Rorate Caeli

Visitation

1. The Apostolic Visitation within the Legion of Christ/Regnum Christi had been widely known since at least before the Papal visit to Africa. It is good to see that it has been made public by the Holy See and the Legionaries today.

For the developments which led to the current Visitation, read our previous posts on the suspension of Father Maciel, the Founder, the praise of Father Maciel after his death by the leadership of the Legion ("Church is Sanhedrin, Pope is Pilate, Maciel is Jesus"), the suspension of the "Secret vows", and the new revelations regarding Father Maciel.

2. In other news, the very religious government of the People's Republic of China has once again arrested a Bishop, while the Chinese situation is being discussed in the Vatican.

27 comments:

Son of Trypho said...

Unfortunate photo but the true villainy IMHO reflects on the one who concealed their crimes under the cloak of piety.

Anonymous said...

The revelations concerning Maciel will hopefully put an end to the LCs and may well be enough to put an end to the canonization process of JPII.

Anonymous said...

I am not in any way a supporter of the L.C. or Opus Dei or any other of these 'conservative' groups. However, I think that we must consider that they have many supporters and members who are well-meaning and very devout faithful and who joined in good faith. We can't condemn everyone in them just because their policies have not always been favourable to tradition or because some of their leaders acted badly. Let's give them a break and just concentrate on restoring the ancient Mass.

As for the canonisation process of John Paul II, advanced, no doubt, by his old secretary, now the Cardinal in Krakow, I can only pray that the Church returns to the previous system of investiation and holds off on these political canonisations for a century or two. There is no rush. Canonisation should never be seen as a way to honour a certain group of people or to please the masses. I used to think that Thomas à Kempis was a saint because he is held in such esteem. The truth is that he is not canonised or beatified--after some five hundred years. I don't see why John Paul II should be considered before he is.

P.K.T.P.

ZN said...

I am not surprised that LC had secret vows but WHY were they allowed to have these vows in the first place? They don't sound Catholic.

LC is not the only post-Vatican II order to have strange vows in place. I know people who are Opus Dei members and they TOO have secret vows and strange practices. I found out that a person who we know who is active in OD and works as a lawyer, cannot be a godfather. He couldn't give me reason...you know, top secret.

I blame this on Rome and you can't say they're not responsible for these novelties. There is a reason why sacred tradition is good for the faithful. The "spirit" of Vatican II, the super dogma of LC and Opus Dei, is being unmasked through these tragic revelations.

Son of Trypho said...

PKTP
Agree with you on both points. The canonisation issue is of concern though - if John Paul II knew of Maciel's behaviour then it is to his discredit. If he did not, then it would not necessarily an impediment to his cause - based on other examples in history where canonised Popes have discussed political/religious issues and got it wrong based on bad information.

Anonymous said...

Anon 22:52 - One can only hope it puts an end to the canonization process of JPII. According to books I have read, he was well aware of what was going on.

Anonymous said...

I am scandalized by the calumnies so frequently hurled at Opus Dei (which has NOTHING to do with the LC) on this site. And even if uttered in reckless ignorance, it is difficult to comprehend how this ignorance is completely invincible.

Let's review a few facts:

1. Opus Dei is a Personal Prelature, about 98% of which is lay.
2. The founder of Opus Dei is a CANONIZED SAINT...and a canonization is an INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENT. Several members of Opus Dei have been BEATIFIED.
3. There are no vows whatsoever in Opus Dei. Period. None.
4. The beauty and decorum of the liturgies offered by the priests of Opus Dei are the stuff of legend.
5. The founder of Opus Dei repeatedly said, "You have to ask many times to enter Opus Dei...but if you wish to leave, the door is always open." It is completely opposed to the spirit of Opus Dei to engage in coercion.

These are but a few relevant observations. A little discretion and prudence prior to posting comments is never ill-advised.

Lauren said...

I don't want to derail the topic, but after reading Anon. 22:52's comment, I have to ask. How exactly did JP II treat Fr. Maciel? I have heard that JP II liked Fr. Maciel (and kept him in place) and the LC. What was going on? Disbelief regarding accusations? Why the different approach to LC (than B16) with JP II?

El Sacristán said...

Just a Note:

To Mr. P.K.T.P, I have to establish contact with you as soon as posible about matters regarding TLMs in Latin America.

My e-mail address is sacristanserrano@gmail.com

Joe B said...

Since the LCs recruited a certain weak and malleable personality type and used heavy-handed indoctrination techniques, I wouldn't assume a single one of them were worth a lick of salt. The burden of proof is now on them, not us.

Opus Dei, the testimony against you is overwhelming. Your laymen exist to fatten the wallets of your hierarchy - virtual slave labor. There's nothing Catholic about you. And your history is filled with shadowy political figures and self-testimonials that render your canonizations questionable at best. Go try and sell your tickets to Novus Ordo bloggers.

Anonymous said...

Power is the worst lust that can exists, much more than money. And the conciliar Catholic Church, as it is so power grabing drive, including JPII, are clear exemples of this.

Anonymous said...

Joe B --

1. Pls provide specific evidence (and, for that matter, specific accusations) to support your claims.

2. Having called into question an infallible papal pronouncement (the validity of St. Josemaria Escriva's canonization), are you not then a formal heretic?

P.S. There's no Opus Dei "hierarchy"...there's a single prelate who may be (but need not be) a consecrated bishop.

Anonymous said...

These are sad revelations indeed. There are other conservative groups like the Opus Angelorum who also employed bizarre practices. Even among the traditional groups there is this focus the personality of the founder as is the case of "Msgr" Wach of the Institute of Christ the King. There is always an inordinate amount of attention given to him and their charism and so on.

LeonG said...

Yet another reason among the scandalous plethora why the last pope should never, never be canonised.

LeonG said...

Since the last pope fast-tracked sainthood by removing procedures designed to protect its infallibility we are justified in putting into question the validity of such since the "stream-lining" measures were introduced. They have done nothing to promote confidence in many of them. Cutting corners is not equivalent to certitude in this very important process. Last year statements were made to this effect - to tighten up on the criteria for sanctification. Anyone who has studied this subject in detail can hardly be convinced by the postmodernist imperative of accelerating changes and manipulating time-honoured processes in order to rush through preferred candidates.

It is not more canonisations we need in any case. What we require is exemplary leadership from the shepherds of the flock to the highest levels. There is precious little of this at present. It is reminiscent of the rash ill-considered liturgical alterations that have undermined Roman Catholic liturgy. These have given way to a house filled with characters who have brought only dishonour and shame upon The Church. The evil deeds they do live after them.

Non operis said...

Sign of a true Trad - healthy suspicion of the Work!

Anonymous said...

Leon G --

If you're saying what I think you're saying, you nevertheless run up against the same problem: the Successor of Peter has made an infallible pronouncement, and, as such, the substance of the declaration cannot be in error.

And, if you're making oblique references to Escriva, surely you cannot be so silly as to suggest that his life and work was not thoroughly investigated. There are few personalities in the last century whose life and work was not investigated more.

Moreover, with Escriva, we are dealing with a man who lived in the 20th Century, not in much more remote times. As a result, complete documentary evidence was easily available. And the postulators of the cause worked very efficiently, collecting and cataloging the evidence much more quickly than other postulators could ever hope to match. That is why the process of canonization proceeded so rapidly...though didn't proceed more quickly than that of St. Therese of Lisieux, who was canonized under prior regulations.

I again invite certain personalities to exercise better judgment better before posting calumnies, particularly against canonized saints (as such comments amount to sacrilege...no small matter). This behavior is not only scandalous but also a silly exercise in self-mockery, since everyone knows these posters have no evidence to substantiate their accusations. Instead they engage in a rather childish, lazy game of invective-hurling, all the while aping the secular media rather than imitating Christ.

LeonG said...

Rapid processes in the nineteenth century are rarer than in the twentieth century. The last pope canonised nearly 482 candidates and made a virtue out of them. With beatifications, the number combined led to his use of this medium as a "saint factory". Since the last two papacies of significance we are no longer dealing with a normal Roman Catholic Church but a neo-modernist one which forms a parasol-type of organisation for all category of spritual nuances of which few are genuinely Catholic. The Neo-Catechumenal Way, the charismatics, Opus Dei, Focolare, NO, Indult Societies, autonomous lay communities of neo-catholics who often stage their own liturgical types and frequently ignore church teachings. And so the puree continues. Considering the last papacy propagated inculturated liturgies that promoted illicit practices then anyone who places total confidence in a sanctification process that has been tinkered with in order to facilitate preferred candidates and fast-tracking needs to study closely what is going on.

Like it or not, these really are not normal times in The Church. Much of what transpires is un-Catholic and even anti-Catholic at times. This era of "itching ears" is taking place in The Church itself to the highest levels.

The language of The Faith has changed too. The all pervasive use of the vernacular has also facilitated the post-conciliar paradigm shift. What sometimes appears holy, as one can see with the case of the Legionaries, is anything but that. With the exploitation of the media in promoting the current liberal neo-modernist philosophy, there is little synchronisation of perspective between one authority in The Church and another. Collegiality has taken care of that. No wonder during the last pontificate, discipline sank through the floor and the ugly process of devastation accelerated exponentially. Pope Benedict XVI is attempting to pick up the pieces but is meeting with the opposition that was encouraged at The Councils and has since matured into a destructive & at times chaotic force.

Anonymous said...

LeonG --

Your last post was a slopped together mish-mash of various complaints, some legitimate and others not. What was conspicuous was a complete silence on your part re: specific accusations against Opus Dei. Except of course for slopping Opus Dei together with a number of "movements" (which O.D. is not) with, once again, a calumnious claim that Opus Dei invents its own liturgies and is not completely loyal to the Church.

You then correctly point out -- as did Bishop Fellay -- the abandonment of linguistic precision in the post-Conciliar world (and the role of imprecision in fomenting confusion and formal error), but then yourself are completely imprecise on the crux of this conversation. There is some kind of cognitive dissonance here. Whatever the case, you're doing yourself no favors.

Prima said...

Thanks to John Paul II for yet another outstanding job as Supreme Pontiff. Maybe some of the energy he expended on "evangelization" could have gone into minding the store.

Jordanes said...

We must be very wary about going down the road that LeonG is plotting out. It seems reminiscent of the kind of argument that questions or rejects the de fide teachings of the ancient Oecumenical Councils due to the prominent role that the Emperor, a political figure, frequently played in them.

Anonymous said...

<<2. The founder of Opus Dei is a CANONIZED SAINT...and a canonization is an INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENT. Several members of Opus Dei have been BEATIFIED.>>

Sainthood doesn't equal constant infallibility of judgement. I don't question St. Jose Maries sanctity, but I do question the wisdom of some of the activities of Opus Dei. These are not mutually exclusive options.

Paleothomist

Joe B said...

Canonization at it's barest meaning only establishes that a soul is in Heaven, not that the life that soul led was Holy. Consider the Good Thief and many other "deathbed conversions". Did I say Escriva wasn't in Heaven? If the church says he is, so be it.

Again, the man and the organization have a wretched history of power politics and wealth accumulation.

No, I won't waste my time giving you any references. The personal testimonials against O.D. are legion, and if you haven't found them you just aren't looking. What is truth when you have wealth, eh?

LeonG said...

It is not a case of going down any road or any other of the cliches used here. We are not in normal times dealing with sound philosophies that are contaminating contemporary ecclesiastical teachings or governance. There is nothing sloppy about the arguments it is just that you do not like them. That is the fact of the matter.
The slide into falsehoods and semi-truths has become systemic.
When a pope, among a hundred other scandals, kisses a koran, permits a grand mosque to be built adjacent to The Vatican and indulges in many illicit liturgical activities thus promoting them and exhibits globally on the public stage a plethora of other dubious apparently un-Catholic behaviours one cannot in all Catholic honesty seriously consider that this is an immediate qualification for sanctification. Therefore, as the same candidate is also more than just liberal in the use of sanctifications and beatifications to the point of mass productivity and sheer convenience then Catholics are entitled to demand what on earth is going on. It would appear some people at The Vatican were doing the same last year, if not before. And quite rightly so. They are not alone in this.

Martin said...

LC is not the only post-Vatican II order to have strange vows in place. I know people who are Opus Dei members and they TOO have secret vows and strange practices.

The LC and Opus Dei were started before the council.

Mary said...

"I found out that a person who we know who is active in OD and works as a lawyer, cannot be a godfather. He couldn't give me reason...you know, top secret."

Hm. I know members of the mendicant orders at least used to have a rule that they could not be godfathers: I think to avoid suspicion that they had fathered the children. Can't remember where I read that. Maybe this is related.

Mary said...

To any writing comments asking for proof against Opus Dei, I recommend the book "Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Dei" by Maria del Carmen Tapia. She details with fairness and many references her experience with Opus Dei including as a secretary to Msgr. Escriva. To answer one question raised, they did use to have vows and now do not. There are men's and women's centers of Opus Dei near my university so I can also vouch that they try to involve students without mentioning specifically "Opus Dei" (the centers are referred to by generic names like "Sunwood Study Center") and offering confession and spiritual talks. One of our professors is a numerary--it's fairly common knowledge but not entirely, and though I have had about ten private conversations with her, and been to the center where she lives, she has still never said the phrase "Opus Dei." It's very strange. Umm... that is more of anecdotal evidence of secrecy than proof of anything in particular; for proof I recommend the book. You can read a great deal of it for free on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=CxRee2MEL4cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=beyond+the+threshold.