Talk:Regnum Christi

Contradictory defense of founder

If Maciel isn't defending himself in any way, as the very last paragraph states, then why do the paragraphs directly above state basically that he is absolutely denying any wrongdoing? Isn't that in itself wrongdoing? This is not passing judgment, this is just straightening out Maciel's and his worshippers' double talk. Double talk and manipulation of truth and innocent souls for 60 years from this founder (and hence his followers), is why there is all this controversy to begin with. If one's total denial of public allegations isn't called defending oneself, you will also have to alter your encyclopedic definitions of Defense and Denial. The only way to not confuse people is to draw the obvious conclusion that the members of the Legion and Regnum are totally consumed in defending their founder's innocence, when the heads of the universal church they profess to obey (heads who never spoken thus against any other founder of so "successful" an order and movement in recent memory) have officially and publicly concluded otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.245.14.162 (talk) July 27, 2007

Hi. Just out of curiosity: why are you so mad at RC? If you had any bad experiences or friendships that have turned out wrong with RC members, I feel sorry for you, but is it right to criticize so strongly the founder? I mean, if I had a fight with an American, would I criticize Lincon or Washington? I think that what the RC means by "not defending himself" is that they never came up with witnesses to deny the accusations, they never spent time in figuring out a defense plan. But obviously at the question "is it true" they replied the truth: "no". So I guess you are exaggerating the "defense and denial" issue. Thus said, I am not a meber of RC, I just know some people who are, and I think they are very normal people, and my friends. Take care, God bless. SP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.149.252 (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does the revelation that the founder of Regnum Christi not fall under this article? We have a list of controversies and this one should be listed. Please see the history section for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.50.179 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Required writing

Those many thousands of us (no, this is not an exaggeration) seriously wounded by the "holy facade" of RC (regnum christi) and LC (legion of christ)find the honesty of the edited Wikipedia RC entry to be refreshingly true. Those RC members are writing in because they MUST. It is in their required daily prayers to "further the work of the founder", to only and always defend him as innocent, no matter what the Vatican's writings indicate. For example, in their examinations of conscience before Confession the individual penitent is required to ask himself if he has given [or failed has to give] of his "professional contacts, financial resources," etc. to Regnum Christi, better known to members as "The Movement". Wikipedia needs to read the RC "Prayer Book" where the above examination for Confession comes BEFORE a later question: "Have I had an abortion or induced someone else to have one?" Is this sane? But then you have die-hard members writing in to say you musn't print what is "private, for members only." For such an organization to hide such hideous thinking and practices is in itself illustrative of the cult-like qualities that make this group very dangerous to innocent souls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elizabeth beingolea (talk • contribs) 10:04, July 17, 2007.

In argument to the comment made above, I was a volunteer with RC for a year, and although enrichment of faith is a big concern, :there is always a goal of evangelization and ultimately recruitment into the movement that subtends every apostolate and activity. I :think that it should be noted of Fr. Maciels recent activity in the news. Fr. Maciel (the Founder of Regnum Christi and Legion of :Christ) has been ordered by the Vatican to live a life of solitude with no public masses, preaching, or communication with the :media, because of strong evidence against him relating to child molestation accusations :[1]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.10.49.51 (talk) May 24, 2006

In response to the above comment:

In the Vatican Communique regarding Fr. Maciel, there was no mention about the nature of the so-called "evidence," so to call it ::"strong" would be unfair and merely conjecture, unless the party above has seen this "evidence."

To read the official Communique from the Vatican, click here:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=89444

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.123.245.234 (talk) June 1, 2006

Public Domain Issues

After removing all the non public domain quotes, very little is left in the article. One thing to note is the criticism of the youth clubs for recruitment. It really is not abnormal for any kind of club to have a primary purpose of getting new members. Nothing has been said about what is done with the new members. ECYD in spanish basically means Education, Culture and Sports. In english it stands for Education, Culture and Youth Development. I won't add or change anything in the article for now, instead leaving time for others to flesh out the article. Radixhound 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from copyrighted works is not prohibited in Wikipedia as it is fair use in the United States. Scott5834 02:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See under the section "Policy" point #4 in fair use. "The material must have previously been published." The manual of Regnum Christi is not a published work but is private information for its members. Radixhound 03:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Published for members is still published. Quoting it is entirely legitimate. Scott5834 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Publish: "To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale." - published. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Private distribution is not publishing.

Wikipedia is not a forum for voicing your criticism. It is one thing to state that there is criticism from various sources and to state what it is. It is something else to write in a style that is critical and incites criticism. You seem to have an agenda as you are big on criticism and very low on any kind of actual information. Please stop.

I am goint to revert the article. If you are going to continue to contribute, please contribute positively, i.e. in some way that adds value to the article, other than copying information verbatim from other sources and wiping out whole sections that I have carefully written to be concise and clear. Radixhound 16:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

v 1: put into print publish. (n.d.). WordNet® 2.0. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=publish

If you've noticed, I've incoporated every edit you've added. Wikipedia is not a place for propoganda and appropriate criticism should be included. One can't be more informative than quoting from actual sources, removing them under the guise of copyright is ridiculous.
Scott5834 16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the suite of Scientology articles, quotations of privately published religious documents seems ok with Wikipedia moderators. Considering the attention these articles get (to the point of lock down), I think the quotations are valid. Scott5834 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasted time spent criticizing Regnum Christi

TO ALL THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE: Why spend time discussing against those who criticize Regnum Christi. Isn't that what the critics' main purpose may be; to deviate from our pure and true mission to evangelize and bring Christ to others?

Let people determine themselves, for Regnum Christi is a personal call and not everyone is to understand or follow its charism. One of the saddest passages of the Gospel is on Mark 10, The Rich Young Man. He was unwilling to detach and die to self, so what good would it had been for this young man to criticize the works of God when he could not follow him in simplicity?

There is a legitimate reason for every Statute of Regnum Christi, and for those who may not have the ability and grace to recognize this, I should just hope that they learn to have minds and hearts guided by true virtue. (RC Member) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lolis (talk • contribs) October 16, 2006.

Thank you for the above comment. As a member of ECYD (and, God willing a member of RC before the end of this year) it really sickens :me to see how this page and the Legionaries' entry have been turned into battlefields between ourselves and our brothers and sisters :at the REGAIN network. Since I can see that any attempts to change false content is shot down in a matter of days, we have no option :left except to pray for you. God bless you. Dr_Sophist

Taking Over Schools

It has come to my understanding that RC takes over privet schools in order to convert the attending children and their families? If this is true, can someone who has experience in this feild please explain the prosses? Am I on the wrong foot? If so, please give further details concerning RC's involment in schools across the country! LILLYofTHEsouth 15:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Example of an article on a highly controversial organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_jesus The Jackal God 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" tag

I removed the tag at the top of this article that labeled it as possibly {{unbalanced}}. I have no personal opinion on the controversies described in this article, and what I see here seems reasonably well-written. Criticism of RC is confined to a section that is clearly labeled "criticism". Critical viewpoints are not given as fact or as the opinion of Wikipedia, but rather as the opinion of the critics. Citations to reliable sources seem reasonably strong.

If anyone objects to this analysis or to my removal of the tag, please let me know. I welcome any discussion, and perhaps could help mediate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

After further thought, it seemed to me that there might be an WP:Undue weight problem with the length of the "Criticism" section and the extended quotations contained within it. I have condensed these quotes per WP:QUOTE. My intent was to preserve the important content of the quotes (except for one quote of Fr. Maciel which was unsourced and did not seem relevant), but I welcome any input on that. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Quality

Someone annonymously radically changed this page entering a whole bunch of uncited information that is for the most part provably false. I am removing it all, if this annonymous individual wants to re-present some of it with objective documentation, please do so. You can read my profile, I am a Legionary but I admit all our real and documented difficulties. Yours in Christ, Br Matthew, LC 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs)

As I went through, several of the comments led to clarifications which I did originally see.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC).

Adding the word "intense" gives a POV - I am removing it.

re-organization

I just re-ordered the page more logically. The ethos seems to be more important as a first item and history later. Tell me if you think I am wrong. MPSchneiderLC 13:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs)

MM - Removal from minstry

When Marcial Maciel was removed from ministry, the decree said acts against celebacy, IT SAID NOTHNG ABOUT ABUSE OF MINORS. If you want to add that find a source that is beyond a speculation. He abused minors, but the Holy See didn't mention what acts in the decree and they may have had evidence regarding his "girlfriends" but not child abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs) 09:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Regnum Christi. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814144942/http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/articulos/seccion.phtml?se=239 to http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/articulos/seccion.phtml?se=239
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426173004/http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/25517.php?index=25517&po_date=01.05.2010&lang=it to http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/25517.php?index=25517&po_date=01.05.2010&lang=it
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928054607/http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/tema.phtml?set_selecc=1&se=359&ca=509&te=903&fr=0&s=1&artxpag=10&pais=&tipo_art= to http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/tema.phtml?set_selecc=1&se=359&ca=509&te=903&fr=0&s=1&artxpag=10&pais=&tipo_art=

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) 13:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)