Is the Legion faithful to the Code of Canon Law?

I don't really care about the sexual abuse allegations of Fr. Maciel, because none of us no who to trust is telling the truth. I disagree with their formation methods. They do good, but it doesn't mean that they are perfect.

According to canon 246-4, "it is also recommended that each[seminarian] have a director of his spiritual life whom he has freely chosen and to whom he can confidently open his conscience."

The Legion does not allow free choice, they assign spiritual directors, and the spiritual directors are the superiors.

Canon 985: "The director of Novices and his associate and the rector of a seminary or other institute of education are not to hear the sacramental confessions of their students residing in the same house unless the students freely request it in particular cases."

The rectors and directors of novices in the Legion are regular confessors.

Canon 240-2: "When decisions are made about admitting students to orders or dismissing them from the seminary, the opinion of the spiritual director and confessors can never be sought."

The superiors are these spiritual directors, and if the rector may kick you out, and you spiritual director is the vice-rector, they will discuss such issues, anything I told my spiritual director, the rector knew, who also referred to himself as the director of the whole house.

In seminaries, there is to be the internal and external forum, your spiritual life is handled by the internal forum, and the two do not cross paths. This is too clearly broken by the Legion. If the Legion followed this, then they wouldn't be able to control their novices as they do.

My quotes are from the Code of Canon Law, Latin-English edition, New English Translation. Put out by the Canon Law Society of America. Double checked, just for John.

God bless,

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 02, 2002

Answers

Andrew, are you really James Xwing in disguise, or are you just jumping on an already dangerously overloaded bandwagon?

I never knew ANYTHING about the Legion until James started bashing it here in this forum. Every time someone complains about it, I gain more and more knowledge - and respect - for this organization. If I have any money left after Christmas, they're gettin' it!!

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 02, 2002.

Christine, thats nice to know, reminded me of this: "Today in court, they presented the murder weapon with the culprit's fingerprints on it, the clothes he wore on the night of the murder, a recorded phone call before he murdered the person as well. This all made me think he was perfectly innocent."

-- Tristan McBane (fusion311@hotmail.com), December 02, 2002.

Christine, No, I am, not Xwing. I suppose I cannot prove it to you, but that is fine with me.

Give your money to whom you please, you it be people that disobey the Church law. Is that why you give them money? Are you pre-Vatican II person?

I would appreciate a logical argument tempting to counter the quotes I provided.

In Christ,

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 02, 2002.

Like all True Catholics (tm), I'm neither "pre" nor "post" Vatican II - I'm just a loyal follower of the Church, as headed by the future Saint John Paul the Great. :-)

-- Christine Lehman (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 02, 2002.

Dear Christine, Amen, Sister! The Pope's the man, the rock, and I was there for him at WYD. I am behind the Pope all the way, especiall behind the Code of Canon Law above, that he revised in 1983. If you're not behind the Pope, get out, conservative or liberal. That's what I say.

Christine, you are a good faithful catholic. Please be open to the possiblities, and think about the above, consider it. I am open to the truth.

God bless,

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 02, 2002.

The Legionaries of Christ are highly favored and much esteemed by the future Saint Johannes Paulus Magnus, Christine. They are very worthy recepients of your donations. You money will be well spent by them.

-- Buttinzki (Buttinzki@aol.com), December 03, 2002.

If you love the Pope so much, Andrew, and think he's the "Rock", then why are you so quick to dismiss his unqualified praise for the Legion of Christ? Do you think that if they were really breaking Canon Law, he wouldn't know it - or worse, wouldn't care? And if that were true, why would you have any respect for him at all?

Split personalities are only attractive in the movies. ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002.

Christine, Excellent questions. I have been asked these before.

First, on the 60th anniversary of the Legion in Rome, I was there when the Pope gave an audience to the Legion and RC, when i was in the Legion. He quoted St. Catherine of Sienna, "If you are what you should be, you will set the world on fire." He told us to stand strong to our motto, "Thy Kingdom Come." But he didn't praise them anymore than he does other groups in the Church. If you ask a Knight of Columbus, he will affirm that the Pope reffered to the KofC and said, "You are my men." The Pope even praised Muslims in Morroco, for their faithful prayers to God, and the many beautiful names for God in the Quran. He even praised Jews in St. Pete's Square. I am involved in a Legion apostolate that goes door-to-door, and it is good, so I support that, the Pope is going to support the good that they are doing.

Second, some liberals may accuse the Pope of being bad because he appointed Bishop O'Connel as Bishop for West Palm Beach. If you remember last March, 25 years ago he molested a youthful seminarian in Missouri, and he admitted to it. An enemy of the Pope could say that he appointed a child-molester bishop of West Palm Beach, in fact four years ago, the bishop resigned for the same reason. SO it happened twice. The Pope isn't to blame for this, he had know way of knowing. I am not saying Maciel is a pedophile, that isn't a concern of mine, but the Pope may not know about the other things that go on in the Legion.

We also may find a contradiction in the type of people the Pope approves of. He praises the Legion, but yet he also appoints Archbishop Favalora, of Miami, who in summer 2000 kicked the Legion out of the diocese, and told them not to even call anyone in the diocese. The same goes for Pensacola, where the Legionaries are not allowed.

I don't think the Pope knows about them breaking Canon Law, but having been there, I know that they do. If the Pope didn't care, well, that's not the case. He is not the type that doesn't care.

Now, I have answered your questions, what do you think about the above? Would you still support them if you knew they broke Canon Law. If you ever run into an ex-LC, ask him if how I described it is the way it is, concerning the above. I know Xwing says this is the way it was, but I don't think you will completely trust him.

God bless,

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002.

Andrew, a fair question is, what do you want us to do about it?

A couple more questions: are you going to continue using this forum as a broadcast center for your complaints against the LoC? To what end?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), December 03, 2002.

I am not convinced that they broke Canon Law. Just because you quote a few lines of the Code of Canon Law doesn't mean you are correct in your interpretation. There may be "loopholes" that allow for differences in how the law is applied from order to order, group to group.

There are people who spend their entire lives studying, interpreting and deciding how, when or whether to apply the law of the Church in all sorts of situations. I suggest you contact one of those people with your complaints as I seriously doubt any of them have the time to hang out on chat boards. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002.

Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia's lengthy section on the Code of Canon Law which seems appropriate:

"In every society, but especially in a society so vast and varied as the Church, it is impossible for every law to be applicable always and in all cases. Without suppressing the law, the legislator can permanently exempt from it certain persons or certain groups, or certain matters, or even extend the rights of certain subjects; all these concessions are known as privileges. In the same manner the legislator can derogate from the law in special cases; this is called a dispensation. Indults or the powers that the bishops of the Catholic world receive from the Holy See, to regulate the various cases that may arise in the administration of their dioceses, belong to the category of privileges; together with the dispensations granted directly by the Holy See, they eliminate any excessive rigidity of the law, and ensure to ecclesiastical legislation a marvellous facility of application."

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002.

Dear Gordon,

Been a long time. Anyway, I don't expect you to do anything about this. I have posted one article and I do not post messages nearly as much as others, what is so wrong with this? I am letting you know who is faithful to the Church, so you can know who to trust.

Christine,

Did you look at the Copyright date? It is 1910, there has been a little bit of change since then in the Church, especially since CL was revised in 1983. Do you have any quotes from CL that might support your point. Your article is nearly one hundred years old!

Even if we accept this article as valid for today's Church, you will not that it is the Bishop who has the power to allow dispensation for a certain law, not the head of an order.

All In know, is that the Canon Lawyer/priest I know, who studied at the Gregorian UNiversity, will tell you that they break Canon Law, CL doesn't talk about exceptions for the rules I mentioned. No, I will not put him on here, especially since you all haven't been able to get a Legionary on here. The exLC I invited won't even come on and defend them here.

I have debated with Legionaries on this topic, and there is no logic to their defenses, they just beat around the bush. They know they don't have a dispensation.

Christine, we can keep going on like this, but I think our argument should end here. If you are not convinced, fine, as long as others see the quotes, especially the exLC's who know the Legion breaks these laws, then I am fine. But if you want to keep going on, ver well.

God bless,

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 06, 2002.

I agree with Andrew that both these Cannons were broken not once but pepetually during my life within the legion.

My novice master was my confessor, he was also my spiritual director hence the mixing of the internal forum and the external Forum.

Christine,

Just because we disagree with the legion doesn't mean to say that we disagree with JPII, and neither does being loyal to JPII imply that we should blindly do so with the legion. Remember the Pope is only human, shock horror gasp, yes human. And what's more he is only infallible when speaking excatedra and only then on matters of faith and morals. I heard nothing in there mentioning that infallability extends to his approval of his friends. JPII like you and me can be taken in by false friends, I don't condem him for this, I too was taken in by the legion. Just because Maciel claims the Pope's support and approval doesn't necessarily make it so. I'm sure you will now want to reffer to those mentions in Papal audiences, well the Pope does the same for heads of other religious orders that doesn't make Maciel less or more important.

Just because the legionaries have many pictures with the Pope doesn't mean that Papal infallibility has sealed the relationship. The legion is not infallible, Maciel is not infallible and neither are you nor I.

-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), December 06, 2002.

Your replies, Christine, were just outstanding! These guys cannot deal with the facts.

The spirit, if not the letter, of the 1983 Code of Canon Law [CCL] makes the provisions you quoted. Wherever one turns, the new Code is definitely not more restrictive than the old.

So, the following possibilities exist:
(1) The Legion's leaders have been breaking CCL for almost 20 years, know that they are breaking it, and don't care.
----- (a) The Vatican has long known, but wrongly has ignored it ... or --
----- (b) The Vatican has just found out and will take action to correct the leaders.
(2) The Legion's leaders have been breaking CCL (i.e., the letter of the law) and know that this is true, but they have received dispensations allowing them to do this.
(3) The Legion's leaders have been breaking CCL, but do not know that they are breaking it.
----- (a) No one has reported this to the bishop(s) where it is occurring ... or --
----- (b) Someone has reported this to the bishop(s), but no action (correction or dispensation) has occurred yet.
(4) The Legion's leaders have NOT really been breaking CCL, but disgruntled ex-legionaries are wrongly describing the situation to us here (either because of ignorance or dishonesty).

What number do you think it is, Christine? I'll bet that it is #2 or #4.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2002.

Andrew, you wrote:

"Christine, Did you look at the Copyright date? It is 1910, there has been a little bit of change since then in the Church, especially since CL was revised in 1983. Do you have any quotes from CL that might support your point. Your article is nearly one hundred years old!"

LOL - you can't please everyone! In other threads, I have posted information from CURRENT Canon Law, only to be told that it doesn't count because it's too NEW!

The truth is the truth, no matter what year it was written - and the basic principle, which is that the body which WRITES the law has the power to INTERPRET the law, still holds true. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

I have discussed this topic with a Legionary, but it may have been anyone of them because they are all clones of eachother. This Legionary, when I quoted the CCL, gave me no logical answer, just went off topic, he did not say they had a dispensation, if they did, he would have used that as a defense.

Christine, you didn't quote something from Canon Law, you quoted something that someone wrote about Canon Law one hundred years ago. When you have something from Canon Law, then we can talk.

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

Andrew, if I quoted something from the Bible, would you say that it was irrelevant because it's almost 2,000 years old?

If something is true, it's true whether it was written yesterday or in 33 A.D. If you disagree, please explain why.

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

Christine, You have an article that someone wrote about Canon Law (does it even have the Vatican imprimatur on it?) (it is not Canon Law!), and you are comparing it to the Bible, whose author is God. I think it is a bad comparison, don't you?

The Bible doesn't change, Canon Law has.

Doctrine (not Dogma, there's a difference) of the Church has changed, that is why we follow Vatican II instead of Vatican I or the Council or Trent.

What you say about something being "true" no matter how old it is, is not correct, because if you quoted the Papal Inquisition of 1633 such as this:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by the reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine-which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures-that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world."

Christine, times change, so does the doctrine of the Church, certain things, like the above, are outdated. THEY ARE NOT TRUE ANYMORE. Unless, you believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Do you believe the above is too old?

In Christ,

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 17, 2002.

Hello, Andrew. Someone must have explained something to you incorrectly.

You wrote: "Doctrine (not Dogma, there's a difference) of the Church has changed, that is why we follow Vatican II instead of Vatican I or the Council or Trent. ... Christine, times change, so does the doctrine of the Church ..."

You are mistaken in two ways.
(1) We are to believe all the truths taught at all three councils, not just at Vatican II.
(2) Have you not heard of "development of doctrine." [Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote a famous work about it before the year 1900.] Doctrine does not change. It "develops," as the Church more clearly understands a truth. What a good choice of words, "development," because it calls to mind the development of a photograph, which (in the dark room) becomes more clear and detailed with the passage of time. Another analogy for this is that Catholic doctrine is like a rose, which starts as a bud and "develops" into the fully opened bloom. When a Catholic doctrine develops, the things that were previously stated are not contradicted.

Andrew, you then went into a long thing about a pronouncement against Galileo in 1633. The document from which you quoted was not something through which the pope (or Vatican officials) taught a doctrine to the Church. It was a legal document used at the end of a trial. The Church never formally taught geocentrism. Moreover, she would not teach such a thing, because she is a teacher of religious truth, not of natural sciences. Anyone who thinks that he/she knows about the Galileo controversy would do well to read this excellent, brief essay on the subject. Had you read it with a fair and open mind beforehand, Andrew, you would not have posted the attack that you did post here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

[quote](1) The Legion's leaders have been breaking CCL for almost 20 years, know that they are breaking it, and don't care. ----- (a) The Vatican has long known, but wrongly has ignored it ... or -- ----- (b) The Vatican has just found out and will take action to correct the leaders. (2) The Legion's leaders have been breaking CCL (i.e., the letter of the law) and know that this is true, but they have received dispensations allowing them to do this. (3) The Legion's leaders have been breaking CCL, but do not know that they are breaking it. ----- (a) No one has reported this to the bishop(s) where it is occurring ... or -- ----- (b) Someone has reported this to the bishop(s), but no action (correction or dispensation) has occurred yet. (4) The Legion's leaders have NOT really been breaking CCL, but disgruntled ex-legionaries are wrongly describing the situation to us here (either because of ignorance or dishonesty).[/quote]

Ok. Someone ring the dumbass alarm. John wtf was gonig on inside your Legionarie-propaganda/bs-filled mind when you said that?

When a new Cannon Law comes out, if there was an old one that might possibly (if you have no brain whatsoever) seem to cancel the new one out, it doesnt work that way.

When the Church comes out with new laws, they take priority over old ones, unless you have some fuxed up form of dyslexia which makes your life go backwards so that the old stuff is what you pay attention to.

I swear, I have never heard anything so dumb. You are the one who needs to be open to the truth, stop letting the Legion stick their honey covered tounge all the way into your ear and feed your falsehoods. You need to get an education, possibly at a non RC school, so you don't get brainwashed with mexican false doctrine, and come back here and decide weather or not your love for the legion is greater than that of the Catholic Church.

When you do that, then you can take off the dunce cap and come down here and argue, but before you make a bigger ass of yourself than you already have, GO GET A DAMN EDUCATION AND LEARN THE DEFINTION OF REASON!!!!!

Until then, go over in that corner and read some books, until you are no longer socially obsolete.

-- IPVVNJ00 (el_gancho91@hotmail.com), December 19, 2002.

Thank you, IPVVNJ00.

Your gently persuasive way has melted my heart and has undoubtedly won you many converts here.

JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

John,

I especially appreciated his/her use of acronyms instead of actually spelling out the profanity. Very considerate.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), December 20, 2002.

This creep might even have a future as a stand up comic. Andrude Dice Pray. As a canon lawyer, not much.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Dear John,

Doctrine is uninfallible, dogma is infallible, read Lumen Gentium 25.

I have heard of doctrinal developement. I explain it to my protestant friends, when I explain why certain doctrines change/evolve/develope. They only change to the degree that they do not contradict the past doctrine. I use 'develope' when talking to protestants, I assumed I could use 'change' when talking with catholics. I change, but I am still Andrew, or I develope.

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

Dear John,

Doctrine is uninfallible, dogma is infallible, read Lumen Gentium 25.

I have heard of doctrinal developement. I explain it to my protestant friends, when I explain why certain doctrines change/evolve/develope. They only change to the degree that they do not contradict the past doctrine. I use 'develope' when talking to protestants, I assumed I could use 'change' when talking with catholics. I change, but I am still Andrew, or I develope.

"The Church never formally taught geocentrism. Moreover, she would not teach such a thing, because she is a teacher of religious truth, not of natural sciences."

According to your article:

"Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory."

I thought you said the Church isn't supposed to be concerned with these matters. But She was. Why do you think the Pope apologized for the Church's treatment f Galileo? The Church has made mistakes.

Believe me, John, I would rather believe that article than the historical document that I quoted. However, I have only heard stories, no quotes from documents. The article didn't have any, and neither do you. If you have any, I am very open to them.

Back to the main point, Canon Law changes, that is why we follow the most recent Canon Law instead of the old one.

Feel free to send me more info via E_mail concerning the Galileo controversy.

Concerning the Legion, perhaps you could quote something from todays Canon Law about dispensations.

God bless,

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

Jmj

Andrew, you are one of the repeat-offender, Legion-of-Christ-bashers. As such, I no longer consider you welcome to the forum (though others may disagree with me). I also am not interested in carrying on further conversation (here or by e-mail) concerning the Legion and Canon Law, because I have shown that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not going over the same ground that you failed to understand and accept previously. If you have any problems about the L.C. and Canon Law, you should contact the L.C. or the papal nuncio and ask them/him what kind of dispensations the L.C. has, if any. Don't be foolish and think that I am privy to such information.

On Galileo, I will just leave this one final comment, to provide you with a longer, scholarly article on Galileo prepared by the former publisher of "Our Sunday Visitor" for the Catholic League for Religious and Civils Rights (Bill Donohue's organization that combats anti-Catholic bigots). Please accept everything that the article tells you, and avoid aligning yourself with bigots. Here is a link to the article. By reading it, you will find that I was not mistaken to tell you, "The Church never formally taught geocentrism." Look at my words carefully. When a group of cardinals make a judicial finding against someone (as happened in the Galileo case), that is not an example of the Church formally teaching something (e.g., geocentrism).

Also, take another look at "Lumen gentium" #25 (with which I was very familiar before you mentioned it to me). It does not outrightly state that the Churchmen who exercise the magisterium (i.e., the pope alone or with bishops in union with him) sometimes teach fallible doctrines, though you said that they do. We have to read LG 25 carefully and not make unwarranted assumptions.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.

Dear John,

"Andrew, you are one of the repeat-offender, Legion-of-Christ- bashers."

I have some knews for you, it seems that the Bishop of Columbus, Ohio, whom our beloved Pope appointed, has kicked the Legion and RC activities out of his diocese. It seems the Pope has appointed anti- Legion people like me as Bishops. Why would a bishop do that to such a good order?

http://saintjosephcathedral.org/sitemap/news/news%2D10%2D26% 2D2002.htm

If you no longer consider me welcome on the forum, oh well, I have enjoyed my conversations with Eugene, Gordon, and Christine (sorry if I missed anybody), Eugene and Gordon especially, because they have been very Christ-like and assured me of your prayers for whatever my vocation may be. You seem to just call names when you get frustrated. But I will not sink to that level, I pray for you, and I love you as Christ told us to do.

"I have shown that you don't know what you are talking about."

Number one, you have showed that you cannot answer my questions that I ask. Look at the sentece before the question mark. Second, I have shown Canon Law paragraphs, Law that the Pope obviously meant to be followed, and you have not given a SINGLE CANON LAW QUOTE! So you have shown to others that you cannot stand against this argument.

I mentioned above that I have spoken with Legionaries about this, and if they have ever read Canon Law, they don't know what to say. But many times they never knew that there were these rules in Canon Law. As for the Papal Nuncio, yes, he will be recieving a letter shortly from me.

I will read your article with an open mind when I have more time. What I was trying to say is that the Church made a mistake in getting involved, why did the Pope. according to your article, get involved with the science if his matters are on Theology and Morals? The Pope made a mistake by getting involved, that is why the Pope apologized. Did the Pope do that? Answer please. He apolgized because the Church made a mistake.

Here is something from Lumen Gentium 25:

"And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment."

It says that the Pope, when speaking infallibly on Faith and Morals, they need not change. Those would be the required circumstances. Otherwise, it could change in the future. If you and I possibly were thinking the same thing, sorry for the miscommunication.

John, last time, whe you gave up on an argument, you left a lot of questions unanswered. If you can't finish the argument, don't get involved.

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

Boyd, let's see if you understand this upon reading it a second time ...

"Andrew, you are one of the repeat-offender, Legion-of-Christ-bashers. As such, I no longer consider you welcome to the forum (though others may disagree with me). I also am not interested in carrying on further conversation (here or by e-mail) concerning the Legion and Canon Law, because I have shown that you don't know what you are talking about."

Now stay out of my life.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

Dear John,

If you don't want to carry on the conversation, don't come back.

I am sorry if this website is your life. But it is not just for you.

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

Contrary to popular believe all previous poster, Andrew does indeed know what he is talking about and you certainly have not convinced me of your opinion.

My own experience has been that while a legionary seminarian 1. I was appointed a spiritual director without having a choice. 2. that my SD and Superior were the same person and that this person was also my confessor. This is against Cannon law which maintains that the internal and external fora should be kept seperate thus allowing a person the freedom to disern their vocation and not have it diserned for them.

God bless,

James

-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.

Moderator,

This helps you to see how our poor little forum is forced to suffer.

I just came to the "Recent Answers" page and was surprised to see the very large number of threads with today's date on them. On closer inspection, though, I saw what was wrong. One of the forum's former "personae non gratae" (James Xwing) came back today to trash SEVEN -- count 'em, SEVEN -- old threads related to the Legionaries of Christ.

By the way, some, if not all of these threads, were illegitimately started to begin with. Prior to the coming of those who live for no reason other than to bash tribunals, the forum had an infestation of those who live for no reason other than to bash the Legionaries.

So, no sooner does the forum begin to benefit by the banning (or voluntary departure) of some trouble-makers, than others come along to take their place and disrupt the peace that wanted to take root.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.

James Seiwert (or xwing) please don't bring up old farses alreday dewalt with.

Joe

-- JBILTZ (joebiltz@netzero.net), July 22, 2003.

OK, so the question is: do the canons Andrew and James quote refer equally to diocesan seminarians and religious seminarians?

James and Andrew ASSUME that the canons governing life in diocesan seminaries are the same as those governing life in religious orders.

The answer is, no, not exactly. The numbers quoted that refer to spiritual directors are in the section that relates to DIOCESAN SEMINARIES AND FORMATION. You have to scroll WAY down to the 600's to find the part of Canon Law that deals with religious orders such as the Legionaries.

Andrew and James either don't know the difference between apples and oranges, or they do know but hope most lay people never take the time to do some homework.

Can. 598 §1 Each institute, taking account of its own special character and purposes, is to define in its constitutions the manner in which the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty and obedience are to be observed in its way of life. §2 All members must not only observe the evangelical counsels faithfully and fully, but also direct their lives according to the institute’s own law, and so strive for the perfection of their state.

This means that different orders can have rules that not only differ between themselves, but obviously also differ from diocesan seminarians! I wonder why James and Andrew don't draw this distinction?

Can. 630 §1 While safeguarding the discipline of the institute, Superiors are to acknowledge the freedom due to the members concerning the sacrament of penance and the direction of conscience. §2 Superiors are to take care, in accordance with the institute’s own law, that the members have suitable confessors available, to whom they may confess frequently

"...in accordance with the institute's own law..."

Nowhere does this canon state that religious orders have to keep superiors from hearing confessions - if asked - and nowhere does James and Andrew prove that the Legion FORCES seminarians to go to anyone for confession!

I've SEEN LC seminarians attend mass at our parish and go to confession with the diocesan clergy. Sometimes their priests are out of town so they also attend daily Mass. Talking with them, they seem like fine young men, sure of themselves, happy, and balanced. Certainly NOT like James or Andrew.

I find it very interesting that Canon Law says that the institution has to follow its own law in providing confessors! This means we lay people can't just second guess them based on James and Andrew's OPINION. Unless you know their internal law, you can't judge them fairly.

Now Andrew claims to have only been a minor seminarian for 1 year! I doubt he knows the spirituality and rule of life of the Legion. James claims all sorts of things, but no one seems to know when he was a seminarian or for how long.

Yet we're supposed to just blindly take their word for it???

-- Withheld (withheld@yahoo.com), July 23, 2003.

Uh Oh James, sounds like you just kinda got shot down eh buddy. Somebody who knew a little something kinda just tore you up. Who ever the guy who withheld is. Thank you, hopefully this character character James will finally get over himself not being cut out to be a LEgionaire. If you get a chance go read his other postings in other forums, it gets even funnier. Come on James give me a date and location as to your LC training. You only keep mentioning the Apostolic school. Not actually a real LC school. But be careful James I will know if you are lieing or not within 30 minutes of reading your letter.

-- Chris (suter32@hotmail.com), July 23, 2003.