Jump to content

Talk:Legionaries of Christ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Legion of Christ)

Today's citations

[edit]

As per my edit summary, I dismissed one citation because it was a not reliable source as it was a letters to an editor type page or column. The first one, which I reformatted to stay on the article, is subject to interpretation. The founder of this order was quoted in the article as saying $20 million was too much to pay. Ergo, you can imply that money (perhaps the $26 asked for that appears in the article prior to today's citation) was asked for and denied. If the amount was denied as per the priest's words, then silence has yet been paid for. It's a split of hairs but I think another editor should change the statement to read:

  • at least $20 million has been asked for and denied. That would be more correct and attributable to this article. Since I closed the </ref> edit to properly format the citation and these are my words, I will not make that edit but would advise another regular editor to make that change. --Morenooso (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV deletions and edits continue to plague this article

[edit]

Controversial deletions and additions are continuing to be made to this article. Today's edit destroyed the article; was not properly cited and came from a source that can not be seen either as a reliable source or neutral point of view which made this a controversial edit. Controversial edits should be discussed prior on the article talkpage. Proper citeable source (read reliable sources) should be found and editors should learn how to edit without deleting properly cited material.

Yes, there are two sides to this article but all edits must be properly cited and not violate POV otherwise consensus is not present. --Morenooso (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a citation to the Legion's own web site in which they acknowledge as factual his sexual abuse, and in which they say "given the gravity of his faults, we cannot take his person as a model of Christian or priestly life." When the order itself says its founder isn't a model for a good life, that seems reasonably authoritative. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that this text has been re-articulated to distance the congregation from the founder's actions, and omits its own controversial manner of dealing with the allegations. While nothing was specifically untrue, the statement that the Legion condemned his behavior suggests that it did not for years ignore his accusers and defend his character, nor does it let on that the Legion maintained an internal cult of reverence for him years after superiors had become aware the accusations were true. --- UPGroupRC 7:11, 26 May, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UPGroupRC (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

translation please ("charism"??)

[edit]

For the benefit of those not already familiar with Catholic dogma and argot, could material like this: ...Legionaries' special affection for the Pope, who is supported in his charism of primacy and magisterium.... please be translated into plain English? Thank you. 72.229.55.245 (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Charism" means precisely "divine gift". --71.146.7.39 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the article on charism suggests, the implication is that the Pope has received certain gifts, attributes, or abilities from God. Primacy here would mean he is the head of the universal church. Magisterium refers to the teaching authority of the bishops led by the pope. So one reading of the sentence is: "The Legionaries have a special regard for the pope and believe that God has made him head of the church and given him leadership of its teaching authority."
Charism has another sense, that of the particular mission of a religious order--a teaching order's charism is different from a missionary order's. The Legion's charism, according to the article, is "to attend to the spiritual needs of the members of their lay branch, Regnum Christi."
This article overall has such a reverent (or fawning) tone that I'd have a hard time trying to calm it down. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dumbing down os more suited for the Simple English wikipedia. I suggest you check that project. Technical terms are to be kept in place for the regular wikipedia as they have specific historical and dogmatic meanings. For the record, I am an atheist. --181.26.41.141 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reordering

[edit]

I noticed some things were repeated (such as the apostolic visitation and the naming of Card. De Paolis) so I starting fixing it up. At the same time, I realized that the ordering of the article could be more logical. This shoudl make it clearer and avoid similar duplications in the future. Maybe someone can find an even better order. MPSchneiderLC 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs)

Family Visits

[edit]

I summarized the blockquote about when High School seminarians can visit home. Two Reasons: 1. that degree of detail there is disproportionate for thwe scope of the article, and 2. the precise norms have changed. MPSchneiderLC 16:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs)

Constitutions are Reliable

[edit]

The Constitutions of the Legion are a reliable source since they form the fundament of legionary life. However they are not available online except in unreliable manners and most printed copies are in the possession of the Legionaries themselves. I can double check, often from memory if anyone has doubts about a specific number saying a certain thing. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 12:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and 90.222.180.231

[edit]

90.222.180.231 made many useful edits. However a few were a without sources, opinion (agains NPOV), or lacked understanding of details. I will explain my revisions in order. 1. Rite (cermony or order) not Right (correct, the side oposite left) is used in the Church to describe different religious communities. 2. Accroding to Canon law if one is neither religious nor cleric one is a lay person so the consecrated men and women are lay. 3. "Maximum influence" was unsourced and tends to be opinion / POV unless a reliable source can be found. 4. Since Maciel is clearly defined as the founder in the first paragraph and again in the section about him adding the appositive "LEgion founder" elsewhere seems unnecessary. 5. The private vow was repealed after Maciel was removed from ministry (and many sources could be cited to make this connection) however making further claims in this regard is original research if not sourced. 6. statign"officialy" before "for health reasons" would be opinion (and here rather doubtful given 2 months later the person started cancer treatment. 7. De Paolis is not taking over (he is to approve the decissions of superiors not make the decission). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation and structure

[edit]

Regnum Christi is not a branch of the Legion. Nor is Regnum Christi a lay movement. Nor are there lay brothers in the Legion. Nor is the primary apostolate of the Legion the spiritual care of members of Regnum Christi. I have corrected some of these errors (which were not, in any case, borne out by the source references), but more needs to be done. By me, if by no-one else. Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the Regnum Christi statutes were first approved in 2004, they were approved as "the primary apostolate of the Legion." Since then, things have changed and the 2012 charism document lays out the groundwork for the meetings going on right now (Google "Legion of CHrist General Chapter" and "Regnum Christi General Assembly") which will give definitive shape to this relationship. Obviously there are no lay brothers in the Legion (I did not think they were indicated everywhere). However, I doubt where you can argue that Regnum Christi is not a lay movement - it defines itself as such and is referred to by others as one. I agree that the definition of lay movement is still very nebulous and should be clarified. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legion of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Legion of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop's heart attack

[edit]

We do know a bishop died of a heart attack on a certain day not long after speaking with Marcial Maciel. We do know one person (the only one who would have likely overheard it) says their discussion was heated. This is sufficiently relevant for the page on him but is not sufficiently relevant for the page on the Legion as 1. the connection is tenuous not direct, 2. there is only a single source, 3. the consensus has been remove as multiple people have removed it but recent additions were by IP so possibly the same person, and 4. it has little to do with the Legion's history not just Maciel's life. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 13:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legion of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be renamed

[edit]

The actual name is Legionaries of Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoughtalk (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC) --Enoughtalk (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Concur. Historically it has gone by both but the formal name is Legionaries. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Legionaries of Christ

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Legionaries of Christ's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cna":

  • From Marcial Maciel: "Fr. Maciel guilty, 'profound' revision of Legion needed, report Apostolic Visitors", Catholic News Agency, May 1, 2010
  • From Edwin Frederick O'Brien: "Legionaries of Christ acknowledge founder's 'inappropriate' behavior". Catholic News Agency. February 3, 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two categories for the same stuff?

[edit]

I noticed this article has two categories attached, one called “Legionaries of Christ” and one called “Legion of Christ”. Should we merge them? If so, which should we merge into the other. Legion of Christ is the “common name” while Legionaries of Christ is the article name. TheAmericanWarlord (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV problem with Ethos section

[edit]

This section presents numerous claims with the semblence of fact. It needs to be rewritten to indicate who is making this claims and establish neutrality. Rogermx (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leader title

[edit]

I'm seeing sources use the terms "superior general", "director general", and "general director" interchangeably. This article should be consistent, but I'm not sure which one is best. Superior general is traditional for Catholic religious orders. Daask (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Absence of any Mention of Any Prosecution

[edit]

Charges, arrests, prosecutions, convictions and imprisonment. None of these things are mentioned at all throughout this very spiritual and flowery-languaged Article.70.94.140.138 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legionaries_of_Christ&oldid=1260326290"