Miami archdiocese bans Legionaries of Christ, Regnum Christi [CWN]

[Lurch104]

Regarding obedience, when the Bishop of Baltimore restricted the Legion, they counseled us to be obedient, show love and support for the bishop, and they left. If they acted otherwise I would still have a spiritual director and regular formation.

I never said that my spirituality or viewpoint was the “best”. However, I also should not be limited to the new age spirituality that permeates my area. My pastor, whom I love and consider a friend, will not preach on certain hot button topics. Abortion, homosexuality, and sin in general are off limits. He is very concerned that he may offend someone and therefore stop contributing financially to our parish. I know that he stands correctly with the church on these issues, but he will not preach that way. It frustrates me, but I realise that he has others pressures acting upon him and I do not judge him for it.

However, this makes him unsuitable as a spiritual father for me. I want to follow someone who is stronger than I am spiritually. A true leader will not shy away from the truth because the fight is difficult. I found men like this in the Legion. My pastor walks through our parish parking lot shocked at the pro-Obama, pro-choice bumper stickers and wonders how they consider themselves to be Catholic. I bite my lip and but think to myself that it is because they have not been properly cathechized and fed spiritualy. I pray for him daily and I realize that he is stretched incredibly thin.

In my limited experience too many diocesan priests act the way of my parish priest. I honestly believe that they are threatend by groups like Opus Dei and the Legion because by their action they shine a light on their shortcomings. I support my local parish with time, talent, and financially. However, outside of the mass I must look elsewhere for spiritual growth and formation.

I also agree that just because of a shortage any group of priests should be allowed into the diocese. However, in my limited experience only the orthodox seem to be screened while the dissenters are allowed free reign. If the Bishops want to keep out an orthodox group of priests whose sole charism is the formation and spiritual growth of the individual so that they will be stronger and better members of the local church, they have an OBLIGATION to meet that need another way.

A few points:

1. How “orthodox” can the LoC be if they refuse to be obedient to the local Ordinary?
2. Conservatism does not automatically equal orthodoxy. One can be highly “conservative” and unorthodox. Once again, what orthodox Catholic would disobey the proper Church authority?
3. There are a variety of spiritualities, viewpoints, and practices that fall within orthodox Catholicism. Pretending that your group or way is the best or only way to be a good Catholic is not only incorrect but damaging to the unity of the Church.
4. The LoC have been controversial for many years in many diocese. This is not new. I know many very conservative Catholics who left LoC’s RC and view it negatively. Thus its not only “liberals” who have had problems with the group.
5. Claiming that any group of priests should be allowed in just because there’s a shortage is counterproductive. I’m sure there are groups of priests that many LoC supports would hate to see come into their diocese.

 

[Lurch104]

I’ll just address this because it seems like a response to my point of view.

Thank you. I try to say the same things but even after many edits it always comes out much more confrontational. You have summed up my point perfectly.

 

[Lurch104]

It has been suggested that I have been uncharitable in my comments regarding the Miami Archdiocese. If it appears that I was exaggerating a point I apologize. I will post the source for the comment deemed offensive without comment.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022715.html

 

[bunchkinbrain]

OK, to all of you LC/RC apologists, repeat after me:

The Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi were banned from the Archdiocese of Miami because they disobeyed the Archbishop.

It’s not because of their “orthodoxy” or their “conservatism”. They broke the rules (not the first time) and they were caught. What part of the above don’t you understand? If you have a problem with His Excellency’s decision, take it up with the LC and RC members who disobeyed.

 

[Havard]

Let’s not jump on people who are clearly troubled by the affair. The question was posed about what’s being done to meet the needs of people who don’t have access to certain resources in their area, especially now that the Legionaries are gone. I’m sure we all want to be positive and help our brothers and sisters through this.

 

[pigpen]

The question that remains unasked is why do the bishops feel the need to limit the ministry of an orthodox religious community? Brother, with all due respect, you say on this post that you abandon the middle class. Is the state of their souls less worthy than those of the poor?

This is my issue with the local church. We will provide mass on Sunday as long as you stuff the baskets with money. As far as spiritual growth or community? You are on your own. Some of our bishops are failing us.

Scripture study - LC yes, diocese no
Evenings of recollection - LC yes, diocese no
Spiritual Direction - LC yes, diocese no
Preached retreats - LC yes, diocese well they call it retreats but it is mostly a day of guitar circles (check out Martin Doman) and centering prayers. Certainly no Ignatian Exercises.
Mens/Womens weekly prayer and accountability groups - LC yes, diocese no

I find this comparison to be very unfair. The work done by an LC is very different from the work done by a diocesan priest.

Run a parish - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Run to the hospital at all hours of the day and night to visit sick/injured parishioners - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Sit at endless meetings of parish ministries - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Field concerns/complaints of parishioners - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Meet with bereaved families and plan funerals on short notice - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Oversee sacramental preparation of children (1st Communion, Reconciliation, Confirmation) - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Etc.

You get the idea. I am not criticizing the LC priests, but stating that they lead a very different mission. Even the LC priests I know would be very uncomfortable with your comparision of LCs to diocesan priests.

imho

 

[bunchkinbrain]

Havard: I appreciate your desire for civility but there was more to this thread than simply the question of who will fill the Legionary vacuum. The tone of my post stems from being fed up with the tendency of the pro-Legion crowd to defend it at all costs and regardless of the facts. If this were the first time this has happened, I would have said nothing. However, this is not an isolated incident. The LCs have been banned from other dioceses and universities for similar and even more egregious offenses.

They also were vehemently defensive of Fr. Maciel and slandered and libeled his accusers. (I’m not saying anyone here has done this.) However, Frs. Thomas Williams, LC and Owen Kearns, LC have originally called the accusers liars and malcontents and still have not apologized.

There is also the tendency to label everyone that is not 100% pro-Legion as liberal or heterodox. Enough is enough.

 

[Lurch104]

I find this comparison to be very unfair. The work done by an LC is very different from the work done by a diocesan priest.

Run a parish - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Run to the hospital at all hours of the day and night to visit sick/injured parishioners - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Sit at endless meetings of parish ministries - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Field concerns/complaints of parishioners - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Meet with bereaved families and plan funerals on short notice - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Oversee sacramental preparation of children (1st Communion, Reconciliation, Confirmation) - diocesan priest yes, LC no
Etc.

You get the idea. I am not criticizing the LC priests, but stating that they lead a very different mission. Even the LC priests I know would be very uncomfortable with your comparision of LCs to diocesan priests.

imho

I agree completely. In fact, you just made my point for me (much more clearly too). Parish priests really do not have the time to do those types of things. Some Catholics are fine with a Sunday / holy day mass kind of faith. That is fine, and I am not knocking them for it. I however, feel drawn to a more involved kind of spirituality. The LoC priests and the plan for life they helped me with drew me much closer to God and made me a more spiritual person. A parish priest just does not have the time for that kind of handholding.

While some may not care for the charism and spirituality of the LoC and RC, others who are drawn to it sorely miss it when they are removed from our life. Some people, clergy included, fail to see how a priest with 14 years of formation and training specifically tasked with the spiritual formation of the laity are of great value. I have my ideas as to why some feel threatened by them operating in a diocese, and others I am sure have a completely different take on things.

 

[pigpen]

That must be nice – no need for any additional priests to minister to Catholics.

Here are some stats for the Archdiocese:

Year …Catholics…Priests…Priests per Catholic
1990… 621,069…444…1,398
2000… 800,695…432…1,853
2001… 816,207…382…2,136
2002… 830,366…343…2,420
2003… 844,685…350…2,413
2004… 856,783…361…2,373

So, the number of Catholics has increased by 235,000 and the number of priests has declined by 83. Each priest has to minister to 975 more Catholics.

The LC was invited in and they had some kind of apostolate. Now that they’re kicked out, the work that they were doing will be abandoned.

Reggie, let me try to outline how this probably happened.

Let’s say there were RC members in Miami, I’ll just say 300 ( I have no idea what the real number is) I doubt the LofC had a house in Miami if they were operating within restrictions set out by the archdiocese, so there were probably 2 or 3 LC priests who lived in another center (say Atlanta) and visited Miami a few days or a week every month to minister to the RC faithful living there. They probably did a monthly evening of reflection, one for the men, one for the women, and met with RC people to give them Spiritual Direction. They were probably hopeful that they might one day have greater freedom to operate in the Miami area, and would then keep a permanent home in Miami and possibly become a greater presence in the diocese. As it stood, the work they were doing in Miami was for the RC members only, not for all Catholics in Miami.

Regnum Christi has a number of programs (they call them apostolates) like Challenge (a girl’s club) and Conquest (a boy’s club) Sometimes RC members get into a bit of hot water when, in their zeal to bring their apostolate to a community, they step on the toes of the local community. for example, if a parish has a youth group, and someone from RC comes in and tries to put their youth program into place, this could cause problems, especially if they either “poach” the youth away from the existing program, or they criticize the existing program, declaring their program to be superior. This has been a problem, historically, for the LC/RC, ad it has caused difficulties in a number of dioceses, and even resulted in bannings. For this reason, the LC is usually very prudent about building up its presence slowly, and yes, generally, they are careful not to violate the limits placed on their activity by the local ordinary. In Miami, the archbishop placed limits. Perhaps over time, the LC might have earned the trust of the Abp and he might have allowed them more freedom.

The point you make about the statistics of priests per Catholic is a good one, but does not take into account that the LC priests who were visiting Miami were a. not ministering to the whole Miami diocese (only their 300 RC members), and b. were likely only there a few days or a week per month (so not a full time presence who could address the needs of the Miami faithful anyway)

Does this help?

I welcome anyone from the Miami area to correct the assumptions I have made.

 

[Lurch104]

Nine posts in two years and two of those attacking the LoC. Do you have an axe to grind or is there something I am missing?

They have been banned from such dioces as St. Paul, Los Angelos, and Baltimore. These diocese are not known for the orthodoxy to say the least. I am not implying that the LoC is the foundation of orthodoxy in the church today, but I have had many positive experiences with them and found them to be quite inspirational. When a diocese will allow all manner of dissent and heterodoxy, but have issue with men such as the priests of the LoC, one will question the motives.

The current visitation by Archbishop Chaput will be telling. I believe him to be a very orthodox bishop who is not afraid of doing the right thing. Should he have issues with the LoC and RC, I will have to rethink my position.

Havard: I appreciate your desire for civility but there was more to this thread than simply the question of who will fill the Legionary vacuum. The tone of my post stems from being fed up with the tendency of the pro-Legion crowd to defend it at all costs and regardless of the facts. If this were the first time this has happened, I would have said nothing. However, this is not an isolated incident. The LCs have been banned from other dioceses and universities for similar and even more egregious offenses.

They also were vehemently defensive of Fr. Maciel and slandered and libeled his accusers. (I’m not saying anyone here has done this.) However, Frs. Thomas Williams, LC and Owen Kearns, LC have originally called the accusers liars and malcontents and still have not apologized.

There is also the tendency to label everyone that is not 100% pro-Legion as liberal or heterodox. Enough is enough.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see [thread=132852]Charity[/thread] for specifics, or [thread=116150]CAF rules[/thread] for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.**

 

[JReducation]

I think that we have to look at several points here.

1. There is an assumption that the LC and RC were providing a service to a huge population and have left a huge vacuum in the Archdiocese. From where I sit, this does ot appear to be the case. The ministry of the LC among the laity is non-existent. They never had a function among the laity. They were in Miami to run their formation program. They extended themselves to the laity without the permission of the Archbishop. The Archbishop’s letter was very clear that he had authorized them to enter the diocese to serve only the LC, meaning their own congregation, not the laity. The RC was making its way into diocesan schools without the permission of the bishop and the superintendant of Catholic Schools. That’s not allowed in the Archdiocese of Miami. In some dioceses the principals make those calls, but apparently, not in that diocese. It has to go through the chancery.
2. There was a post where someone asked why not bring in another religious order of priests. I believe that I answered this, but I’ll try again. The only religious orders of priests that we have in the USA are clerks regular. Clerks regular do not have an obligation to fill any void left by another community. It’s not as if the bishop has any authority over clerks regular. No bishop does. No religious institute of clerks regular answers to bishops, unless they are in his diocese. The bishop can invite, but they can decline. It’s unfair to assume that the bishop has not invited. We do not know this. He may have and they may have declined. There already are communities of clerks regular in that diocese: Redemptorists, Holy Spirit Fathers and Oblates of Mary Immaculate.
3. The other option are the major religious orders of men: Carmelites, Franciscans, Augustinians, Dominicans, Benedictines, Basilians and Trinitarians. There already are Carmelites, Dominicans and Franciscans in that diocese. These are all orders of friars or monks. These orders only staff a parish if they can place an entire religious community there. If the parish cannot afford to support an entire community, they cannot take up the parish. Community life is primary to them. It is their reason for existing. All other ministries flow from this. They already have too many parishes where they can no longer have a community, because of financial problems or because the younger friars or monks will not go there. As the number of men in those parishes goes down, they consolodate into other communities and forms of ministry.
4. Someone asked why many Franciscan communities move out when a neighborhood’s economic status rises to the middle class and wondered if their souls were not important to the friars. The fact is that they are important to the friars. But a friar becomes a friar for the salvation of his own soul first. The salvation of his soul is 100% dependent on fidelity to the rule of St. Francis and obedience to Francis. In his teachings, Francis bound the friars to obey him, long after his death or suffer the fate of hell. He left two mandates that the friars dare not disobey. 1) They must show preference in minsitry to the poor. 2) They must never disobey him or his successors. The first point is the issue here. This is a religious family founded for a very particular mission, to live together as brothers among the poor. Being brothers is paramount and being poor is right behind it. It’s not a matter of number. In fact, there are 1.7 million Franciscans around the world. It is the largest religious family in the Catholic Church. We have the numbers to staff parishes. But we have a prohibition in our history. We can only staff ministries where there is real financial poverty.

In the past, we staffed many parishes that were once immigrant parishes and blue collar parishes. As time moved along the population of those parishes moved ahead on the soci-economic scale. This is a good thing. The old parish of poor Italian immigrants is now a thriving urban parish. Or the old parish of poor farmers is now a thriving suburban parish. That’s good too. It means that people are moving ahead. Once that happens, those parishes are no longer within the scope the ministry of the order. Gradually the order pulls out and gives them back to the bishops. The friars move into other poor parishes or ministries among the poor. Sometimes they stay, because the bishop asks them to stay for a while longer until he has enough diocesan priests to replace the friars.

Finally, the friars are no longer ordaining the numbers that they once ordained. As the Franciscan renewal moves forward, the order become more traditional. This means that superiors call forth less men to be ordained to increase the number of lay brothers and keep the number of ordained brothers in check. We need to do this for our own survival. If we ordain many more men, we will be in danger of losing our lay status in the Church. We will become a clerical order or an order of clerics, which ever way you want to say it. This is what happened to the Carmelites and Dominicans. The lost their lay status. They hard ordained almost 90% of their friars. The law is that if you have that many religious ordained, you are no longer a lay order. If you lose your lay status then your lay brothers can no longer be superiors, they cannot vote, they cannot be formation directors, they cannot be theologians, they cannot be parish administrators, they cannot be spiritual directors, retreat masters, chaplains, or ordinaries. You create to classes of religious inside the religious community. This is what the Carmelites and Dominicans are trying to repair now.

I hope this helps answer some of the questions above. I put all of my answers into one post, because it was easier. Thanks for your patience.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[E_Glynn]

So the LC had their own house or something, where they lived? A retreat house for the priests?

My only other comment is that the LC operate to engage the laity…that’s what they are good at and how they are trained. They are highly educated, but their focus is on engaging the laity in a way that is different from an order like the Dominicans, who are academic. It doesn’t matter what order helps the laity, just that we become better Catholic Christians and get to heaven. Giving them their faculties on a case by case basis, which is what I thought you said, and only allowing them to minister to themselves…to their own priests…is confusing. It seems to contradict what they do, and the laity…well maybe we don’t get the rules…and RC well that’s apostolic so you reach all kinds of people. This is quite confusing. It seems like a herd of horses is being asked to be held back…the lay people, I mean. I do not understand why they would not be allowed to minister to lay people…that’s what they do. So are these diocese encouraging Sunday-only Catholics? Are they encouraging lack of evangelization? This does not make sense. Maybe that’s the problem.

 

[Havard]

First off, thank you again Brother JR for your insight!

Regarding this “void” that people are talking about, I think a lot of us can agree that there’s a growing desire for spiritual direction-type ministry. Also we can probably agree that diocesan priests are often too few in number, and too overloaded to be able to satisfy everyone seeking spiritual direction.

So I guess my question is, what alternatives should the laity be looking into? Brother JR mentioned religious orders that operate in one’s area. Would it be appropriate to call up these orders and ask about spiritual direction-type ministry directly, or should there be some kind of connection through the diocese first? And are there other alternatives besides that?

 

[MIA_Parishioner]

The archdiocese is not by any means encouraging Sunday-only Catholics.
At our parish in particular, we have every ministry imaginable…youth groups, young adult groups, groups for children, emmaus groups, respect life, prayer groups, groups for marriage, groups for families with children…etc.
And yes, we also have daily masses and confessions/priests available for guidance twice a week.

 

[E_Glynn]

Dear Br JR,

You said the following in your post today:
“There is an assumption that the LC and RC were providing a service to a huge population and have left a huge vacuum in the Archdiocese. From where I sit, this does ot appear to be the case. The ministry of the LC among the laity is non-existent. They never had a function among the laity. They were in Miami to run their formation program. They extended themselves to the laity without the permission of the Archbishop. The Archbishop’s letter was very clear that he had authorized them to enter the diocese to serve only the LC, meaning their own congregation, not the laity. The RC was making its way into diocesan schools without the permission of the bishop and the superintendant of Catholic Schools. That’s not allowed in the Archdiocese of Miami. In some dioceses the principals make those calls, but apparently, not in that diocese. It has to go through the chancery.”

This is confusing.

First you said, “The ministry among the laity is non-existent. They never had a function among the laity.” So this tells me that the LC did not violate the wishes of the Bishop.

Then you said, “They extended themselves to the laity without the permission of the Arch bishop.” I don’t think that happened because they know they will fry if they do that…just knowing them.

Then , “The RC was making its way into diocesan schools without the permission of the bishop and the superintendent of Catholic Schools.” Now…This was caused by lay people. The LC do not run clubs like, Conquest, Challenge and Pure Fashion (which is really a program, not a club) The priests are never there (well I saw one do an opening prayer for a Pure Fashion Show in my area, but they don’t stay at those things.). These clubs are run by lay people, usually parents. In my area, the LC brothers come to work with the Conquest clubs because they are allowed to here and it fits into a particular stage of their formation when they are supposed to learn about apostolate work. Likewise, the consecrated are permitted to work with the Challenge girls because they are allowed to do so. However, the laity run the clubs, and even without the order the clubs can operate as long as the laity running them are properly formed in the Catholic faith (doctrinally sound, I mean) and they understand that the clubs are trying to bring the kids closer to Christ.
If a lay person asks a pastor (or vice versa) if a club can use the facilities for a Challenge Club, or goes to a principal of a school with the same question and they say “yes,” how in the world are they supposed to know that they have to get permission from the chancery unless the pastor or the principal informs them? These are parents busv raising kids. The order cannot be held responsible for knowing all conversations that take place between every person running these clubs, RC or not. It is a gross assumption to say that the order violated the wishes of the bishop just because the clubs were making their way into diocesan schools and parishes without approval from the chancery. I bet you the LC priests did not even know about it, especially since they were not allowed to have any contact with the lay people. The fact that seven dioceses have had similar (going by what you said) problems means there’s an awful lot of confusion and poor communication, but it is not necessarily on the part of the LC priests.

Do you understand what I mean?

I truly hope this problem can begin to be properly understood and worked out. I honestly think its an issue with the laity.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’ll just address this because it seems like a response to my point of view.

It was actually in response to several posts but fair enough.

I never said that “any group of priests” should be allowed in. I merely questioned why the archdiocese wasn’t going to replace the LC. One claim I heard was that the archdiocese didn’t need the LC or anyone else for support. I feel the statistics on the priest shortage prove that wrong. The faithful need the support.

But the LC weren’t supposed to be ministering to the average parishioner, they were only ministering unto their own. Thus overwhelming majority of parishioners are not effected by the group leaving and thus there is no need to replace them.

There are many good, orthodox, faithful orders of priests who could be invited to pick up the ministries that the LC was providing. But that won’t happen.

Well, why don’t we wait and see how things play out over a few years before claiming that something isn’t going to happen.

In this case, they got rid of the LC and replaced them with nothing.

Once again, they were only supposed to be ministering to their own.

Why not train local priests to do the same work that the LC does – in the same orthodox manner?

The diocesan priests are trained to work amongst the people.

None of this will happen – for reasons that are obvious to me, but I just like to test my assumptions and get some validation. In this case, the LC was tolerated, then kicked out, and then not replaced.

Maybe obvious to you but perhaps you could be incorrect. Perhaps LC was given a chance to prove that they would be obedient to the bishop before being given larger responsibilities and they failed?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

My pastor, whom I love and consider a friend, will not preach on certain hot button topics. Abortion, homosexuality, and sin in general are off limits. He is very concerned that he may offend someone and therefore stop contributing financially to our parish.

How do you know that’s the actual reason? Perhaps he doesn’t feel that the homily is an appropriate time to talk about sex if there’s lots of children present. Or perhaps he doesn’t feel he can effectively do so within the time constraints of a regular homily. Perhaps he finds it much more effective to counsel on those issues one-on-one instead of through a one-size-fits-all homily. There’s a million and one possible reasons why something may or may not be addressed from the pulpit. Why are you so sure that it boils down to money?

However, this makes him unsuitable as a spiritual father for me. I want to follow someone who is stronger than I am spiritually. A true leader will not shy away from the truth because the fight is difficult.

I think that statement is very unfair to your pastor.

In my limited experience too many diocesan priests act the way of my parish priest. I honestly believe that they are threatend by groups like Opus Dei and the Legion because by their action they shine a light on their shortcomings.

As a diocesan priest I can assure you that is most certainly not the case.
I also have former RC members who are extremely “conservative” and orthodox and have nothing but bad things to say about LC and RC. So opposition to these groups is not necessarily based in being “liberal” or feeling “threatened” by them.
Personally my dealings with them have been very limited so I don’t have a personal opinion.

If the Bishops want to keep out an orthodox group of priests whose sole charism is the formation and spiritual growth of the individual so that they will be stronger and better members of the local church, they have an OBLIGATION to meet that need another way.

But those groups also have an OBLIGATION to obey the local Ordinary.

 

[Havard]

Since I see that you’re online, may I ask Father (NewEnglandPries) is the IRS cracking down on parishes’ 501(c)(3) status a concern in terms of homilies? I’ve heard people mention this before, that it causes a chilling effect in terms of freedom of speech.

 

[bunchkinbrain]

Nine posts in two years and two of those attacking the LoC. Do you have an axe to grind or is there something I am missing?

How very ad hominem of you. Yes, 9 posts in two years. My preferred method of contributing to Catholic Answers/CA Forums is financially and not from the keyboard. I usually don’t spend time here but I was directed here by a post at www.life-after-rc.com You should check it out sometime. Then again, I believe co-founders are discouraged from reading anything critical of the Legion or the Movement. Too bad. You’d learn much.

As for attacking the LC, I didn’t think I was; just stating the facts. Your silence regarding my earlier post about Fr. Maciel is, if I may quote This Rock which quotes J.A.T. Robinson, “as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark.”

I do appreciate your honesty in being willing to rethink your position depending on the outcome of the Apostolic Visitation.

Well, I’ve reached my posting quota for the year. God bless.