Many speculate about the future of the Legion of Christ and what the AV will hold, but few do so with the accuracy and credibility of Vatican correspondent Sandro Magister. Has he published even one prediction concerning the Legion that has not come to fruition? So his observations are always taken seriously by Vatican watchers – both inside and outside the Holy See.
This observation, from a piece Magister published today, scares me:
Priests and seminarians who until very recently were steeped in the writings attributed to Maciel will have difficulty finding new sources of inspiration, not generic but specific to their order. The current leaders of the congregation aren’t helping, either. On the contrary. One of Maciel’s former personal secretaries, Fr. Felipe Castro, together with other priests of the Legion, has worked in recent months to select from among the founder’s many letters a group of letters to be “saved” for the future, to keep a positive image of Maciel alive.
The dependence of the Legionaries on Maciel was – and for many still is – absolute. There wasn’t a shred of daily life that escaped the rules he dictated. Absurdly exacting rules. Which prescribed, for example, how to sit at the table, how to use a napkin, how to swallow, how to eat chicken without using one’s hands, how to debone a fish.
But this was nothing compared to the control exercised over consciences. The handbook for the examination of conscience at the end of the day was 332 pages long, with thousands of questions.
The whole piece is well worth reading. You can do so by clicking here.
Excellent and fair article. It is obvious that the current leadership of the Legion are in over their heads. Bringing in new leadership and fresh blood is essential. I look forward to the difficulties ahead, if such a blessed event takes place.
Well, we will see what happens. It is one thing for the Holy See to invite the current LC leadership to step down, but quite another for them to accept the invitation. We will see what happens.
I don’t remember a 332 page examination of conscience. Perhaps that refers to the particular examens that were a weekly occurence?
Not Richard,
I hope that your positive response to Magister’s “excellent and fair” article is typical of many who think the Legion’s critics have been exaggerating the extent of the malformation.
The general pattern in the world of the Legion has been don’t need that trip to the dentist right up until events and the dentist overtook them.
4 years after the banishment it is obvious that ‘decapitation’ of the Leadership is the way forward to salvage the good and protect souls.
None of us knows what will follow, but Pete provided some scenarios earlier this month.
http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/2010/03/qa-on-refoundat.html
As for the charism of the movement, I see three possibilities, depending upon the AV recommendations and how the LC reacts to them.
1 – The movement decides to cling to Maciel or their way of life, paying the Holy See lip service only. In this case the spirit of the movement remains Maciel’s. The Holy See would likely continue to tighten the noose until the movement collapses or goes into schism.
2 – The movement accepts the reforms half-heartedly and/or the bulk of the membership bolts. In this scenario the LC becomes a sort of “half-way house” to contain current LC members until they can find another order or diocese to go to. In this scenario, the charism is that of the half-way house, to provide pastoral support for and reintegrate former members back into the Church mainstream.
3 – The members decide to embrace the reforms whole-heartedly, in both letter and spirit, give it an honest attempt to make things work, and in the process discover a particular need within the Church that they are capable and willing to fill. In this case the fulfillment of the need becomes the charism.
Pete, Maciel was invited, but a Pontifical delegate could change the locks.
Actually, no. The only way a pontifical delegate can change the locks is if those currently in charge of the LC/RC allow him to do so. Keep in mind that most LC/RC assets are likely in the name of LC or groups controlled by the LC. If don’t give up the reins to the property and assets, there’s not much the Holy See can do about it. Especially if rank-and-file continue to follow the current leadership.
This is what happened with Fils de Marie, previously the LC’s closest ally among the Church’s new ecclesiastical movements.
In what sense do you mean “closest ally”
Obviously not in doctrine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_the_Lady_of_All_Nations
“The sect believes that its 86-year-old founder, Marie Paule Giguere, is the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary”
Anonymous – That’s the reason for the “previously” before “closest ally”!
Prior to this belief being exposed, I was told the following from several sources – including former LC, former Fils de Marie, canonists familiar with both groups, and a professor at a pontifical institute in Rome who taught seminarians from both orders. LC seminarians were the only outsiders with whom the Fils de Marie would permit their seminarians to mingle unchaperoned, and vice-versa with regards to LC toward LC seminarians.
I was also told that seminarians with both orders would often back each other up in Roman classrooms, when the discussion surrounded questionable practices that either group happened to engage in.
Being on so far from the Ottawa River not surprised you knew canonists familiar with the Fils de Marie situation.
Sou we’re talking about close allies as seminarians in Rome.
How big were they before they went into schism? Would I need more than one hand to count those seminarians?
Anonymous, here’s a little more background I should have shared, that will provide you with some context. The Fils de Marie were in many ways a French-Canadian homegrown version of the LC.
The aforementioned Fils de Marie doctrine, to my understanding, was one that evolved within the order. It was also – like the Vow of Charity reportedly in LC – kept secret from outsiders, and even denied when outsiders (who had rumors about it) began to ask questions. Those who tried to expose it (like two of my former professors) were often deemed liars, uncharitable and enemies of the Church. They were also accused of deliberately misrepresenting the order’s practices and beliefs.
“Just look at our good fruits and all our vocations,” was one argument the order would counter with. “Marie Paul [the foundress of the movement] is so holy! She even has permission from the Church to wear the Blessed Sacrament around her neck,” was another. As was: “Our critics are liberals who hate us because of our orthodoxy. They cannot stand that we obey the Pope, pray the Rosary daily, and practice daily Eucharistic devotion.”
Two of my former professors eventually initiated the case that led to the Church suppressing the Fils de Marie. However, the Fils de Marie had a young, extremely intelligent canon lawyer. I cannot recall if he was superior within the order or sat on the order’s general council while the case was underway, but he put up a good fight.
Then the situation became so wonky that he could no longer reconcile what was happening within his order and Catholic orthodoxy. I’m not sure all the details, but he attempted to rein in the wonkiness, attempted reform from within, and attempted to bring his order back to solid footing in Catholic othodoxy. My understanding is that he simply could not overcome the spirit of the movement’s foundress that had taken root among the membership. I believe he may have tried to warn the Church hierarchy at this point, but I’m not certain of the timeline or the particulars. Anyway, the leadership declared him a traitor to the movement, accused him of selling out for ecclesiastical honors, etc.
This canonist is now a Monsignor and a Vicar General of a missionary diocese. He’s a good guy and he occasionally comments on this blog. He also runs an excellent blog which I sometimes link to. Many LC/RC have found it helpful in making sense of their situation:
http://journeyofayoungpriest.blogspot.com/
I don’t know about the number of seminarians, but I know the Arme de Marie movement boasted around 25,000 members – that includes priests, religious and laity. “About a 100” sticks in mind when it comes to Fils de Marie, but whether this is the number of priests only, or the combined number of priests and seminarians, I cannot recall.
I believe Monsignor was one of eight down in Jamaica who eventually left, and would not too long afterward be invited by the Church to found the Missionaries of the Passion and the Immaculate Heart of Mary (aka “The Mission Society of Mandeville”). The society has a close relationship with the Passionists, from whom they draw their charism, which is the order to which the bishop who helped found them belonged to.
Perhaps Msgr. Michael could correct or clarify the record if he’s lurking on this thread.
I want to push this discussion in a new direction. A wiser man than I once said that every real crisis in the Catholic Church has been a crisis of ecclesiology.
I consider myself an orthodox Catholic. But in light of the scandals afflicting the Church right now, I think we need to ask some tough questions. What if the traditional orthodox Catholic view of the relationship of priesthood to laity is simply wrong? What if setting up an upper class of self-referential celibates who feel entitled to assert their spiritual superiority over the laity is the very thing that allows us to be buggered and abused physically with impunity and in “good conscience?” I recall a conversation I once had with a Catholic bishop who lamented the recent decline in Sunday Mass attendance. I responded by reminding him of Christ’s words that at the end of time there would remain only “the faithful remnant.” His response was “Oh, you mean the episcopacy.” That attitude may be the source of our collective grief right now. Perhaps we should ordain the village idiot and give him the right to consecrate since it’s a valid Mass no matter who does it with valid orders. That might remind the clergy that their presumed superiority over the laity is nothing more than personal self-aggrandizement.
Pete, how do you compare LC to the Society of Pius X? I would see them tending more in that direction than towards the Army of Mary.
Pete, can you expand on this comment?
“Actually, no. The only way a pontifical delegate can change the locks is if those currently in charge of the LC/RC allow him to do so. Keep in mind that most LC/RC assets are likely in the name of LC or groups controlled by the LC. If don’t give up the reins to the property and assets, there’s not much the Holy See can do about it. Especially if rank-and-file continue to follow the current leadership.”
Maybe I have misunderstood, but it sounds like the Vatican is powerless if the Legion leadership ultimately says “no thanks” to the recommendations/instructions that will come out of the AV.
Can you describe for us the different scenarios that could occur, once the Vatican response to the AV is given to the LCs?
“Oh, you mean the episcopacy”
The places we go without our irony detector. If God had wanted us to where them he would have made them smaller ;)
Pete could you comment on the parallels Magister drew between Padre Gino and MM.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1336662?eng=y
I assume the order Padre Gino founded is not “pontifical right”. And that if a local group says the charism is to do whatever (or changes its mind next week), they’re good to go if the bishop is ok with it.
So when we talk about an invalid charism being a serious issue for the Church, are we talking about groups of “pontifical right” where where bishops cannot change the norms of the order and yet there is no charism of any weight to vouch for what the order ought to be doing?