Young Catholic Believer Inquires about Fr. Maciel, Popes, the Media, ReGAIN editor and Maciel victim/accusers in 2005


Young Catholic Believer Inquires


 About Fr. Maciel, Friend of Pope -now saint-JPII,

The Holy Spirit, –

The Ex-Priest respondent (bad),

Media/some people

Hating the Church;

Pope Benedict’s role,

Maciel’s accusers/victims,

The Devil is rampant…




From ReGAIN Secret Archives, circa May, 2005




Peter and Paul



Hello Paul,

My name is Peter,

I am a young Irish Catholic who used to work for the Legionnaires in Mexico City in Bosques. I have been reading your correspondence with Fr Neuhaus and find it fascinating, if disgusting, the discrepancy between your vision and the Legion’s. Can these people be really talking about the same person? You may not want to respond, or simply to tell me to mind my own business, but could you tell me were you a priest? The reason I ask is because the person that played the biggest role in bringing me back to God was Pope John Paul and so to discover that one of his friends was, or maybe was, so evil makes me feel uncomfortable.

I am a member of the Church of Saints and Sinners, and am always worried that we spend too much time focusing on the sins of others. So if it not too much trouble, could you tell me a little bit about yourself and your time in Mexico. I am now living in Spain but am heading to Peru in September to work with a Charity. Do you think that the Holy Spirit is in any way working through Father Maciel? I will leave you with this and hope for but not expect a reply.

Yours with Faith in Jesus,–




Thanks for taking the trouble to write. I am taking a few minutes out of my Sunday morning here in Virginia, USA, to acknowledge your message. You will find the first 2 chapters of my history in Testimonies under Bewitched, Bewildered and Bothered. I’m the same person. And I admit I get ‘hooked’ when someone like yourself sends an interesting letter. By the way, do you have a decent job?

I founded La Escuela de la FE in 1975/6 on Sierra Vertientes 605, Lomas de Chapultepec, Mexico City, and worked there until 1982 when I was shipped off down to Quintana Roo. I was ordained a priest in the Legion, 1969, worked on the Quintana Roo the [only Legion] Mission 71-75 and again 1982-84, left the Legion in 1984 and transitioned to the diocese of Washington DC in 1985; finally left the priesthood in 1989 when I ‘was laicized’ and began looking for a job and a place to stay; I was 45 at that time; now 61 and work as a Mental Health Therapist

Thanks for reading my dialogue with Fr Neuhaus. One of the differences between him and me is that he does not know Marcial Maciel; I do.

Do not let Marcial Maciel interfere with your faith in God, Jesus and Church, or with your admiration for the Pope. Fr. Maciel’s friendship with the Pope is grossly exaggerated by the Legion for propaganda purposes. I see no evidence that the Pope was a ‘personal friend’ of Father Maciel. That has been exaggerated by the media, encouraged by the Legion. Like any other extrovert/gregarious person, JPII would have had hundreds of ‘friends’; what others might call ‘acquaintances’.

I imagine the Pope praised MM as the living founder of a male religious order of priests and an apostolic lay movement. Maciel cleverly inserted some of his men in Vatican posts, and made a point of ordaining his priests in Rome, all together, in large numbers, in order to impress the Vatican and conservative Catholics. Maciel and the Legion also made the most of the photo opportunities in which he is seen close to the Pope, kissing or hugging his Holiness. Besides being revolting, this is regrettable and may later ‘come back to haunt’ the unwitting Pope.

The Holy Spirit is free to work wherever He wants, according to the words of Jesus. ‘The Spirit moves wherever it wishes’. But I have no reason to believe that He works through Fr Maciel any more than He works through you and me. Naturally, if Fr Maciel is guilty of sexually abusing his seminarians the Holy Spirit was absent from his actions in the infirmary in Rome in the 50s. This ‘Mystery of Iniquity’ troubles me, and I have wondered where the Holy Spirit was for the victims during their abuse. I can only believe that as the Compassionate Love of the Silent   Suffering Christ He was present to the victims keeping them safe from despair and suicide.


The Legion got one thing right: it taught us to center our faith in Jesus, not in the Pope or Fr. Maciel. Although in practice, it encourages too much adulation of Fr. Maciel. I would encourage you to read the Letters of St Paul in this respect [I and II Corinthians, e.g.] where he would not allow rivalries between himself and St Peter [Cephas,] to blur the minds of the first Christians and stated clearly that Christian Faith is centered in the Risen Crucified Christ [I Cor., 10-17].

You were asking whether I was a priest. At this stage of my life I am firmly convinced that being a priest or an ex-priest, or having any other role or ‘dignity’ in the world or in the Church, has nothing to do with one’s personal relationship with God in Jesus [which on the other hand is a mystery, anyway!]. Besides, as St Paul would say, I am in Regain to preach the truth I know about the Legion, not my own person.

Peter, I have gone on and on. Because your message asks questions that might be typical of other young men, I would love to post your questions [anonymously] and my answers on our website. But I will not do anything without your consent. You know that all the testimonies on our site are freely given, are given with explicit permission, and several remain anonymous because the writers were not comfortable giving names. Maybe you would care to answer my answers and clarify or ask more questions or question my opinions.

For now, this is a ‘free consult’.

I admire your missionary spirit and the evident fact that for you the Church is bigger than the Legion of Christ and its Founder. Keep in touch.

God Bless,


PS I am going to share this with a select number of Regain members.


Peter to Paul

I have just re-read our correspondence and feel that it could be misunderstood. I do not know what to think of the case against Father Maciel, and that is why I wrote to you to see if there could be some kind of a compromise between Regain’s vision and that of the Legion. You can use my letter if you want to but please remove my name first.

My experience working briefly with The Legion was not a very pleasant one, even though I share their values and vision of Christian Life. People Criticize Opus Dei, but in everything I have read about or by Jose Maria Escrivá he was always a sinner, and a poor second to many others, especially our Lord. In the Legion it seems that they have developed a defensive attitude that seeks to portray only the sanctity of Father Maciel. But I don’t know the man, and have no real reason to believe that he is not what they indiscreetly point out he is.

Also Paul I would like to say that as much as I admire your path in life, I disagree with you about something you know more about: The Priesthood. I can honestly say I know a lot of Bad priests and a lot of Good priests, and I never thought they were on a higher level than me, except maybe the ones who were faithful only to their own vision and not that of God. I always felt in awe of Good priests, though not in a sense of worship; in the sense of their service, humility, sacrifice which seems to me the great reply a Human being can make to the call of the lord to take up our Cross.

What I also didlike is the fact that in the Bios about Father M, they never portray his humanity

Could you please review the sentence?
”What I also didlike is the fact that in the Bios about Father M, they never portray his humanity”


Keep in touch,




Peter wrote:


I am sorry about the mistake with the sentence; what I meant to say was that they don’t focus enough on his [MM’s -Fr. Maciel’s] struggle; his life seems to consist in nothing but the voice of Providence. Where is the man’s bread and butter life?



Paul to Peter,

Regain’s point is that Maciel has been put on a pedestal before his time; as the years go by more and more miraculous things are attributed to him and he has become a Myth in his own life-time -and by his own efforts!

Lord help us,


Peter wrote:


As an aside form all this, I am much clued into what the Church is going through. I know the media manipulation that is taking place against the Church, as I know what the Church teaches and what the media says it teaches are very different. Also the presentation is always tendentious. For this reason my approach with the Church is firmly “Innocent until proven guilty”.

Also with the accusations against the Legion there is an over willingness to twist, I think. But above all I am interested in a sort of understanding that can satisfy both sides, and let them remain Christian. If father Maciel is guilty then it should be shouted from the rooftops; but if he is innocent it will point to the persecution that Christ spoke of proving that the Legion is potentially truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and as such a great target for Satan

So you subscribe to the theory/belief that ‘the media’ is ‘out to get’ ‘the Church’?

Does that include the Catholic media?


Peter wrote:

But to finish up, Paul,

I don’t know how he will do it but I have Faith that Pope Benedict will clean up any necessary Filth in the Church. I don’t think he is afraid of the Truth in fact I think he is a man who lives for truth. My only criticism of Pope John Paul was that he mishandled terribly the abuse crisis, you are Irish you need no telling.

But keep the faith and keep in touch if you can.

Yours with my Faith placed firmly in Jesus,



So, Peter,

You would be willing to criticize a dead Pontiff but not a living one? And you are expecting Benedict XVI to be better than John Paul II in this sense?

Peter wrote:

[Paul’s underlines]

As for the media theory or belief, I can only say what I see. They constantly print lies, outright lies, or else distortions about the Church.  I have read most of what the Church has to say and when I see that then represented in the media I know how truthful they are or not. They often seem to speak with hatred in their hearts and a political ideology playing underneath their words. As for the Catholic Media, many of them are convinced they know better than the Pope and take the modern lifestyle patterns as the proof of their rightness


Paul to Peter:

There are two sides to every story, and I am sure there may be some media people or organizations that are “out to get the Church”. What is disturbing for me is when i find some conservative and orthodox Catholics keep using the word ‘hate’.  I object to t’hatred in their hearts’ bit. How does anyone know what is in another person’s heart? The whole of Christian Revelation warns us not to judge another person’s intentions. Aren’t you attributing bad intention to these people? Can’t people just disagree with the Pope or the Church without hating them? And don’t we all have some kind of ideology, values and beliefs that influence what we say and do; no matter how ‘objective’ we try to be?

In whatever case, what is your criterion for truth and objectivity? What measure do you use for something being right or wrong?

Was your family background like this?

Where did you study?

How did you come to hold your beliefs in the media, the Church, the truth?

‘I have read most of what the Church has to say’ 

Could you explain the above?


Peter  wrote:

I seek only your prayers and promise to do the same for you. This way we will be sure that we at least are giving the Lord some room in our hearts. I always do well to remember that people like you and me share a common Love and that Love is Jesus of Nazareth. He is looking at us both and at our correspondence and, I am sure, willing us to be better people, speaking for myself I know he has been disappointed of late.

Yours with Faith always in Jesus,



My dear young man -I take you are young- man.

Don’t run away. You ‘went very spiritual on me all of a sudden’; it felt like a spiritual short-cut. We were having a human discussion. There also seems to be a hint of guilt in your comments.

I would not challenge you, if i did not take you seriously. If i take you seriously, i will eventually challenge some of your ideas or convictions.

Ever since I began really knowing the God of Jesus, I discovered the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the One who dwells in us; nor does He run away when we do say something stupid or argue or disagree. Surely these are not ‘mortal sins’…

I say this because you fired off 3 quick responses as if you were running out the door…

Take it easy,


Peter wrote: I am not surprised to see that you still need to analyze the words of others and read into them what you want and then project something onto that person that may give you some sort of advantage. It seems that the only one who can read into the hearts or minds of other people is you, and perhaps those who have discovered the Spirit along with you. I long for the day when God will share with us all he has shared with you. I also apologize for ‘going Spiritual’ on you, it is a defect I have picked up from reading the Saints and the Gospels which are guilty of mixing the Human and the Spiritual a lot. In their case no doubt you would argue they didn’t have the opportunity or learning of today. But no such excuses can be made for me. Having just seen your letter I thought that you were guilty of the same, but obviously I misunderstood. You seem to have mastered some things or tried to have mastered some things. You are very proud of your education and present title. Peacock-like I would say. You also start the letter with the condescension” My dear young Man”. Should I tremble at such words? Am I what you seek your correspondents to be: Inferior to you? Perhaps I am but I can’t help thinking that although I would like to be able to use so many weapons of Dialogue my goal is not to have to. I don’t want to go down the same path as you, as the world is overflowing with the type. I asked you to come out from your cave, and to do so used the only thing I could use, the only thing that makes us brothers, Jesus. But you were unable to do it. You instead ridiculed the Gesture.  This is a humanly speaking clever thing to do, but folly in light of the Scriptures. I asked you to put all your acquired baggage and weaponry honed over the years to the Ground. But you couldn’t rise to the challenge. You would have felt naked. Proving the Ancient wisdom “Hell hath no fury like a Priest laicized”. You were simply itching for an argument, nothing else. And this just shows that of all the things you may have mastered, such as the language of Projection, the one thing you failed to master was yourself. Peter——– Paul wrote: Peter, I will not counter any of your personal comments but will continue to dialogue about the content of our correspondence. Let me begin with a comment on point of view that is quite wide-spread regarding the Maciel sexual accusations. “If father Maciel is guilty then it should be shouted from the rooftops; but if he is innocent it will point to the persecution that Christ spoke of proving that the Legion is potentially truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and as such a great target for Satan.” My personal point of view is the following.·         If Fr. Maciel is guilty, he should receive the sanctions that the Catholic Church reserves for members who so gravely violate the sacred rights of others. The Vatican should withdraw any praise or honors it has bestowed upon Fr. Maciel. If pedophilia and sexual abuse are found to be endemic to the Legion, then a full investigation of the Legion and its superiors should be carried out. Fr. Maciel’s victims should be vindicated and receive whatever compensation they deserve. May they breath deeply and freely and live in peace their final days.·         If Fr. Maciel is innocent, then these 8 living accusers, together with Fr Amenábar, RIP, are the greatest of liars and deserve to receive whatever sanctions Catholic Authorities see fit. I and others who believe in them have been duped. The Media that supported the accusation have been duped and are guilty of rashness in attacking Fr. Maciel and some Church authorities.

  • Regarding ‘If MM is truly innocent then…the Legion truly inspired by the Holy Spirit’, this is not a logical consequence. As a Catholic theology graduate I do not understand how or why Fr. Maciel’s personal integrity/sinfulness should be linked directly and fully with the Legion, or vice versa. In other words, perhaps the Legion could be the work of the Holy Spirit, even though the Founder, as a pure instrument, were a reprobate. If a sinful priest can transform Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, why couldn’t a pedophile Founder found a Religious Order?

Peter wrote:


would agree with you that it is true to say that God uses insufficient means to achieve His goals; Peter for example. But what I….

Paul wrote:


I am going beyond what you are saying: that God could use ‘unworthy’ instruments to achieve His goals if He so wanted [because He is all powerful].


Peter wrote:


I would agree with you that it is true to say that God uses insufficient means to achieve His goals, Peter for example.

But what I said about Persecution was not meant solely for Fr Maciel but the whole Legion, including all the hundreds of Priests and members of Regnum Christi who believe he is innocent and more so a Man of God; which is not the same as a Lying Hypocrite with a predilection for acts of bestiality. I find the whole case very disturbing because either he and they are truly instruments of the Devil or else their accusers are.

I am not sure of the eight people who have accused them. I wrote to you in the first place to find out more, not to get into an argument with a fellow Irishman. I have only read that one or two of them retracted their statements and said they had been coerced into doing it to discredit Fr Maciel and the Order; also something about their being two ringleaders who were in the Legion but left because they had been denied a promotion and took it badly. On some T.V program many of them backed out and wouldn’t commit their testimonies to live television or something.

I am not a defender of the Legion as I barely know them. I spent 3 weeks working for them in Mexico as an English and History teacher (Substituting).I am sickened by the thought of what happened, be it true or false. The media are hardly trustworthy, especially American media. Scandal sells and that’s their business. People want to read that those Bad men in the Vatican have crushed more heroes among us. That is a picture people love to see and hear of. And I think if you throw in the word conservative, away we go. But that does not mean that the story is true, only that in my opinion, the Media are no guide.


Paul to Peter,

A few ideas in response,

  1. Persecution, referring to Maciel and the LC/RC, in my opinion is vastly over-rated. The Legion/RC too quickly draws a parallel between itself and Jesus, The Suffering Servant of Yahweh. It is very self serving. Some people suffer because they deserve it; there are very few really innocent people.
  2. Your take on the accusers is imprecise and weighted in favor of Fr Maciel and the LC/RC; your position is close to the official LC/RC stance as found in and regurgitated by other LC/RC defenders. Naturally, for me, that is disappointing, because I did not know that was your position when we started. If you read ReGAIN’s articles you would see the other side of the story. If you are firmly and comfortable ensconced in the LC/RC position it will be very hard for you to see ReGAIN’s perspective.
  3. The fact that I questioned before your blanket criticism of the media does not mean that either I or Regain agree with the media in general or with what the media does. ReGAIN is not anti Pope, anti Church and other things pro-Legion people accuse us of in order to discredit our valid viewpoints.
  4. Regarding the sexual abuse, in one sense there is no middle ground. And I have already described the opposing views in a previous e-mail. You cannot have the best of both worlds. Or maybe you would like to find a position mid-way between the two opposing positions. You did say in your first posting that you would like to reconcile these opposing stories. Maybe there is a way, but I don’t see it: either Fr Maciel sexually abused those teen-age seminarians, or he didn’t. Not acts of ‘bestiality’, as his victims were not beasts but human beings. I take it you understand the peculiar nature of pedophilia and sexual abuse, which has a lot to do with abuse of power and prestige in satisfying one’s sexual needs with a weaker person.
  5. I, personally, do not need to see Satan’s intervention either in the accusers, in Maciel, or in the two opposing bands. Human malice and free will can do a fair amount of evil, with or without the Devil; but maybe you are right; there is a Genesis chapter 3. Satan, ‘The Tempter’, does exist, also called the ‘Father of Lies’ who deceives us and makes us think we can make our own rules [‘good and evil’] and get away with it.

Yours sincerely,






9 thoughts on “Young Catholic Believer Inquires about Fr. Maciel, Popes, the Media, ReGAIN editor and Maciel victim/accusers in 2005”

  1. In fear and loathing.
    I find I normally say I hate something when I fear it or when it makes me feel frustrated, when i want to escape the time loss in dealing with the problem.
    Loathing is disgust. I suppose we say we hate something when it disgusts us.
    Buddhists say that hate is the other side of the coin from love. Mind you, myyoga teacher was given to saying that the ideas of Greek philosophers were the ideas of yogis. Broadly speaking i suppose that was ok but it was a way of thinking tha that made me look stupid various times. Maybe this is not a buddhist idea, it is something i have heard from him.
    I think that if you feel easy and happy about something then you say you love it and if it presents a lot of difficultiesboth ones thath whoever is justified in presenting and ones hey have absolutely no right to present, you say you hate it.I disapprove of the Catholic faith and in moments of annoyance express my feelings by saying I hate it.

    I was terrified when street recruiters always seemed to hedge out a whole lot of subjects that might leave strict Vatican principles in question.
    It sounds stupid to be frightened by such a proceeding but I thought doing so must have worked to brainwash some people so why not me in time. Who would try such a trick if they had not found out it worked.
    One reason, being subject to the obvious avoidance of many topics was frightening, is that in some bits of fiction or even biographies people talk as if they can hardly remember their childhood, or anything that happened a few years ago. It had never happened to me that I forgot ideas though I might forget were they had come from but still, it is so widely reported that people forget things that I was afraid that is could be made to forget things I knew were valid and true.
    This fear was put to sleep after suffering a decade of catholic sects follower’s lies distortions and avoidance, as it became evident that I did not forget old ideas and remained able to maintain the relative value of each idea.

    I was more scared than I can imagine anyone believing I was about this question. I kept thinking that I had never thought I would live through some of the horrible things people in the Soviet Union lived through , indoctrination, mind washing and the fear of and actually seeing their children being mind washed too.
    As usual mind washing creates the problem for people who are subjected to it, that of them, most humans beings apparently being open to influences and pressures that no-one believes adults are susceptible to, so that no one will believe that this or that could have been frightening, unhinging or changed you.

    Another part of, the “mind washing” fears I had, had to do with the people, those who seemed to want to indoctrinates’ obvious desire to obliterate the ideas of other religions from my head, at the same time as them trying to obliterating modern ideas such as those of psycology, that don’t fit with their ideas, the churches ideas, from my head.
    This part of the fears they induced in me can be imagine by a Christian if they imagine thinking how they would feel if someone seemed to be trying to obliterate Christian ideas from their heads.
    I loved Buddhism and was terrified they would obliterate it, terrified till I found they could not though I could be madeto be too frightened to give contemplation of Buddhism time.
    Also, I was afraid, till the behaviour of such people made me reflect that Buddhism probably had some pretty extreme sects in it too. So, until I decided all religions had to be treated with kid gloves.

    The ability of sects to distort things and regular bullies do the same, means they will pretend that looking at other religions is a dilettante occupation.THey try to assassintate you social by making you look frivolous. I would have such remember, that as a child I formed the determination to look at other religions because I had noticed how few things I had been taught about Judaism and how unnaturally negative all the things I was taught about this religion were, much as all my teachers pretended that anti-Semitism was bad.My teachers did not see what they were doing.
    I thought that their practice, Christian practise now, even after the holocaust, is still to blacken Judaism, to cleverly talk of what sounds negative about them. Rabbis say that much as the law is an eye for an eye, it is better not to follow the law,which is say it is better to be nicer than the law, so to pretend tha modern jes follow the rule an eye for an eye is to lie about judaism. Christians and the Church of England is part of this, talk of negative aspects of Judaism and as to the positive ones, they just commit lies of omission about them.There aren’t many Christians who read about Judaism so most of them don’t realise they are committing lies of omission.
    I noticed when I was young, reading the stories of Narnia, the same about Islam, in children’s stories the followers of this faith were always cruel, with cruel curved daggers. Christians are cruel too, the crusaders must have seemed cruel to followers of Islam. The trick is to make something sound extraordinary when others do it and just an exception to the rule when your own group does the same.

    My interest in other religions began because of extremely serious set of worries about our ways of looking at them.
    The most orthodox, Taliban part of religions is given to insisting that those who are more liberal than them are not serious people. It is necessary to put a lot of emphasis on ones own seriousness faced by such a crew. If course they will just refuse to credit my more serious goals. in Spain people from the church of England are made to look immoral in every way,
    Much as one religion always lies about another, just as people in totalitarian regimes did about more liberal regimes so that the poeople who lived in the Soviet Union were told that they were richer than those in the US,so that if you try to right things you will just get lied about, still it is important to underline the virtues of people who don’t follow their faith, underline and proclaim them.


  2. This bit of knowledge I have on the legion will fit in here because it is about something I thought was specific to the legion and then found out to be part of other followers of the faiths behaviour. so that this is one of the things which makes me question what the faith is really, question how valid my cradle faith was because the faith is not what I was taught it was.
    It is also a question which might clear up things for people who are caught by the legion .
    It is the story of a piece of sarcasm I have heard used by a legionnaire and then found out was in fact also used by Franco’s wife, so was general to Catholicism and proof that Catholicism was not as I was taught in the cradle.
    Maybe Franco’s wife as a legionnaire.

    I have found the legionnaire I know breaking out into an annoyed series of, “me me me mes” in an answer to my not being as I should, a sort of way of accusing me of selfishness but in situations that I failed to understand as ones in which I was being selfish except if simply not agreeing with the church on every detail is selfish and that is possible as it is a way I have heard the church describe disagreement.
    I have heard that use of the insult selfish in relation to simply not agreeing with a church authority, from Madrid street recruiters.

    I suppose the argument is that you are selfish if you propagate some form of heresy. I have heard this argument used if I talked of the smallest difference with the ideas of some parish priest. Included in this way of thinking it seems is the idea that I have to totally respect every parish priest, the silliest as well as the most sensible.
    Asking people to agree with all any church authority says on religion is a demand for the religious to be all licensed, an effort to stop the layman from having any say at all in religion.

    I watched a Spanish film, mini series, on Eva Peron’s visit to Spain in 1947, called, “Letter to Eva” by the director Agusti Villaronga, made in 2011 and in it Franco’s wife exasperated by Eva breaks out with the same series of me, me, me, me, in a very annoyed tone, that have been directed to me by a legionnaire.

    General Franco’s wife is famous in Spain for taking trips to the jewellery shops on the Grand Via, in Madrid and choosing the piece of jewellery she likes and walking out with it without paying for it. The jewellers used to close their shops if they heard she was coming.
    She was also tremendously hard on the poor.
    She was a staunch defender of the faith but she was not a selfless person at all.

    In the part of the film in which Francos wife breaks out in a furious series of mes which sound so strange, she is listening to Eva on the radio as Eva gives a communist speech. Eva is at a Spanish workers reunion or some such.
    When I heard it I thought, wow, the legionnaires aren’t the only ones to say that in strange situations. Calling Eva who is trying for the poor selfish or implying it, is understandable if you consider that people who talk of heretical ideas are selfish but for most people it is just very odd. Eva had to be very disciplined, not selfish, in order to go on and on with her attempts to help the poor

    Eva was staying with the Franco’s, which is to say, a socialist and a noisy one at that with a fascist couple. A comic situation. Franco’s wife, is becoming more and more impatient about Eva as the film goes on. Eva, on top of being a socialist, is very well dressed.

    I don’t know what people who suffer from the legion can say to defend themselves if they are accused of being selfish for having ideas the legion does not like. They should just know that it is not selfish to disagree with others and be very sure of their right to question everything. No one should ask you to just accept things and no one should insult you if you have doubts about an idea or different ideas from theirs. They may argue with you but not insult you.


  3. I have, ever since i saw the film “Una carta para Eva” for the second time, which is to say after I had experience of a legionnaire saying, “me, me, me”, in a angry voice, wanted to write about but what I wrote yesterday on th efilm, however, now, after writing about it, I have reflected that I have no idea if it the person who wrote the film had heard that Franco’s wife said this strange thing in reply to hearing Eva give a communist address or if the film writer put these words into her mouth, may be one who knew a legionnaire.
    It was such a strange thing to say in the circumstances that I supposed it was something that someone said she did, it seems hard to imagine it would be a normal response to a communist address, the sort of response a script writer would think up.
    As I looked up the date of the film yesterday, I saw it as a film, not a mini series, and found it was pretty recent, I began to I wondered if a film made more than fifty years later was factual. It still maybe factual, I suppose there are biographies of Franco’s wife.


  4. There is another reason that legionnaire might respond with a sarcastic, Me, me, me me, me, to Eva’s giving a communist type address, apart from considering, as a legionaire would, that it was selfish to express ideas that their priest had told them were not correct, that they were selfishly teaching heresies. which is that very strict Catholics suppose that God has put you were you are meant to be type, the divine right of kings, that got the English Stewart kings into such trouble. This means that if you are born a woman, you have been put in a position that is subservient to your husband and should be looking after your husband, not gallivanting around giving political addresses, unless of course what takes you from your husbands side is defence of the faith, as the legionnaires see that faith to be, in which case your husband can go hang.
    Eva Peron was I believe Catholic.


  5. While on the subject of the legionaries use of me, me me, me me, they also use this to mean, me the Holy Ghost, as in the Holy Ghost speaks through them so that me is him.
    They are pretty nutty. Extremely so.
    If they say, “you should like or listen to me, me, me, me, then they mean you should like or listen to the Holy Ghost.
    Sometimes,in their slightly deranged minds, one use of the pronoun we seems to trail off into another.

    I have found that street recruiters use a term to mean several things at once and the reason is that they seem to like to be very absorbing and when they use some term that you that you have learnt to realise that they use in various ways, I at least find that I get pretty busy mentally trying to work out which use of the word they are meaning me to pick up at any given time.
    Maybe they think that if they can hold your attention and keep you mentally busy, you wont have time for heretical thoughts. They are certainly tiring with their word games.

    Another example of this is use of words that can have various meanings is them asking you if you don’t want to be free, libre in Spanish.

    In Buddhism freedom is something like the definitive union with god, a getting to nirvana. It is when you find your Buddhic nature and are freed from the ties of the flesh, worldly troubles, from a desire to be happy, to use Christian terms.

    In Catholicism true freedom is what following God gives you.
    I have heard they used that argument to black slaves, so as to persuade the slaves not to worry about slavery because, while they thought of being good and following the Lord they are internal free. Might be a protestant argument.
    So. a way of stopping slaves from a revolt their children possibly needed. They turned them into selfish people who did not do what was best for their families.

    On the other hand they might be referring to your selfish desire to escape duties. They might be making some sort of snide remark to hurt your moral pride. Making a moral insult. As if freedom exists, dance all the time and maybe you can’t have children or you cant earn money.
    There is just an exchange of one type of discomfort or loss for another, usually, unless you are very rich.

    Of course if marriage is what they are on about, then what your moral duty is can be a hard call. Traditionally, if you are not irresponsible, you will stay married but my experience is that a spouse can so invalidate you, annul you, cut you off from all friends, that while you stay by their side you have very little hope of your children ever paying any attention to you much as what you have to say may be moral and sensible.
    Not an argument Rome would want to hear talked of.
    It sometimes seems that in marriage you are being asked to worry more about your adult spouse than the children that are a result of the marriage.
    The same is true of a demand for people who are going out with each other to stand by the person they are going out with, using the argument that their partner might be psychically destroyed by being left. If you are to have children with whoever, it would be as well to take into consideration how easy it was going to be to teach children with this person by your side, instead of how it will cut the person up to be left. Some people are very tough, it can be hard to make an impression on them but a tougher woman or man might be able to handle the situation.


  6. Another use of me,, me, me, me, me, can be when you are contemplating decorating some part of your house, spending money, then you get told that all you need is me or in other words, the holy spirit, as they pretend to be him. One street recruiter said he was God In the long run the conversation would get round to you don’t need to spend money. they want you to keep your money to spend on them when they dotn want you to spend it so that lack of money will send you back to your husband. The Holy Ghost needs money in order to help the poor.
    I have stopped giving money, there was a time in which such demands all but beggared me. When I had spent my money street recruiters just said I had money because as far as they were concerned they thought I should just get money off my husband. I will not back up such a group.


  7. I wanted to write this comment in that part of htis site which talks of the women who had been in Regnum Christi because their comments are the best testimony to the fact that brainwashing techniques have been used on them and because they seem to get less coverage on the than the man do, be a seperate agenda. But, I am not sure that the women like to much written on their story part of this site.

    As brainwashing is about breaking people, which i did not realise was the case till i looked up brainwashing, making them feel so miserable about their old self and culture that they decide a new culture is necessary, that they accept replacing their old ideas with new ones, it seems to be a description of what happened to the girls in Regnum Christy and so absolutely to have to do with them.

    I used to think brain washing was only, if only is an adequate word, controlling the information that people received so that they heard nothing that could put them off, say communism or fascism and also not allowing them to talk of anything that would interfere with the ideas of communism, that would make others think that the regime was not O.K. To take the example of the soviet union, I was told that the population was told that there was more poverty in North America, which was a blatant lie.and i was told that parents feared to tell their ideas to their children in case these let on about them and the parents got punished.
    I had not really thought of what happened to people who were sent as a punishment to Gulag and there were taught communism more harshly or of the re-education programs for example of the Chinese Emperor, in Chairman Mao’s China and probably of the Panchen Lama too, I had not thought or been told about how fierce the teaching of people might be whose ideas were changed in custody..
    I have read of brain washing on the how stuff works. Science site, and another one.
    A brief outline of the methods of brainwashing ….

    At first ……….

    -An assault on identity

    – Creating and increasing guilt .

    -Self betrayal and betrayal of your family and friends and cultural ideas good and bad.


    -Breaking point

    There are other techniques used like, being babyish to bring people to regress to childhood. It also works to stop the abused from being to hard on the abuser, We are often patient with children.
    Saying, “Just do it”, which helps to get people moving and obeying.
    . Trying to condition the people to act when told to, not off their own bat, so as to turn them into good foot soldiers.

    Later. After breaking point ………

    – A bit of kindness is used, which at breaking point is so gratefully received that people start to trust the kind hand too much.

    -Channelling of guilt.

    -Releasing of guilt.

    -Confession and rebirth.


  8. My intention is to make some comment on the first three parts of brainwashing. the assault on identity, creation of guilt, self betrayal. rather than on the second part of the list. t
    As to a breaking point though I have been made to feel very unhappy and been persuaded to betray some people I loved and loosen my hold on some ideas I cannot comment on breaking point i dotn feel as if i know about it.
    I suppose there are small breaking points as well as big ones, slow bendings not breaking, “points”. I stopped thinking of Buddha I dared not think of him , it increased the attacks i received, I just had to keep him inside of me but not, take him out, so to speak, Also the same happened with meditation and yoga exercises. but the process of being made afraid to practice parts of Buddhism was slow a long break not a point at all. All i an say is i shall back up buddhists and hinduist if they do the same to people who have been Christianised. How will i stop that being an empty threat? It certainly increases my disapproval of the church.

    Being asked to confess, which is in part of the second half of the list of strategies used to break people, is an activity that recruiters for sects and spiritual advisers will use at all times as well as when channelling guilt.

    Here I will comment on loss of identity.

    Attacks on identity are those attack that are directed against the qualities a person thinks defines them.
    I am strong, a leader, charming,hard working, brave, kind, merciless with enemies, good at studying, knowledgeable, humble just etc.. All these qualities are relative and so can be attacked even when the persons assessment of themselves responds to reality, when they really have the quality they see as identifying them, by saying that strong as you are others are much stronger your strength is not real. Pretty, a ugly photo can be taken of you.
    I used to imagine I might be a leader, as a child, after reading that Garibaldi was a great leader. I am a hopelessly bad at leading people, I did not have a clue about half the qualities that are necessary to be such but that is an extreme case of how wrong you can be.
    Some argue that everyone should be real but it is impossible to understand how far one is from an ability that you have never practised much. Children are not likely to realise all the qualities involved in some tasks, most especially so if their family is also not much good at understanding the ins and outs of that task.
    A girl is less likely to have been taught to be a leader than a man,they are more likely to have been taught to back others up and wait for them to grow up instead of making them do things..
    Other qualities that people believe they have, are in matters in which they have some triumphs and are backed up by real achievements and those who pretend they don-t have these qualities are lying and distorting in order to hurt their victimes.

    Attacking peoples identities could be seen as a way of reducing their pride and so as a holy act, one that will turn them into better people. It is however a way of creating people who just become desperate about attempts to do well because those around them have made it clear that their attempts have not born any fruit, desperate enough to give up and to break down if there frantic attempts become too exhausting.
    Never getting anywhere when you make a great effort stresses people out and depresses them., I brings them to despair of being able to achieve anything,ever, hard as they try. Even of sacrificing themselves in a way that will not bring disapprobation on their heads by people who only want to hurt them,

    Of course stressing people out is the goal of brain washers. Break them and then you can introduce the ideas you want to take place of their family culture and of their old Christianity. You can turn them into brain washers instead of people whose Christianity is based on caring for people. The legion wants brain washers, first they seduce the rich and then they break them so as to milk them of all their money.

    In many fields people cannot become good at things without years of practice. That the young have not yet achieved a lot of their rgoals only made some or a lot of head way, makes the young are particularly vulnerable to attack on their achievements.

    Part of not letting people mess with you, of self respect , which is the ability people need if they are to avoid being abused as wives or caught by sects, is to have an accurate assessment of how much a human can do and so the ability to stand firm in the knowledge that whoever asks to much of you or says you are no good when you don’t manage to do an unreasonable amount of work, is abusive, is, a no good bully and to stop them from being so. Is to feel sure that no one has the right to treat you like that..
    How does one teach self respect without maybe teaching people to simply insist on their right to do nothing?.

    Sexual Abuse of children is also, “an attack on identity”.

    I read a psychiatric assessment of the damage caused by child abuse and one of the points mentioned was loss of identity, and, a slowing down of spiritual progress was another.
    Loving and caring for people is a big part of spiritual development and sexual abuse means that the child distrusts adults because of the abusive adults conduct and also distrusts all other people for not protecting them from such abuse.

    I suppose sexual assault causes a loss of identity because the child imagines they are as good as,Cinderella, a nurse, nun or ballet dancer, mother, father, president ,warrior, pirate, engine driver , and they find they are the bit of fluff of an adult, that has to hit their identity hard. Also they are so powerless as the plaything of an older person.

    If my memory serves me, which it does, much as I was attracted to adults as interesting people,for a whole lot of qualities, so that smiling at them and trying to get their attention was a big part of a child’s life, you might be able to persuade them to organise fun activities for you, children aren’t good at amusing themselves, I mostly enjoyed talking to them if they were friends not family, the idea of sex with them at a young age was repulsive.
    For a young person a person of twenty five say, a twenty year old, eighteen, seventeen, year olds, did not look young to me. Twenty is a whole other and adult world full of, a lot of big pores, sweatiness, hairiness and big noses., so just imagine how thirty year olds look in early adolescence.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s