When is a vow of poverty a vow of poverty? What is poverty for a Legionary of Christ?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
The founder of the legionaries of Christ Marcel Maciel their CEO is supposed to have a vow of poverty and tells his followers 'poverty not misery!', well in his case his version of poverty is far from misery. Maciel has stayed at some of the most expensive hotels in the world over the last 60 years, even during the formation years he loved to stay at the Waldorf Astoria on Park Avenue,(or is it 5th??) in New York city.He also zips across the Atlantic on the Concorde and flys 1st class around the world. He also has a car set aside in Rome, BMW I think, just especially for his use.
Now does that sound like abnegation and poverty to you? I'm sure his zealous followers can also justify this, but wouldn't it be better to fly economy and give the savings to the poor? Apparently not for the legion.
Of course the legion always told us not to talk about its inner workings to the outside world and I qoute "they wouldn't understand the mysterious ways of the legion." The legion is the Enron of Religious Orders but with no Federal authority keeping them in check they have free license to continue with their shady deals and irregular business transactions.
Maybe Maciel's followers should follow his lead regarding poverty, of course they all couldn't fly 1st class that would erode into Maciels petty cash!
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), November 18, 2002
"they wouldn't understand the mysterious ways of the legion."Xwing, can you provide any documentation of this statement if possible?
-- (nvn@vnv.mnn), November 18, 2002.
Dear James Xwing,
You seem to say Father Maciel makes a vow, then doesn't keep it. Is that what you mean? If he does, then he breaks a vow-- for which he must ask absolution from his confessor. A broken vow is a sin.However, if you understand the rules of various orders and communities, you'll realise, a vow of poverty has to do with OWNERSHIP.-- Not a particular indulgence or luxury, however extravagant. I would not like people judging me for taking a room in the Waldorf Astoria (no longer what it was at one time) if I were Fr. Maciel. Even though I wouldn't be breaking any vow.
But what if they accused me of owning a small hotel in Albuquerque; a hotel of my own, and I'd vowed poverty? Does Fr. Maciel own any hotels?
Does he own a jet liner? Does the Pope own Saint Peter's Basilica? Did Jesus own a house in Bethany, or did He stay in some friends' home there from time to time?
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 18, 2002.
> "you'll realise, a vow of poverty has to do with OWNERSHIP"Interesting, as then someone can live like a king, as long as everything is given to him, by someone else. I would think this vow should mean, a lifestyle of poverty, or what is the point of it?
James, let it go! Do not let this organization eat you up inside. If they are no good, then they will answer to God. I personally don't see any justice in what you are saying, as all I see is someone who is bitter by his experiences in this order. You have to move on with you life, and forget about these people. If anything pray for them, if you really feel they are in the wrong.
I'm sorry to hear that you where treated very badly by this organization, and hope that you find peace. Your time would be better spent in prayer, or better yet, sit down with a good priest, and discuss the problems that you have with this order.
Don't fall for the sin of slander, as that only hurts yourself, and you should confess this next time you go to confession. There is no justice here in cutting this man down!
-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), November 18, 2002.
Gene somehow you managed to put the shine on even the dullest pile of horse*%^...cant hide the smell though good Sir :) From the feedback Ive seen from many people on this group - genuine hurt and mistrust and my own experience of Tim LC on this forum (an arrogant nasty peice of work) this organisation seems throughly unpleasant. I think Gordons thoughts to James were excellent though. Blessings
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 18, 2002.
I'm not an apologist for Legionaries. I'm not an apologist or a supporter. But I know a few things which shed light on the vow of poverty, or some historical aspects.Material goods aren't bad of themselves. The Baby Jesus in a manger was pleased to get rather lordly offerings from the Maggi; and He might have rejected these. Gold and frankincense and myrrh (sp).
They are earth's values. They are to be used, and then rejected as illusory. As long as the spirit isn't under an illusion; because luxuries are passing.
Pay mor attention to the works of the convent. Give God a say; if it will live on or die. Meantime, don't fall for bitter influences. You won't suffer any consequences from being charitable to your neighbor. James XWing hasn't seemed very charitable. He's motivated by anger and spite. If I'm mistaken, I hope James will pray for me.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 19, 2002.
Hi, Kiwi--
I am playing by ear. It may well be our correspondent James is in the proper frame. If it's all a blag, we shall see.''...cant hide the smell though good Sir :) From the feedback Ive seen from many people on this group - genuine hurt and mistrust and my own experience of Tim LC on this forum (an arrogant nasty peice of work) this organisation seems throughly unpleasant . . . ''
Well; I'm merely responding to these inflammatory charges of James'. How Father Maciel would seem to make a ''vow'', and forget about any poverty promise. If he is to travel from your country all the way to France; I suppose he ought to go modestly by coach? Not on an airliner first-class. Otherwise people will talk?
What has it to do with a vow of poverty? The man isn't limited to the cloistered life, is he?
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 19, 2002.
I can't say about the founder one way or another. I don't know anything whatsoever. If he is guilty he'll have to face that on his own. If he is not guilty, then let him suffer whatever God gives him to suffer.Here is what I do know, from my own experience:
1. Various friends I know don't like the way they come into private schools and take control and how they have been screwed in business contracts, and
2. In their meeting in my home what they were really after were the names of potential donors, and
3. They won't let a family member LC attend the wedding of another close family member for no apparent reason. I guess matrimony is an inferior Sacrament and they have something better to do.
That's my experience. Either I am a liar or it what I complain about is real. Take your pick. None of this 'outsiders don't understand' nonsense either; either they are part of the mystical Body of Christ or they aren't.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 19, 2002.
The family member I mentioned above, that refers to one of my personal family members. I don't know about others.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 19, 2002.
Hi Gene yes I agree but the ownership thing was a bit off track and Gordon was spot on calling you on it. To my way of thinking any man of God shouldnt be flying in a concord or staying in the VERY finest hotels but I can accept let God judge the man...I suppose. Unless its MY collection money funding the fella. NIMBY indeedThinking about moral or ethical questions for the Church regarding money/wealth etc. I dont mean plump Vatican priests in Romes cafes Vs Sth American shanty town kids starving, Im not that uptopian but the lack of judgement on money seems to be an unspoken rule of the Church.
The forums response seems to be...turn a blind eye..judge not lest you be judged..let God decide etc etc.
Yet when the moral issue isnt money..say sexuality.. the judgemets come thick and fast. The short skirt, sex before marriage, homosexuality, an assertive wife, contracpetion, etc etc "TUT TUT TUT" evil. As you know Im not sure what scripture says about excessive wealth..or excessive spending..or not sharing..or greed..or ill gotten wealth..or exploitation of others for wealth..or DAMN LAYWERS. Surely just having a law degree should excommunicate you from the church for life ;)
Whats with the "see no evil hear no evil" approach to the rich and wealthy, Jesus didnt die a millionaire did he?
Im flaming a bit and its probably a silly argument but it doesnt seem very just. Blessings
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 19, 2002.
Remember that Mother Theresa also flew first class. I don't think anyone would question her living up to her vow of poverty. Eugene is correct about the "letter of the law", or vow in this case, regarding poverty. Technically, it's a matter of ownership. But if what is said is true about Fr. Maciel, then there certainly seems to be a violation of the spirit of the vow.I also was bothered with Mother Angelica and what appeared to be extravagance, especially for a group of Poor Clares. (I was one of the early brothers of that community under Fr. Michael.) Her motto was - "nothing is too good for Jesus" when it came to anything regarding the Mass or places of worship and the network, but this motto seemed to be applied to personal accomodations also. The Opus Dei gets the same bad wrap for this apparent extravagence. But I always remember the first one in Christianity to complain about extravagance - it was none other than Judas complaining about Mary Magdalene's extravagance on Jesus. And Jesus reprimanded Judas, not Mary for this.
"By their fruits you shall know them..." Mother Theresa, Mother Angelica, Opus Dei and Legionaries of Christ all get this same bad wrap regarding extravagant uses of this world's goods. On the surface, I too have a problem with it but realize that these groups have done more good in the Catholic Church in our modern times than any other groups that I am aware of. So judging by their fruits, I'll take the side of Mary M. in this matter and not side with the complaining Judas.
God Bless!
-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), November 19, 2002.
We have a direct question to be answered. Did this priest break his vows?He may have; or maybe he's just another opportunist. I can't call Emerald a liar. But Emerald wasn't asking questions. James was.
The main thing is, if there's anything for these men to be sorry for, confession is their obvious option. They won't be the first who were sucked in by the world. Let's also try to realise, detraction is a sin as well. Whatever our personal motives might be, we don't have permission to ruin our neighbor's reputation. Unless it can be done fairly and in his presence.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 19, 2002.
This afternoon I had the disconcerting - and embarrassing - experience of doing a search on Google for certain keywords relating to a certain secular institute. Within the results were several posts I had written, over five years ago, on another Catholic list.The embarrassing part is that, like James, I was angry and hadn't really taken the time to research the information I was posting, and today I read those posts and cringe, knowing that, intentionally or not, I damaged the reputation of that secular institute, and can see that everyone on the list who was trying to defend it to me was right, and me, who was just angry at one particular member of that institute, was wrong.
The list is no longer active, so I can't go back and change or retract the statements I made five years ago - they'll be there till the owner of that web site decides to shut it down or remove the list archives.
So think very, very hard before you expend any more time and energy attacking the Legion of Christ or any other group - so *you* don't have to be embarrassed re-reading these messages five years from now!
-- Christine L. (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), November 19, 2002.
P.S. - belated grammar check - of course, that should have been "I" was wrong, not "me" was wrong - and "me" a former Future Teacher of America, nyuk nyuk!! ;-)
-- Christine L. (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), November 19, 2002.
JmjExcellent advice, Christine! I hope that James and others take it to heart.
However, I fear that James is too far gone. Almost everyone allowed him to get away with some very blatant statements, without having to provide proof that they are accurate and, if accurate, that they lack a valid explanation. Let's see what he said -- which reflects a terrible habit of always assuming the worst about a person, even when their could be a harmless explanation:
"Maciel has stayed at some of the most expensive hotels in the world over the last 60 years"
Why not stop to think that he may have been invited by the hotel owners -- donors to the Legion? Or perhaps the bill was paid by wealthy people he was visiting, and he did not want to insult them by appearing ungrateful, declining to stay there.
"... even during the formation years he loved to stay at the Waldorf Astoria on Park Avenue, (or is it 5th??) in New York city."
James could not possibly know if Fr. Maciel "loved to stay" somewhere. This is fiction. Even if he enjoyed staying in a certain hotel, that is an understandable human reaction. Apparently James wants a human being to stay in a nice hotel and then say that he "hated to stay" there!
"He also zips across the Atlantic on the Concorde and flys 1st class around the world."
First, how could James possibly know how often Fr. Maciel does these things, though he makes it seem that it is 100% of the time. What about the times he has used Concorde or first class? Again, chances are excellent that he is permitted to do this without any charge to the Legion -- because the tickets are donated or the airlines are letting him fly this way as a form of donation. Always assume the best, not the worst, when you don't have proof!
"He also has a car set aside in Rome, BMW I think, just especially for his use."
He is a busy man with a lot to do. Why shouldn't he have transportation? This is spiteful nit-picking to which no one should pay any attention. Next thing James will do is put down the pope because he flies around the world in a jet. After all, St. Peter merely had a little fishing boat and a dusty pair of sandals. How DARE the pope do what he does!?
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2002.
JmjEmerald, you were not as vicious as James, but I reject your criticisms as far too shaky to have even been worthy of mention.
You wrote: "Here is what I do know, from my own experience:"
A closer look shows that they are not all "from [your] own experience," but partly hearsay and partly potential misunderstanding.
"1. Various friends I know don't like the way they come into private schools and take control and how they have been screwed in business contracts ..."
This is your friends' opinion. Others may LIKE what they do in private schools. Others may not think that the Legion does business badly. But let us assume that there was a bad contractual situation. Surely that would have been arranged by one Legionary, and we must not condemn the entire congregation for the sin of an individual. (We hate it when anti-Catholics trash the Church after an individual Catholic commits a very public sin or crime.)
"2. In their meeting in my home what they were really after were the names of potential donors."
That was your conclusion, which may have been a misunderstanding. Again, even if you were right, the congregation should not be trashed because of the sins of one or two individuals.
"3. They won't let a family member LC attend the wedding of another close family member for no apparent reason. I guess matrimony is an inferior Sacrament and they have something better to do.
First you say that it was not for any "apparent reason," but then, without warrant, you assign a reason to it with withering sarcasm. That was highly improper of you, I'd say. As a person who has had a lot of contact with religious orders and congregations since I was a little kid, I can tell you that the permission was almost surely denied for a good reason. You seem to be unaware of the fact that a religious superior does not have to explain his decisions to those in his charge. Unless told to sin, they must be obedient, even if they don't understand why they are being required to do something. This kind of thing is rejected by independent-minded American laymen, who just don't understand anything about religious life. (Even James, who understood plenty, rejected it rebelliously.)
"That's my experience. Either I am a liar or it what I complain about is real."
No. You are not a liar, and are your complaints are not necessarily real/legitimate. There is a third possibility in each case -- as I have just suggested above.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2002.
Hi John,You say that I could not possible know that Maciel likes to stay at the Astoria. Shame on you. I personally know some of the ex apostolics which he used to have staying with him there.
Well john I hate to dissapoint you regarding Concorde, I know the ex LC who used to book them. I could also tell you a lot more but I can only put so many facts on the web without revealing my sources. YOu don't have to believe me. But don't try to justify to spending of a CEO who has after all a vow of poverty. Maciel must be the richest poorest person on the planet. Just think of the aid to a third world country. Are you in the LC or the RC?
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), November 21, 2002.
Well, let's hear it from the rest of the forum... I would like to know if the rest of the forum thinks that my criticisms are far too shakey to be worthy of mention.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 21, 2002.
Emerald,I hear you. And unfortuantely I do agree with you. Money and membership are the two driving forces of the legion, all justified in True machivellian fashioned and shrouded in a mist of religious piety which is likened to a whitewashed tomb!
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), November 21, 2002.
Well, you see here, we can't get anywhere with this if I can't trust my own observations with any degree of certainty.There is something inherently disordered with the notion that what I perceive through observation in a sound mind is to be held as less certain than what other people claim to be the case. Where would this self-doubt end if I begin to pursue it?
Argument by authority carries the least certainty of all forms of argument, unless it is Divine Revelation... in which case such truths are more certain in essence than that two and two equal four. Somewhere in this vast void operates the fallible intellect of the human being.
I'm being asked to deny my own experience here.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 21, 2002.
Dear Emerald:
May I repeat the loving words of another person whose ''observations'' are pertinent?''Maybe Maciel's followers should follow his lead regarding poverty. Of course they all couldn't fly 1st class that would erode into Maciels petty cash!
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), November 18, 2002Why this edge? Isn't simple denunciation enough? This isn't your voice, I realize. But James is determined to spread hatred for another man.
It has to raise some red flags-- James hasn't campaigned like a crazy man, has he? Is that where you stand?
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 21, 2002.
Hi Eugene... "James hasn't campaigned like a crazy man, has he? Is that where you stand?"Pretty much. There are three things going on here, the first being my experience, the second being James and his kind, and the third being a response from the audience as to what/who to denounce or support, believe or not believe.
For my part, I claimed to have experience with the Legionaires, being very careful to put the proper parameters on it. In other words, not to parrot anything read or heard from unknown sources but to limit explicitly to what close friends have confided to me, what I saw in my house and what pertains to my family members. From that experience alone, and without refering to outside sources such as 3rd party xLC's (such as James), there is enough there to compel me to conclude that there is something amiss, and a general feel for the nature of that 'amiss-ness'. Call it 'sense of the faithful', call it what you will. But you have to admit, I did give my opinion based solely on my own personal experience, and put it into the proper parameters of surety, limiting it only to what I observed personally. My claim is that there is enough solid evidence for me to avoid this group. I excercise this avoidance.
Then there are people like James. There are tons of them; I mean, they are everywhere and all saying something similiar. This does not garauntee truth, but does count as circumstantial evidence that something is amiss. The only way to counter a mass-numbers observation is to claim conspiracy. Truly! The only way to counter it is to claim that the many have joined forces in a grand deception to harm the organization. Such a thing is conceivable, but not likely. Let's be realistic and give things their proper weight. Now if there was anyone on this forum inclined to believe such a thing, no doubt it would be me, huh? The one who has at once been labelled a skeptic and yet again a conspiracy theorist! lol. I accept both labels with a smile... =)
The third thing happening is how people respond to claims made by people opposed to the LC. I find this phenomena a bit more disturbing. Responses fall in place rather uniformly, and as usual, I'm the blacksheep... not being the unorthodox one but nevertheless not falling into line.
There are a few things that come into play commonly in response to non-advocates of the LC. One is that the Pope backs the LC. Everybody says the Pope is on their side anymore that I believe virtually none of them. From Reiki to Ecumenists to Medjugorie to you name it, everyone uses this argument and at least for me, it doesn't count as much; it has entirely lost its potency as an argument, as a way to convince. I don't know what everyone else needs for conviction to set into their minds, but for me, this is too open to speculation and deception. I need more meat than this. Hinge this to the modern Catholic's complete or partial failure to understand the nature of Papal authority and any outcome is conceivable.
A correlary to this is that the Vatican hasn't stopped them. So they must be ok, right? Inconclusive.
Another is that the Legionaires possess some kind of esoteric knowledge none of the rest of us could possibly have access to... the notion they hey, we lay people couldn't possibly understand the gravity and depth these LC's have, from the grandness of their mission to the immutable wisdom of their superiors. Listen, the mystical body of Christ is full of all kinds of good and holy people that are certainly able to discern things as they are. To say otherwise would be arrogance.
Another operative premise: you can't say anything bad about the group, especially one that aspires to such lofty goals. You can't say anything bad because they propose to do good; they are off limits from criticism. All criticism is detraction or calumny. I disagree with this wholeheartedly, and I am on dry ground disagreeing. If something is perceived as doing damage to anyone's another's wellbeing, we call the pertetrators onto the carpet. It is a duty. Call them onto the carpet. Hell, call everyone onto the carpet.
You see, people just want me to believe that everything is ok with the legion. Bad arguments are given as to why I should believe that all is ok. Bad arguments are given as to why James and his minions are nasty, mean people. At this point, with practical first hand experience with LC and first hand stories from good friends, and multitudinous stories of the same stuff coming in from all sides of the globe... and what is it that is asked of me? Ignore it, denounce it, support the group. Deny every ounce of perception I have and just say, hey damn you detractors, the Legionaires are a-ok no matter what you hear. This is an intellectual no-go. My conclusion is the right conclusion... there is definitely something up with these people and it doesn't smell like perfume.
You do realize there is a deeper issue here that I am out after, far beyond the peripherals such as the LC's... it has to do with trust and assent and authority and truth. Surely people have clued into this by now.
Eugene, you the man. I respect your guts deeply. People will say that I don't really mean that, because I strike and then apologize, but you can trust me to tell you the truth.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 22, 2002.
Storm in a tea cup but theyre always lots of fun and JFG knows I love him, at least he should, but whats an argument without a few laughs ;).I thought the sherrifs hat had been discarded in the attic. How wrong I was, dusted off John rolls back into town, badge gleaming and his trusty six shooyer at the hip. Yes hes been gazing deeply into the "JFG knows best" crystal ball with some startling yet predictable revelations. I wish his wife would throw that darn crystal ball out.
Yes wait hes seeing something... Hes seen that poor stupid ol Emerald is nothing but a numbskull, duped by his friends and his own shortcomings into seeing, hearing and feelings things that, well, didnt quite happen the way HE saw them in the starry ball. Indeed in his most intense revealtion he reveals
"Emeralds experiences were nothing but partly hearsay and partly potential misunderstanding.
"Now listen here Emerald my son" he booms in a deep baritone and thick Southern drawl "youall mean well but you cant go round my town saying stuff like that...it just aint right boy. Nothing to see here folks, Emeralds just had a misunderstanding, move on"
Emerald you dont have to tolerate John when he gets arrogant like this, it is demeaning and insulting. Nor do you need to ask for others opinions... back yourself man.
I actually agree with some of what John is trying to say but he can express his opinion without trying to debunk yours as false and untrue. Unfortunately as I have said many many times before John doesnt hold opinions only facts and the truth. His crystal ball told him so.
As for James I thought he would have run out of steam by now..man hes got some serious amount of hate going on there
God Bless
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 22, 2002.
HHHHAAAA!!!Good work, Kiwi,
Look, our pet theories and the certain truth, bald-faced lies and half-truths-- all get a shaking out here. Emerald is not a liar, that much I realise. But he isn't on a vendetta, either. I'm the Mugwump. I sit on a fence with, you know.Love this Emerald, OK? I'm always reminded of how James McArthur and Helen Hayes first met; a theatre lobby in New York. The man was eating from a bag of peanuts; and he gave her a few. His words: ''I wish they were emeralds.'' She was his from that moment on.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 22, 2002.
Hi Kiwi,I don't think that I have some serious amount of hate as you say, rather I have an unquenchible thirst for the truth and for justice.
God Bless
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), November 23, 2002.
Oh. We'll give you some cold water here in the forum. Charity is good for lingering pain, James. Peace!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 23, 2002.
James,
You criticized my message to you because, according to you, I denied that Fr. Maciel had stayed at the Waldorf and I denied that he took the Concorde.
Please scoot up to my message and re-read it, this time with great attention. You will see that I denied NEITHER of those things!
If there is one thing that really irks me, it is people who accuse me of saying things that I did not actually say -- simply because they rushed through my posts, not reading carefully enough.And if there is another thing that really irks me, it is an interloping instigator like Kiwi, who had no business using sarcasm and trying to turn Emerald against me. Get off the personal crud and stick to the substance of my messages, Kiwi, refuting them if you can. (You can't.) Otherwise, bug out. You know nothing about the Legion of Christ. On second thought, go ahead, stay and criticize me, Kiwi. When someone like you (hic!) is bashing me, it helps me know that I must be in the right. And to think that I was beginning to believe that you had turned over a new leaf! How disappointing!
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 24, 2002.
Well hold on, John... I'm not going to turn against you. It would be my own choice to turn on someone or not, and I'm not going to do that. Disagree, well sure. Don't worry about this.As far as what kiwi wrote, in its own rite, and distinct from you personally John, I was roflol. The whole imagery hit my already overactive love for comedy. But I did feel bad for you though, in that I thought you might take it wrong. Kiwi means well, believe me; I don't think he did anything wrong.
I think I might know why it is that we tend to be at other ends of the spectrum. I think it is the difference between accuracy and precision. Every 6 months or so, I wonder if I'm still a good shot or not, and so I pull out the 9 iron and go down to the indoor range. If I try too hard I get a good grouping that's off the bullseye (precision) or a nice variety of hits not so well grouped but better in relation to the bullseye (accuracy). Sometimes, I just "use the force" so to speak, and don't try at all and do what seems natural and rapid fire... and group them all on the bullseye.
You and me, we are precision and accuracy in that order. Both are needed to hit dead center.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 24, 2002.
Emerald, I just found this message to me from Kiwi on another thread:"Thankyou for your reply to Amy John. Sorry for my less than charitable comments towards you on another thread, I was trying to be light hearted but it came across a little mean spirited and immature. God Bless -- Kiwi"
All is forgiven and forgotten. I think that I am trying to read too many threads each day, to get caught up. It seems that 90% of the threads these days have some kind of fighting, and I can tell that this has made me pretty irritable. We have too many people here bashing the Church (or some part of the Church) right now.
JFG
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 24, 2002.
John look I was being a clown, it came out a bit nasty I suppose, so sorry. I think it would be best if you acknowledged if you have had any sort of relationship with this organisation/individuals(or closely related), and in what capacity please. You seem a litttle hasty yourself.Its all just a "potential misunderstanding", youre a real ripper, and the amusing thing is you actually believe everthing you write as absolute... brillaint. Before I learn whom I can trust and cannot trust I will run them through the JFG crystal ball. Thereby removing any misunderstanding.
Have you ever stopped to consider the way you interpret things could be a far bigger misunderstanding? Give people a little more credit, perhaps they have a far greater understanding than you.Yes its possible John, as far fetched as it may sound to you. What do you take us for, I often wonder that reading your words ? Do you really think we would condemn the church based on a few individuals, the presumptions you make are increduous to say the least.
Ill give you a break and wont disect your arrogance dear Sir, but if you really want it served on a plate and spelt out Im happy to oblige. I think its best left perhaps for you to reflect on the tone and nature of your post as well as the content and to remember to take some, (any?) responsibilty for your errors or oversights.
As for "turning people against you"...youre doing a fine enough job by yourself. Youre one of kind alright. Im not out to make people hate you John, I think youre a bit of an oddball but hey Catholics come in all shapes and sizes eh. God Bless
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 24, 2002.
Oh no Ive just seem Johns reply..hes really going to hate me now! What a comedy of errors..yikes I feel even siller than usual. "Some words when spoken..cant be taken back" well I hope thats not true. Sorry John I am a clown.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 24, 2002.
Yep, John, you got that right! Too many Catholic bashers. Too bad we can't put them on their own thread and they can bash away at each other!I am BATTLE WEARY! With my friends and members of my family, it has been non-stop. I think I'll go stick my head in the Rosary for awhile! Ah yes, the Rosary, that wonderful, peace-filled devotion!
Lots of Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 24, 2002.
FYI, am currently reading Mother Teresa's authorized biography. She did not fly first class by 'choice.' Mother always chose to fly coach, but when it was discovered she was on the plane, she was invited to sit in the first class section of the plane - she did so relucantly.When I find the chapter on this topic I will post her words here.
Mother Teresa can certainly never be accused of living a first-class life-style. She spent most of her working days in the streets with the poor. If the airline chose to let her sit in first class where she would not be bothered by others, I don't think God would mind that at all. Mother never liked bringing attention to herself unless in some way she was bringing others closer to God, or glorifying God.
May this very holy woman rest in peace.
MaryLu
MaryLu
-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), November 24, 2002.
Thank you, MaryLu, for those beautiful thoughts.And thank you, Gail, for mentioning the rosary. Shortly, I will "hit the hay" with a rosary in my hands.
Kiwi, don't worry about it. I don't live for anyone's approval. Feel free to dislike me! I have a great personal hero who was disliked (initials "J.C.")-- ;-)
You wrote: "I think it would be best if you acknowledged if you have had any sort of relationship with this organisation/individuals (or closely related), and in what capacity please."
Well, I think that it is completely unnecessary for me to "acknowledge" anything about that. (Funny that you think that such prying is appropriate.)
Think about it. (1) I am a Catholic. (2) The Legion of Christ is a Catholic religious order or congregation. (3) The pope loves the founder, whose huge overseas seminarian classes are ordained at St. Peter's Basilica. (4) The Vatican has never said anything negative about the Legion.
Taking into account all these simple points, it is the most natural thing in the world for a person -- even a person with no "relationship" to the Legion -- to stick up for those being mercilessly attacked by a bunch of whiners.Apparently, Kiwi, you don't know that this crud has been occurring at the forum, on and off, for about a year now. It started on one thread that I thought you would have seen, but I guess you didn't. If you had seen it, you would know what my "relationship" is to the Legion -- none, except as an admirer and donor. I have been sending a small gift, at least once yearly to the Legion since the mid-1980s, when I first read about them. [In fact, I wrote a check to them today (by coincidence), which will thrill the whiners to read.] I have been reading about the Legion for over 15 years, so I know all kinds of good stuff about them -- and I never heard anything bad until a year ago, when the rumors and slanders started pouring in here.
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.
Fair enough John and my apologies again.I was unaware of the extent to which this group has been targeted. Ill keep an open mind as to the merits or otherwise of this organisation.Sorry to dissapoint but I dont hate you at all, I just think we view the world very differently thats all.
God Bless
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.
JFG,Kiwi, don't worry about it. I don't live for anyone's approval. Feel free to dislike me! I have a great personal hero who was disliked (initials "J.C.")-- ;-)
Who is it? Johnny Cochran? Jim Croche? Julius Caesar? Jackie Chan? Jimmy Carter? Julius "Chuck-'em-in-the-hoop" Irving? Who?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 25, 2002.
Don't forget Jim Carrey!
-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.
Jimminy Cricket! Jaque Cousteau, JC Watts...
-- (emerald1@cox.net), November 25, 2002.
And our dear, wonderful, blessed Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who always understands our weird sense of humor - we hope! ;-)
-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.
Hi John,I think you probably sided with the Vatican on Galileo, did you just change your mind on him too. Your views appear to be somewhat blind obedience, given that my vow of obedience was also of blind obedience you'll have to forgive me now that I'm free if I actually point out what is wrong, you can choose to ignore it or listen that is up to you. I only wish that I had the same freedom when it came to accepting new rules when I was a legionary. You see the legion only tells you things when they think you should know. Now we are not talking corporate security here, rather we are talking about basic fundimental things which concern your freedom. The legion needs to be far more up front with everything.
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.
Hi, Kiwi.
Thanks. I know that you don't hate me (just as I don't hate you). Glad that you will keep an open mind about the Legion of Christ. Some factual info you can read about them is at their Internet site. They also have a page set up to debunk the false charges being leveled against their founder. [By the way, the best national Catholic weekly newspaper in the U.S. is the "National Catholic Register," which is edited by Fr. Owen Kearns of Ireland, a Legion of Christ priest.]
James, James. What am I going to do with you?You wrote: "I think you probably sided with the Vatican on Galileo, did you just change your mind on him too."
James, what are you -- a fundy bashing the Church? Pope John Paul II apologized for the too-strong action taken against Galileo by a panel of cardinals over 300 years ago. But Galileo was himself partially incorrect (and abusive toward the pope), so there is blame to go around.You continued: "Your views appear to be somewhat blind obedience ..."
Although I don't obey blindly (but rather with my eyes wide open to the truth), I would rather be accused of "blind obedience" than be accused of one of your errors -- "blind disobedience."
You concluded: "... the legion only tells you things when they think you should know. ... we are talking about basic fundamental things which concern your freedom. The legion needs to be far more up front with everything."
Well, it sounds as though the Legion does the right thing -- a la St. Paul and the Corinthians:
"1 Cor 3:1-3 ... But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh."
Religious life is tough, James, demanding, and many of those who enter (from our modern world of weaklings) are not ready for the full brunt of it. If new guys were told everything in advance, many of them would become discouraged and would leave on day one. It appears to me that, as Legionary candidates become stronger and better prepared, they are exposed to a more rigorous life. Rather than assume that you were too weak to hack it, James, I'll assume instead that God simply didn't give you the Legionary vocation. But he did give it to thousands of others, who are very happy men today -- so stop raining on their parade with your whining, please!God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 29, 2002.
PS: Christine finally got the right "J.C.", guys, but some of your "guesses" were cute. (Glad you didn't say Joan Crawford, John Candy, James Caan, Jimmy Cagney, Judy Carne, Johnny Cash, Julia Child, John Cleese, Joan Collins, Jane Curtin, -- and espcially not John Calvin.)
-- (jgecik@hotmail.com), November 29, 2002.
There is a large veiw on what is deemed as poverty while some think it is being poor with out help and all is un fit , in the scriptures the vow of poverty is a prerequisite to the priest hood, but under the nicolatine systems what i have come to understand is now known as the clery laity this does not extend to those that are in the pews, for the simple reason no one is practicing the Doctrine of the Apostles, the vow of poverty has a catastrophic effect on world economics, and what most people dont realise that this well play a major roll in the last days when the Armies of the Nations gather around the Hope of Yahweh and seek to destory them... In the book of Acts it speaks about individuals with their possessions and how they sold them , but it also speaks of common property,,, where through understanding and revelations and baptizm , what is our has become yours and what is yours is now ours you being a part of ours, " My Father has many mansions," (alot of people live in a mansion it is not set a side just for one person)" there are various sections of scripture that describe the Kingdom of Yahweh and the flip side there is description to those that are out side of the Kingdom, so in view of this, by knowing the natures of those that are in their places of performance who do you think is going to make up the Armies of the nations, those that count this world and thier flesh as their home, or those that has given up their lives for one another to free them selves from bondage of usury and inflation, where alll things are common anothing is based on and individual's appetite.... its well happen , because it hasnt happen yet, modern day christianity hasn't allowed to happened because of the systems it overfamiliars its self with................. craig
-- craig fields (seeyah05301@yahoo.com), July 04, 2003.
As most of the people who posted their personal experience with the Legionaries seem to have received a negative impression, I thought I'd post our family's experience.I don't know the founder, but these are my experiences, for what they are worth.
1. Various friends I know have been sucked into their apologetics crash courses ("Logos Fellowships") and retreats with the Sisters of Our Lady Immaculate, usually coming out as Catholic radicals, and
2. In their meeting in my home, they kept telling amazing conversion stories and were really pushing their seminarian to demonstrate his ability on the bagpipes (he did), and
3. In order to attend their highschool in New Hampshire, they required my brother to purchase new socks, for no apparent reason. I guess his old socks, with a Nike symbol, are too "worldly."
Seriously, though, I think that they are doing a necessary job, and doing it well. The priest we have had the most contact with is amazing; he does the work of three men, yet has the time to pause and consider the questions of a child. The "Envoy" magazine and the National Catholic Register are also excellent.
Interesting article they had recently- "My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism"...
-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 06, 2003.
I hope you'll still think they are doing a great job when your brother comes homes injured in some way. Sooner or later he'll be home. I just hope for his sake that he is aware of the facts in advance of getting sucked in any deeper than he already is.Regarding the story telling. The legion keeps this tradition alive an well, especially with all the lies that their founder tells. I've personally withnessed him tell really big ones in front of the entire community. But of course holy founders can lie when they want as they know best and we don't have the hotline to God that they have.
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.
Moderator,This helps you to see how our poor little forum is forced to suffer.
I just came to the "Recent Answers" page and was surprised to see the very large number of threads with today's date on them. On closer inspection, though, I saw what was wrong. One of the forum's former "personae non gratae" (James Xwing) came back today to trash SEVEN -- count 'em, SEVEN -- old threads related to the Legionaries of Christ.
By the way, some, if not all of these threads, were illegitimately started to begin with. Prior to the coming of those who live for no reason other than to bash tribunals, the forum had an infestation of those who live for no reason other than to bash the Legionaries.
So, no sooner does the forum begin to benefit by the banning (or voluntary departure) of some trouble-makers, than others come along to take their place and disrupt the peace that wanted to take root.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.
Don't worry, I got both of your e-mails. Just getting it off your chest, huh?I hope you'll still think they are doing a great job when your brother comes homes injured in some way. Sooner or later he'll be home. I just hope for his sake that he is aware of the facts in advance of getting sucked in any deeper than he already is.
As I e-mailed you privately, my brother is able to take care of himself.
Regarding the story telling. The legion keeps this tradition alive an well, especially with all the lies that their founder tells. I've personally withnessed him tell really big ones in front of the entire community. But of course holy founders can lie when they want as they know best and we don't have the hotline to God that they have.
And not having a hotline to God either, I can't know whether or not you are telling the truth. However, I have spoken with several people who have converted due to their apostolate (right word?). I'm inclined to believe them, rather than the relatively anonymous accusations of "one who knows..."
-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 21, 2003.
Three cheers for Catherine Ann!
That's the way to stand up and defend what is right!
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 22, 2003.
And three cheers for anybody with the courage to go against the tide of popular feeling. God Bless Freedom of Speech, God Bless the USA!Catherine as I mentioned in my private email to you, you will be hearing more once the time is right.
Don't forget JFG might is not always right! and God bless both of you too!
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), July 22, 2003.
Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa John!I'd just like to remind you that I have abided by the Administrators wishes and I have not opened any new legionary threads in months. Therefore I think your attack is both enfantile and invalid.
However we do live in a free country, (thank God!), and you have the right to voice your opinion just like the rest of us.
God Bless freedom of speech!
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), July 22, 2003.
Catherine I know your brother in a bit older but I do question parents who are willing to send their children some as young as 11 to live full time at the legionary apostolic schools, especially when there is a pending investigation into same. Fr. Bannon has said that the alleged offender is on administrative leave. Hopefully the investigation will be more transparent than the Vatican's regarding the cases of alleged sexual abuse by the orders Founder.Little kids are ment to be kids not grown up priests!
Just my two bits worth!
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), July 22, 2003.
Whoa- what's all this about living in a free country and having freedom of speech???I'm Canadian! LOL!
-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 22, 2003.
Once again James speaking with no facts, no credibility, no honesty, and certainly no conscience. The Concorde trip....HMMMM...Im betting that you weren't aware that that flight was a gift, were you? It was a donation from a family who was involved with the airline. But you didn't seem to take the time to find that out. BMW!!!!! Oh my God what a tragedy. How many Pope mobiles does the Pope have? A nice hotel for a man who began a movement which is going thousands strong. A movement which if no other has saved my soul. I met Father Macial and had a chance to speak with him. Have you? Get at least some facts about the man before you start speaking about him. Godbless, Chris
-- Chris (suter32@hotmail.com), July 23, 2003.
By the way... the BMW is over 20 years old. What is that worth, probably less than 7,000$Joe
-- JBILTZ (joebiltz@netzero.net), July 23, 2003.
from somebody who lives summers in germany, a BMW that is twenty years old, dependent on the model, could not be worth more than 4 thousand in europe. BMW's arent particularly expensive in that area.
-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 29, 2003.
Hi Chris,The flight was not a flight but many many Concorde flights. Even if they were all paid for by a benefactor wouldn't the money have been better used elsewhere? 'Poverty not misery" as Maciel told us.
-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), August 07, 2003.
james,i dont think you get the point... youre repeated vengeful attacks against an order merely because they rejected you are a violation of the forum rules. begone and give us all some peace from your ravings.
-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 07, 2003.