Talk:Legion of Christ/Archive to 2009

POV Issues
Let me say the below more directly -- Legion members who are glossing the truth of the Legion have hijacked this article. The truth of this group is much, much more sordid than this article allows. May God have mercy on the souls who shield the truth.

There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.

And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. John 3: 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.135.239 (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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. Fear ÉIREANN 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)
 * Which is why the original poster went on to say, 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. Very well, the woman, in that case, chooses between letting nature go its way or killing her fetal offspring. If that is called a choice with a right to choose, I do not want to know what is called a necessity. --93.133.202.163 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2012 (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

How come this site is allowed to post all of the Legion documents yet Regain, Inc. is not? Is the creator of this article on Wikipedia afraid of getting sued like Regain? Aren't those letters copyrighted?--24.27.151.224 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Having read some of the comments on this discussion, I would presume that some that are writing these articles were not Legionaries or have not been inducted in the ranks of the Legion (ie LC/RC). I am a former novice of the Congregation, though I do not consider myself a specialist on the Legion, I can say based on personal experience that as a novice I was expected to go to confession on a regular basis to my superior (who was also my spiritual director and novice instructor). Failure to meet weekly confession was always brought up during weekly spiritual direction if not during daily dependence. Given there are multiple confessors present at a given house of formation, for the most part each confessor is charged with a particular group--Fr X, who is novice instructor also serves as confessor for the novitiate; Fr Y, who is instructor of the juniorate also serves as their confessor; and Fr Z, who is the rector of the house of formation also serves as confessor of all the priests of the center. It has been pointed out that "they are perfectly free to go to any one of these that they choose--or even to another priest outside to the congregation," let me point out that before going to confession to another priest a seminarian must first obtain express permission from his own instructor. If a seminarian were to go to confession to any priest without this permission, the priest hearing the confession will reprimand the seminarian at the spot and report the incident to that seminarian's instructor (again, I am stating this from personal experience)---which also raises the question regarding the Seal of Confession, which Legionary priests have also been accused of breaking. As for a Legionary seminarian going to a non-Legionary priest for confession, this is out of the question! One other thing must be understood: each seminarian in the Legion is assigned a certain day for confession (on a weekly basis), one cannot go to confession on any random day unless it is required under extreme unction or it is a mortal sin--any other reason is deemed excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.32.126 (talk) 22:43, May 1, 2007


 * There are designated confessors for each center - so you can go to any one of those. The Legion recommends a regular confessor and regular confession, but that is not something forced on anyone. And there is extensive and discreet opportunity for confession at all times. No day is assigned. They ask that everyone not choose the same day, so that confessor isn't up all night hearing confessions. And again, individuals choose the confessor, not the other way around.
 * regarding the Seal of Confession, that's a grave accusation you're making, and at least know that that priest did not break any Seal of Confession, but was practicing fidelity to a norm of the Congregation by not hearing your confession. To go to a priest who wasn't designated a regular confessor for the center, you would need permission.
 * It's not forbidden for a Legionary to go to a non-Legionary for confession, afaik tbh i don't remember, but true, they made no effort to bus novices out of the seminary for confession when there are 6-8 confessors already at the seminary. I'm not familiar with the customs of other congregations, but I doubt they do that either. And yes, going to confession more than once a week is considered excessive. The Jackal God 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

In the portuguese language version of the Legionaries of Christ website it states that there are 2500 seminarians and minor seminarians.

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. ."

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)

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.


 * I think that those of you who did not experience aggressive recruting might have been going to the boys club. I have a friend that goes to the retreats in South Bend IN where the school is and he has experienced tremendous pressure to join —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.160.162.89 (talk • contribs).

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 next to them, and I'll check them out. Thanks for the interest in the article! Scott5834 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * You need to remove the broken link to exlegionaires.com since it no longer exists. Why is it still up BTW? --HKoenig (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of politics section?
I don't really see the point of politics section. Legion of Christ is congregation of Catholic church, and that means its faith is Catholic. I don't see homosexuality and abortion as political question in this context, since this is not a political party/movement/organization/ext., rather as a religious (philosophic) view. So it is clearly to anybody that LofC doesn't approve homosexuality and abortion since it is part of Catholic church, there for it confesses Catholic faith, which states that homosexuality and abortion are sin. Therefore, I think it this section should be removed. --Tomy108 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand the Legion of Christ and its lay movement Regnum Christi has had important links with spanish and mexican politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.27.25 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Refoundation
Some Legionnaries have indicated that they want to re-found a similar group with a new leader, given the controversy over Maciel. In general, it seems that the Legionnaries are still appreciated by the Church, even though their founder was more than corrupt, and so the organization cannot be called totally corrupt. This reformation movement has been promoted in Rome, along with a counter-movement which calls for the suppression of the Legion, much like the suppression of the Jesuits in the 18th century. ADM (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI orders investigation of the Legionaries of Christ
AP NEWS Tue Mar 31: "The Legion revealed in February that its founder, the Rev. Marcial Maciel of Mexico, had fathered a daughter who is now in her 20s and lives in Spain... The disclosure caused turmoil inside the religious order and its lay affiliate, Regnum Christi. The groups teach that Maciel was a hero whose life should be studied and emulated. The news also raised many questions about whether any current leaders covered up Maciel's misdeeds and whether any donations were used to facilitate the misconduct or pay victims.... Germain Grisez, a prominent moral theologian at Mount St. Mary's University in Maryland, has said the Legion should be shut down." D gizmo (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to remember that while the Legion of Christ freely admitted the results of its own investigation that Maciel had fathered a child, the Legion reiterated that they were not admitting AT THIS TIME that Maciel had molested anyone. The added line in the beginning of this article dated March 31, 2009 is wrong and should be deleted regarding the Legion's admission of molestation. I see that the person who posted to the opening paragraph of this article just copied an AP news story. Unfortunately for anti-Legion followers this information is not true and should be deleted, I welcome this investigation as it will bring a lot of answers to questions and then the Legion can move forward in its good works. --Aunt Edith (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Aunt Edith--Aunt Edith (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Is not true": sorry Aunt Edith, but what is the source for the AP report being "not true"? See WP:NOR
 * Testbed (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Testbed - I have read and I attended a meeting where the press release from the Legion of Christ was read and discussed in depth regarding the result of the Legion of Christ's own investigation about Maciel. The Legion told us that when the Vatican asked Maciel to step down as leader, a reason was never given to anyone as to why Maciel was asked to step down. Evidently, this frustrated the Legion and they conducted their own study thus finding this woman and her child. The Legion, for various reasons I am sure, decided to go public with this knowledge. We were told in this meeting about this woman and her child plus that while AT THIS TIME no molestation truths were found, it did not mean the allegations of molestation AT THIS TIME were true or false. Yes, you read that correctly. The Legion told us that just because their investigation did not find any proof one way or the other of molestation, it did not mean AT THIS TIME that the molestation claims were true or false. The Legion is keeping the door open for the chance that someday these allegations against Maciel may be proven true. IMHO, it shows that the Legion is not in denial but being smart and waiting for the truth before judging this issue. So ... AT THIS TIME, the Legion has not admitted that their priests or Maciel have molested anyone. The AP reporters did not do their homework. The AP reporter dropped the ball and the anti-Legion people in charge of this Wiki article are running with it and in so doing, hurting a lot of innocent christian people all over the world. Peace, Aunt Edith


 * Thank you. As you probably know, what you write is likely to be classified by Wikipedia as "original research" and so is not admissable on Wikipedia (as I said above, you could look at NOR). If the PA issue a clarification, this can be included (you are free to contact them if you feel strongly). Otherwise, please guide us, if you can, to references we can use to improve the article - see Verifiability.   Testbed (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I appologize for the "original research." I saw a mistake in your article and wished to correct it. The people the AP reporter quote are only people who work with the Legion and they are voicing their personal opinions about all of the allegations. Again, that is not the Legion admitting to anything. I wish Wikipedia had higher standards for the truth and when a mistake is pointed out, it, at the very least, should have a caveat stating that a particular statement is under dispute. Peace, Aunt Edith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunt Edith (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now read the cited AP report (which you claim is "not true") with some care. As I understand your comments - and these discussions are always difficult when people use English in different ways - you say it is wrong for AP to report that the "order..has acknowledged that its founder...molested seminarians." It seems to me from the rest of the article that the journalist is justified in this statement: she clearly relies in part on a Jay Dunlap blog (which we could usefully include in the article) - a little further searching also turns up A statement by the Director of Regnum Christi. This second reference is particularly relevant as it is by the head of the organisation, "founded by Father Marcial Maciel and shares the charism of the priestly congregation, the Legionaries of Christ". On consideration I think your comments are worth very little - sorry. Testbed (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem Testbed. Someday I hope and pray that the truth is known to all of us. I admire the Legion for conducting their own investigation and admitting that the leader they loved and revered committed a serious breach of his vows and sinned against this woman and their child. It is difficult for anyone to admit they made a mistake. While I believe that the truth sets us free no matter what, I am afraid that for some people, no amount of evidence for the truth will ever be enough and these same people will continue to spin their wheels trying to find something that isn't there. As my wonderful Catholic grandmother use to say - Go With God!--76.92.254.21 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Aunt Edith--76.92.254.21 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

TRUE BELIEVER SYNDROM? We have solid evidence about his criminal and sinful life, but he is still revered as a saint among many of his followers. Many schools and universities are controled by "legionarios de cristo" and it seems there is no problem for many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.115.194 (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very very well, please distinguish between the first part and the second part. The first part would be wrong (do they really?) - though, need I say it, we need not represent a person who in all probability has died provided with Holy Absolution as outright villain about whom nothing can be right. (Though of course if the Holy Father does not only speak about sins, some of which crimes, but even of a total "lack of authentic religousness", as he did, I admit the acceptability of the Legion's founder, may he rest in peace, grows much thinner.) The second is only wrong if there is something wrong about the Legion at present.--93.133.202.163 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)(allegiance: Catholic, no further connection with the Legion)

"Fastest growing order"
Could the person(s) who always reinserts claims that the Legion of Christ is one of the fastest growing congregation or similar please cite a neutral source for their allegations. Otherwise the sentence should be deleted. --RandomNumberSee (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of critical information
@ADM What is your reasoning for removing all the critical information and setting up a new article? Seems like a POV fork to me. I would like to undo this. --RandomNumberSee (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just seen this, having reverted the same editors removal of material in contravention of WP:Lead section. I put a note on Talk:Marcial_Maciel warning about NPOV and certainly support undoing the fork. Testbed (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I think the fork is appropriate is that I suspect that the Legion of Christ will somehow survive Maciel's abuse scandal, much like the Archdiocese of Boston survived the sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese under bishop Bernard Law. Soon enough, the abuse affairs will seem like a thing of the past and the so-called fork would merely record that past with appropriate historical sources. ADM (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)