Miami bans Legionaries of Christ & Regnum Christi

Another archdiocese driven to solitary action. Archbishop Favalora of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami has banned Legionaries of Christ (LC) and Regnum Christi (RC).

Thomas Peters reports:

Sources close to the situation tell me that this decision took place on Wednesday of this week, and that it was prompted largely by the letters of parents concerned that their children were being approached by members of Regnum Christi without parental consent and knowledge. These episodes, it was claimed, had mostly taken place in an affluent Archdiocese of Miami parish and school.

The notice on the Archdiocese of Miami Web site said:

Disclaimer

The Legionaries of Christ are prohibited from functioning in the Archdiocese of Miami. Furthermore, Regnum Christi – a group of lay Catholics related to the Legionaries of Christ – is not and has never been approved by Archbishop Favalora to work in any parish, school or other Archdiocesan entity.

Unauthorized attempts to recruit young people are a continuation of the cult-like behavior which is the hallmark of LC/DC. Related behaviors have led one U.S. archdiocese after another to ban or restrict LC and/or DC.

John Allen of the National Catholic Review and Peters of American Papist together suggest that nine of the U.S. 32 Roman Catholic archdioceses have either banned or restricted LC and/or RC.

They are:

• Baltimore, MD.
• Baton Rouge,LA.
• Columbus, OH.
• Fort Wayne-South Bend, IN.
• Los Angeles, CA.
• Miami, FL.
• Richmond, VA.
• Seattle, WA.
• St. Paul and Minneapolis, MINN.

Provinces and dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States

LC is the subject of an investigation, called an “apostolic visitation,” is being conducted by Basque Bishop Ricardo Blazquez in Spain and by Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput in the United States. The order was founded by Marcial Maciel, who fathered several children, and it is clear that Legion of Christ superiors knew about the children at least 15 years ago. He also abused young seminarians over whom he had authority.

Vatican intervention was belated and reluctant although certainly appropriate. It is, however, so slow to action that archbishops are being driven, one-by-one, to individual measures. None of which will substitute, of course, for an overarching solution, like dissolution or refounding of LC/RC.

---

Update

• Vatican may have first visitation report in hand

Building Biblical fortresses for friendly-fire battles

When Christian groups argue — and some seen to thrive on the process — advantage goes to the side which claims the “biblical” high ground. If they can hold it.

Take for example this statement by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, whose president, Paige Patterson, is a well-known veteran of the Southern Baptist controversy:

While the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is the only confessional document at Southwestern, the seminary also affirms the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. These statements clarify the seminary’s general posture on the the subjects of inerrancy and gender roles.

Several questions immediately come to mind.

If the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, is the school’s “only” confessional statement, why the other two statements?

The school says the other statements “clarify the seminary’s general posture” on inerrancy and gender roles.

The general posture?

What does that mean?

And why does it need clarifying?

If the other two statements are needed to “clarify” the school’s stance, then why not add them as confessional statements?

Or else, why isn’t the only confessional statement enough?

Yet the confessional statement is not enough, at least not enough for Southwestern seminary.

Turns out, it isn’t enough for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina either.

Tony Cartledge reported that Southeastern is making even the ministers who supervise students in practical ministry efforts sign all three statements, along with the school’s Abstract of Principles.

Cartledge is correct to say that seminaries have the right to draw their own lines of participation “as narrowly and fearfully as they want to.” But as he points out, such moves “exclude a number of capable, qualified, experienced ministers from the program, to the great detriment of their students.”

Cartledge says the Danvers statement “was adopted in 1987 by the ‘Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,’ which consists largely of people with close connections to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.” The document, he said, “attempts a response to the perceived danger of ‘feminist egalitarianism’ by affirming a belief that husbands should be the final authority in their homes (albeit humbly), and that wives should submit to their husbands.”

A closer look at the statement raises even more questions.

For example, item number seven of the statement’s affirmations includes the phrase, “In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women … .” Yet, in all the biblical texts given in support all 10 items, not a one is from the gospels, the section of the Bible where the life of Christ and his teachings are highlighted.

The eighth item of the statement insists that in “both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries.” Instead, the statement says, “Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God’s will.”

And in this instance, the schools get to decide the criteria used to override those calls, and it is the seminarys’ teaching that becomes authoritative.

Thus the seminaries complete the construction of a “biblical” facade around their interpretation of particular passages.

This week’s H1N1 pandemic graph

*poof* … CBN’s strange ‘evil candy’ story disappears

Counterfactual and theologically off the map, CBN’s story claiming “most” Halloween candy was bewitched in the worst way has, without benefit of a cloud of smoke, disappeared.

Thanks to Tommy Christopher at MediaIte, a Southern Baptist minister laid out the facts. Dr.Thomas Howe, Dean of Apologetics and Professor of Biblical Studies at the Southern Evangelical Seminary told Christopher that with regard to “time-release curses,” demon orgies, demonic candy and the like:

“None of (this is) considered main stream Christian beliefs. Beliefs in curses is occultic, not Christian. I am not aware of any evidence supporting any of these claims about Halloween, neither do I subscribe to the notion of a demonic trinity. This is not found anywhere in the Bible, and it is not a historic Christian doctrine.”

Amen.

Briefly: H1N1 protection for your Trick or Treaters