49. Now that you mention being radical, some people think the Legionaries are too demanding, too rigid in their discipline, too serious in their formation. What do you think about this?

[…] If we want to form priests to be models of Christian life for the faithful, we need to ensure all the elements that go into the integral formation that a man consecrating his life in the Catholic priesthood should have: his human, intellectual, spiritual, and apostolic formation.

[…] I believe Christ was demanding with his own, but never rigid. When we say someone is rigid, it conjures up the image of inflexible, unable to adjust to reality. Christ was realistic. He knew perfectly what was inside people, inside each person. That is why, even though he presented the gospel ideal with all its demands, he always understood people's failings, falls, and weaknesses. The most obvious case is St. Peter. Christ never lowered the ideal for Peter, not even after he denied him. Remember the wonderful passage where the two of them are on the shore of Lake Tiberias and Christ asks about his love: "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these others do?" (John 21:15). But when Christ demands, he is full of motivation, affection, tenderness, sincere interest in the other person's good. It's in this positive vein that you can say the Legion is demanding with its members, because it presents them the gospel ideal in all its beauty. But the Legion, like Christ, understands the weakness of man, wounded by sin and full of shadows amid the brilliant light of grace. But I would neither apply nor accept the adjective "rigid," which smacks of intolerance, attempting to apply preconceived patterns without taking into account a person's actual situation.

[…] We foster a discipline motivated by love, with deep supernatural meaning, that will also be a means for apostolic effectiveness and formative ascesis. If you want to pray; or follow Christ who is poor, chaste, and obedient; or acquire a solid human and intellectual formation, you need subject yourself to discipline. But this discipline is never a straightjacket. No one forces it on you. You yourself, given the specific purposes you seek, see the need to choose the appropriate way to reach the same. That is why we speak of motivated discipline and personal conviction. If discipline is merely external, it will only work as long as the structures that impose it remain in place, but once they disappear discipline will also. You build a man from within, from his will, freedom, and reason. This is where he needs to discipline himself voluntarily. If this is your understanding of discipline, then I would say the Legion esteems it highly, as long as it is guided by faith, love, freedom, and reason, as I just said.

Discipline also has pedagogical and spiritual value […]. A Christian, too, needs discipline to pray and be virtuous […]. All the elements of discipline that we use are there for a higher goal and motivated by love. This produces free and mature men, not men with complexes, stunted in their faculties or unfulfilled. Just take some time to observe the seminarians and priests who live the classical elements of Church discipline (the only kind that we demand), and see if they give you the impression of not living life fully. Quite the opposite: This discipline, lived in the balance given by faith and the harmony of the nobler faculties, helps them live what St. Augustine called libertas maior. They radiate freedom, composure, and self-mastery. They radiate freedom - be they Legionaries of Christ, regular Christians, or members of any other religious congregation or new community. When you practice discipline out of love and in an atmosphere of personal and community balance, it does not enslave, but liberates.

55. Getting back to the Legion, some people criticize you for being too conservative, traditionalist, or elitist. What can you tell us in this regard?

First a word about criticism, and then I'll get to your question. We know there is such a thing as constructive criticism, when you are interested in somebody's or some institution's good and you point out certain things that ought to be improved. This is a positive kind of criticism, and we should all be open to it because it helps us to better ourselves constantly. Since every congregation or religious association is a human institution, it will always have aspects to improve. There is, however, another kind of criticism bred by envy, prejudice, or other twisted purposes.

You also have to remember that when people criticize the shepherds of the Church or the Church's institutions, it is often pretty shallow because the information they have is fragmentary or willfully distorted and manipulated. So when the Church comes up in a private or even public conversation, the first reaction is to trot out all the old topics - the Inquisition, Galileo, the supposed wealth of the Vatican, the pomp of the cardinals, and so on and so forth - the same ideas over and over since the end of the eighteenth century, handy catchphrases for the uninformed.

These criticisms often come from people or institutions with no supernatural outlook, without which you cannot have a deep understanding of the reality of the Church. From a horizontalist perspective, priestly celibacy is mere repression, a disciplinary measure imposed by authority that the broad base of clergy need to rebel against, blind to the charism that celibacy is for the Church and the world. Religious obedience is contrary to human rights because they fail to see the act of supreme freedom implied in placing your freedom in God's hands, following Christ's example. Church Magisterium is seen as contrary to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the democratic system. This all creates major confusion in the minds of ordinary people.

In addition, people are somewhat flippant and superficial in the free use of labels such as "the left" or "the right," "conservative" or "progressive," even though these terms properly belong to politics and can't be applied uncritically to an institution like the Church, whose mission is eminently spiritual.

These criticisms and prejudices, many of which are based on ideologies, are often picked up by the media, which amplify them and create trends of opinion that are negative towards the Church and Church institutions. With this I do not want to imply a low opinion of the work of journalists and media personnel who sincerely try to present to the world the truth of events. Many of them risk their lives as we have recently seen with the war in Afghanistan or the former Yugoslavia. Their mission is extremely important for society and for world peace. The Church itself is striving to train generations of professionally competent journalists who at the same time are aware of their mission and their ethical duties in the profession. In our apostolates we also contribute, however modestly, to this tremendous effort of the Church by creating in our universities schools of communication that follow the criteria just mentioned.

On this basis I will now answer your question. I think the criticism about our being too conservative comes from our desire to be faithful to God and to those who have authority in the Church - the Pope and bishops in their magisterial function. If that's the case, we won't be too bothered by being labeled as conservatives because our concern, more than the opinion people may have of us, is to walk in step with the Church without failing.

As regards elitism, it should be said that we seek the integral good of the human person, every person, be they rich or poor, wise or ignorant, regardless of race, language, nationality, or talent. This is the example that Christ left us in the gospel. Like him we approach people to bring them Christ's grace and redemption. We do not approach them for unworthy motives, economic gain, prestige, or any other reason. We want to reach everyone, and for that very reason, just as Christ chose a group of apostles to take his gospel to the whole world, we, too, begin by forming and training a given few, due to human limitations, so that their work will reach as many individuals as possible.

58. The Legion and Regnum Christi, along with some of the new ecclesial communities, have been accused of being sects or cults that deprive their members of their freedom. Many would like to know how to answer this charge. What would you say?

I think you first have to define what you mean by a sect or cult. Following the criteria of some scholars of contemporary religious phenomena, not only the new religious communities but the Catholic Church itself would qualify as a sect or cult. We should remember that Christianity, in the Jewish world of its origins and even in the Greco-Roman world, was considered a sect of Judaism.

What danger do people perceive in cults precisely nowadays? Among others, the most basic is that the individual loses his personal freedom, his freedom to determine his own course in full knowledge and full consent. The danger of destructive cults is made manifest when they induce their members to mass suicide or all sorts of abuse, including financial and sexual. In a cult there takes place a certain loss of personality, in homage to a charismatic leader who holds the reins of power and decision-making.

In the Catholic Church and the organizations that form part of it - as is the case of the Legion of Christ, Regnum Christi, and the religious communities and associations the Church has approved - a person never loses his freedom, nor is their any exaltation of charismatic leaders. If there was anything Christ took into consideration in the people he met in his public life, it was their freedom. He didn't want to buy disciples or have them follow him grudgingly; he sought men who would give themselves to God and the Kingdom freely, spontaneously, out of love and out of faith - and, yes, give themselves totally.

However, for those who don't understand or have no desire to understand the nature of Christianity, it might seem like splitting hairs to make a distinction between cults and religious associations that truly respect one's freedom. Individuals and associations that have no love for the Church capitalize on this to attack some of the new Catholic movements, calling them cultish.

I think the best answer to this kind of accusation is to show that you always respect a person's dignity and freedom above all else, and that membership in a given association comes from a personal act of freedom and not from external interference. Since the Catholic Church, the Legion of Christ, Regnum Christi, and the ecclesial communities you mention all meet these conditions, the accusation falls under its own weight.

[…] We must not let our evangelizing work be paralyzed for fear of being accused of sectarianism. The gospel is Good News we have to spread. For some, however, it is an annoying message that reproaches their conscience and they would rather not have to listen to it - but the bearer of the good news, the prophet, cannot keep silent. It may irritate, but he will challenge their freedom while being very careful to respect it, because God is the first to show the utmost regard for our freedom.