life-after-RC

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."

Why LARC?

Contrary to the thinking in many circles, LARC was created to be a forum where the people who once got caught in the Legion net (by contributing in some way to its enterprise) can assess how and why it happened. In particular, they want to understand how our Church (headed by a man invested with the authority of Saint Peter and guided by the Holy Spirit) could fall for such a scam. Does this undermine her claims to infallibility? Does this make the faith less true? Could this justify putting a distance between ourselves and Holy Mother Church?

My sense has always been that this didn't touch on faith and morals, that the faith is still true and that we need the Eucharist, which is only available to those who embrace the authority of the teaching Church. So here we are, after many years (this site was set up in May, 2005) older, wiser, and perhaps more at ease with some things, while still exasperated about others.

Having assessed many facets of the Legion during that time, and witnessed its enduring obstinacy -- through a refusal to show remorse or a sincere desire to change -- "Little Light" reminds us of the heart of the matter. (This is in response to whether it is to the Legion's credit that they fire poor teachers):

"Solid Catholic education" (schools) = "solid Catholic formation" (seminaries). LC/RC is basically about presenting an image, recruiting & fundraising. If someone becomes a shark in the fishtank and the fish are scared, they will not be easily recruited or be big $$ supporters. This auto-defense mechanism is not about "Catholic education" but about results which are the results the LC/RC camp wants to achieve. So running off a "bad teacher" can be proof of protecting Catholic teaching but also can be a useful tactic within the LC/RC methodology to circle the wagons and keep their prey closer as these families are building trust in LC/RC.

When LC/RC burns too many bridges & there ain't no more to get, they blow out of town faster than a devil from holy water. As their fanatical base builds they invest more. Just look at St Louis vs Atlanta.

My recommendation for all LC/RC people is take a step back, take a deep breath and look at things from an objective viewpoint free of knee-jerk reactions. The simple point is that maciel created the legion to have access to boys. lots of boys, who he could manipulate as he wanted. He build around the legion an aura of holiness & Catholic tradition. Over time he refined his abilities & eventually it looks & smells Catholic but in the end it was all about money, manipulation, abuse & protection from the "church's enemies".

I personally know that LC leaders lie to achieve their goals. They abused the vows by recommending people to profess whether temporal or perpetual to continue as LCs only to harvest their dreams, manual labor & skills. They lied to benefactors about projects to get large donations based on falsehood. They lied to parents to get their children to an apostolic school. So, so many lies. & who is the father of lies?

At one time we believed the lies & now we are here to tell others the truth... as we saw it & experienced it. So it is not hard to believe that the LC/RC people have a hard time believing us but you will be thankful to us when you do.

So yes, subpar teachers are let go, but so are any who will not submit to the methodology, not necessarily for the sake of education, but for growing the Movement. Likewise, there is a shunning process for all who populate the apostolates, which are more about growing the parallel structure than actually benefiting Holy Mother Church. To the degree that there is an overlap, the real Church does benefit, but that is not the primary motive, only part of the window dressing.

[Btw, here are the second and third posts. One can see that nothing has changed, given recent pep talks within concerning fidelity and discernment.]

News at Zenit

From CNS:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The founder and editorial director of the Catholic news agency Zenit has resigned, citing problems of trust and transparency with Zenit's sponsoring organization, the Legionaries of Christ.

Spanish journalist Jesus Colina, who established Zenit in 1997 and helped build it into a seven-language agency with about 450,000 email subscribers around the world, said he had been asked to resign because he resisted pressures to identify the agency and its work more closely with the Legionaries order.

He gave it a heroic effort, but Zenit didn't want to separate from the Legion. There were the standard problems throughout:

• Legion promises to separate financial accounts were never fulfilled;
• key information about what transpired with the NP was withheld;
• blame about standard shortcomings always shifted to others;
• crisis of trust inhibited ability of staff to perform job; 
• [not mentioned] character assassination of those who wouldn't play along.

Please understand the implications, and consider other sources of news from now on. News agencies need readers, and if you have problems with the trajectory or pace of the reform, here's a means of showing that concern.

Discernment or exploitation (I)?

Behind the scenes of the Legionary recruiting methodology:

On a disturbing note, my husband found a spreadsheet when cleaning out an old desk of my son's today.  My son attended an apostolic school, and this spreadsheet was apparently given to him while a student there.

Across the top are columns entitled Prospect for What(categories listed are I,E,and P, not sure what they stand for), Name, State, Recruiter-In-Charge (mostly Kermit Syren but also some other priests/brothers), Recruiter Knows (yes/no), # Times Visited Apostolic School (varies from 0, 1, 2, 3 to "a lot"), Involved in LC Apost(yes/no), Prospect Level (categories are Interested, Interesting, and Deciding), Cultivator #1, Last Letter Date, Cultivator #2, Last Letter Date.  It goes all the way up to Cultivator #4.

There are 15 names on the list.  Some of them might be your sons.  One of them was a friend's son. The dates on this particular spreadsheet are February-April 2009.

I probably shouldn't have been surprised to see my husband and myself listed on it. Yes, my son was assigned as Cultivator #1 to his very own parents.

Perhaps the charism can best be described as exploitation, particularly the exploitation of children.  God knows the Founder certainly lived that charism with a particularly enthusiastic spirit.

Instructions for the coming "reform"

Here is a standard "band of brothers" pep talk that is meant to confuse the deeper issues and appeal to men's hearts:

Not long ago, upon returning from vacation, a group of brothers gathered together to unload one of our trucks. According to the schedule, after dinner that evening, the men were to go to the chapel as soon as possible for Mass. The truck was heavily loaded with heterogeneous objects (food, blankets, cleaning supplies, pots, sea articles, books, hangers, stationery ...) There were seven workers.

The operation was a success. Within half an hour, the truck was empty and everything was in place. The key was the cooperation of all. No one was discouraged by the grueling task that was looming, and no one secretly withdrew his collaboration in order to procure more rest. Each man applied himself as well as possible, taking the initiative, and contributed his irreplaceable part. Thus, the favorable outcome was less dependent on discipline and more on the fraternity.

This simple fact about daily tasks, like many others in the seminary, ought to reflect the attitude that each Legionary should have in light of the upcoming reform. Analysis, coordinated efforts, sincere interest, appropriate seriousness ... together with the good humor, each have a role. But there is an attitude that is indispensable: the unit. Unity in Brotherhood, the offspring of authentic charity. No one is infallible. We all have our limitations. But above all we are brothers we stand together. At some point, courage or security may be found lacking in us as the brothers contemplate the future. In a similar situation found in Gladiator, Maximus spoke to his brothers in the arena: “Whatever comes out of that gate, if we work together we can win.”

ADDENDUM: Gregorbo offers a little insight into why the truck story is so flawed

One of the things that is always and has always been wrong with the Legion's use of the poetic analogy (unloading a truck) is that since the Legion does not study poetry, its analogies are always stupid... The problem with the LC's latest expressions is that they all give the lie to the "Legionary formation is good formation" belief.

Legionary formation for priests has always been bad because it was based upon a design that was sponsored by a diseased imagination (or a diabolical one) and which does not merely misunderstand the dignity of human being but hates it. 

Having said that, let me take up the unloading the truck analogy:  the LC description is quite false. Trucks get unloaded most often because everyone involved has already agreed to their own role in the process prior to the act:  each performs his duty because he agreed to perform that duty as part of his "job description."  This pre-supposes that he "gets something out of it" in the long-term. So, if he doesn't like it in the short-term, he does it anyway because he knows there's a pay-off in the future that's a little greater than the suffering he submits himself to in the moment.

But the LC description reveals a real and fundamental misunderstanding of human nature--in fact, a confusion of "nature" with "condition" that is truly protestant.

Man's nature is good.  Man's condition is fallen.  Hence, he desires the good by nature but his fallen nature makes him incline away from the ways in which that good might be achieved. We're fallen. We're tired. We don't really like hard work that doesn't make us feel good about ourselves. We are weighed down by cares. In an unfallen world, none of these latter described conditions would obtain and we would simply, fully, and happily act according to our unfallen natures and the truck would be unloaded without a whimper.

The Legionary "magic" holds that accepting your call to the Legion erases your condition as a fallen human and substitutes it with your unfallen nature. Hence, if you resist your "job" as unloader of the truck, you are guilty of embracing your fallenness instead of your true nature (your "calling from all eternity"). 

Which makes Legionaries Puritans, if you think about it.

And, of course, if you are a Puritan, Christ isn't really necessary, since the aim is to conquer your flaws by NOT being yourself and come to deserve that-which-you-cannot-derserve-by-being-other-than-you-truly-are.

So, anyone curious as to why LC/RC folk are so screwed up?

Neat trick, there, Maciel. . . Who'd you learn that from?

Someone mentioned that there is no "baby" in this bathwater.  I agree. 

It's not that Maciel hated his Mom for bringing him into the world and into a situation in which he could not please a father who was incapable of understanding him.  It's not that Maciel hated his uncles, priests in the Church who could not preserve him against the depredations of the fallen world.

It's this (and it's the same old story):  It's that he was created by a being without his consent and then asked to say "Thank you."

In short:  Maciel was just like everyone else.

And he hated that.

Only person who ever could do something completely gratuitously (i.e., something for which he could get nothing) is Christ.

The Legion's proscription to "be like Christ" asks LC and RC members to pretend that they can do what He did.

They can't. This is a lie. It's not what he asked. It's poisoned their souls and their hearts, their minds and their imaginations and explains why their response has been so clueless, stupid, and wrong.

Removing the mask

Deirdre had some thoughts concerning the ongoing industriousness of the members of Regnum Christi, despite having neglected to fully absorb the horror of a paederast founder and decades of narcissistic duplicity. With nary an apology to those they maligned for years, or contrition for the money they raised to enable MM's very bad habits, they now throw themselves into parish work:

The rules don't apply to them.  They're indispensable.  They improve everything they touch.

Meanwhile, the truth is that, as good as being 'indispensable' feels, no one is. And sometimes, when the indispensable people who do everything for the priest and take over everything step back, a parish finds that there are a lot more people who area willing to pitch in and help--it's just that no one ever bothered to ASK them before, so they didn't feel like they had anything to contribute because the 'indispensables' seemed to have everything just so.

This led to Aaron's insight:

This has pulled a thought from my head - does the group dynamic allow RC members (for example) to behave in a way that they would not ordinarily behave if acting alone, independently: would they feel indispensable if they were doing something on their own but rather than as an RC member?

I know that that "I am indispensable" feeling is indeed common enough, and I say that as a Church organist! But other attitudes -- rudeness, uncharitableness, etc. -- stems from them holding up the RC mask: because they are RC their behaviour is not their own so to speak.

I suppose that if we could encourage members to think about their actions and words and challenge them to think if they would say the same things and act the same way outside of RC. In a similar way, working with children I have my teacher/authority voice and it took me a while to be able to know how to switch that off and not speak that way with kids outside of school -- with relatives, etc. Or indeed not to speak to my parents and siblings at the dinner table like that -- how condescending of me!

As for my own behaviour while in the group, I certainly did things with a gusto that was highly uncharacteristic. At the time, I thought it was "holy boldness;" but in retrospect, it was simply chutzpah that may have been grievously inappropriate. When linked to a group this dynamic, there is a mantle of audacity that allows one to step into perilous terrain with little thought.

One can easily make the case that this is simply "Biblical" (which is what we were taught) but it may also be part of a false persona that spreads a different kingdom at the expense of our own credibility later -- and that's very hard to face, but essential in terms of healing.

"Sectarian and exclusive"

There is a very good text called Spiritual discernment: Theology, History and Praxis, written by Manuel Ruiz Jurado, SJ (Professor of Spiritual theology at the Gregorian in Rome). It includes this passage about how to discern among ecclesial groups and communities:

1. Character: you must pay attention to their character. Do they think of themselves as a part or member of the Church, or do they claim to be "the Church," a kind of substitute for the global church institution, where they try to put all the components of ecclesial communion, as if only by participating in this spirit, as promoted by this particular movement could the whole Church be actualised? Such a character, although it has the appearance of universal communion, is sectarian and exclusive, since it considers all that is not like the movement as unfaithful to the Gospel, and themselves as the only faithful ones, thus denying any plurality of possible inspirations in the Church, which was the starting point of their own personality within the Church in communion.

2. Another important aspect will be the relationship established between the institution and the individual. Any attempt to disregard the personal vocation of the members, through violence or exploitation of the individual from the institution without possible appeal to higher authority, all non-absoluteness of God will be a bad sign. If you notice that the person is hampered in fulfilling his or her paramount obligations, the institution can not be accepted as divinely inspired.

Well, those are two pretty powerful points, which bear directly on the Legion and Regnum Christi. More importantly, this is the sort of toxicity that no one seems to be considering in the reform -- a poison that is different from the sexual perversions that stemmed from the founder. They both existed in his person, but the Legion (and reformers) seem all to ready to focus on the sexual peccadillos, while ignoring the other grave problem: the cultishness that flowed from this "sectarian and exclusive" view of the movement.

They text above is translated from the original Spanish, which is below for those who prefer to see that. (Please tell me if I have misrepresented his thoughts.)

1. Talante: hay que atender a su talante. ¿Se consideran una parte o miembro de la Iglesia, o pretenden presentarse como “la Iglesia”, una especie de sustitutivo a la institución eclesial global, en la que intentarían hacer entrar a todos los componentes de la comunión eclesial, como si sólo participando de este espíritu promovido por este movimiento particular se pudiese realizar la Iglesia en su totalidad? Semejante talante, aunque tiene apariencias de comunión universal, es sectario y exclusivista, puesto que considera todo lo que no es propio del movimiento como infiel al Evangelio y a sí mismos como los únicos fieles, con lo que se niega toda pluralidad de inspiraciones posibles en la Iglesia, que es el punto de partida de la propia personalidad dentro de la Iglesia en comunión.

2. Aspecto importante será también la relación que se establece entre la obra y el individuo. Todo intento de falta de consideración a la vocación personal de los miembros, de violencia o instrumentalización del individuo al grupo sin posibilidad de apelación a la autoridad superior, toda absolutización que no sea de Dios, será mala señal. Si se observa que se obstaculiza a la persona en el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones irrenunciables, la institución no puede ser aceptada como de inspiración divina.

Programs do what they're programmed to do

Good piece by Mark Shea, which highlights a large part of the Legion saga:

On the other hand, you had lots of people, very good people — a blessed pope, even — trusting men like Father Maciel and simply unable to bring themselves to believe that the people waving their hands and shouting warnings could possibly be right. Some of them even attacked the critics and whistleblowers as enemies of the Church, motivated by evil spirits or malice or worse. ...

And then it all comes out. The guy was a fraud. He’d been playing his adulators for suckers for years, lying to them all and even using them as human shields to protect himself while he subtly worked them into a fury against his critics, investigators, and accusers (all while adopting a properly martyred pose of patient resignation to persecution, of course) and sent them out to shout down and destroy the whistleblowers and witnesses to his perfidy.

Everybody is stunned. They have to work through all the stages of dying to reach the place where they really do admit to themselves that they were not just suckers, but suckers who persecuted whistleblowers on behalf of the guy who suckered them. How could they have gotten played so badly? There is a period of mourning — and then we move on to believing completely in the next guy with a gift of gab or a knack for writing snappy prose/singing catchy Christian tunes/making popular Christian movies.

His next point is to look at the fruit, which is not what it appears at first glance. His excellent example is Tertullian, who ended badly, despite much excellent preaching. This is not to say that Tertullian was a flim-flam artist, as MM was, but that many can exhibit various spiritual gifts, which are no guarantee of sanctity. The overarching point, though, is that charismatic gifts aren't necessarily sanctifying gifts, and we must remember how disastrous are God's graces that are perverted away from His ends:

So while suppression of one’s charism through fear can be a form of disobedience, likewise perversion of one’s charism by sinfully turning it from the service of God to selfish purposes can be a much graver sin that distorts and destroys oneself and one’s gifts.

Once again, Father Maciel is instructive here: a man of massive organizational charisms who used those gifts to create an organization whose purpose, in the final analysis, was to supply him with means to pursue his proclivities and guard him from being discovered. He designed the robot so well that it went lumbering on defending him even after he was dead — because organizational systems, like computers, don’t do what we want them to do. They do what they are designed to do. Father Maciel perverted his charism to fool people into trusting him and then organized those people into a phalanx of defenders. He understood the Number One Rule of the Con Man is that a con man does not fool people. He gets people to fool themselves.

We would do well to meditate on the portion I bolded -- for that is the methodology we've been blowing the whistle about for so long. And remember how LATE we are to the truth, when men in the 1950's were the first to alert the Church that this emperor had no clothes. To little avail.

The information is there now. Families ignore it at their peril. The hierarchy will also pay if they continue to let the machine "lumber on." Is there anything left to be said? Shall we just watch the recruiting continue and the fund-raising masquerading behind new marquees and fresh shingles? Ah well, we'll pray through the summer and see if more eyes cannot be opened.

"Melancholy prevails"

Tender words from Paul Lennon, which should dispel the vicious motives that insiders always attribute to those who seek truth and justice.  The methodology might render the "Legion family" perverse and manipulative, but the genuine affection of sincere men for one another is a worthy thing. That affection is all the more noble because it's been lived out in good faith in a crucible of evil intentions. Add to this Aaron's heart-wrenching account of living outside of the community, and yearning for the comfort of firm guidance only exacerbates the difficulty in breaking with the group. Prayers continue.

"That's not Catholicism"

Yes, that's the refrain of many readers who review what we once considered lock-step conformity with the Magisterium, only to find that the patina of orthodoxy quickly wore thin. (We'll leave aside the wise bystanders who recognised from the start that the emperor wore no clothes!)

Women joined Regnum Christi for several reasons, one being the reverent Masses and the earnest young priests who were so patient in the confessional. In some regions, more savvy priests knew how to harvest the abundant (and not so abundant) energies of these harried mothers, and many fell over themselves to help wherever they could -- even cooking and cleaning for the hard-working priests who so generously oblated themselves on a daily basis, building the Kingdom.

Is it possible that these hours in the confessional were a little more manipulative than we realised? Is it possible that the concentration on some sins played into the hands of the Movement that banked on willing handmaids, large families and prioritising the needs of the Legion over the needs of each family? How was the Plan of Life manipulated to turn generous, conscientious souls into RC worker bees?

What are your recollections of:

1. spiritual direction and the actual harms that accrued from their spin on virtue, obedience and the protestant work ethic? 
2. the Legion's approach to NFP and openness to life?
3. the sanctity of marriage and the relationship between husband and wife?
4. endorsing deception, either misleading parent, pastors, or others about apostolic endeavors?

Nota bene: this seems to be a ladies only post, but men are welcome to chime in. I'm curious to see if they were played as well, or if this was a mysogynist game reserved for the fairer recruts.