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

[Havard]

I saw Father Williams on EWTN a while back and he mentioned that anything putting Fr. Maciel at the forefront or basis for living for the Legionaries would be removed. Do you have a source regarding his attacking Fr. Maciel’s accusers?

By the way, I’m not attached to the Legionaries in any way, nor Regnum Christi. I had a couple of positive experiences with Legionaries several years ago, but I’d like to think that I’m unbiased.

 

[bunchkinbrain]

For starters, try this:

youtube.com/watch?v=WM1cF9wpWfQ

Fr. Thomas Williams comes on around 3:40 into the video. Many people, both inside and outside of the Movement are still waiting for an apology to Fr. Maciel’s accusers.

 

[MIA_Parishioner]

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.

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.

Let me try to help clear up some of the confusion: The clubs were not being run by lay people; you say that in your area, a brother comes to work with the Conquest club BECAUSE HE IS ALLOWED to there; well there was a brother here assigned to the Conquest club (He was also assigned to train the altar boys too by the way) You also say that the consecrated work with the Challenge club because they are allowed to. Well, even though they were not allowed to, the consecrated were here too. They were at the Pure Fashion meeting and they went to the school and attempted to talk to the children (without their parents’ knowledge or consent.) I really doubt the LC had no knowledge that one of their brothers and two of their consecrated were doing all of this.

 

[Havard]

For starters, try this:

youtube.com/watch?v=WM1cF9wpWfQ

Fr. Thomas Williams comes on around 3:40 into the video. Many people, both inside and outside of the Movement are still waiting for an apology to Fr. Maciel’s accusers.

Here’s the closest thing I’ve found:

youtube.com/watch?v=Y0AQCFDStpw&feature=related

From about 3:00 in Father Thomas Williams starts talking about his reasons for defending Fr. Maciel. Father Jonathan Morris is the one who says his heart goes out to the victims, though, and really it should have come from Father Williams.

 

[bunchkinbrain]

I’m really pushing my luck with all these posts but MIA Parishioner brings up a point that causes a real problem for parents regarding the Legion and Regnum Christi: talking to children without their parents’ consent. The daughter of a friend of mine was pulled aside by a Regnum Christi consecrated. The girl was basically told “If what your parents tell you contradicts what we tell you, then your obligation is to follow God and ignore your parents.”

If I remember correctly, this was also one of the reasons the bishop of Baltimore dispatched the Legion/Regnum Christi from that diocese.

 

[reggieM]

But the LC weren’t supposed to be ministering to the average parishioner, they were only ministering unto their own.

They have “their own” because they meet a need that is widely felt among the faithful. Now that they’re kicked out, the need will remain unaddressed (I’ve heard it claimed that they didn’t fill a need at all – and at the same time, diocese is probably working on replacing them???).

Thus overwhelming majority of parishioners are not effected by the group leaving and thus there is no need to replace them.

As above – they supposedly didn’t fulfill a need at all. They expanded their scope of ministry to non-LC laity because there was no need for them there either.

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.

Well, I could accept your (and others’) view that there was no need to replace them and then conclude that nothing is going to happen.

Maybe obvious to you but perhaps you could be incorrect.

I certainly could be very incorrect. But the only way I would see that is if there was some reasonable and logically-consistent reason for not providing ministerial service for the people who are in need of it. People are clamoring for orthodox-traditional Catholic spiritual formation, even at the diocesan parish level. But they usually don’t find it. Grace abhors a vacuum, so in spite of their many imperfections – the LC step into the gap and start filling a real need.

Perhaps LC was given a chance to prove that they would be obedient to the bishop before being given larger responsibilities and they failed?

Certainly, you could be right. Either obey the bishop or get kicked out. This indicates to me that everything else that occurs in the diocese must be considered as having the approval and support of the archbishop.

Miami Archdiocese Sponsors Concert by Gay Men’s Chorus

This does not give a good message.

Call To Action Dissenter speaks at Miami Archdiocesan University

Sister Miriam has been affiliated with Call to Action, long-considered the “mother” of dissenting Catholic organizations. Call to Action endorses divorce and remarriage, homosexualism, abortion, contraception, the complete democratization of the Catholic Church’s hierarchy and doctrine, and moral and theological relativism.

The diocese has its priorities. They are uncompromising in their defense of obedience to the archbishop – especially if priests are caught offering spiritual direction to the laity.

An insider’s take …

stjohnsvaldosta.blogspot.com/2009/03/queer-situation-in-miami-archdiocese.html

The Miami Archdiocese is said to be no stranger to scandal and wide-spread theological dissent. Two of the Archdiocese’s parishes, Saint Anthony and Saint Maurice, are listed as “Gay-Friendly” in a directory published by the Conference of Catholic Lesbians (CCL).

Yes the Archdiocese of Miami is involved in some big scandal at least once a month, not more, but please understand that I know many good Catholics that truly know their faith and try to live good, moral lives in accordance with the Church. Personally, I’m getting tired of watching the money I put in the Sunday collection go to the corruption and greed in my archdiocese, but there is hope. Archbishop Favalora has to retire next year. Many people have begun to pray for a good successor who will be able to somewhat fix what’s left of our diocese. Although we’re not waiting for someone to come riding in on a white horse and fix everything, we trust that Jesus will give us someone who will work with us, the people, to bring back true Catholic doctrine and make the diocesian priests stop looking for approval and larger collections and teach them what it really means to be Catholic. Hopefully then we won’t be involved in so many scandals, if we even got it down to once every other month, it would be a great improvement!

Fortunately, the archdiocese cleaned up the problem with disobedient LC priests.

The archbishop actually merited his own blog post and campaign. I didn’t realize he was that well known:

Archbishop Favalora of Miami MUST Resign

There are several players to consider in the discussion:

– the Archdiocese and the archbishop (considered one entity)
– the Legionaries
– The LC-members in the archdiocese
– LC-opponents (here on CAF)
– LC-defenders (here)
– parties trying to stay neutral and who are interested in the welfare of the faithful and the Faith

I’m in the last category.
I’m also very sympathetic to the LC-opponents, even the more extreme ones.

But maybe we’re not going to do much good by painting one side or the other as the ultimate bad-guy.

As I see it, the LC are filling a void. There shouldn’t be a void like that to fill. But groups like the LC and others end up getting very popular because the integrity of the Faith has not been held as a priority in many dioceses. People are calling out for bread and receiving stones.

I’m not interested in bishop-bashing either, for the sake of spreading negativity. But I think the discussion does need some balance and some objectivity.

Let’s help meet the spiritual needs out there and not treat the faithful who simply want spiritual help as if they’re the enemy.

 

[reggieM]

I’m really pushing my luck with all these posts but MIA Parishioner brings up a point that causes a real problem for parents regarding the Legion and Regnum Christi: talking to children without their parents’ consent. The daughter of a friend of mine was pulled aside by a Regnum Christi consecrated. The girl was basically told “If what your parents tell you contradicts what we tell you, then your obligation is to follow God and ignore your parents.”

If I remember correctly, this was also one of the reasons the bishop of Baltimore dispatched the Legion/Regnum Christi from that diocese.

I’ve heard of them doing things like that, and that’s why I don’t support them. But if that’s the reason they got kicked out of Miami it would be best to know it. Giving an excuse about obedience makes it seem like there was not a more serious problem.

In any case, I still think that the children and RC families are looking for support and formation – and just because the LC isn’t there, they shouldn’t be ignored.

 

[bunchkinbrain]

I agree these families shouldn’t be ignored and they should be given pastoral care. However, in my bookcase sits a book entitled “Integral Formation of Catholic Priests” by Fr. Marcial Maciel, LC. Given what we know now about Fr. Maciel (a man who was kicked out of at least two seminaries as a young seminarian), formation of the laity by priests formed by Fr. Maciel gets my spidey senses tingling.

 

[MIA_Parishioner]

I’ve heard of them doing things like that, and that’s why I don’t support them. But if that’s the reason they got kicked out of Miami it would be best to know it. Giving an excuse about obedience makes it seem like there was not a more serious problem.

.

Reggie: But that IS about obedience. By doing the activities described, they disobeyed the guidelines that had been set up by the archdiocese (for the LC to only work with their flock - (the RC members).
By the way, most parishioners did not have that much of a problems when their clubs were introduced at the parish level. (Even though it was never disclosed that any of these clubs were related to RC-it took some research on parishioners’/parents’ behalf to realize this) It was when they went into the school (without the parent’s knowledge) that the real problems began.

 

[reggieM]

What I meant was “obedience to the assignment given”. In other words, they could have done exactly what they were told (not ministering to any but their own) but if they were coercing children and pitting them against parents – that’s an offense that is not a matter of just disobedience, but of bad pastoral practice.

Now if the archdiocese said that, it would be different – and a benefit to everyone – because we’d all know about a bad practice like this.

If however, they didn’t do anything wrong and were merely kicked out because they didn’t follow the pastoral guidelines on who they could serve, then my concerns about inconsistency and lack of care that the archdiocese shows to the faithful are very relevant.

 

[reggieM]

I agree these families shouldn’t be ignored and they should be given pastoral care. However, in my bookcase sits a book entitled “Integral Formation of Catholic Priests” by Fr. Marcial Maciel, LC. Given what we know now about Fr. Maciel (a man who was kicked out of at least two seminaries as a young seminarian), formation of the laity by priests formed by Fr. Maciel gets my spidey senses tingling.

I can understand your view and I generally would agree. But give the LC credit also because Pope John Paul II gave them a lot of support and approval and he knew of their formation program.

It might sound like a reversal of everything I’ve said so far, but I personally think the LC should be disbanded by the Holy See. They focused so much on their founder that they’re forever marked by that.

But I also think that there are two-sides in this story. If the LC’s only crime was that they didn’t restrict their ministry – then that seems like a major contradiction with what the archdiocese tolerates (supports?) from dissenting Catholics.

 

[E_Glynn]

From the MIA Parishioner:
"Let me try to help clear up some of the confusion: The clubs were not being run by lay people; you say that in your area, a brother comes to work with the Conquest club BECAUSE HE IS ALLOWED to there; well there was a brother here assigned to the Conquest club (He was also assigned to train the altar boys too by the way) You also say that the consecrated work with the Challenge club because they are allowed to. Well, even though they were not allowed to, the consecrated were here too. They were at the Pure Fashion meeting and they went to the school and attempted to talk to the children (without their parents’ knowledge or consent.) I really doubt the LC had no knowledge that one of their brothers and two of their consecrated were doing all of this. "

What precisely did the communication from the diocese say about how the LC could operate? Did it apply only to the priests? Again, the Consecrated are laity, and the brothers, well they are in formation, and they are not priests. The priests were not there. I do not see a breach if members of the laity were there with the pastor’s approval unless there is evidence from the Archdiocese that is specific and speaks to more than the priests. The pastor is responsible, and has special canonical rights too. The Archdiocese of Miami needs to publish precisely what the directive was to the order prior to the ban. Was it clear?
Did it speak only to the faculties of the priests?

 

[MIA_Parishioner]

What precisely did the communication from the diocese say about how the LC could operate? Did it apply only to the priests? Again, the Consecrated are laity, and the brothers, well they are in formation, and they are not priests. The priests were not there. I do not see a breach if members of the laity were there with the pastor’s approval unless there is evidence from the Archdiocese that is specific and speaks to more than the priests. The pastor is responsible, and has special canonical rights too. The Archdiocese of Miami needs to publish precisely what the directive was to the order prior to the ban. Was it clear?
Did it speak only to the faculties of the priests?

MIAMI, FL (Zenit.org) - Archbishop John Favalora of Miami has officially prohibited members of the Legionaries of Christ from exercising any ministry in the archdiocese, effective immediately.

Msgr. Michael Souckar, the archdiocesan chancellor, communicated the ban today in a letter addressed to all priests of the archdiocese. ZENIT confirmed the veracity of the letter with the office of the chancellor.

Both Msgr. Souckar and Legionary of Christ spokesman Jim Fair were unavailable for comment.

The letter said that Archbishop Favolorola made the decision based on alleged abuses of earlier permissions given to the Legionaries that restricted their work to attending to the needs of members of the Regnum Christi movement, a lay apostolic association connected to the Legionaries.

“In the past,” it explained, “their priests were given individual approval by the vicar general each time they wished to come to the Archdiocese of Miami, but their ministry was restricted to their own members. Because the Legionaries of Christ have not abided by these restrictions, Archbishop Favalora has barred them from any ministry in the Archdiocese of Miami.”

The letter furthermore stated that the Regnum Christi movement is not permitted to work in schools or parishes in the archdiocese.

 

[JReducation]

What I meant was “obedience to the assignment given”. In other words, they could have done exactly what they were told (not ministering to any but their own) but if they were coercing children and pitting them against parents – that’s an offense that is not a matter of just disobedience, but of bad pastoral practice.

Now if the archdiocese said that, it would be different – and a benefit to everyone – because we’d all know about a bad practice like this.

If however, they didn’t do anything wrong and were merely kicked out because they didn’t follow the pastoral guidelines on who they could serve, then my concerns about inconsistency and lack of care that the archdiocese shows to the faithful are very relevant.

Actually, this is about pastoral care. A bishop is ultimately responsible for every ministry in his diocese. The bishop’s letter simply says that they were given permission to enter the archdiocese to minister to their own, on a case by case basis. If a community goes beyond those boundaries, then there is a pastoral problem. If you can’t trust a community to abide by the boundaries that are set for them by the local bishop, it raises questions about their reliability. I can understand a bishop’s concern about this.

I work in another diocese, but I have boundaries in which I have to operate. I have other gifts that I can offer the faithful, but I cannot offer them just because I have them. Obedience to the bishop and to the major superior always trump all other concerns in the life of a faithful religious. There are certain things that we cannot do. One of them is to overstep the boundaries that are allowed us by either a bishop or the superior.

I have not seen anything in writing that says that the LC or the RC were heretical or criminals or anything that would make them horrible human beings. I don’t think that’s the issue here. The issue is simply that you cannot overstep the boundaries that you’re allowed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Dear Br JR,

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.

They extended themselves outside of the bishop’s parameters to the laity. They were not to do this. How many lay people, I have no idea. The bishop’s letter does not say.

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.

The bishop would not pull this out of his sleeve.

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.

The letter speaks about the RC going into the schools without diocesan permission. It is the duty of every lay organization that is a public association of the faithful to receive proper erection in a diocese before they become active. This falls upon the leadership of the RC.

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

All of us would like to see this and all problems resolved. We’ll just have to wait and see. the fact is that in that particular archdiocese they have more than 158 religious brothers and over 200 religious sisters who are authorized to do religious formation, spiritual direction, pastoral counseling, reatreats and preaching. They also have religious orders and many diocesan priests who are qualified to serve in these capacities.

It is true, that they don’t have as many diocesan priests as they need. But they have many religious brothers and religious sisters. It’s one of the few dioceses in the south that still has a large number of religious men and women.

We also have to remember that conservative or traditional does not mean orthodox. Any group that fails to follow the rules of a bishop is going to get into trouble. It is one thing if the group is canonically erected in the diocese and another if the group has been given faculties for a very specific ministry and a very specific group, which seems to be the case, according to the letter that was published.

Yes, like many other dioceses in the world, there are some groups and institutions that are less than orthodox and less than desireable. Unfortunately, they are canonically erected in the diocese. When a religious order or religious congregation is canonically erected the bishop does not have the autority to disband it. The most that he can do is to limit them to their own facilitties. Only the religious superior can disband them or the Holy See. The bishop must appeal to them. This is not the case of the LC and RC. They did not seem to have their own institution. It seems, from the letter by the Chancellor, that they were in the diocesan territory.

Any religious in diocesan territory is subject to the wishes of the bishop. I’m reminded of the Council of Baltimore over 100 years ago. The Council of Baltimore declared that religious men could not wear their habits outside of their religious houses. That’s how religious men in the USA started to wear black suits and clerical shirts usually worn only by secular deacons, priests, and seminarians. There was nothing that the religious men could do. They were in the Baltimore ecclesiastical province. This ban on religious habits in men lasted until the late 1960s. You have to do what the bishops say or you leave their territory. We religious cannot do anything else. We cannot take on anything that we’re not authorized to do by a bishop or our major superior.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pigpen]

I’ve heard of them doing things like that, and that’s why I don’t support them. But if that’s the reason they got kicked out of Miami it would be best to know it. Giving an excuse about obedience makes it seem like there was not a more serious problem.

In any case, I still think that the children and RC families are looking for support and formation – and just because the LC isn’t there, they shouldn’t be ignored.

The RC families are not being ignored. They are not a special class of Catholic in need of special care. They are entitled to everything every other Catholic in Miami gets from their archdiocese. They are not out in the cold.

Is every Catholic entitled to spiritual direction? In the case of RC members, SD would likely involve a half hour appointment once a month with a priest or consecrated woman. Does the archdiocese of Miami owe this to every RC member who desires it?

Yes, many people desire formation. I would argue that there likely are formation opportunities in Miami. There are also endless Catholic resources, books, study materials, lives of the saints, etc. with which any Catholic anywhere can pursue their Catholic formation. That is how I pursued my Catholic formation both before and after my time in Regnum Christi. I personally find a greater depth to my formation and Catholic experience when I do not rely so exclusively on the spirutal offerings of the LC. I am scheduled for a silent retreat soon, based on the Ignatian spiritual exercises. Life goes on.

imho

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

They have “their own” because they meet a need that is widely felt among the faithful. Now that they’re kicked out, the need will remain unaddressed (I’ve heard it claimed that they didn’t fill a need at all – and at the same time, diocese is probably working on replacing them???).

They apparently only worked with RC. So in that sense they will not be replaced. But I’m sure there’s other groups that are active in the archdiocese.

People are clamoring for orthodox-traditional Catholic spiritual formation, even at the diocesan parish level. But they usually don’t find it.

So you’re saying that the average parish priest is not orthodox?

Certainly, you could be right. Either obey the bishop or get kicked out. This indicates to me that everything else that occurs in the diocese must be considered as having the approval and support of the archbishop.

Sorry but there’s some big differences here.

For starters there’s a huge difference between what you inherit and what you invite. All diocesan clergy to some extent are “inherited” by the Bishop. The LC are a group that is invited into the diocese. In other words, just because my family might be dysfunctional does not mean I’m going to go out and invite dysfunctional nonrelatives into my life.

Secondly, along those same lines, a bishop is essentially “stuck” with his diocesan clergy. In many ways we do have canonical rights once ordained. The LC had no canonical rights and thus were easier to deal with.

to bring back true Catholic doctrine and make the diocesian priests stop looking for approval and larger collections and teach them what it really means to be Catholic.

That is so insulting, objectively sinfully judgmental, and most likely untrue that I don’t know where to begin.

The archbishop actually merited his own blog post and campaign. I didn’t realize he was that well known

And there are blogs that complain the Pope is too liberal. Does that mean its true?

 

[E_Glynn]

Well if Mrs Jones is asked by a pastor (or vice versa) to start a Challenge Club, cause you have to ask there first, and the answer is yes then to get it organized you obviously have to have a schedule. Otherwise the parents won’t know what’s going on. What you are saying is that Mrs Jones had to get approval of the chancery before doing anything, in that Archdiocese (prior to the ban).

In my diocese, the club can start on “September whatever” (sorry, parents need schedules) even if the order has not received the OK to be there. If they can’t pay a visit until December, well you just start the club as long as the pastor says it’s OK. If they can never visit, well then you still press on. You just keep the pastor informed, and it’s verbal.

If the brothers or consecrated showed up then they had approval to be there.

What BR is saying is that the chancery got too many requests…which they got because the clubs are good clubs.

From another post:
“I’m really pushing my luck with all these posts but MIA Parishioner brings up a point that causes a real problem for parents regarding the Legion and Regnum Christi: talking to children without their parents’ consent. The daughter of a friend of mine was pulled aside by a Regnum Christi consecrated. The girl was basically told “If what your parents tell you contradicts what we tell you, then your obligation is to follow God and ignore your parents.””

Well, what if the consecrated was telling the girl that she needs to go to Mass on Sunday, and it’s a mortal sin if you don’t? What do you want the consecrated to do, not guide the kid to understanding the truth? Perhaps she could have worded it differently and said, “follow the the Church teaches,” but she was not wrong.

Then in another post, MIA Parishioner said the parents found out after doing research on the Challenge and Conquest Clubs that they were part of RC and they were upset. There has never been any secret about that. Do these same parents do research on the Girls Scouts to find out it has a Planned Parenthood connection and pitch a fit too? Bet not. Have you ever seen the nonsense in their manuals, the junk they talk about with the girls without parental knowledge? No pitching fits there…

I was not asking what the letter from the Archbishop said regarding the banning of the LC. I want to know what the instruction was to the order prior to that allowed them to be there on a case by case basis. I am still not convinced that the order itself violated anything at all.

Same old story…

 

[reggieM]

The RC families are not being ignored. They are not a special class of Catholic in need of special care. They are entitled to everything every other Catholic in Miami gets from their archdiocese. They are not out in the cold.

Ok, but the archdiocese didn’t seem to agree with that when they authorized the LC to offer ministry there. If there was no need – then why bother in the first place?
The way I see it (and I’ve noticed this elsewhere), the RC members grow in a diocese (especially where there is a lack of solid teaching in normal channels) and then the diocese can’t ignore them. So, they allow the LC to provide ministry.

To now claim that there never was any need doesn’t make sense since they already permitted the LC to serve. Plus, I’d question any diocese that has been losing priests who also says that they don’t have need of additional.

The LC were limited to minstering to their own members – but why not permit them to expand their ministry and help on a wider basis?
The claim is (I guess) is that there’s “no need for that”.

The archdiocese will claim that they’re providing the best possible support for the faithful and they have plenty of priests and also, that nobody needs anything more than what they provide. Why would they say that when it’s obviously not true? The archdiocese has a priest shortage.

Yes, many people desire formation. I would argue that there likely are formation opportunities in Miami.

I agree, but that’s where I’ll question the quality of that formation. If there was good, solid formation in the parishes in Miami, there would be little need or interest in the LC. Instead, however, there is a vacuum, caused by weak catechesis and dissent and liberalism – so people want (and deserve) something more.

There are also endless Catholic resources, books, study materials, lives of the saints, etc. with which any Catholic anywhere can pursue their Catholic formation. That is how I pursued my Catholic formation both before and after my time in Regnum Christi. I personally find a greater depth to my formation and Catholic experience when I do not rely so exclusively on the spirutal offerings of the LC. I am scheduled for a silent retreat soon, based on the Ignatian spiritual exercises.

Ok, that’s good, but don’t forget that you had the advantage of a structured program from the LC so now you can go and work independenly on your spiritual growth. Many others haven’t had that.

 

[E_Glynn]

MIA Parishioner,

Are you a member of the parish that had the pastor who invited the LC in with full approval from the chancery, and allowed the clubs to operate for about three years? Then the pastor got transferred and the new pastor did not want the clubs there, but he never met with his RC parishioners to talk to them and explain to them what he wanted? Then he went to the bishop and complained that there were RC folks at his parish without his approval…and yet he refised to meet with them?

Politics … ugly, huh

THAT’s what happened. The LC are just too polite to say anything publically about it.