Pages

Monday, December 26, 2022

Salvation Through Sin

The following is an adapted translation of a recent article from our friends at the Osservatorio.


And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father... And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. (John 1:14, 16)

To understand one of the most dangerous aspects of the Neocatechumenal mentality - what we could call "salvation through sin" - it is necessary to first make a long introduction, recalling things that well-catechized Christians ought to have been taught since the days of their childhood.

The Church has always taught that human nature is "wounded by sin." This wound implies that death, sickness, and suffering have also entered into human history, and a whole host of other consequences that give rise to mishaps, innocent suffering, and the continuous inadequacy of every soul before God. The only exceptions are that of Our Lord (true God and true man, who shared human nature with us in everything except sin) and the Most Blessed Virgin (who by a very particular divine grace was exempt from original sin - and therefore lived without the slightest shadow of sin - since Our Lord could not become incarnate in human history stained by sin).

We Catholics, therefore, know that we are sinners, "prone to sin," as well as victims (unfortunately often) of the sins of others; of the injustices of human society which, as such, will always be imperfect; of the enmity of nature (natural disasters, bad weather, ferocious animals, or harmful viruses). We know also that the remedy is to welcome divine grace as much as possible, striving not to sin, striving to multiply virtuous acts--even the small, seemingly insignificant ones--so that the more good works we do (of prayer, of charity, etc.), the more we make it easier for ourselves to welcome the grace that is continually offered to us.

Since we are not all spiritually strong, we are not surprised (but no less mortified) to often fall into sin. We simply do everything to get back up and start a new life (convert), even if that's only a little bit closer to God than the best day we had lived up until the day before. Every step further toward God will bear fruit, even if in the future we mess up even more. And we trust God because He has sometimes deigned to save lost souls who in some period of their lives had done good or been sincerely devoted to Our Lady - therefore, every good work, even the smallest, could be fundamental for our salvation.

Given all this, we understand that it is absurd to think that in order to receive grace, it would first be necessary to "experience sin." It would be like saying that a drinking glass should be broken with a hammer in order to fix it to make it suitable for drinking: absurd, asinine nonsense.

Now, it is true that in the case of human nature and the grace that "fixes" it, the replacement parts are better than the originals. The sinner who welcomes grace is in an even better condition than one who has never sinned--Our Lord tells us this in the Gospels on several occasions, such as when he says that there is more joy in heaven for a converted sinner than for many "who need no repentance." But this never means that to get closer to God it would be necessary to wallow in sin. This is a profoundly wrong mindset because it inverts the premises with the conclusions. Sin takes you away from God; that is indisputable. And yet, we are nonetheless mortal: that is, following that absurd mindset you could find yourself having sinned but not having had the time to convert. St. Alphonsus Liguori writes:

Time is a treasure of inestimable value, because in every moment of time we may gain an increase of grace and eternal glory. In hell lost souls are tormented with the thought, and bitterly lament that now there is no more time for them in which to rescue themselves by repentance from eternal misery. What would they give but for one hour of time to save themselves by an act of true sorrow from destruction! (Meditations on the Four Last Things, #17)

Moreover, we are all - even the saints - already qualified as sinners, as inclined to sin, as in need of grace, for which there is never a reason, much less a need, to sin in order to experience grace. There is never any reason for "moving away from God" as a necessary step to prepare for "coming closer to God."

Well, in the teaching of the Neocatechumenal Way, it really does seem "necessary" to have the "experience of sin" in order to receive grace.

Faced with the case of Neocatechumenal public sinners, the so-called "catechists" of the Way make you believe that it was necessary to sin in order to finally savor God's forgiveness. Instead, we Catholics know that it is never "necessary" to sin, and that neither the quantity nor the quality of sins matters to produce forgiveness. When certain great sinners converted, they realized the Lord's mercy precisely because they realized (and truly repented of) their wickedness, but this does not imply that in order to approach God's glory they absolutely had to sin, and they themselves, in savoring mercy, finally realized it: "Late have I loved you," sighed St. Augustine.

When we sing in the Exultet of Easter, "O happy fault, that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer," we are not affirming a necessity of having "fault" in order to obtain redemption; rather, we are speaking of the free and merciful work of God, and we are struck by the immensity of this mercy because during our lives we have had so many "faults" - which were neither necessary nor useful.

We reiterate here that as in every heretical sect, in the Way it happens that the most egregious errors are hidden behind big words as grandiose as they are obscure. Just as the typical Neocat verbally claims to love the Lord in the Eucharist, but in deed acts as if he does not believe in Our Lord's Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, similarly, the typical Neocat verbally claims to avoid sin and take refuge in the Lord's mercy, but in fact, acts as if he had been continually taught that in order to experience mercy he must first let himself "go to seed" in sin.

In fact, the layman Kiko Argüello - who called himself "Your Catechist" and even "John the Baptist among you" - proclaims that "man cannot fail to sin" (that is, the typical Neocat must not strive to flee temptations and must not resist sin); he proclaims that the confession of mortal sins would be optional and postponable at will, just as if he were authorizing (indeed, enticing) his followers to wallow in sin before they can say they have experienced pardon and forgiveness.

In fact, on the one hand, we have the typical Neocatechumenal gab: "The Lord has forgiven me from abortions/fights/divorces/discos/murders/drugs" (above all by people who would never have done such things); on the other hand, we have the self-absolution of the comfortable, such as when a typical Neocat might say, "Eh, when the Lord takes his hand off my shoulder, I do all sorts of things!" (as if it was the Lord who forced him to sin).

We must also note that Kiko and Carmen did not invent this diabolical concept of the need to sin as a prelude to the experience of forgiveness (diabolical because sinning is indicated as "necessary," while forgiveness may not even have the occasion or conditions to come about), which dates back at least several centuries.

Here, we recall the case of the Jews who believed in a false and self-styled messiah named Sabbatai Zevi. Zevi, who lived in the 17th century, was captured by Muslims who forced him to either convert to Islam or be beheaded. Zevi had passed himself off among his co-religionists as the Messiah, and created around himself a discreet movement that followed him, yet did not recognize Christ. And guess what he did? He converted to Islam.

His followers, therefore, invented a highly-articulate explanation: they said that he had only converted externally and that, therefore, in order to approach God, it was first necessary to descend into the abyss of sin, and from there could go back up. The great sin of abjuring their faith - a public scandal as well as a hypocritical fiction - served precisely as their "experience of sin."

Then followed other false messiahs who attracted numerous other Jews in the following decades and centuries, and all of them elaborate that absurdity in ever more cumbersome ways, organizing orgies and other such crap, in order to have private "experiences of sin" - going against every law and experience of Judaism while publicly making the appearance of good converts to Islam or Catholicism.

Now, we see that same glaring error in the Neocatechumenal mentality directly derived from the preaching of Kiko and Carmen, instilling it in subtle ways.

When Kiko says that it is necessary to experience sin, to feel like a sinner, he is insinuating that his followers should wallow in sinfulness. He is not teaching them to flee temptations; he is not teaching them to resort as much as possible to the primary instruments of grace (the sacraments); he is only speaking generically of detesting oneself, without making the connection to accepting grace. In fact, in communities, it is typical to begin one's "lay homilies" by saying "I disgust myself..." For how many times Kiko has blathered about grace, the love of the Lord, mercy, forgiveness, etc., the Neocatechumenal mentality is always that of a gloomy pessimism, a wallowing in sin, a surrender to "man cannot help but sin; sin is inevitable." (Implied: "What am I even doing? Why should I flee temptations if man is irredeemably a sinner?") So even blathering on about "the Lord always forgives," the Neocats remain engulfed in self-hatred rather than collaborating with divine grace.

This pessimistic and self-defeating mentality is very useful to the leaders of the Way, since it zombifies and lobotomizes the brothers of the communities, making them incapable of using their freedom and capable only of spirtitual self-flagellation and letting themselves be guided like puppets. The puppetteers, meanwhile, are interested in deciding what you do you with your life, your job, your studies, your vocation, and above all, your money. And to feed the mentality, in addition to the apocalyptic and funereal preaching, there are the various "rounds of experiences," "scrutinies," etc., in which many Neocats invent super-gigantic sins, because otherwise the so-called "catechists" judge you as having something to hide.

It should be noted that in the experience of the Church, even in speaking of the ugliness of sin, it is always remembered that the individual is called to repent and that, thanks to the sacraments (with the appropriate dispositions), he can always be reborn as a new man. In the Church, sin is neither made a spectacle, nor transformed into a foothold for self-defeating pessimism, nor considered "necessary" to be saved.

This Kikian-Carmenian fixation of showing off one's super-gigantic sins in public, of speaking in positive terms about experiencing sin, is something that reminds us of the tempter in the Garden of Eden: "you will be like God, knowing good and evil..." without saying that "knowledge of evil" was enmity with God. When the Church says that it is necessary to recognize oneself as a sinner, she is speaking of a movement of the soul which recognizes one's sins and wishes to draw closer to God. While the Church reminds you of the sins you have already committed, Kiko gives you the bonus to commit more. The Church invites to you conversion of heart and to look ahead; Kiko invites you to navel-gaze, to look always at your sins, and to declare yourself a sinner without this implying your effort to convert.

Kiko heretically teaches that "the Lord has already forgiven you... then, tomorrow, if you want, you will seal [in confession]." He insinuates that the Lord will forgive you anyways - implying automatically, even if you are not repentant - so you can stay with your soul stained with sin; so much so that "tomorrow" (that is, who knows when), "if you want" (that is, when you really feel like it, or when pigs fly), "you will seal" (fancy words because obviously Kiko is too sorry to say that the individual needs confession: after all, the Way organizes their "penance services" every month or two, right? Confession can wait. "Seated communion" is only a distribution of a "sacred snack of fraternal unity," feasible even in a state of mortal sin, because, as Kiko says, man cannot not sin).

There is also a human explanation for this very mistaken mentality. The fact is that the sinner who does not work to pick himself up is a very comfortable puppet, even from a psychological point of view. That is why the Way gradually instills a pessimistic and funereal conception of life, a delegation of every mental and spiritual effort to the arrogant and senseless directives of the "catechists," an authorization to comfortably self-absolve ("when the Lord takes his hand off my shoulder...") while at the same time pretending to be pure and gentle lambs. They boast of how much Lenten fasting they have done, and then their life is all about taking revenge, slandering, being vulgar in the family and in society, denying evidence when it is inconvenient for the Way, at the cost of lies and deceit.

In this Christmas season, let us humbly submit our sinfulness before the Incarnate Christ Child of Bethlehem and, like him, "increase in wisdom and years," striving to sin no more. The angels proclaimed peace to men of good will - for the one wallowing in sin, there is only more of the same.

Monday, December 19, 2022

Only Celebrating Ourselves


he following is a translation of a 2015 article by Father Javier Sánchez Martínez, originally titled "Without Self-Celebrating." Before his death in 2021, Fr. Sánchez was a priest and liturgist in the Diocese of Córdoba, Spain. While the article discusses the broader topic of the trend of liturgical anthropocentrism in the Church as a whole, we can easily see how Kiko's various "invented liturgies" for the Neocatechumenal Way can fall under this umbrella and should be equally critiqued.


There is a secularist shift in the liturgy that manipulates the sacred and replaces it with the "we;" Christ is removed and the community group is put in His place. The liturgy becomes the group's hallmark to strengthen human ties, transmit human slogans and values, and repeat - tiresomely - that "we are going to make a more just and supportive society."

This is noticeable in the human, didactic, and very moralistic emphases of the monitions and the homily ("this one is very long, a rally..."). It is noted in the type of liturgical songs that try to have rhythm and provoke emotion and sentimentality. It is also noticeable in the multiplication of elements so that many take part by going up into the sanctuary (one monition at a time, one reader per petition... or even the reading of a manifesto or "commitment"). That liturgy focuses everything on the specific group.

When this is done, there are elements of the liturgy that are left behind because they do not make sense, or people don't know what to do with them: silence during the penitential act, after the Oremus of the Collect, or after the homily; the singing of a meditative, contemplative Responsorial Psalm; the prayers of the Mass and the Eucharistic Prayer, in particular, addressed to God, which are recited quickly because no one knows any longer how to pray to God with the liturgy. The signs of adoration are suppressed--genuflection, kneeling during the consecration, a profound bow when passing in front of the altar--as are processions (entrance, Gospel) and incense...

Liturgy ceases to be Christian liturgy - worship in Spirit and truth - when it becomes a festive show, focused on celebrating the group in and of itself, or exalting its supposed "commitments."

More and more the liturgy becomes anthropocentric: man is exalted, and the community itself is the center and pole of attraction. Everything is discursive: new moralisms, values and commitments, movement of emotions and feelings in songs and gestures (mawkish songs, lots of hugging and kissing at the sign of peace...).

The first deceit would be to center the liturgy as if it were something owned--and therefore manipulable--by the priest, the liturgical team, or the community. Rather, the liturgy belongs to the Church, and we insert ourselves into it, respectfully, to receive Life and glorify the Lord. This ecclesial vision of the liturgy was expressed many times by Pope Benedict XVI:

"We must always ask ourselves anew: who or what is the authentic subject of the liturgy? The answer is simple: the Church. It is not the individual person or group which is celebrating the liturgy, but is first and foremost God's action through the Church which has her own history, her rich tradition and her creativity." (Letter to the Grand Chancellor of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, May 13, 2011)

The liturgy is above all the action of God, not our own creative action. It is the place of God's grace and sanctification, and that is why the liturgy is received as a gift - it is not manufactured each time like a human invention or a secular party, waiting to see what they come up with each Sunday.

"We can say that neither the priest by himself nor the community by itself are responsible for the liturgy; it is the total Christ, Head and members. The priest, the community, each one is responsible to the extent that he is united with Christ, and how he represents Christ in the communion of Head and Body. Every day the conviction must grow in us that the liturgy is not our 'doing,' but rather, on the contrary, it is God's action in us and with us." (Juan José Silvestre Valor, Looking to God: Rediscovering the Liturgy with Benedict XVI, p. 185)

It is advisable to study deeply and repeat these concepts from the hand of Benedict XVI, to eradicate something so widespread as the idea that the liturgy belongs to the group and must be a fun and entertaining party:

"It is not, therefore, the individual - priest or member of the faithful - or the group celebrating the liturgy, but the liturgy is primarily God's action tbrough the Church which has her own history, her rich tradition and her creativity. This universality and fundamental openness, which is proper to the whole of the liturgy, is one of the reasons why it cannot be conceived of or modified by the individual community or by experts, but must be faithful to the forms of the universal Church." (General Audience, October 3, 2012)

The liturgy is received from the Church. It is celebrated in communion with the whole Church. It shapes and sanctifies us by glorifying God. This, then, is the Holy Father's exact perspective and, well assimilated, it corrects false creativity and [one of the Neos' favorite words] desacralization.

"It is not about our doing something, about our demonstrating our creativity, in other words, about displaying everything we can do. Liturgy is precisely not a show, a piece of theater, a spectacle. Rather, it gets its life from the Other. This has to become evident, too. This is why the fact that the ecclesial form has been given in advance is so important. It can be reformed in matters of detail, but it cannot be reinvented every time by the community. It is not a question, as I said, of self-production. The point is to go out of and beyond ourselves, to give ourselves to him, and to let ourselves be touched by him... [The celebrative style, the liturgy] does not just spring from the fashion of the moment." (Benedict XVI, Light of the World)

For this reason, in any liturgy, in any parish, monastery, church, Christian community, etc., only God must shine, and for this it is essential to adhere to the liturgical books and celebrate with a contemplative gaze, with adoration, knowing Whom it is we are before. No, we don't celebrate ourselves.

"Ultimately, this is the question: do we celebrate the mystery of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or do we celebrate our own experiences of death and life, because in some ways celebrating it seems that the presence or non-presence of God does not matter, since everything is centered in the community." (Pedro Fernández Rodríguez, O.P., The Sacred Liturgy, p. 305)

 

Pictured: A community celebrating only itself

Monday, December 12, 2022

Neocats of the Caribbean

The Turks and Caicos Islands. TCI, for short.

If asked to point to them on a map, I doubt most people would be able to. Some seasoned vacationers may have gone ashore there on a cruise once or twice, but by and large, these little islands of just under 60,000 people aren't usually on people's radar.

A British Overseas Territory, the TCI are located southeast of the Bahamas, and about 650 miles southeast of Miami, Florida. As with most of the British Empire, the islands are largely Protestant, boasting a Catholic population of slightly north of 6,600 (11.4%, by one metric). The Catholic Church in the islands is represented by a "mission sui iuris," a rare type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction (one of 8 globally) present in places with either broadly small or just sparsely Catholic populations.

When it was first erected in 1984, the TCI mission was the responsibility of the Archdiocese of Nassau, being governed by that see's archbishop and served by Bahamian priests. The Bahamas being such a close neighbor, this was a fitting arrangement. Most of the other British Caribbean territories do not even have a separate ecclesial jurisdiction--Anguilla, Montserrat, and the British Virgin Islands are all part of the Diocese of Saint John's-Basseterre. Bermuda, though now constituting its own diocese, was originally an extension of the Archdiocese of Halifax in Canada. The Cayman Islands are also a mission sui iuris, but we'll come back to them later.

In 1998, however, the government of the TCI mission was transferred away from Nassau. Given ecclesial geopolitics, here are a few sees that could have made sense to assume it:

  • Saint John's-Basseterre - already serving other territories in the British Caribbean.
  • Hamilton - itself a current British territory
  • Santo Domingo - although Spanish, not English, the Archbishop of Santo Domingo is considered the "Primate of the Indies," indicating the see's honorific precedence in the region.
  • Miami - the closest American archdiocese to the islands
  • Westminster - London is responsible for the secular administration of the islands, so why not ecclesiastically as well? A similar situation is already in place with the US Virgin Islands existing as a suffragan diocese of Washington, D.C.

None of these dioceses took control of the TCI mission, however. Instead, jurisdiction was handed over to the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, and its then-Archbishop... Theodore McCarrick.

McCarrick promptly gave control of the mission to the priests and lay missionaries of the Neocatechumenal Way.

The current chancellor of the TCI mission is Fr. Luis Orlando González, a graduate of Newark's Redemptoris Mater Seminary. He is also the pastor of Our Lady of Divine Providence Parish on Providenciales Island. In a personal email, he indicated to me that the reason for this particular pastoral transfer was the lack of vocations coming from the Nassau Archdiocese. Newark, with its burgeoning vocations under McCarrick (which we've discussed previously), was thus in a prime position to take over. Emails requesting corroboration of this explanation to both the Newark Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the TCI mission's Vicar General in Newark have gone unanswered.



Both the Archdiocese of Newark and the TCI mission officially use identical language in describing the transfer of pastoral care as being "at the request of the Holy See." Yet the question may validly be asked if the request was not primarily that of McCarrick - and secondarily perhaps that of Giuseppe Gennarini, the NCW capo who lives in Englewood.

Very shortly after inheriting the TCI mission, McCarrick sent Fr. Peter Baldacchino, a Neocatechumenal priest and native of Malta, to serve on the islands, which he did faithfully for 15 years. Baldacchino attended the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Newark and was ordained a priest by McCarrick in 1996.

James Grein, McCarrick's chief accuser, identifies a close relationship between McCarrick and Baldacchino he says is chiefly based on money. "McCarrick and Baldacchino were close compatriots in New Jersey because of his [McCarrick's] ties in Malta," says Grein. "[Because Baldacchino hailed] from an island country, McCarrick always invited Baldacchino to the Turks and Caicos for winter trips, and Baldacchino was influential enough to get other men to join them. It was the money they shared. McCarrick paid for Baldacchino's friendship after they roomed together in the Turks and Caicos Islands."

Newark and the Islands have no obvious political ties or expatriate communities, but money makes things interesting.

In 1999, the same year Baldacchino was assigned to the mission, McCarrick set up an offshore account called the "Vatican Estate Corp," which only lasted until 2001, when McCarrick was transferred to Washington, D.C. As is well known, "McCarrick was famous for his ability to raise enormous amounts of money for the Church. [He was also] notorious for handing out envelopes stuffed with money to Vatican officials."

The Turks and Caicos Islands are known as a tax haven and have a history of a lack of transparency. Criminals, tax evaders, and corrupt individuals and entities of all kinds can easily stash their ill-gotten funds in TCI bank accounts. Human trafficking has also been a known issue in the islands. That both the financially savvy (not to mention sexually depraved) McCarrick and the Neocatechumenal Way - with its many "donated" accounts and properties from members - are longtime known operators in the islands is perhaps merely correlative. But can you see now why we might question if it was really the Holy See that requested this "pastoral transfer"?

This also brings us back to the Cayman Islands. Like TCI and New Jersey, the Cayman Islands are also in an odd pastoral relationship: their administration is handled by, of all places, the Archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan, despite being a suffragan of Kingston, Jamaica. The Cayman Islands - another tax haven - came under Detroit's administration in 2000, under Cardinal Adam Maida. Maida served on the Papal Foundation (where current Newark Archbishop Cardinal Joseph Tobin also happens to serve), as well as on the board of the Vatican Bank. The Vatican is known to have offshore accounts in the Caymans. Clearly, where geopolitical relationships cease to make sense, money talks.

For his work in TCI, Peter Baldacchino was later made a bishop - first as auxiliary bishop of Miami in 2014 (sure, now Miami makes sense), and later as bishop of Las Cruces, New Mexico, where he currently presides. We know some people that would love to see him take over in Denver in a few years. God save us.

So what do you think? Of all his many vocations, why did McCarrick uniquely select the Neocatechumenal Way to serve in the human trafficking tax haven of TCI? Was it because of their fierce missionary spirit? As we've already, covered that's total nonsense. Despite a dramatic 20% spike in the Catholic population in the year after the Way first arrived on the islands (likely attributable to all the missionaries moving there), that same 20% was lost between 2014 and 2020. Despite a population boom of over 300%, the net Catholic gain in the last 20+ years is only between 5 and 6%.

No, Gennarini et al wanted access to TCI for the same reason McCarrick did - it's a perfect place to hide. Savvy?



Monday, December 5, 2022

A Case File in Grooming & Systemic Abuse


In case you hadn't noticed, today's society has a BIG child abuse problem.

I'm sure you've heard of Jeffrey Epstein by now. European fashion house Balenciaga is in the news for some absolutely horrendous photoshoots with young children. The Washington Post gave a glowing review to a new play about pedophiles, whose "most disagreeable character" is one of the perps' victims. Explicitly pornographic books are making their way into school libraries, and those who don't want their kids exposed to such filth are accused of authoritarian-style "book banning." The prevalence, but especially the unrelenting push to normalize child grooming and subsequent abuse is stunning in its abysmal depravity.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has not remained immune from this trend, either--as the Boston Globe made us all painfully aware of two decades ago. As of July 2021, the website Bishops Accountability counts 95 bishops around the world publicly accused of sexual crimes against children. This is to say nothing of the many more bishops who cover up for the abuse of others, such as Matthew Clark, the long-time Bishop of Rochester, New York (1979-2012); or José Ornelas, the current Bishop of Fátima, Portugal--just to name a couple.

The pseudo-Catholic Neocatechumenal Way belongs uniquely and firmly in this camp, as well.

And while the Neocatechumenal Way may not exactly be openly bragging about all the young lives they've ruined (as some raving leftists despicably seem to be), they're certainly not pushing for justice for all their victims, either. In fact, some of them even argue that they're the protectors and healers of victims!

Here we examine just a few cases, from all around the world, of the systemic grooming and abuse of minors and young adults within the Way.


In Catanzaro, Italy, an 11-year-old girl (and quite possibly her brother, also) were abused at the hands of a fellow community member. The girl's family had been walking in the Way for 20 years. The girl's father told Gazzetta del Sud, one of Southern Italy's largest newspapers:

"In this system, if you report something as serious as this, you are a traitor who has committed the serious crime of shedding light on a tangle of power and economic interests...

The first person we turned to was the person in charge of the Catanzaro community... he advised me not to say anything to anyone; that perhaps the child was wrong and that I should forgive...

After a few days, three catechists from outside the congregation arrived, and they told me that for the credibility of the journey of faith, for the image of the Church, and for the reputation of the community leader, I should silence everything."

 

In Guam, former Archbishop Anthony Apuron was convicted by a Vatican tribunal on numerous counts of abuse. Apuron abused altar boys for decades, and may have even solicited sex in the confessional. Apuron is a member of the Neocatechumenal Way. He long maintained his innocence (perhaps he still does) and was diligently defended by his high-status cohort of Neocatechumenal allies, including canon lawyer and Pillar co-founder Ed Condon (pictured in the "innocence" link above).

Father Luis Camacho is another Guamanian Neocat. He was arrested for illegally transporting a 17-year-old girl (a member of his congregation) away from her high school and engaging in "sexual contact" with her on a nearby beach. Rather than face any kind of discipline, he was whisked away to Qatar and given an assignment working a youth retreat! (Qatar, incidentally, is part of the Vicariate of Northern Arabia, whose cathedral seat in Bahrain should look awfully familiar to fans of Kikian architecture...) After Qatar, Camacho was sent off to the "banks of the Galilee" where many a problematic Kiko-priest has retreated in disgrace.

Father Adrian Cristobal comes directly from the Apuron stable, serving as the Archbishop's chancellor. Cristobal deflected attention away from Apuron when confronted by his accusers. He deflected attention away from Camacho, saying that he was "being followed psychologically and spiritually" when in reality he was being given a free hand with teenagers in another country. And then, he ran into his own trouble when he was accused of sexually abusing a minor (starting at age 11) for over a decade. Though he was eventually laicized, he has to date not faced justice.

Father John Wadeson is neither Guamanian nor Neocatechumenal, but his story intersects with both. Wadeson is a Divine Word Missionary who was accused of abusing children in California in the 1970s. He found a haven working with Archbishop Apuron in Guam, and was even sent for a time to the "Neocatechumenal Center" in San Francisco. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, his current whereabouts are unknown.

In the U.K., Kevin Woodhouse was 18 when he joined the Neocatechumenal Way. Woodhouse, a homosexual, was kicked out of the Way because he ultimately would not leave his partner. Though no evidence suggests he was ever actively abused, his account of his experiences is enlightening:

"They built up a real dependency culture... There was a big emphasis on money and sex; these were the two sticks they used to beat us with...

It was cringing, listening to other people's confessions. The most amazing things came up. People were asked outright if they were homosexual, how often they masturbated and whether they thought of men or women when they masturbated...

I was close to a nervous breakdown. Everything I believed in was shattered. All the friendships with other members of my NC community were broken. It completely destroyed my faith in Catholicism."

 

In Lima, Peru, Father Víctor Guerrero abused a young man named Camilo, a homeless teenage runaway. Camilo's catechists (among them professional soccer players) told him that "if someone touched you, it's because God allowed it for your salvation." Guerrero proceeded to fund Camilo's increasing cocaine habit on the condition that Camilo keep silent, and he even threatened to cut off the apartment the Way was renting for Camilo if he ever told anyone. The Way's leadership in Peru, led by Arequipa Archbishop Javier del Río, denies any knowledge of a complaint of sexual abuse against Father Guerrero. (The above link is an archived original news article in Spanish. Translations can also be found here (EN) and here (IT)).

Somewhere in Latin America, as this blog recently related, an anonymous 20-year-old woman was raped at a convivence by one of her childhood friends. She was made to apologize to her rapists and was shamed by her community for being the "occasion of sin" and "cause of fornication." Meanwhile, her rapists continued in the Way with the highest standing and utmost esteem.

The disgraced ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick operated in the United States, but regularly traveled throughout the world. A great friend and patron of the Way, one blogger remarks "it is interesting to note that everywhere he visited, the NCW established lasting bridgeheads." It was McCarrick who established the Way in the Turks and Caicos Islands and with them his good friend, the now-Bishop of Las Cruces, New Mexico, Peter Baldacchino. McCarrick, who committed some of the worst crimes in Church history, was welcomed into Washington's Redemptoris Mater Seminary and resided in retirement there until 2009, when Pope Benedict ordered him to vacate.



Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, another great Neocatechumenal patron who opened a seminary for them in his Brooklyn, New York diocese, was accused of molesting two young boys in the 1970s. While it must be noted that DiMarzio was officially exonerated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2021, he remains tied to other related scandals, as well. For instance, he conducted what many believe to be a severely inadequate investigation of sex abuse in the Diocese of Buffalo, New York, then headed by Bishop Richard Malone. Additionally, DiMarzio is alleged to have attempted to bribe a New York State Assemblywoman to remove her support of legislation to revise the statute of limitations on child sex abuse cases. DiMarzio is also a McCarrick protégé, being ordained a bishop by him in 1996 and serving briefly as his auxiliary in Newark before being transferred to neighboring Camden. Exonerated by the Vatican or not, color us skeptical that there might not still be something "off" about this guy... And yet, the Way still loves him.

In Australia, where the Way is beloved of Cardinal Pell, over a thousand abuse cases within the pseudo-Christian sect of Jehovah's Witnesses went unreported. Candace Conti, a former JW from California, was sexually abused beginning at the age of 9. The elders in her congregation knew of this abuse, but it went unreported. As this archived official press release relates, "We are very sorry for whatever harm this young lady may have suffered. However, the organization is not responsible." In the linked article on Conti above, another inter-organizational release (marked "confidential") says "[Elders] must be careful not to divulge information about personal matters to unauthorized persons... Often the peace, unity, and spiritual well-being of the congregation are at stake."

What do these specific cases have to do with the Neocatechumenal Way? Well, nothing... except if you perhaps consider that in 2013, Kiko remarked that "It is what we have said so many times, that God through Jehovah's Witnesses is telling us something." The Kikatechists and the Watchtower Society seem to be two peas in a demented little abuser-sheltering pod.

A personal story: In February of this year, I was at Mass with my family when a 15-year-old girl was invited to give her "testimony" after the priest's homily. Though ostensibly a testimony of the saving power of God in her life, this young girl confessed to the (hopefully and presumably past) habit of masturbation. Her parents were nowhere to be found, and when she returned--alone--to her seat, she appeared suspicious and concerned, as if she were in trouble.

A near-identical event occurred the previous June, that time with a 13-year-old boy. In that instance, the boy was sitting--again, alone--just across the aisle from my family, so I observed much more closely how visibly shaken he was from his experience. In our respective professions, my spouse and I both work extensively with young people and are trained to identify worrying or concerning signs that things may not all be well. Both of these children exhibited some of these signs.

Though 8 months apart, the same priest was celebrating Mass for both children's testimony. In both instances, he actively coached them--during Mass--to summon the courage to tell their stories. After the second incident, I confronted him after Mass, asking him if he was aware that coaching kids to make public statements like that could easily be considered grooming behavior. I later reported both incidents, and this priest, to the sex abuse office of my diocese.

Word got back to the pastor, and I was called into his office to offer my side of the story, as he was professionally required to file his own report of the incident. What I did not expect was to be ganged up on. Both the pastor and another priest challenged my accusation, calling it baseless and defamatory - "God has freed her from this sin, and you are throwing her back into it!" They said if only I knew how often they heard kids talking about it amongst themselves, or how often they brought it into the confessional, I'd understand it's not really so taboo. They laughed at the very suggestion that such testimony was inappropriate, and demanded why I dared to presume to know more than Saint Paul himself, who confessed his own struggles with sin to his flock. I angrily left that office and never returned to that parish. As for my report to the diocese, supposedly (though I never heard officially) the Neocat priests were given a "slap on the wrist" and encouraged to have people "emphasize more of God's mercy" in their testimonies. But of course not a word about immediately ceasing inappropriate public confessions of children. And only the Lord knows what those two kids (and others) may be subjected to behind closed doors.

Oh, and the priest I confronted and named in my official complaint? As of a few months ago, he's "continuing studies" in another diocese 1700 miles away. But I'm sure that's entirely unrelated.

Finally, I relate the experience of a friend and former Neocatechumenal, who attended the 2016 World Youth Day in Poland with her 12-year-old son. While there, she recalls a talk given by a Neocatechumenal priest which graphically described homosexual acts--thankfully not heard by her then-sleeping son, although other young, impressionable people certainly did hear. As her son later told her, however, it was nonetheless on that same trip that he first learned of other deviant sexual behavior from their young travel companions.


An obsession with sex. The most lurid details of your most depraved sins, spilled bare not in front of your private confessor, but amongst the members of your community, and even occasionally the unwitting attendees of Sunday Mass. Candid and often graphic acknowledgments on any occasion of adultery, fornication, masturbation, pornography, and even abortion.

Merriam-Webster defines "groom" as "to get into readiness for a specific objective; prepare."

The Way desensitizes its members--even its youngest, most vulnerable members--to sexual sin. "It's normal. Everyone does it. God forgives and saves you in the end, so what do you have to be ashamed of?" THIS. IS. GROOMING. When you remove all social stigma from depraved sexual acts, you are breaking down people's completely natural and completely necessary alarm mechanisms and defense barriers against those who would will them harm. Even if none of the three priests in my former parish ever lay hands on a child, they are implicitly making it easier for some other creep to do it later.

Urban Dictionary's most up-voted (at least of this writing) definition of
"groomer" is "someone who builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit, and abuse them."

If we consider that all abuse need not necessarily be sexual, and not all victims are necessarily children, then it becomes even more abundantly clear: THE WAY'S ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BUILT FOR GROOMERS AND ABUSERS. No one builds dependency issues and brainwashes quite like Kiko, Carmen, and the Way. And no one manipulates, exploits, and abuses quite like Kiko, Carmen, and the Way.

The Neocatechumenal Way does not care about the abuse of children. It is, as JungleWatch asserted, an "underground syndicate within the Church to move around, protect, harbor, and otherwise keep beneath the radar, problem clerics." But as the cases of the family from Catanzaro and M.E. above illustrate, it doesn't even have to be clergy. Anyone power-hungry and sick enough to buy into the system can participate seemingly at will.

The grooming, the abuse, the hiding and shameless cover-up, the DARVO tactics, the progressive normalization, the indifference, the pay-outs, the power games, and all the sordid baggage in between... This must stop.

Thursday, December 1, 2022

St. Charles vs. Kiko

 

Today, December 1, is the feast of St. Charles de Foucauld - his first since being officially canonized by Pope Francis this past May. We find it appropriate, then, to present an adapted translation of this piece from the Osservatorio, which was published on the occasion of his canonization day.

St. Charles was an authentic apostle of the Gospel who burned with desire to make "his" Jesus known and loved. He lived among the Touareg in the Algerian Sahara:

I live here, a lone European... Happy to be alone with Jesus, only for Jesus.

Like every such event, St. Charles' canonization involved and touched the whole Church, and especially the 19 families of lay people and priests who are drawn to his spirituality. However, there is also an "illegitimate child" who feels involved and almost united with the new saint: Kiko Argüello, founder of the Neocatechumenal Way.

In fact, on the Neocatechumenal Way's official website, an article was dedicated to the canonization of Brother Charles, written by Fr. Ezechiele Pasotti, in which it is stated that, with Kiko, there are "various and profound ties, and they go from the moment of their conversion to the insight of life hidden among the poor, to the way of being 'poor among the poor,' to the 'dream' of an adoration chapel on the Mount of the Beatitudes."

We want to analyze, one by one, these alleged links between the saint whose feast we today celebrate and the one who, with so much insistence, for more than half a century claims to be his faithful imitator.

Conversion

Charles de Foucauld, after an adolescence lived far from the faith and immersed in the pleasures of an easy and comfortable life, began to experience an existential restlessness during a dangerous exploration in Morocco. Returning to France, he continued his research, stimulated by good examples of Christian people.

"I started going to church, without being a believer. I was not happy except in that place, and I spent long hours there, repeating a strange prayer: 'My God, if you exist, let me know You!'"

With the help of a holy priest, Father Huvelin, he found his faith and returned to the Sacraments in 1886 at the age of 28.

"As I believed that there was a God, I understood that I could not help but live for Him alone."

The journey of Brother Charles, from the day of his interior renewal, continued on his passionate search for Christ, lovingly tracing his footsteps one by one, in such a way that his life is both a faithful imitation of Jesus and a loss of himself in the "Beloved."

"I love Our Lord Jesus Christ and I cannot bear to to lead a life other than His... I do not want to go through life in the first class, when the One I love has gone through it in the last class..."

Kiko also had an existential crisis and a conversion, but his goal was not the one professed by Charles de Foucauld, to follow the example of Christ.

He explains later, in his Guidelines for the Conversion Phase (the manuscript of the initial catechesis):

"Jesus Christ is not at all an ideal of life to be accomplished through your efforts...

Many people think Jesus Christ came only to give us a more perfect law than the earlier one and, with his life and his death (especially his sufferings) to give us an example so that we can do the same. For these people, Jesus Christ is only an ideal, a model of life...

If Jesus Christ had come only to give us an ideal for living, how could he have given us such a high ideal, so high, that no one can achieve it?" (p. 118-119)

The Passionist theologian Fr. Enrico Zoffoli commented on this, which he described without hesitation as "nonsense," writing: "Kiko ignores that the Gospel is the existential message that ultimately boils down to the wisest, most loving and heroic following of Christ, pushed to think, feel, live like him, in and for him (Phil 2:5)."

What did Charles de Foucauld think of the possibility and necessity of imitating Christ? He wrote:

"Let us take advantage of the example of the saints, but without stopping for a long time or taking this or that saint as a complete model, and predicting of each what seems to us most in conformity with the words and examples of Our Lord Jesus Christ, our only and true model, thus making use of their lessons - not to imitate them, but to better imitate Jesus."

In fact, he expounded his own spiritual formula in this way:

"Imitation is inseparable from love. It is the secret of my life: I lost my heart for this Jesus of Nazareth crucified nineteen hundred years ago and I spend my life trying to imitate him as far as my weakness allows."

This is how, after having consecrated himself to God as a Trappist monk, thirsty for greater poverty, greater penance, and greater conformity to Jesus, with the approval of his superiors and spiritual director, he left La Trappe and went to Nazareth as a hermit in a monastery of Poor Clares. His aim was to "lead the life of Our Lord as faithfully as possible, living only by manual labor and following all his advice to the letter..."

The idea, the purpose, and the transposition in the life of Brother Charles of Jesus in following Christ and in conforming oneself to him is completely antithetical to that of Francisco "Kiko" Argüello.

Life Hidden Among the Poor

Charles de Foucauld wanted to deepen his vocation through a sort of hermit's life, in prayer, adoration, silent work, and great poverty. This initially took place in the Holy Land with the Poor Clares of Nazareth.

Brother Charles wished to share this "life of Nazareth" with other brothers. For this, he wrote the Rule of the Little Brothers, which he codifies as a "family life around the consecrated Host."

"My rule is so closely linked to the cult of the Holy Eucharist that it is impossible for many to observe it without there being a priest and a tabernacle; only when I become a priest will it be possible to have an oratory around which to gather and only then may I have some companions..."

Returning to his own country again, he was ordained a priest at the age of 43 in the Diocese of Viviers. But, Africa was calling him again and so he went to the Sahara Desert of Algeria, first to Beni Abbès, one of the poorest of the poor, then further south to Tamanrasset with the Hoggar Touareg.

Kiko Argüello, according to the article on the Way's website, followed step by step in the saint's footsteps. The article reports a statement by the Spanish founder:

"De Foucauld gave me the formula to realize my monastic ideal: to live as a poor man among the poor, sharing their homes, their work, and their lives, without asking anyone for anything and without doing anything special."

We do not know exactly what Kiko did together with Carmen in the poor neighborhood of Palomeras in Madrid. What is certain is that they stayed there for a short time, and almost immediately tried to export the experience of "fraternity" - experienced in particular with a colony of gypsies who had settled in that area - in the rich parishes of Madrid. Extreme poverty, after having experienced it for themselves, was by no means their ideal of life. Charles de Foucauld's ideal was very different from theirs!

An example of Kiko Argüello's total indifference to the apostolate among the outcasts of society is his arrival, together with Carmen Hernández, in Italy.

Father Dino Torreggiani, the two Spaniards' first ecclesiastical sponsor on Italian soil, had believed in the authenticity of their vaunted experiences among the poor of Madrid and had great hopes and expectations of them as "apostles of the long-haired" (Hippie sympathizers) who camped out day and night in Piazza Navona.

But Kiko, who landed in the capital for this mission, turned out to be a real disaster. He didn't want to know how to evangelize the hippies: he slept late, went to movies...; as Kiko himself confided to Fr. Cuppini, presbyter in their team before Fr. Pezzi, his "inspiration-aspiration" was exclusively that of going to Rome to get closer to the Pope (and enter into his good graces). [From the book Interview with Francesco Cuppini by Tarcisio Zanni.]

Father Francesco Cuppini himself notes as "interesting" the fact that the first parish "evangelized" by Kiko and Carmen in Rome was that of the Canadian Martyrs. In fact, he writes, "from one who lived in the slums, one could more logically expect an apostolate aimed at the poor, a community of the poor, a bit like Madrid." But, he concludes: "Instead, the Lord here in Rome passed the Way directly from the shacks to the bourgeois." So, according to Cuppini's notion, it was God who wanted it, making the two Iberians' (themselves bourgeois) great love for Marian poverty evaporate in so short a time. It is essential to remember that from this point on, this "breath of life" hidden among the poor will never again be part of the objectives of the two founders of the Neocatechumenal Way.

The Dream of an Adoration Chapel on the Mount of the Beatitudes

Charles de Foucauld wrote:

"...I believe it is my duty to strive to acquire the probable site of the Mount of the Beatitudes, to secure possession of it for the Church and then transfer it to the Franciscans, and then to strive to build an altar where, in perpetuity, there may be celebrated Mass every day, and Our Lord may remain present in the tabernacle..."

On this, the saint reflects and prays so much that he also sets the date: April 26, 1900, the feast of Our Lady of Good Counsel. And he is deeply convinced that his vocation to "imitate Our Lord Jesus as perfectly as possible, in his hidden life" will receive a more radical and definitive consecration here on the Mount of the Beatitudes.

"There I will be able to be infinitely more for my neighbor, for my only offering of the Holy Sacrifice... arranging a tabernacle which, with the mere presence of the Blessed Sacrament, will invisibly sanctify all the surroundings, in the same way in which Our Lord in his mother's womb sanctified the house of John [the Baptist]... as well as with the pilgrims... with the hospitality, almsgiving, and charity that I will try to practice towards everyone."

In this regard, it seems appropriate to remember Kiko and Carmen's contempt for the tabernacle, and their lukewarmness towards the Real Presence and the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Kiko said in the Guidelines for the Conversion Phase:

"We Christians do not have altars in this sense because the holy stone is Christ, the only cornerstone. That's why we can celebrate the Eucharist on a suitable table and we can celebrate in a square, in the countryside or wherever it is suitable. We don't have a particular place where exclusively we should celebrate our worship." (p. 51-52)

And Carmen supported him by declaring:

"I always say this to the Sacramentarians who build immense tabernacles: if Jesus Christ had wanted the Eucharist to be there, he would have made himself present in a stone that doesn't go bad." (p. 329, unedited Italian edition)

She goes on to describe the deviance of

"...the adoration, the genuflections during Mass at every moment, the elevation for all to adore... In the Middle Ages the bell was rung at the elevation, and those who were in the countryside worshipped the Blessed Sacrament." (p. 331, unedited Italian edition)

Given these premises, it is normal that they end up declaring that

"...the conflicts with the Protestants are disappearing because by going to the center, essentially, we will agree with them." (p. 162, unedited Italian edition. Compare with the watered down rephrasing on p. 173 of the approved English edition)

According to Kiko and Carmen, we will agree with the Protestants, not vice versa!

The difference between the vision of Kiko and Carmen, on which they have instructed all their followers and has never been explicitly rejected, and that of Brother Charles de Foucauld is ever more abysmal.

In an open letter, a pained and scandalized member of one of the fraternities inspired by the example of Brother Charles' life expresses well how much the luxurious mausoleum of the Domus Galilaeae--with its circular chapel, weighed down by the Kikian bronze group--corresponds to de Foucauld's ideal.

Finally, after having spoken of the imitation of Christ, of the hidden life with the poor, and of adoration in front of the tabernacle which were the foundations on which Charles de Foucauld was sanctified, and with respect to which Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernández instead chose a path totally at the antipodes, we conclude with Brother Charles' idea of Christian evangelization.

Charles de Foucauld's evangelization is

"not through words, but through the presence of the Blessed Sacrament; the offering of the Divine Sacrifice; prayer; penance; the practice of Gospel virtues; charity, a fraternal and universal charity that shares even the last bite of bread with any stranger who presents himself, and that receives anyone as a beloved brother..."

Learning the Gospel lesson, "Whatever you do to one of these little ones, you have done to me," he always opens the door when someone knocks, breaking his contemplative solitude. He wrote:

"From 4:30 in the morning to 8:30 in the evening, I can't stop talking to, seeing people: slaves, the poor, the sick, soldiers, travelers, onlookers."

His life passed like this, inside his enclosure, without going out to preach, but ready to host anyone who passed by, be he friend or foe.

What a difference with the verbose, redundant, constricting, extravagant, elitist, divisive, noisy, self-referential "evangelization" of Kiko, Carmen, and the Neocatechumenal Way!


Saint Charles de Foucauld, we entrust to you in prayer all those who still believe in the absurd claims of holiness and catholicity of the Neocatechumenal Way as desired by its founders, so that, considering your example and virtue, they reject without further delay the fictions and inauthenticity which keep them bound. Amen.