The Vatican, Twilight and Why Buying a Dishcloth Is Important

Apparently (and I can’t provide a link to the actual release, so know knows in what context this was spoken), the Vatican has come out against the current ‘Tween’ (and older) sensation of ‘Twilight.’   For those of you living under a rock, the basic premise of this three part series is:

• Boy meets girl
• Girl likes boy
• Boy avoids girl because boy has sudden urge to suck on girls neck and drink her blood
• Turns out boy is a vampire
• Boy and girl must beat all number of odds to be together (including vampire councils and the ‘other love interest’ – a werewolf – who is so manly he threatens to kill himself if girl does not kiss him)
• Boy and girl live happily ever after.

Preeetty sure this plot has been repeated in several if not hundreds of ways over the years, but I think I prefer Shakespeare’s variation on this the most.  At any rate, if you want a simple plot line to sum it up with I’d offer this one:

Dawsons Creek on crack, except everyone is a vampire, werewolf or emo.

Another opinion is this, offered by a Vatican spokesperson:

The film, above, contained “an explosive mix” of good-looking protagonists dabbling in the supernatural, said Monsignor Franco Perazzolo of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture. The film’s occult imagery represented a “moral void more dangerous than any deviant message”, he said.

(I take issue with this.  The characters are not at all good looking. Has he even seen the movie??)  But seriously, the first response to this will most likely be ‘oh the Vatican over0-reacting about everything, wants us all to be prudes who only read the bible etc etc…”   But the question is a deeper one; Twilight is a very prominent book and movie series and like it or not, we are influenced by values in our society.

Is Twilight the sort of book that promotes healthy values and relationships?  If it doesn’t should we be promoting it or perhaps more importantly should we let children read it?

I take a slightly pragmatic approach to this. I don’t think you will be able to stop your 13 year old daughter from reading this book if she really really wants to.  And perhaps we shouldn’t; after all you cannot ‘protect’ children from the ‘outside world’ but rather help them to filter it through their own moral compass. Hopefully what you can do is ask your kids questions about the book, the characters motives and behaviours to make them think deeply about the issues set forth.  They can still enjoy it, sure, but it also means you are teaching them to think critically and deeply about issues presented in media.

A friend of mine offered these pearls of wisdom over this issue:

“Vatican hates Twilight” could more accurately be described as  “Vatican Official thinks Twilight a bad idea” which is not the same thing.

It’s the same as the Harry Potter incident–someone writes to the Pope saying they don’t like Harry and he writes back saying “It’s good to be careful about what your kids are reading” and suddenly the headline is “Pope hates Harry Potter”.

As for the statement, I don’t think Twilight is morally empty. Morally problematic, sure, yes it is. Stephanie Meyer is a Mormon, it’s not news we don’t like their theology of things like procreation. But then, Philip Pullman and Harry Potter are both at times morally problematic as well. That’s why you don’t let five year olds read them.

Beautiful.

But what, you might ask, is my issue with these books?  From a woman’s perspective I think they promote a pretty terrible ideal of relationships and more specifically, being the female within those relationships. They feed on that 13-16 year old angst which pathologically hungers for that obsessive intense love that makes you go kill yourself (or in Bella’s case, sit for months looking out her window and waking up screaming at night) if you loose it.  How do I know? I’ve been there. I know what it is like to be in that age and I know PRECISELY why this series is so attractive. I also know the pain of ‘love lost’ (although I think it can be different with young teenagers; lust and obsessiveness seem to replace true love) and how terrible that can make one feel. And yes it can indeed go on for months. But there are healthy and unhealthy ways to deal with that and this book seems to glorify the latter.   And the female lead seems so passive aggressive and easily led; sure a male has a role of leadership in any relationship but puh-lease. Woman, this is a prime example of how NOT to be in a relationship.

A second example in the second book (and this is based on a review, not my own reading of it. I couldn’t get through another one) is the half wolf/half man’s character (also in love with Bella) who threatens to kill himself if she doesn’t kiss him.  Wow. What a great way to get love. Wait a minute; that is NOT true love, and to put it forward as part of love is pretty terrible.

And finally.  I just don’t get the big deal with Edward whats his name (the male lead in the film series and the book).  Ok, the guy can act, and he is probably a really nice guy in real life.  But the character he plays is so entirely 2-D and predictable that I could probably get the same experience if I were to date a really pale and slightly good looking dishcloth.

Give me Elizabeth Bennet any day

Guest Blog by M-Man: Afghanistan, an Opinion

Recently the Grenadier Guards of the British Army have experienced some of the heaviest contact with enemy fire since the Second World War. A 2007 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, ‘Taking on the Taliban’, followed the Queen’s Company of the Grenadier Guards into Helmand Province, Afghanistan, where this small band of men faced the toughest challenge of their lives. When the British moved into Helmand in 2006, they were meant to provide security for reconstruction, not to fight ferocious battles. Instead, ‘Taking on the Taliban’ noted the dramatic increase of violent incidents in one year alone, to an average of 550 a month according to the UN. The cost of British military involvement had been over a billion pounds in the last eighteen months alone.

This is only a tiny snapshot of the overall conflict in Afghanistan. If we widen the lens of the camera today, we see a war already eight years old. Over 43 countries have troops in Afghanistan; the majority (roughly 68, 000) come from the United States, while Britain is the second-largest contributor with roughly 9, 500 troops. As Gordon Brown expresses commitment to the policy of training and supporting Afghanistan’s security forces, (‘we cannot, must not and will not walk away’[1]), and as President Obama decides on whether to send in more troops to the region, the fundamental question on everyone’s mind is ‘why are we there?’. ‘Should we be there?’

A popular line of argument stresses that the war against the Taliban is an unjust invasion, not the liberation of Afghanistan. A favourite bedfellow of this argument is the claim that Afghanistan is another example of American imperialism forcing democracy onto an unwilling population. Unfortunately, this argument gains credibility from the Iraq War, a war which stemmed from a foreign policy which many Muslims would agree was ‘straight out of the Mafia’ to use Noam Chomsky’s famous words.[2] America is thus the perfect scapegoat in the hands of imams, the Taliban and jihad recruiters. This Anti-Americanism (the cause of which at least is understandable) is unfortunate because the Afghanistan conflict is not the same as Iraq. But unsurprisingly, claims of American imperialism in Afghanistan do not mention the Muslim-majority countries like Turkey, Jordan and the UAE who join the coalition of forty-odd nations in Afghanistan. Also unsurprisingly, claims of American imperialism never seem to mention that most of the people now dying because of suicide bombers, most of the victims of Al-Qaeda- and Taliban-inspired jihadists, most of the orphaned children, and most of the childless mothers are Muslims. Although it is well documented that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s propaganda statements attribute this violence to Muslims’ political grievances, such as ‘American imperialism’, or America’s support for Israel, what we must not ignore is the theology and ideology of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, in their own words. As Raymond Ibrahim notes, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s theology makes no mention of current political grievances; for instance, when Ayman al-Zawahiri was asked about the status of bin Laden and the Taliban’s one-eyed Mullah Omar, he confidently replied:

Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden—may Allah protect them from all evil—are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth and Falsehood transcends time (from Raymond Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader, 182).

This suggests that the root cause of extremist Islam is the violent and fascist ideology that motivates them, an ideology strengthened and grounded in a God replete with eternal damnations and rewards, and thus not easily discredited. ‘Fight them [infidels] until there is no more seduction and all religion belongs to Allah alone’ declares Sura 8:39 of the Quran. As Ibrahim notes, ‘no “radical” Muslim fabricated these verses and others like them. These are understood to be the everlasting words of Allah and his prophet’.[3] This alternative view, which recognises the Taliban and Al-Qaeda for the dangerous and radical Islam they adhere to, suggests that if the stability and security of Afghanistan is not achieved, the likely alternative would be another civil war that Taliban warlords would probably win. Losing in Afghanistan would also boost the morale of Islamist extremists worldwide, and would again provide a safe haven in Afghanistan for the terrorists this world cannot and should not tolerate. 

---

[1] Gordon Brown, address to the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, on 6 November 2009, http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21232

 

[2] Noam Chomsky, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/07/noam-chomsky-us-foreign-policy

[3] Raymond Ibrahim, ‘Hydra of War’, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGIxMmVmZjRjYTEzNGVlYjJjNDBhNTA4ZTQ3OTdhZTY=&w=MQ==

Why I left Regnum Christi

I thought it important to outline my reasons for leaving; hence here is the letter sent to the powers that be to let them know of my decision to leave:

 

I am writing this email to let you know of my decision to leave Regnum Christi. This decision, as you well know, as not been made lightly or in a moment of emotions.  It has been made with careful thinking and prayer.  This decision does not in anyway negate my own experience with Regnum Christi or as a coworker which was an amazingly fruitful time for me, one I would not change because God brought me closer to Himself during this time. I am grateful for all the time and energy spent on me, and hope to count all my friends in the Movement as friends once I leave.

However, in good conscience I can no longer put my name behind a Movement that exalted a man to the point of giving him almost mythical like powers, who turned out to be a pedophile, scam artist, and embezzler. While I do not pass judgment on Fr Marciel, I do believe God gave us intellect to reason.  Fr Marciel’s actions were despicable but I, as every Christian, understand that God’s judgment takes into account things we cannot know and I hope and pray that he found His Mercy. However,  the actions of the Movement’s leadership, whether intentional or not following the revelations (and even before) speak to a Movement incapable of healthy self critique and for the most part, incapable of recognizing where it has hurt so many people.  Furthermore, the fact that at least from 2006 some in the leadership knew at least some details of Fr Marciel (although I suspect those closest to him knew things long before) and yet continued to attest to his innocence and stake OUR names on this innocence, is the ultimate in betrayal.  This speaks to a Movement which puts its reputation above the very real hurt of those left in its wake. I cannot believe Christ would do that.

To pursue legal action against individuals who saw the destruction caused by Fr Marciel or who fell victim to horrific sexual abuse, or to slander them (even in whispers) betrays the commandment to charity something which is supposed to be held as King virtue in the movement.  We failed to protect the little ones, Christ’s beloved, and we fail to see this or rectify it.  A Movement which seeks to hide part of itself, which shuns ex members or hides the fact that previous members (lay or religious) have left and continues to provide false information about those wishing to know join is not a normal religious congregation. I can speak to many congregations who joyfully celebrate when one discerns that their vocation is not to remain, because this is not being unfaithful, or ungenerous, but is rather seeking Gods will.  These and other cult like elements I now recognise are worrying and are unhealthy.  There are many people reporting seriously disturbing experiences with the Legion and RC, such that I cannot conclude they are isolated incidents but rather form a pattern  of a Movement that is in many ways, sick from the inside out.

Finally, I wish to address one point that we talked about in our last SD. You mentioned my participation in the Movement as a ‘Vocation.’  After some research on this idea, I found out that there are only three vocations in the Church; married, religious or more recently, single life.  One might feel called to a particular spirituality, but ultimately to present the Movement as a vocation sets up those who wish to leave as walking out of Gods will – a very heavy thing indeed to lay on anyone’s shoulders!  I can serve the Church and follow my path just as well outside the Movement as in, and while I am in no doubt that God wished me to be a part of it for a time, He now wishes for me to move on, and grow without it.

All that I love about the Movement is really just the Catholic Church!  The Movement introducing me to this is something I will always be thankful for, but I do not believe I have a life long Vocation that I am walking away from.  My vocation is to be fully human and Catholic; anything beyond this may or may not be fruitful but whatever the case is not ‘necessary.’  I am not walking away from saving souls because I can do that in whatever I do. I am not walking away because I am scared of suffering or am ungenerous; truth be told to leave causes me more pain and suffering than staying because I am walking away from something that was family for me for a long time, and from many people who I admire who will not understand what I am doing and most likely think badly of me because of it.

My decision was made ultimately when I realised that if I knew everything that I know now, I would not join the Movement, nor would I have made the vow to Second Degree.  I would not recommend anyone joining the Movement now unless some very real and huge changes are made and I am unsure that the Movement is capable of making those even with outside help.  In light of this, I no longer believe (and indeed to be honest, never really believed) that it is my mission to get people into Regnum Christi (under the guise of bringing them to Christ) and since part of belonging is to pursue this ideal I would probably make a fairly useless member anyways!  I realise many members, lay and religious followed and continue to follow this mandate because they genuinely believe it is God’s will and want to save souls. But ultimately I could never grasp how a Movement that existed for “the good of the Church” seemed to do so much for the good of itself.

I say none of this to suggest that you or many who I respect and love in the Movement are intentionally a part of any of this.  As I said, there are many I love and respect in the Movement and will continue to do so.  Many people have in turn loved and supported me, and I am so grateful.

 

The Movement was a huge part of my life for many years, and in many ways gave me so very much and I am grateful. But seeing what I see now, I cannot stay silent. I do not judge anyone still in the Movement as I realise that ones path is a decision made between the soul and God.

 

Pax Christi

Does this mean that some green beliefs require a leap of faith?

Picked up this little gem at a friends site.

 

 

I’m going to say right here right now; the environment is important.  We should look after it.  However, scientific debate over global warming is sadly lacking (nothing shuts down scientific debate faster than calling the opposing side right wingers, or accusing them of being in the pockets of ‘big oil companies’).  And now it seems that you can’t challenge it because it is a matter of FAITH. Yes. You heard right.  That bastion of progressive thinking, Britain, has just come up with this:

 

Judge rules that green views are the ‘same as religious beliefs’ as sacked environmentalist wins legal battle

Tim Nicholson, 42, claims he was made redundant by residential landlord Grainger plc because of his green views

An environmentalist who claims he was fired for his views has won a landmark legal battle after a judge ruled being green was just as worthy of protection at work as religion.

‘Green martyr’ Tim Nicholson, 42, claims he was dismissed after his bosses at showed contempt for his philosophical belief the earth faces ‘catastrophic climate change’.

So hey, sacking someone because they are environmental is not on and I don’t think he should have been sacked. By the sounds of things he had every recourse to seek justice (although he does sound like a bit of a winer).  But the outright stupidity of labeling green beliefs as on par with religious beliefs is beyond belief.  Another blog comments

Yeah, you read that right.  Though we’ve long known it, the faith dimension of the environmentalists has been fully recognized by the UK judiciary.  Does this mean that Al Gore can now officially be equated with the Son of God?

Cue the opening of the floodgates for a veritable sh*tstorm of entirely frivolous and wholly unnecessary lawsuits in the UK, not to mention reams of new legislation covering enviro-worship and affording these persecuted modern day prophets/martyrs with the protection of the State.

 

But don’t worry, it’s still OK to bash Christian religious beliefs, or equate them with ‘breaching human rights of children.’

Gardasil not so awesome

Of course. I could have told you this. But its like the Pill  (one form of which has been put on the WHO list of grade 1 carcinogenic – in lay mans terms, this means it ain’t good for not causing cancer) no one really hears about this because its to do with ‘reproductive rights.’
So even if there is a risk, shush it up, don’t want to be seen to be ‘against reproductive rights.’

 

Pffft. If there was this sort of risk associated with panadol you can be sure there would be people screaming from the roof tops.

 

From the article at CBS:

Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings (does this mean that those cheesy ad’s on New Zealand TV about taking your daughter to get the vaccine might be misleading?) before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved.

Dr. Harper joins a number of consumer watchdogs, vaccine safety advocates, and parents who question the vaccine’s risk-versus-benefit profile. She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years. (another problem is that it lulls people into a false sense of security -this vaccine does not work against ALL strains of the virus which can lead to cervical cancer).

 

Am I anti gardasil? No, provided that it is given with full information about exactly WHAT it protects against, for HOW LONG and any potential side effects.

If only I could get away with that…

Its been a while. I’m sorry

Anyways, found this while ‘procrastiblogging’. Don’t like everything on this site but found the story interesting:

Radical leftists shouted down Geert Wilders at Temple University last night.
The good little indoctrinated leftists chanted, “Hey Hey, HO, HO, this racist bull—-’s got to go.” They forced the university to shut down the event early…

Amid a firestorm of contention, several hundred people heard Geert Wilders, a controversial Dutch parliamentarian, speak last night at Temple University.

During his approximately 30-minute speech, Wilders called the Quran “an evil book” and said that the United States was facing Islamization.

A question-and-answer session was cut short, and Wilders was escorted out of the lecture hall after some students began shouting insults at him….

Hey I’m all behind the right of people to protest. But Dawkins pretty much has equated christianity with all the bad. So why doesn’t he get shouted out for hate speech? Not that I really want him to, I kind of think protesting while someone is speaking is rude…but just saying.

Anyways, a selection of Dawkins opinions about faith:

“With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns.

Bloggers notes:  I’m loving the comparison to the Moonies, but frankly I take offense at the one to Scientologists.  The Pope is way cooooooler than Tom Cruise

“The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn’t seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as ‘faith’.”

Bloggers notes:  Having just done four years of psychology, comparing believers to ‘patients’ in need of help is actually pretty mild.

“Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the “know-nothings”, the “know-alls”, and the “no-contests”"

Blogger comments: given your arguments against God, I’d stick you in the ‘know nothing’ category of atheists when faced with good philosophy.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

Blogger comment; see above

“…the stereo- type of scientists being scruffy nerds with rows of pens in their top pocket is just about as wicked as racist stereotypes.”

Blogger comments: could you please stop stereotyping Christians then? And are you telling me the sitcom The Big Bang Theory portrayal of scientists are wrong!

“It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe..”

Blogger comment: way too easy.

Most Excellent

In discussions with the various flora and fauna lurking around Otago University, Dawkin’s and that Great Book which must not be spoken against ever (nope, not the Koran, or the Bible) “The God Delusion” has come up, well, constantly.  Everyone’s read it.  And is so convinced of its truth, even though as far as I could tell, Dawkin’s ‘argument’ against Christianity (and other religion) was basically to roll his eyes and say “stupid fundamentalist Christians” which is pretty much the argument most people use (even though there are brilliant critiques of religious belief out there which are far more believable).

Given this, I thought I’d share this review of the “God Delusion” by the London Review.  I suspect that the author is probably a Christian of some sort, but given Dawkin’s is an atheist, I think we can safely say that bias comes into play with both authors.

Its rather long, but is well worth the read.

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.

Maybe Dawkin’s HAS actually read some deep theology and feels that the modern audience doesn’t need anything else other than an eyeroll to convince them of his argument.  But I’m not sure what that says about the state of humanity, or Dawkin’s claims he is a scientist (given I’m sure he’d expect most of us to have a pretty in depth understanding of evolution and biology).

The Legionaries Last Stand

This was emailed to me and I thought it was worthwhile posting

The Legionaries’ Last Stand. An Exclusive Interview with Fr. Thomas Berg

The Vatican is investigating the Legionaries of Christ, which is reeling from the transgressions of its founder. And for the first time, one of their authoritative members breaks the silence on the crucial problems that have exploded in the congregation

by Sandro Magister

ROME, July 13, 2009 – In two days, the announced apostolic visitation of the congregation of the Legionaries of Christ will begin.

The visitors appointed by the Holy See are the following five bishops:

- Ricardo Watti Urquidi, bishop of Tepic in Mexico, in charge of the visitation in Mexico and Central America, where the Legionaries have 44 houses with 250 priests and 115-120 religious and aspiring priests;

- Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver, responsible for the United States and Canada, where the Legionaries have 24 houses with 130 priests and 260 religious and aspiring priests;

- Giuseppe Versaldi, bishop of Alexandria, responsible for Italy, Israel, the Philippines, and South Korea, where the Legionaries have 16 houses with 200 priests and 420 religious and aspiring priests;

- Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, archbishop of Concepción in Chile, in charge of Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela, where the Legionaries have 20 houses with 122 priests and 120 religious and aspiring priests;

- Ricardo Blázquez Pérez, bishop of Bilbao, responsible for Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, Holland, Poland, Austria, and Hungary, where the Legionaries have 20 houses with 105 priests and 160 religious and aspiring priests.

The investiture of the five visitors took place at the Vatican on the morning of Saturday, June 27, in a meeting with the cardinals Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of state, William J. Levada, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, and Franc Rodé, prefect of the congregation for institutes of religious life.

At the meeting, the five were read the conclusions of the Vatican investigation that led in 2006 to the condemnation of the priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ and of the lay movement Regnum Christi connected to it, for the sexual abuse of many of his young disciples, over the span of several decades.

After his death in 2008, at the age of 88, it was discovered that Maciel also had a daughter, who is now about twenty years old and lives in Spain, born from a relationship between the priest and a Mexican lover.

For a religious congregation that had its undisputed model in Maciel, the disorientation has been extremely severe. This has led to the Vatican decision to proceed with an apostolic visitation. At the end of the investigation, the visitors will deliver a report to the Holy See, which will decide on the basis of it.

The request for an apostolic visitation had been advanced, in the early months of this year, by some of the most prominent Legionaries themselves.

One of these is the American Thomas Berg (in the photo), a member of the Legionaries of Christ since 1986, a priest since 2000, professor and confessor at the Legion seminary in Thornwood, New York, and very involved in formation activities. In April, he left the congregation, and asked to be incardinated into the archdiocese of New York. Archbishop Timothy Dolan made him a vicar of the parish of St. Columba in Hopewell Junction. Berg is also the director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

In this interview, Fr. Berg explains in measured terms what is truly at stake, what are the strong and weak points of the congregation under investigation, what must be demolished and what rebuilt. He denounces the cult of personality that still surrounds the figure of Maciel. He criticizes the reasons why obedience to superiors often degenerates into blind submission. And he highlights the fundamental question: how it is possible that so many good things have come out of an institution that has been shown to be so full of flaws.

It is the first time that an authoritative member of the Legionaries of Christ, a member for many years, has spoken publicly and candidly about the crucial problems that have exploded in this congregation.

“An unprecedented question in the history of the Church”

Interview with Thomas Berg

Q: When you recently left the Legion, you expressed in a statement your sympathy for the congregation in which you were formed as a priest. What are your hopes now that the apostolic visitation to the Legion of Christ has been announced?

A: I, like the vast majority of persons in the Church, try to remain positive and hopeful for the Legion and Regnum Christi movement. We only want the best for our brothers and sisters in Christ. We understand that this might involve taking some tough medicine, but I believe it is possible for a majority of these wonderful men and women will rise to the occasion because they really do have a profound love for Christ in their hearts. I would like to insist again that I bear no hatred, anger or resentment toward the Legion. Much less, do I spend every waking hour thinking about the Legion. I am getting on with my life. Nonetheless, your initiative in posing these questions has afforded me the opportunity to say a number of things that in conscience I believe need to be said at this juncture.

Q: How do you predict the visitation will go?

A: It would really be foolish of me to even begin to speculate on this.

Q: What would be your suggestions to the five visitors?

A: I will limit myself to one overall suggestion: help the Legionaries to engage in an honest and objective self-critique. What I have found most unsettling of late is the kind of group-think that has settled in among the Legionaries: “We really don’t think there is anything wrong with the internal culture of the Legion, but if the Holy See tells us to change things, we will.” The docility to the Holy See, though laudable and correct, masks a huge internal flaw: the Legion’s corporate inability to engage in a healthy self-critique. This is no time for a business as usual approach, but that has been the impression one generally gets from the Legionaries over the past five months of the crisis.

That inability to see and honestly recognize the flaws and errors that so many people outside the Legion are able to see speaks volumes. The Legionaries should be reminded that it is not the task of the Holy See to reform the Legion. The Legion will only be genuinely reformed when it reforms itself from within. But that can only begin with a self-examination that arises from within the Legion and owns up to the Legion’s errors.

Q: And your suggestion to Regnum Christi members?

A: I am in no capacity to speak to them collectively. In February, a private email I intended to be shared broadly but to remain private was published all over the internet. But if any Regnum Christi member were to ask my personally, my advice would be along those same lines: focus on Christ, work carefully at discerning your own personal way ahead, be engaged in your parish, seek to grow in your interior life, strive to engage in a healthy and informed critique of the Legion and Regnum Christi.

Q: What do you think will happen with the Legion in the long run?

A: Again, it would be unwise for me to even begin to speculate at this point. That is up to the Holy Spirit who fortunately has multiple options open to him!

Q: How would you suggest dealing with the centrality given to the writings, the person and the figure of the founder, Marcial Maciel?

A: I hope that the Legion will very quickly accelerate its disavowal of, and disassociation with, Fr. Maciel. On that point, I see no other way forward. All – and I mean all – the pictures of Maciel yet hanging in Legionary houses have to go. They have to stop referring to his writings in public (I understand that at one recent Legionary community mass the homilist still saw fit to quote from one of Maciel’s letters). A simple step in that direction, by the way, requires the immediate abrogation of their custom of referring to Fr. Maciel as “nuestro padre” or “mon père” – terms of endearment whose use he allowed and fostered. Amazingly, many if not most Legionaries still insist on using the term.

Q: What are the strengths you think the Legion and Regnum Christi can count on in this uncertain process?

A: If the Legion is true to its word, then the Church should be able to count on the docility of Legionaries and Regnum Christi members to embrace whatever is ultimately determined about them and their future. The Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi are composed of hundreds of good, holy men and women of God. I have the deepest esteem for so many of them. They, collectively, constitute a reason for optimism. But ultimately, our confidence has to rest in the power and working of the Holy Spirit, who, through the Holy See, will help all involved to arrive at a proper discernment of the most adequate solution for the Legion of Christ and the Regnum Christi movement.

Q: What are the issues you think should change in the internal culture of the Legion, especially related to the recently suppressed “vow of charity”, meaning the vow not to criticize one’s superiors?

A: At the core of serious problems in the internal culture of the congregation is a mistaken understanding and living of the theological principle – in itself valid – that God’s will is made manifest to the religious through his superior. The Legionary seminarian is erroneously led to foster a hyper-focusing on internal “dependence” on the superior for virtually every one of his intentional acts (either explicitly or in virtue of some norm or permission received, or presumed or habitual permissions). This is not in harmony with the tradition of religious life in the Church, nor is it theologically or psychologically sound. It entails rather an unhealthy suppression of personal freedom (which is a far cry from the reasoned, discerned and freely exercised oblation of mind and will that the Holy Spirit genuinely inspires in the institution of religious obedience) and occasions unholy and unhealthy restrictions on personal conscience.

Furthermore, Legionary norms regarding “reporting to,” “informing,” “communication with,” and “dependence on” superiors constitute a system of control and conformity which now must be considered highly suspect given what we know about Fr. Maciel. They furthermore engender a simplistic, and humanly and theologically impoverished notion of God’s will (its discernment and manifestation) that breeds personal immaturity.

More seriously, the lived manner in which Legionaries practice obedience is laced with the kind of unquestioning submission which allowed the cult of personality to emerge around the figure of Maciel in the first place and covered for his misdeeds. Legionary seminarians are essentially trained to suspend reason in their obedience and to seek a total internal conformity with all the norms, and to withstand any internal impulse to examine or critique the norms or the indications of superiors.

Granted, the primary motivation behind such living of obedience is the ideal of total “immolation” of oneself for the love of Christ as embodied in the relentless living of all norms and indications of the superiors. This “immolation” of intellect and will is at the heart of the “holocaust” that the Legionary is invited to live for love of Christ and the Church. While the motivation is valid, and generations of Legionaries have pursued this in good faith, in the long run it not only proves profoundly problematic, but also explains the negative personality change which many, if not most, Legionaries undergo over time: the shallowness of their emotional expression, the lack of empathy and inability to relate normally to others in so many contexts, the general sense of their being “out of touch,” etc. Only exceptionally do Legionary priests move beyond this, but only thanks to the multiple talents and human gifts they brought with them to the Legion.

Q: What elements do you find more disturbing and in need of special attention from the visitors?

A: Just to name a couple. Why, for example, were approximately 25 Legionary priests convoked yet again – as groups are every year – to a two-month long “spiritual renewal” at the Legion’s center for spirituality in Cotija, Michoacan Mexico, housed in the very house (now retreat center and museum) that Fr. Maciel grew up in? Why there? Why in Cotija? Why now?

Why, furthermore, has the Legion continued to engage in vocation work? Now? In these circumstances? It would be a very honest gesture for the Legion of Christ to simply call a halt to all vocational work at least for the duration of the canonical visitation, and even better until it finally gets its house in order.

And one of my deepest concerns is that current Legionary seminarians are not presently in a position to adequately discern what Christ is calling them to do. And this is because they are systematically deprived of the kind of information they not only have a right to know but a fundamental need to know: a complete presentation of the basic facts of Fr. Maciel’s double life; the understanding that the religious life, with its norms and internal discipline, they have come to live is deeply problematic and in need of thorough scrutiny and review; a thorough presentation of the reasonable criticisms that have been leveled against the Legion and Regnum Christi; and an honest admission on the part of the major superiors of the Legion’s errors. We should all find it deeply disturbing that most Legionary seminarians – and the same can be said of consecrated members of Regnum Christi – to this day live their daily lives largely unaware of most of these things, shielded as they are from virtually all negative information about the Legion and Regnum Christi. Consequently, they lack the requisite interior freedom to genuinely discern God’s calling in their lives at present. This is something to which the visitors need to pay careful attention.

A much deeper issue, of course, is the question of the charism. I personally feel the need for the Church eventually – in some formal way – to reaffirm the validity of an institutional charism in the Legion of Christ and Regnum Christi. Regnum Christi members especially need to know from the highest Church authority whether there ever really was a genuine charism inspired by the Holy Spirit at work in the Legion and Regnum Christi, or whether what the Church has witnessed in the sixty-eight year phenomenon of the Legion was rather God simply drawing much good out of a primarily human and deeply flawed enterprise.

This question – whether there is a genuine institutional charism present here or not – is very serious and, as it presents itself in the case of the Legion, unprecedented in the history of the Church. I hope that the visitors will turn up useful information that will assist the Holy See in discerning the answer to that question.

Finally, I fear there may be more victims of Fr. Maciel out there. Their welfare has to become more clearly a palpable and obvious priority for the Legionary superiors. I am hopeful that the major superiors of the Legion who may be now have acquired much more information in this regard will be entirely forthcoming with the visitors.

Q: Do you think that the current leadership of the Legion is too closely associated to the founder to continue directing the Congregation?

A: That’s a valid question. The Holy See might weigh in on it, but ultimately it seems the proper answer to that question would have to arise from a general chapter of the congregation which, in my opinion, should be conducted under the close supervision of the Holy See and suspending the current dispositions for a general chapter as outlined in the current constitutions of the Legion in a manner that would allow broader participation by a diversity of members, especially those who are not or have not been in leadership positions.

Q: Can a congregation such as the Legion survive without the “model” provided by a founder?

A: God can do all things. The Holy Spirit could surely raise up a group of Legionaries – cofounders who have disassociated themselves interiorly from Fr. Maciel – who, under the Spirit’s inspiration, could provide model lives for future members and direct a new generation of Legionaries to draw from the rich treasure trove of religious spirituality which is the Church’s patrimony. This could also be transmitted to the Regnum Christi movement.

Poaching at its best

As if I could write something this funny.

A Non-Catholics Guide to Mass

Written by popular demand – ok one person asked for it but that’s better than nothing.

Ok here’s what you need to know to get through a Mass without standing-out like a vegetarian at a cannibal convention.

First a warning (not to beat a dead donk…but). If you enter the church and find out it’s the priest day off, go ahead and sit down but be prepared to bolt if need be. The Deacon will probably be doing the Baptism or Wedding or Communion Service (similar to a Mass – but very lame). If the Deacon is not there and you see a woman in the 60 year-old or better age-range, wearing a pants-suit or a semi-clergy looking outfit…run! Don’t’ even hesitate and pretend like you are heading to the bathroom, just get up and run from the church, screaming is allowed. This person is either a radical ‘nun’ leftover from the 60’s and 70’s or a ‘priest wannabe’ lay person (regular person not clergy) or both. There are a whole gaggle of older women who hang around certain churches just waiting for the priest to ask them to help out or for the priest to go on vacation so they can get their hands on the keys to the church. For some reason they haven’t figured out that after 2000 years the Catholic Church is not going to change its mind and allow female clergy. Why these women don’t leave and join a church that does allow it is a great mystery to me.

Ok here’s how to get a handle on this Catholic Mass think. I know it can be confusing and us cradle-Catholics tend to forget that not everyone knows what to do at Mass.

Heck I don’t know when to sit, stand or kneel half the time. There is a Catholic parody of The Clash’s “Should I Stay of Should I go” called “Should I Stand of Should I Kneel”. It’s funny cause it hits the truth. When I accidently stand at the wrong time I just grab the seat of my pants and act like I’ve got a wedgie that needs fixing and then sit back down like nothing happened. This wouldn’t be so embarrassing if my Honey didn’t make us sit up front.

The best way to know what to do is to sit towards the back and follow the crowd like a lemming. Of course that means getting there early so you can get a seat in the back…the way Catholics avoid the front of the church, you would think all priests had B.O. or bad breath.

The kneeling parts of Mass are the most solemn and important parts. Some visitors aren’t comfortable with the kneeling. It’s ok to sit during these parts just try and be as quiet as possible. This would be the worst possible time to have to go to the potty or be sick…just ask my Robert aka ‘Puke in Church Boy’.

You can follow along with a lot of the Mass in a booklet called a Missal that should be in the pews. You aren’t excepted to do the parts that require the congregation to respond. But you can if you won’t.

The choir leader will announce the number to each hymn to be sung. Sing if you wish, you might be the only one.

The ‘sign of the peace’ is about the only time you might have to actively participate. The priest will say “let us offer each other a sign of peace”. People will turn to each other; shake hands and say something like “peace be with you” or “peace of Christ”. It’s some touchy-feely commie-pinko thing that was added to the Mass in the late 60’s/early 70’s. It’s annoying but pretty painless. Plus it makes Rachel happy since it’s the only time her 18-old will let her kiss him. If you want you can just fold your arms across your chest and scowl at people, it works for me. The worst is the priest who has to come of the altar and shake everyone’s hand within reach…you’d think they were running for public office.

Kids are welcome at Mass. If they get to loud just take them to the cry-room if there is one or to the back of the church. Some Masses will have a nursery or Sunday school if you want to use those.

If communion is offered just stay in your seat and let others pass by. Don’t get in line and go up. Some churches encourage people not receiving communion to come up anyway with their arms folded across their chests to receive a blessing. While this is fine for little kids, adults look like real dorks doing this. Especially when it’s a lay person not a priest giving out communion.

Don’t call the priest: Mr. or Reverend. If you aren’t comfortable calling him Father than just say hi.

Now if you happen to wander into a charismatic church and want to fit in, here is a primer on how to speak in tongues. Just repeat these two phrases over and over in a fast cadence: “Shot of vodka” and “She came in a Honda” while holding your arms up like you are signaling a touchdown.

Be careful when you leave the parking lot. It can be like a demolition derby out there. What with people rushing to get out as fast as they can to go watch football or go shopping or hit Mickey D’s for another nutritious breakfast.

What I can’t tell you about:

1) The secret handshake
2) The paddle-line initiation to join
3) What days we bring out the rattle-snakes
4) What our church colors are
5) The secret catacombs beneath each church
6) The magic underwear
7) How to get out of Purgatory (actually if you figure that one out let me know)

And if you try to find out any of these things I’ll rap your knuckles with a ruler.

Other than that y’all are welcome to come to Mass anytime you want.

48 hours of fun..

The 48 hour film festival has been and gone and some friends of mine participated. I’ve got two vid’s but one is not on youtube yet, so I’ll post it when I can.

Congrats to all you talented people there!!!