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

[otjm]

I was referring to the “active and obedient members cannot [are not allowed to] access this Catholic Discussion board” – and not just the priests and the brothers. This would be with regard to the lay persons who are active and obedient to the RC ministry. If they are forbidden from spreading the faith to non-Catholics, that would be quite severe control over their lives. In other words, they’re told not to visit CAF. But does that mean that they can’t work with anyone who might tell lies about the Church (as many non-Catholics do)?

I’m questioning the policy and how they enforce it – and how could RC members actually live by it.

Ah.

I suspect that to a great extent they are self-regulating. People don’t join a group such as them if they (the joiners) do not accept the regulations the group imposes. In other words, people who don’t follow orders generally don’t join a group which has strict orders.

It has been said elsewhere that the control that the LC exercises over its members borders on a true cult type of control, to the point of bordering on mind control. I have no contact with them, nor do I know anyone who is in RC, and I only speak from what I have read in the press. Some of that is from personal experiences of men who have been priests in the LC, and the press was from reliable Catholic sources.

 

[JReducation]

I was referring to the “active and obedient members cannot [are not allowed to] access this Catholic Discussion board” – and not just the priests and the brothers. This would be with regard to the lay persons who are active and obedient to the RC ministry. If they are forbidden from spreading the faith to non-Catholics, that would be quite severe control over their lives. In other words, they’re told not to visit CAF. But does that mean that they can’t work with anyone who might tell lies about the Church (as many non-Catholics do)?

I’m questioning the policy and how they enforce it – and how could RC members actually live by it.

I don’t have personal experience with the RC or the LC, but I do have experience with obedience. Obedience always trumps ministry. You become a religiuos to save your soul. Any active ministry that you perform is always under the guidance and vigilance of the major superior who can also delegate this control to the local superior. This is usually the case in larger religious institutes of men. Religious institutes of women are governed differently. Most of them were founded for a very specific apostolic purpose.

Even those religious institutes of men that were founded as congregations (not religious orders), such as the LC, were often founded for a particular ministry. But the exercise of that ministry is always regulated by a superior. You cannot exercise ministry simply because your community was founded to do X. For example, let’s use a community that is not in trouble. Let’s talk about the De la Salle Christian Brothers. They were founded to teach. But no brother may teach unless the superior allows him to do so. You can find yourself being a Christian Brother and never teaching, but doing some other work that supports teaching. That could even be a life totally dedicated to praying for teachers and students. The same would apply to the LC. They were founded to evangelize through apologetics. But they do not have to actively engage in apologetics to do that. They can spend their lives writing and studying aplogetics, praying for those who do apologetics as a ministry (including their own), or some other work that supports the ministry.

The LC are not the only religious community of men that does not allow their members to engage in evangelization, especially on these forums such as CAF or other similar ones. In my own community, only three of us are allowed to do this. The rest are not. This is not considered a safe place for religious. The superiors are very careful whom they allow to engage in “media ministry”. Even the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, which were founded for media ministry are not boards. They have their website (EWTN), but they do not interact with those who visit the site.

This is not that religious communities have anything to hide, but they do so to protect their members from contamination. I know that we do not allow our young brothers anywhere near the internet, except to do school work. And they do that in a very public place where they can be seen by older brothers. No one has a computer in their room. The computer is always in a public area. Unless you have permission for forums, you don’t do it, not matter who is saying what lies about the Church.

I believe that the Franciscans of the Renewal never use internet for anything, regardless of the evangelization that can be done via this medium. Many religious communities regard the internet as an invasion into the cloister.

It’s a tricky thing. You want to do ministry, as I’m sure that the LC does. But you also want to protect your members. Superiors and chapters have to weigh the pros and cons. Most of the time the prohibitions are not because they are hiding something or hiding from someone, but simply because these modes of communication are a double edge sword, as we already know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I am curious as to what activities of the Legionaries prompted the complaints by parishioners and parents at the Miami Archdiocese school.

From what I read it was the RC who were volunteering to do ministry in a school. I didn’t get the impression that they were doing anything wrong or strange. I got the imperssion that they were doing the usual catechesis, adoration fo the Blessed Sacrament, teaching prayers and morals, etc.

I don’t have an iside connection on this. So please do not take this to the bank, because the check may bounce. But my impression was that the big question was when the parents asked who these people were and who authorized them to minister to their children it was discovered that no one with the legal authority to do so had authorized them. The principals and pastors in a diocese cannot authorize an on-going ministry in any Catholic school without the permission of the chancery. No group, religious or lay, may engage in any on-going ministry in any diocese without the permission of the chancery. A pastor can grant permission for a single event or evern an annual event, but not an on-going ministry, especially today with all the rules about vigilance over children in place. You have to have clearance form a diocese.

It’s almost like driving without a license. You can be an excellent driver and no one is the wiser that you do not have the license until someone asks you for it. The issue then is not about you being a bad driver, but an unlicensed driver. God knows that there are many horrible licensed drivers and there are many horrible licensed evangelists. But there are two separate rules here. Rule #1, you must have a license. Rule #2, you must know how to evangelize. You have to comply with both.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[reggieM]

I don’t have personal experience with the RC or the LC, but I do have experience with obedience. Obedience always trumps ministry. You become a religiuos to save your soul. Any active ministry that you perform is always under the guidance and vigilance of the major superior who can also delegate this control to the local superior. This is usually the case in larger religious institutes of men. Religious institutes of women are governed differently. Most of them were founded for a very specific apostolic purpose.

Dear Brother JR – thanks for your kind reply.
I think you missed the key points here.

First, the claim was that the lay members of the RC were forbidden from being active on CAF because it was claimed that lies are being told here.

To be consistent, the RC would need to forbid the laity from engaging any non-Catholics at all, since we know non-Catholics spread lies about Catholicism.

So, the point was not with regard to the rules of religious orders, obedience to superiors in religious orders – or even the use of the internet (since one can engage with lying non-Catholics in person, in many places).

Now it may be true that the LC and RC leaders are telling the lay people who are attached to their ministry that they are forbidden from speaking to anyone who is generally suspect of telling lies about the Church. That would be consistent.

I just find it interesting to consider how many lay Catholics would embrace that kind of spirituality since it cuts the laity off from their rightful mission in evangelizing the world (and therefore encountering and seeking to convert lying non-Catholics).

But given the spiritual malformation of most of the Catholic laity today – I don’t really think that kind of condemnation is unreasonable, at least for a start (kind of a novitiate).

 

[JReducation]

Dear Brother JR – thanks for your kind reply.
I think you missed the key points here.

I just find it interesting to consider how many lay Catholics would embrace that kind of spirituality since it cuts the laity off from their rightful mission in evangelizing the world (and therefore encountering and seeking to convert lying non-Catholics).

I’m not a member of the LC, so I could be mistaken. But from what I have read, I ger the impression that the RC is very similar to the Secular Franciscan Order, Secular Dominican Order, and Secular Carmelite Orders (there are two). These communities, even though they are for lay people, are still part of a religious family. Therefore, they are found by the charism of that family and owe obedience to that family. They are not ordinary lay people in the strict sense of the word.

The members of secular orders and third orders are people who have a special vocation in life. Their vocation makes them very different from other lay men and women. The reason they are called lay is because they retain their canonical status in the Church as lay men. But they are truly consecrated persons who live by a rule of life, make a public profession of either vows or a promise of obedience to a particular way of life and a very specific model for achieving holiness. They form a true religious family. They have a canonical status in the hierarchy of the Church. In that sense, they are very different from they lay brothers and sisters in the Church. To be a member of one of these communities, you must have a divine calling, just as I have a vocation to the religious life and someone has a vocation to the priesthood and so forth.

In reality, the members of RC are not like other lay people. They are called to be different and to exercise a very different role in the Church. The word lay is a canonical state, but they are different from their neighbor in the pew. They have a very unique vocation that sets them apart from other lay persons. Part of that vocation involves giving up some of the roles that the laity plays in the life of the Church to assume other roles that are nto usually part of the average lay person’s life.

For example, Secular Franciscans, Dominicans, and Carmelites make a public and liturgical profession to live and minister according to the rule of their order. Their community takes priority over the rest of the Christian community in terms of their attention and service. They must first attend to and serve their brothers and sisters.

So it is not so surprising that a lay person would join the RC, because since the year 1221, when Francis of Assisi founded the first secular order in the Catholic Church, lay men and lay women have been called by Christ to live a life that is among the laity, but not the same as the rest of the laity. One can call it a different way of life within the lay context, but not with the lay mission. The mission of these communities is much more interwoven with the mission of their spiritual families, be they LC, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite or Missionaries of Charity (that’s another lay order along side the sisters and brothers).

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[reggieM]

In reality, the members of RC are not like other lay people. They are called to be different and to exercise a very different role in the Church. The word lay is a canonical state, but they are different from their neighbor in the pew. They have a very unique vocation that sets them apart from other lay persons. Part of that vocation involves giving up some of the roles that the laity plays in the life of the Church to assume other roles that are nto usually part of the average lay person’s life.

I don’t know enough about RC membership either, but I think their status makes a difference with regard to the level and kind of obedience that is due to their religious superiors. Obviously, a person who is vowed to obedience has a different obligation than those who do not take that vow.

But if RC members are, as you explain, then they’re somewhat bound to the direction of their spiritual leaders. If they’re told not to join CAF forums or engage in any apologetical or evangelical efforts with non-Catholics, then they would need to comply.

I just don’t know if RC members owe that level of obedience to their superiors. Certainly, vowed religious would righly have that obligation – but it may be much different than what RC requires.

 

[monicatfp3]

Ah.

I suspect that to a great extent they are self-regulating. People don’t join a group such as them if they (the joiners) do not accept the regulations the group imposes. In other words, people who don’t follow orders generally don’t join a group which has strict orders.

I

 

[monicatfp3]

Sorry I messed up my earlier post. (I am new and trying to get the hang of it.
What I wanted it to say is that I know of 2 elementary school children who were sent to the Pre-Seminary and had no choice but to follow the Legionaries rules.

 

[Eyes_Open]

I was in Baton Rouge when Regnum Christi and the Legionaries were restricted. One of my loved ones was also involved in RC. Here are some personal observations from a sinner and a Catholic who loves the Church.

First, a local bishop could and should be concerned about LC/RC activities in his diocese. These groups are deceptive in the way they recruit and operate. As I recall (and this was about 4 years ago now?), parents became concerned that LC members were bringing students from Catholic High School to LC activities under false pretenses.

LC would sponsor dinners and other events without disclosing its sponsorship. That was when I became very suspicious. I am personally aware of this. The only other group I know of that operates in this fashion is AmWay. My loved one still wants to explain this away because her “spiritual advisor” told her that RC was not to be used as a banner, or some such. To which I say, “bunkum!”

LC/RC has not changed its ways. Look at the website for Cypress Heights Academy in Baton Rouge. It states that it is run by Catholic laity and not affiliated with the diocese. You must look very, very close, buried in the student life section, are links to Challenge and Conquest, two LC-sponsored youth programs. The only reference to LC/RC is in this small print.

Some of you with more knowledge of LC might recognize the items under Charity and Leadership as LC material. Specifically, I note the items relating to always speaking well of others (always?) and excusing others’ errors. Attributes tailor-made for a founder with something to hide?

Looking at this website, would you conclude that this is an RC/LC school?

Make no mistake, Cypress Heights was formed as an RC school. All of the movers and shakers are RC unless things have changed very recently.

I was never clear regarding the LC’s involvement in Cypress Heights, but neither was anyone willing to make this disclosure. My loved one inquired but never got a clear answer. My read is that she was discouraged from asking a lot of questions and received evasive answers. She is not one to question.

At some point, her “spiritual advisor” told her that at least some of the board members at the school were not RC. Of course-- create some cover. Keep the options open. To this day, LC would probably deny any involvement in this school whatsoever. LC priests, however, were deeply involved in the lives of Cypress Heights’ founders and the school’s formation.

While we are at it, does Catholic catechesis allow for a lay “spiritual advisor?” For me to even work on our RCIA team or teach catechism here, I need to attend certain classes and meet certain requirements. Hmmmm.

Make no mistake, the RC I am acquainted with, to a person, seem well-meaning, devout, orthodox Catholics. However, they at times allowed themselves to be called out of the fold by shepherds that are at least misguided if not evil. Most of them are still in the fold, and the Holy See should see to it that the bad shepherds not be allowed to cloak themselves with the Church’s approval.

LC/RC, if not a cult, was a cult of personality. The Church has enjoyed and formed some wonderful personalities over the centuries, but we must be wary of them until they have stood the test of time. There is a reason it takes so long for the Church to declare one a Saint.

Final observation: I truly am bitter about the whole LC/RC debacle. Maciel and his minions preyed upon the goodness of many people, and it appears that they still are. Please pray for me as I pray for them. I do not want to hold on to this bitterness.

 

[Susan56]

Thank you Br. Jr, that is my impression also (that the LC were volunteering in the parish and overstepped their authority). I would also be concerned if RC was invited to my parish and parochial school in this way, especially if it was not communicated who the group is and what their mission is and they were given direct contact with the children. That being said (and I recognize that there may be more to the facts of the story), an archdiocesan-wide ban on the group seems a pretty severe disciplinary action for overzealous volunteering. Also, the bishop’s limited explanation of the action certainly leaves the faithful with the impression that there was more serious wrongdoing.

 

[otjm]

Thank you Br. Jr, that is my impression also (that the LC were volunteering in the parish and overstepped their authority). I would also be concerned if RC was invited to my parish and parochial school in this way, especially if it was not communicated who the group is and what their mission is and they were given direct contact with the children. That being said (and I recognize that there may be more to the facts of the story), an archdiocesan-wide ban on the group seems a pretty severe disciplinary action for overzealous volunteering. Also, the bishop’s limited explanation of the action certainly leaves the faithful with the impression that there was more serious wrongdoing.

As Br. Jr. has mentioned in other posts, a bishop does not have a posibitive duty to reveal all of why he takes an action that he may take. And in fact, revealing all the details, while it may make for interesting conversation, may only serve to stir the pot futher.

I do not mean to be either abrupt, or to give the impression that I always agree with a bishop’s decisions, or that bishops’ decisions are above reproach or even right, legally or morally. However, it is a fact of life that when bishops make decisions, we often hear little of what may have prompted them. And it is unlikely that we will ever have the whole story or all the details.

 

[otjm]

There are times that we have incidents that are called a tempest in a tea pot; they consist of a few pople getting stirred up over an issue, and the issue is minor and the stirring is out of proportion.

One only has to look at both the popular press and the Catholic press to know that there have been allegations over both LC and RC that would inidcate that there may be something seriously afoot. Some of that may relate to the previous leader/founder; other parts of it may relate to a perceived methodolgy (for lack of a better term) in terms of their activities, a perceived lack of openness and honesty about their goals and proceedures, and part of it goes to allegations that border on thought control, and what would appear to be a very deceptive attitude; there are further allegations of lack of truthfulness concerning various matters - internally, and externally.

Much of it makes for good cannon fodder and not much more. Or perhaps a more direct way of saying it is that it borders on gossip, if not actually crossing that border.

Most of the laity does not have sufficient information with which to make an informed decision. Stories are told, mostly one-sided, and while that does not mean the stories are incorrect or untruthful, they are one-sided and one does not hear what the other side might say about the facts, or even what they perceive the facts to be.

The LC is under “visitation” (I would say investigation, but some might quibble with that term) and one of the offical visitors appears to be Archbishop Chaput, someone I would have tremendous confidence in. What that will result in may never get to the public’s ears or eyes; or there may be results, but perhaps not enough details to determine why.

Because of the issues that have arisen since the discovery of the founder’s background and activities, many people, including some I highly respect, have called for anything from an investigation to a dismemberment of the LC. Time will tell the results.

Whatever occured in Florida may or may not be related to charges against the LC other than the specific issues of their founder - that is, charges that they appear to have a very secretive attitude about their activities, appear to work with misdirection or a desire to not be open about their activities and intents, appear to be less than open and truthful at times, and appear to use psychological tactics that seem coercive.

I would presume they intend to be faithful to the Magisterium. I do not have enough information, and certainly no personal contact with which to develope any sort of opinion as to the truthfulness and extent of any of the charges brought against them. If they have become a cult centered around their founder and have “gone undergound” in terms of their tactics, it would seem that they would be running counter to the Church itself, in spite of their desire to uphold the Magisterium. One can be a faithful, faith-filled Catholic without having to engage in anything other than openness and honesty.

One does not need a post graduate degree to understand that the world is hostile to the Faith, and that there are multitudes within the Faith who do not understand it and do not accept all of what it teaches. Having said that, one does not need to be anything less than open to deal with those issues. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. One would hope that the issues which continue to swirl around the LC and RC are not issues of power.

 

[JReducation]

While we are at it, **does Catholic catechesis allow for a lay “spiritual advisor?” **For me to even work on our RCIA team or teach catechism here, I need to attend certain classes and meet certain requirements. Hmmmm…

The bold is mine. The answer to your question is, yes. The Catholic Church has a very old and venerable traditiono of lay spiritual directors. The most famous one is Catherine of Siena. She was a Lay Dominican and a much sought after spiritual director. In the Secular Franciscan, Secular Dominican and Secular Carmelite traditions there have been many lay men and women who were and are spiritual directors, even today.

Today there are some modern movements and societies that have many excellent lay spiritual directors: Focolare, Madonna House Apostolate and Opus Dei are a few that come to mind.

Many dioceses employ lay spiritual directors. Some are paid and others are volunteers. You need not be a member of a religious order to be a spiritual director.

There is no particular training required to be a spiritual director. That’s why most deacons and priests can do spiritual direction. The Vatican took training in spirituality and spiritual direction out of the curriculum of studies for deacons and priests. It is no longer a required area of study. They can choose between studying spiritual theology or pastoral counseling. Most deacons and priests study pastoral counseling.

Religious brothers and cloistered nuns are required to study the spiritual life for 6 to 9 years. But diocesan clerics are not required to study spirituality at all. The Church only requires this study of friars, monks, and nuns, because they are responsible for the spiritual formation of the younger members of their communities.

Other religious communities that are not monastic or mendicant do require this area of study, because it’s part of their ministry. The Jesuits, Fathers of Mercy, and Sisters of Life come to mind right away. I know there are others, but I can’t think of them right away.

Some dioceses do offer courses for lay people who want to serve as spiritual directors. But they are not mandatory, because spiritual direction is not a commissioned ministry.

Hope this answers the question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

As Br. Jr. has mentioned in other posts, a bishop does not have a posibitive duty to reveal all of why he takes an action that he may take. And in fact, revealing all the details, while it may make for interesting conversation, may only serve to stir the pot futher.

I do not mean to be either abrupt, or to give the impression that I always agree with a bishop’s decisions, or that bishops’ decisions are above reproach or even right, legally or morally. However, it is a fact of life that when bishops make decisions, we often hear little of what may have prompted them. And it is unlikely that we will ever have the whole story or all the details.

Bishops have absolute authority over the laity in their respective dioceses. Their authority depends on their apostolic succession. As direct successors of the Apostles, the authority of the bishop is not diminished by his personal life of virtue or sin. Niether is the authority of a bishop dependent on the assent of the faithful. It is a given in the theology of the priesthood that a bishop enjoys the fullness of the priesthood with all the rights and obligations that are defined by canon law and sacred scripture. Therefore, the Church belives and teaches that where there is the local bishop, there is the Church and without him, there is no Church.

As Catholics our membership in the Church is dependent on our communion with the local bishop. The only members of the Church who are exempt from the authority of the local bishop are male religious who belong to Pontifical Religious Orders, Pontifical Religious Congregations and priests who belong to the Opus Dei. Male members of these coimmunities have their own Ordinary, the major superior in the case of religious and the Vicar General in the case of the Opus Dei. The Opus Dei priests are not religious. They are secular men, but they are exempt from the local bishop.

Nonetheless, no association, religious institute or prelature may establish itself in a diocese without the written permission of the local bishop. Once they are erected in a diocese, they function autonomously, except in those cases where they work for the bishop. Obviously, if we work for the bishop, we have to follow his rules in all matters that pertain to our work, but not to the way we live. In that regard, we retain our autonomy.

When serving in our own insitutions, we answer to the major superior, not to the bishop. The bishop does not have authority over insitutions that are not diocesan. However, he does reserve the authority to deny any institution the use of the name Catholic. Even though an institute is exempt from the authority of the bishop, the word Catholic belongs to the Church. The bishop IS the local Church. The Catholic identity is transmitted through those bishops who are Ordinaries. Therefore, exempt religious and prelatures depend directly on the Bishop of Rome for their Catholic identity. You must have a bishop grant you the name Catholic and the right ot use it. That bishop must be an Ordinary. An auxiliary bishop or a bishop who hold some other post in the Church is not an Ordinary and has only that canonical authority that is delegated to him by a bishop who is an Ordinary or by a major religious superior of men. Just as an FYI, the major superior of men need not be a priest. He must be either in perpetual vows or in solemn vows and be canonically elected to his post.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF