Talk:Legion of Christ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
Contents |
[edit] POV Issues
This article is highly POV and pro-the Legion of Christ. It needs considerable NPOVing. It also fails to mention serious allegations of sex-abuse against its founder. FearÉIREANN 03:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Which have been investigated over and over and never substantiated.. Which of course you failed to mention. Williamb 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and in that spirit I've started adding some more information to bring some nuetrality to the article. Hopefully others will follow suit. -- Yafuetodo
I don't think it's very neutral to say that the Legion is against a woman's right to choose. First of all, choose is normally a transitive verb, requiring an object. The Legion has no objection to women choosing strawberry icecream or green wallpaper. Their objection is to abortion. I agree that everyone knows what is meant by the expression "a woman's right to choose", but that expression is used almost exclusively by those who think that abortion should be legal, and is therefore introducing a POV. The word abortion is used by people regardless of their personal beliefs.
The Legion does not "consider" itself pro-life: the Legion is pro-life. To say "considering itself" leaves possible the interpretation "but we know it isn't true."
The Catholic Church does not consider homosexuality a sin, and neither does the Legion. Both consider homosexual activity a sin. Official Church documents are very, very clear that the actual condition is not sinful, and the Legion has never, to the best of my knowledge, contradicted the Church's position.
Fr Marcial Maciel was accused of various things (including drug abuse, but not including sexual abuse) in the 1950s. He was subsequently cleared by a Church investigation. I am aware that some people think the investigation was deficient. However, the point to be made is that the men who are currently accusing Fr Marcial were then aged between 17 and 24, and were interviewed at the time of the investigation, and did not make any allegations about sexual abuse. Nine of the men who were interviewed in the 1950s came forward in the 1990s and made accusations of sexual abuse which supposedly took place before the investigation. One of those nine men subsequently retracted his story, admitting that it had been a fabrication intended to damage the Legionaries of Christ. (That brings it down to eight.) It is also worth noting that another of the alleged accusers is supposed to have made his statement on his deathbed. The Legionaries of Christ provide links to various documents refuting or at least denying the accusations. One of these documents is from a doctor who treated the "deathbed confession" man. The doctor says that he was unable to speak or write for several years before his death, and that he died suddenly. (That brings it down to seven.) I am removing the words "repeatedly" and "over the years" because those allegations were not made in the 1950s, and while some of the men who made the claims in the 1990s are still making them, it was not a question of new claims springing up at different times and from different sources.
I am also removing the words "as well as other members of the congregations hierarchy". I have not found any reports of accusations against other members. If I am mistaken, I apologize in advance. If you wish to re-insert those words, please reply in this talk page, with links to records of such accusations. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 10:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it's very neutral to say that the Legion is against a woman's right to choose. First of all, choose is normally a transitive verb, requiring an object. The Legion has no objection to women choosing strawberry icecream or green wallpaper.
- I'm sorry, but this is absurdly pedantic and downright idiotic. "Pro-choice" and "woman's right to choose" are both widely used idioms describing a specific movement/ideology. See this article or this redirect and stop polluting talk pages with inane semantic quibbles. -- DaveWF 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ann:
Thank you for the corrections. Even though I may disagree with you on central issues regarding this article, the congregation and Church doctrine, I must admit that you have improved it considerably. Overall, the edits you made to the politics and controversy sections give the article more eloquence and resort to more objective language. (With this I am not saying that other sections of the article are perfect, as they are obviously partial to the Legion. But we´ll leave that for another moment.)
However, I must insist on one point (the only one I believe is contestable). Inasmuch as my use of the phrase "right to choose" may be considered politically motivated, your own use of term "pro-life" is, (and I quote you on this) "used almost exclusively by those who think that abortion should be" illegal "and is therefore introducing a POV."
Obviously this is not simply a dispute over semantics, but since you deconstructed my wording, let me do the same to prove my point. Those of us who believe in a "woman´s right to choose" are not "pro-death." Independent of any discussion regarding the definition of "life", the appropriation of term "pro-life" by those against legalizing abortion is a conceptual fallacy since it implies and presupposes that those who they oppose are in favor of death, when clearly we are not. We make a valid, albeit questioned and obviously questionable, distinction between death and abortion that should be allowed in (and not forcibly imposed on) all discussions regarding the matter.
We can both see how this discussion can turn into a nasty, never-ending debate, so for the sake of Wikipedia and neutrality I only ask one thing: if you are to use the term "pro-life", you have to accept the term "right-to-choose". They both can, and should, be linked to internal articles so that the reader may make his/her own mind about his/her beliefs. -- Yafuetodo
The amount of pro-legion censorship and editing in this page is getting out of control, to the point that whole sections of the article are erased without mention of it in the history section. If anything, this sort of behavior is not only contrary to the practices of wikipedia but also serves to further disclaim those who support the legion, and the legion itself. -- Yafuetodo
I agree with your comment. The article reads as though it was cut and pasted from a web page for the Legionaries. In fairness some of the noted "rules" seem to have been chosen for the shock value. This organization seems to be quite controversial and perhaps the only solution is a total re-write from someone with no predetermined interest. -- JWPhil
After questioning several professors in Jesuit, Legionary and Cistercian schools and universities, there seems to be an error in the original article.
The Legion of Christ is not a recognized order of the Catholic Church, but a congregation. There are distinct differences.
-
- Anymore those are just semantics. It is unbeleivable how far and low people who do not like the Legion will go to smear it. It's a very easy thing to scream abuser these days and get a lot of attention. Unfortunately these charges stick even when nothing has really been proved. There has been a lot of anti Legion editing done here too, with unsubstantiated charges and in general quite a bit of spleen vented. Williamb 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
As being a ex-student at a Legion school, I must say, some of the previous edits have been vehemently anti-Legion, while some of them have been praising the Legion so much that it might be considered propaganda. Remember, NPOV... Yar, I forgot to sign in. This is Polanco
[edit] Superiors hearing the confessions of their subjects
I have removed the following passage from the aricle:
- The spiritual formation is similarly controversial. The superior is often the spiritual director, especially in centers of formation, and regularly hears subjects confessions, which is forbidden by Canon Law.
Canon 630.4 says, "Superiors are not to hear the confessions of their subjects unless the members spontaneously request them to do so." Canon 968.2 says, "By virtue of their office, the faculty to hear the confessions of their own subjects and of those others who live day and night in the house belongs to the Superiors of relitious institutes or of societies of apostolic life, if they are clerical and of pontifical right, who in accordance with the constitutions have executive power of governance, without prejudice however to the provision of can. 630.4." It would seem, therefore, that a violation of canon law would be if the superior forced his subjects to make their confessions to him, and if they were forbidden to go to another priest. Unless we have evidence that they are obliged to go to confession to their own superiors, it shouldn't be in the article. AnnH ♫ 12:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Ann. However, I would think prudence would suggest that no superior hear the confession of any subject on a regular basis. The canons specifically call for spiritual directors and moderators of the spiritual life precisely to avoid a conflict of interest that could arise by hearing a matter reserved to the internal forum.DaveTroy 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd also like to point out that a confession to the superiour is only allowed if the subject "spontaneously request". This means: It is not allowed that subjects go to confession to their superior on a regular basis. And from what I've heard this happens a lot in the legion. This is a serious issue and should be noted in the article. --Benedikt 09:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I suppose this would be considered "unverifiable", but my understanding is that every Legionary center has various "ordinary confessors", some of whom are superiors, some of whom are not, as well as various "extraordinary confessors", again some of these may be superiors, but most are not. As far as I can tell, they are perfectly free to go to any one of these that they choose -- or even to another priest outside of the congregation. (Canon Law also specifically grants permission to confess to superiors in religious congregations: "968 § 2: Vi officii facultate gaudent confessiones excipiendi suorum subditorum aliorumque, in domo diu noctuque degentium, Superiores instituti religiosi aut societatis vitae apostolicae, si sint clericales iuris pontificii, ad normam constitutionum potestate regiminis exsecutiva fruentes, firmo tamen praescriptio can. 630 §4." 630 §4 is quoted above.) 217.249.10.124 10:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Cardinals and Vows
It should be noted that the cardinals in the Conclave DO NOT take any vows about humilty or seeking office. On the other hand, I am sure the phrase "In a Pope out a Cardinal" has taken place more than once in the life of the Church.DaveTroy 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Numbers
In the article it is stated that the legion has 550 Priests and 2500 seminarians. While I believe in the first number I doubt the latter. I remeber when I got to know the Legion some 10 years ago they told us they had 1500 seminarians and around 400-500 priests. A normal education in the LC lasts 10 years until a member is ordained. If they had 1500 seminarians 10 years ago and they now have only 150 more priests than at that time this means that only a tenth of their seminarians got through their education. Whereas many men leave the legion in the education phase this still seems a very high proportion. My thesis is that they count those in their minor seminaries as regular seminarians. So, they have this high numbers. --Benedikt 09:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Censorship?
The edit 23:15, 28 May 2006 86.136.148.39 shows a clear intention to censor the article, i.e., to replace factual information critical of Maciel with material chosen from an appropriate source. Even then, the text is not favourable enough, so it is selectively quoted to give a misleading interpretation.
Factual, but critical, materila was replaced by "On 19 May 2006, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided, with approval from the Holy Father, to drop the canonical process into allegations against Fr Maciel and invite him to a reserved life of prayer and penance, renouncing all public ministry. [1]."
I.e., a case had been made against Maciel, but was dropped. Implication: he's to be presumed innocent.
The more complete quote is:
"On 19 May 2006, the Vatican issued a communiqué under the headline "Father Marcial Maciel Invited to Renounce All Public Ministry" which said:
- '…the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith…decided—taking into account both the advanced age of Father Maciel as well as his poor health—to drop the canonical process and invite him to a reserved life of prayer and penance, renouncing all public ministry. The Holy Father approved these decisions.
- Irrespective of the person of the founder, the distinguished apostolate of the Legionaries of Christ and of Regnum Christi is acknowledged with gratitude.'"
Here it is clear that the case was dropped merely because Maciel was old and infirm; and that the "person of the founder" is not at all positive.
Additionally, the formal language of the communique does not make clear that the "invitation" was an order to withdraw from all public activity; and respectable prelates told a respectable journal, off the record, that they believed Maciel to be guilty.
Pol098 10:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Pol098
- Whereas the mentioned edit by an anonymous editor shows indeed the clear intention to portray Fr. Maciel in a good light, I see some problems with the current version of the article. Please note also that the sexual abuse case is dealt with in a seperate paragraph.
- Firstly: The communique is not canoncical measure but instead an informal invitation. Fr. Maciel is not bound by his juridical obedience to the Holy Father to follow this invitation. So it is wrong to say that "The restriction prevents". It is not a restriction and it doesn't prevent. It invites.
- Secondly: There are some rumourous remarks by "Vatican officials" who are not named. In my opinion such remarks are useless. We need to know who said what in order to understand such remarks. It would be better to link to a commentary of a canon lawyer like http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/05/fr-maciels-penance_19.html or http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/060525 It should be noted that the Vatican statement is interpreted in two different ways. Also, we should mention the response of the founder (which is imo a straight-forward demonstration of his hybris clothed in humility). --Benedikt 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for comments Benedikt. My concern was with blatant censorship; but anything which throws light on the case, from whatever direction, is welcome. I don't actually agree with what you say; I will simply say why, and leave it to you and others to do whatever seems best (as long as it's not biased either way). First, the invitation, while formally just that, is not something that can be ignored. Your first reference says "(an "invitation" from CDF being essentially indistinguishable from an order)". Second, there is hearsay and hearsay: the remarks are stated by a reputable publication to be off-the-record comments by a member of the Congregation and a senior Vatican official; this is sufficent in my opinion to merit recording. I agree that Maciel's, and the Legion's, response is worth quoting. Your references should perhaps go in the article. But as I say, I will not intervene in any reasonable editing. Pol098 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- The invitation is distinguishable from an order because an order requires a formal canonical process whereas the invitation was made after the first examinations of the case and before a formal canonical process started. I will try to clarify the article, please review the change esp. my English wording and grammar. (I'm German) --Benedikt 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Your English is fine, Benedikt. I have no problem with the changes you have made. However, looking at the article more closely, there is an increasingly detailed description in "The founder", and also a full description in the later section on allegations of sexual abuse. I think "The founder" should merely say something like << On 19 May 2006 the Vatican issued a communique in response to long-standing allegations of sexual abuse by Fr Maciel, requiring him to renounce all public ministry and devote himself to prayer and penance, and dropping the canonical process due to his age and health. See the section on "Allegations of sexual abuse" for details.>> All detailed quotes and other information should go in that section.
-
- That is a suggestion; but I'm OK with the article as it stands. Pol098 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aggressive Recruiting Tactics
I was a member of the Legion's youth group in the Diocese of Columbus where the Legion was eventually banned. I have no idea what is meant by 'aggressive' recruiting. I went to the club, we played sports, had a talk, ate snacks, and went home. Aggressive? They gave us information for their boys retreats and summer camps, we attended, incorporated into ECYD(Education Youth Culture Development) and took on prayer and behavior commitments because we saw the priests and their example of being a person. They didn't tell us 'you need to do this', they invited us, we came, had a retreat with sports, talks, sacraments, etc. The priests who ran the retreats were exemplary. Never had I seen such good people. That's why I decided to join their group, not because I was pressured, but because I found an honorable role model.
The Legion was not banned from the Diocese of Columbus for being aggressive recruiters, but because diocesan seminarians saw a much more faithful and disciplined group in Legionary seminaries, and left the Diocese to join the legion. The bishop didn't like this. He decided to start from the ground up - Diocesan priests needed to run youth clubs to encourage priesthood in the diocese. He banned the Legion and the Diocesan priests began running youth groups. These youth groups didn't compare to the Legion's because Diocesan priests are busy with so many other things, and the Legion's main job is to teach the youth - they were trained for it.
the Legion is controversial only because they are trying to awaken the world. We're a bit sleepy from our videogames, tv, computer, and much worse, like drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc., and they're moving to stop the youth from this self-destructive path and return to old virtues. In the world today, we need more people like them.
Danny
I believe no one should talk about what they know not. Hey, how about I say that you are mad, when I don´t even know you, but I have heard about you somewhere and therefore I say you are mad. Please if you want to say anything just investigate, don´t believe the wrong you hear until you see it by yourself, and can prove it. Danny, thanks for your opinion.
Pablo
I agree with Danny. I grew up in the boys clubs in one of the diocese that the Bishop now forbids the Legion not to enter. They are simply good at what they do and are very well educated/trained. They only seem or appear agressive because the diocese did/does nothing in my opinion to recruit. I also agree that to a certain and reasonable extent that you need to be aggresive in order to wake up kids in today's world to become virtuous and even think about things like the religious life. I also know that in particular dioceses the number of diocesean seminarians has gone up since the Legion has had a presence. I believe D.C./Baltimore is one of them. So in my personal expeirence the "aggresive" is merely an over-reaction by those who are scared by a)priests/religious or b)the idea of the son becoming a priest. Pmh111 13:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)PMH111Pmh111 13:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This article reads like i imagine a wiki article on the UN written by Republicans would read. It barely mentions one point without citing multiple criticisms of that point, some unfounded, most highly POV.
Also, if every NPOV, which called for above, gets dismissed, as Danny's was, because he was not inside, then this really because a debate between former members of the Legion, and a spitting match between those favorable and those unfavorable, two POVs.
This article as is tells very little about the Legion and mostly what individuals who do not like the Legion have to say. There is no attempt at balance. The emphasis is also very American, noting the lack of facts regarding the Legion outside of the US, although this congregation operates on a global scale. Finally, while the Legion is banned in a small number of dioceses, it makes no mention of support from other bishops and dioceses. Reading the article you would think the Legion operates only in the diocese of the bishop of Rome.
If you want a spitting match, there are places for that, like Regain forum, but let's leave wiki to those who can dispassionately record the failings and achievements of this organization. The Jackal God 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
John
There is a white elephant in the room--I'm absolutely certain I'm not alone in seeing it--but I guess this is just the dirty-work kind of guy I am: I'm going to point it out.
The problem with the mentality exemplified above is as follows, and I speak from experience: a lot of people are bought and sold by an appearance of "orthodoxy" or of "being nice." Then, later down the road, they are left penniless and in a state of serious spiritual doubt. This is what the Legion and Regnum Christi did to my parents and to me. The husband sees the priest as "orthodox," while the wife sees the priest as "nice." So, they blindly buy whatever he's selling, however damaging and canonically illegal it may be.
So, if you really care so little about others that you are willing to let them be taken in the same way my parents and I were, well and good. But I for my part will never stand idly by as my brothers and sisters are preached a twisted Gospel that makes Christian Community of Believers into a militaristic cult. Say of me what you will.
[edit] Mano Amiga and the Irish Institute
Whoever suggested that Mano Amiga is funded by the Irish Institute badly needs a reality check. Yes, the Irish Institute is the most privileged school within the Legion, but it is quite unfair to say that we foot the bill alone for Mano Amiga. Every single Legionary school and every single Legionary student pays a tuition fine that goes into funding the Mano Amiga projects located mostly throughout Latin America (Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela) and a few outposts in Central America and Eastern Europe. It is quite unfair and very POV to single out the Irish Institute, not only for all the other Legionary schools who also do their share in helping to maintain these schools, but with the Irish Institute itself, which is vilified and hated by even other Legionary schools for garnishing such a reputation. This article in general is very POV against the Legionaries, as way too much space is given to talking about questionable recruitment techniques, and the founder's alleged sexual abuse accusations, while much about the Legionaries' schools and universities, global presence, teaching methodologies, codes of moral behavior, ethics and social work are largely ignored. I agree that some attention should be brought to the negative aspects of the Legion (which there are many, some of which aren't even covered here!), but some balance is necessary if we wish to make this article encyclopedic. Speculation and 'half-truths', which also abound in this article, don't help whatsoever either. Avllr 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Avllr.
- An anonymous user added the information, I just did some cursory fact checking and reworded things a bit. Sorry about the POV sentence about Mano Amiga! I agree, more content about the organization needs to be added for balance. It's hard though as the informational content added to the article is either insanely POV (praising the founder as saint, etc.) or unsourced. If anyone can add more about the structure of its organization, its ethos, etc., that'd be wonderful. Also, which parts are speculation and half truths? Please add a [citation needed] next to them, and I'll check them out. Thanks for the interest in the article! Scott5834 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Formation - family visits
It says that family visits are severely restricted. I think this is taking things out of context, considering apostolics are minor seminarians preparing for a life of a consecrated religious in the RCC. Moreover, these are the norms for a minor seminarian, which differ from the norms for novices and professed; so in this way it is incomplete. Finally, while such vists may be "severely restricted" compared to other walks of life, how do they compare to the norms of other congregations? I think such consideration would be more apropos before weighing in on judgments like "severely restricted."
ps: besides the chance of visiting the family on such occasions, the family also has the opportunity to visit one Sunday a month. The Jackal God 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Jackal! Good job on removing the "dangerous" quote; I'm surprised something that POV had been on the article that long. As far as the family visits go, the wording comes from a National Catholic cover story about the Legion. I think the contention lies in the age of boys entering the seminarian more than the strictness. Doing some research on other orders would provide excellent context for the article though. See what you can dig up!-Scott5834 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- interesting article. funny that you have to read all the way to the end of it to find out what the fuss was all about. The Legion is orthodox Catholic. The renegade school is non-denominational. If you don't question the bias of the reporting, you could at least question the investigation. The school at Edgerton, Winsconsin is a boarding school, not an "apostolic" school, and a far cry from one at that. anyways, more Church politics, should i yawn or cry? And are these truly reliable sources? The Jackal God 01:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
