the forefront of Catholic psychology, they have yet to produce a single first-rate intellect in that field like Conrad Barrs, Anna Truwe, Greg Popcak, Ray Guerrendi, or Richard Fitzgibbons. For an order with 60+ years of history, the Legion’s academic and scholarly achievements lie somewhere between astonishingly thin, and outright barren.

You may not realize, Jack, but you stepped on a landmine with your “best and brightest” assertion. One of the things I, and many others, find so irksome about the Legion is their corporate arrogance. Through that thin veneer of faux-humility, I saw up close and personal how the macielists believe that they are superior to other clergy. In reality, Legionaries are basically grifters in Roman collars, taking and using the genuine work, success, and achievements of others and appropriating it to themselves.

To that end, perhaps we have stumbled upon a single, genuinely Legionary achievement: when it comes to being takers and users, Legionaries truly have no equal anywhere in the Catholic Church.

Jack, please reconsider your position. As one who has respect for your opinions, I find this completely beneath you. If you can respond to my request for evidence, without questioning my motives, I eagerly await your response.

An analogy that isn't

Don't mean to pile on Jim Fair again, but this post on the commissions seems to miss the point:

[T]he Participative Organizational Council (POC) intends to address how we carry out our apostolic mission in the Atlanta and New York territories. The others, one for each territory, will coordinate input from our territories for the Rome-based commission that is reviewing and revising the Legion’s constitutions.

So…we have constitution-related commissions (primarily inwardly focused) and we have improvement-related commissions (more external in focus)...  And an obvious question is how the two types of commissions relate to each other and avoid duplicating efforts.  Is this going to get terribly confusing?  (Aren’t you getting confused by my attempted explanation?)

In my home, Chicago, we are blessed to have a very holy man named Francis Cardinal George.  And whenever he talks to those of us involved in the various ecclesial/lay movements, he reminds us that our movements should address two needs:  personal growth in holiness AND apostolic action in service of the Church. 

The challenge is getting the right balance.  To have effective apostolic action, it must be grounded in holiness.  Once you are working on your holiness, it is a responsibility to engage in apostolic action.

Well, besides the fact that that's not an analogy but an attempted explanation, it seems as though it's placing the cart before the horse. How can these two things happen simultaneously when those "in the trenches" don't have (and will never have) access to the documentation that purportedly explains their charism and raison d'être? It would seem that the lay members can only concentrate on apostolic work when their prayer life and "plan of life" is orchestrated by the Movement (founded by a false prophet) which has yet to approve/revise the Constitutions.

Furthermore, to say it's a "responsibility to engage in apostolic action" begs the question -- what sort of action? So far, every action has served to fund-raise and recruit for the Movement, using the methodology (set up by the false prophet). This has been a standing contention that the busy-busy paradigm within the group overshadows any real effort to reflect and discern, but perhaps the other commissions will figure that out, and send a memo to the hard-working members. Prayers continue.

"Five facets of charity"

Father Daniel Brandenburg has articulated a charism that may be from God, and may be what the Legion is supposed to live. I say this with trepidation, because it's not what was given to the founder of the group, but something that has been presented as a good way of life, in keeping with Gospel values and acceptable to the Church. It's rather a "cart before the horse" phenomenon, since we currently have a body of zealous men looking for a mission (rather than a God-given charism that subsequently draws souls to follow the instrument through which it has been introduced to the Church).

I haven't read the .pdf thoroughly, but offer the five points, which we can all consider and discuss. [Thanks to Astrid for the heads up!]

1. Value of one soul and apostolic dynamism [shades of "time is Kingdom" here]
2. Team life [perpetuates the key cult mechanism]
3. Speaking well of others [victims of the L/R slander machine will find this rich]
4. Unity forged in common goals through heroic obedience [victims who were left to suffer at the side of the road will find this highly ironic]
5. The incarnation of all of this in militia Christi [which separates pious exhortations, and why the lofty points above fall flat]

His main point glosses over the fact that the founder was deeply problematic (hey, MM was faulty -- like all of us) and he even suggests that those who look at the standard transmission of charisms should be met with, "Get behind me, Satan!" Entirely absent is the horror at hood-winking the Church and spreading scandal in an institution already wobbling from repeated acts of clerical treachery.

The statement that the Legion is no more the "impeccable golden boy of the Church" is staggering -- for it suggests that they really took themselves to be what MM pretended they were, they "believed their own press releases."  Now they are a "shot down humiliated and stranded bunch ... in need of rescue" which adds shades of victimhood to the authentic humility to which we're all called. Very hard to read.

"The service Regnum Christi renders to the Church and society consists in forming apostles who will build the civilisation of Christian justice and love" is an excellent place in which to gauge the success of their self-stated mission. When their justice acknowledges with sincerity the deep suffering of those they have harmed, the reparation that is due and the price of their deceit and manipulation, we will begin to believe that their love is authentic. Until then, in light of the previous points -- that they are special, they are talented, they've done good work, and the Church needs them (despite the fact that the Legion offers nothing unique to the Mystical Body) -- this would appear to be just another article dedicated to dissembling and self-justification, no matter how much they claim to be "humbled."

More thoughts on charism

From the comment box recently. (This is the exact reason for this blog--to sort through how we got here and what it means to the deposit of faith.)

I so very much appreciate this website. As a recovering former member of rc, I come here to try to understand what happened to me and to the Church I thought I knew. I love reading the hopeful statements by Giselle and Deirdre, and I'm also glad to read the thoughts of less optimistic writers. Thank you all for helping me to mature in the Faith.

I recently read the article by Fr. John Bartunek over at Regnum Christi live; I think Fr. B. helped make the case for dissolution of l/r.  Even after a year at this website, I am still wondering about a few topics:

In Fr. B.'s article, under “What's a Charism?”, regarding the “militia Christi,” I wondered: is not every confirmed Catholic Christian, by definition, a “soldier of Christ”/member of the “militia Christi”? Is that why the Vatican called the “militia Christi (soldiers of Christ)” the true core of lc (because it's the true core of every confirmed Catholic Christian)? Or did the Vatican statement mean that “militia Christi (soldiers of Christ)” is valid and valued (as Fr. B. puts it) in a PARTICULAR way as the true core of the Legion “charism”? The May statement says the charism must be redefined. What was it? From where will the redefinition begin?

Under “The Value of New Movements,” it is stated that there is an “...urgent need for...a Christian formation that is solid and deep.” Hopefully, if there is a reform of l/r, proper formation will replace the current faulty formation. I think that would take a miracle, given how entrenched the current formation appears to be throughout l/r.

Under “Founders,” the article states that “Founders light in others the fire God has kindled in them.” Did God kindle a fire in MM, even though MM was “devoid of religious sentiment”? Was there a time before MM became “devoid of religious sentiment” when God may have kindled a fire in him which he went on to light in others?

An additional paragraph  under “Founders,” discusses “... friendship in Christ which is the origin of movements.” Could MM, devoid of religious sentiment, have had a friendship in Christ with anyone? Maybe early on? Before he began molesting boys? I don't mean to be snide here; I'm really asking whether it could have been so.

The same paragraph continues: “...the mysterious attraction that the founder holds for all who become involved in his spiritual experience.” Attraction to a liar who sexually abused boys, including his own sons? And what spiritual experience did MM have with which others could have become involved? It would have had to have happend before he became devoid of religious sentiment.

A paragraph under “Authenticity” discusses “a movement's faithfulness to the magisterium,” stating that “No charism can be considered authentic, therefore, if it intrinsically or habitually inspires a movement's members to rebel against legitimate Church authority.” This statement brings to mind some instances of what looks like rebellion in l/r: the reinstatement of MM during the inter-regnum; the official Legion response following MM's being invited to a life of prayer and penance in 2006; instances of members taking children to a neighboring diocese for sd if the bishop of the resident diocese forbade sd from l/r in his diocese; the forbidden-by-canon-law  practice of Legionaries having the same person as confessor, sd, and superior; and the now-forbidden secret 4th vow in effect for many years. Are these not automatic red flags of the inauthenticity of the “charism”?

It appears that Church teachings about charism, as cited by Fr. B., have been turned upside down by the Legion due to the deformation received from its founder.

Does Archbishop de Paolis see this?

I apologise for taking so long to highlight this excellent contribution to the discussion. Those who place comments under it may want to reproduce them here for the benefit of new readers.

"Apart from the founder"

As many may have recalled over the last year, there has been a disjoined effort to consider how God could bring so much good to the world through such a flawed instrument as MM. In fact, it devolved into silliness after a while when people began to suggest that the charism was actually following the call of Don Bosco, or working along the lines of Padre Pio, or Ignatian, Franciscan, and then in the Year of Saint Paul, they were professing to be more Pauline.

To that end, evidently the handbook (long in the works, remember) has cut to the chase to say that the Maciel's unique gift that the world couldn't live without was actually copied from someone else:

Recently a question arose concerning the origin of the “Encounter with Christ” within Regnum Christi. A Belgian priest in the first part of the 1900s seems to have been the first to use the methodology “look, judge, act” and then Pope John XXIII incorporated this into the social doctrine of the Church in his encyclical “Mater et Magistra”. Many groups have used this approach and it forms part of the patrimony of the Church. The 1961 encyclical came out just a few years before Regnum Christi itself was founded, and so had a direct impact on the formulation of the “Encounter with Christ”. We certainly have tweaked and adapted the format of this activity into its current shape (cf. RC Member Handbook #404-425).

Unless some Legionary wants to share the real story, we cannot know if this is true or not. MM had a penchant for borrowing, even plagiarising, so it's quite plausible. This seems to be a double-edged sword, though. If the Legion insists that it always subscribed to a "share the wealth" model of finding inspired ways to live the faith, then it can make a decent case for leaving the methodology alone -- since the fewer of MM's fingerprints on the acts of piety the better. But the flip side is that if lots of people do this, then a. the Legion isn't unique, but part of a holy herd; and therefore b. not irreplaceable. 

If there are already lots of people looking, judging, and acting, then what does the Legion bring to the table? Other than ...