Fatalism vs. Freedom

[The following is an adapted translation of a recent Osservatorio article.]

God is omniscient - that is, he knows everything, even the future, and even how we will use our free will. After all, it is God who created us by endowing us with free will, and it is he who created nature, the laws of physics, and all that.

Unfortunately, the Neocatechumenal Way practices endogamy: its followers are induced to "marry the daughters of Israel," that is, to get engaged to and marry only fellow followers of the Way; the alternative is emotional blackmail ("either enter the Way or we break up"). In fact, it is very dangerous for kikolatry when one of the two spouses lives without the Neocatechumenal noose, for it becomes an involuntary demonstration that without the Way, one lives more fully the life, faith, and freedom of the children of God.

So when a Neocatechumenal couple is formed under the auspices of the Way's so-called "catechists," there is a flood of approval and compliments: "your names together were already written in heaven!" Is the implication clear? If you get engaged "in the Way," it is God who wants you to be married (maybe "within the year," before you change your mind). If, on the other hand, you get engaged to a person outside the Way, you must convert him (or her) to the Way, otherwise you go against God - literally believing that the Way is God.

But the expression "your names were already written in heaven" is no less problematic, because it insinuates that God has taken back the freedom he gave you and "planned" for you two to get married. (As if you were puppets. As if the omniscient "knowing what you will do" is equivalent to "imposing what you will do").

The Neocatechumenal mentality, in fact, relies heavily on fatalism, and needs to treat God as if he were Harry Potter with a magic wand. Otherwise, there is the risk that many adepts will choose freely rather than according to the dictates of the so-called "catechists" (charged exclusively with expanding the prestige and coffers of the Way).

Those who choose freely could sometimes be wrong; but whoever chooses according to sectarian dictates is certainly always wrong, because he has "buried his talent". He has delegated the leaders of the Way to decided his vocation, his work, his studies, his interpersonal relationships, his eventual marriage... delegated to those arrogant, stupid, ignorant leaders who have no title before God or his Church.

Worse still (for the Way), those who choose freely could often choose well, because maybe they take God's Word seriously. Maybe they say to themselves, "who's making me do these things to enrich this idolatrous sect?". Maybe they're tired of seeing injustices promoted to protect the sect and its VIPs. Maybe they're starting to no longer believe that the devil is exclusively interested in reducing the Way's money and prestige.

Let us remember that the noble title of "catechist of the Way" does not constitute any spiritual, ecclesial, moral, religious, theological, canonical, or any other type of guarantee. In some rare cases, some so-called "catechist" could take a single Gospel verse to heart, or the fate of the brothers of the communities... but you can be absolutely certain that he has already abandoned the Way, because anyone who even begins to think of taking any Christian virtue seriously already has one foot outside the sect. (And, even in spite of himself, he is an example for those who still don't have the courage to leave it).

It's not that "the Way is not for you;" on the contrary, the Way is not for the Church. It only causes harm.

 

A Neocat New Evangelization

[The following is an adapted translation of an Osservatorio article from October 2018.]

The Neocatechumenals will often blather about the New Evangelization, abusing an expression that marked the entire pontificate of Pope St. John Paul II.

But what is the New Evangelization? The Holy Father explained on several occasions, and in particular on October 12, 1992 during a visit to the Dominican Republic:

"The New Evangelization does not consist in a new Gospel...

The novelty of the evangelizing action to which we have been called affects the attitude, the style, the effort, and the programming--or, as I proposed in Haiti, the ardor, the methods, and the expression...

How can you give a response to today's man that is accessible, penetrating, valid, and profound, without altering or modifying the content of the Gospel message in any way?" (Inaugural Address of the Fourth General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate, §6 & 10)

Previously, in 1991, in his message for World Youth Day in Częstochowa, he specified:

"The mission lands in which you have been called to work are not necessarily located in distant countries, but can be found throughout the world, even in the everyday situations where you are. In the countries of more ancient Christian tradition today there is an urgent need to call attention again to the message of Jesus by means of a new evangelization, since there are widespread groups of people who do not know Christ, or do not know him well enough..." (§3)

Let's stop here and briefly summarize:

1. the New Evangelization does not consist in a new Gospel but only concerns ardor, methods, etc.;
2. the ardor, methods, etc. must not alter the Gospel;
3. the "mission lands" are also our everyday situations and environments;
4. the "mission lands" are also the countries of the most ancient Christian tradition, due to the widespread ignorance in matters of faith.

When the proponents of the Neocatechumenal Way blather about the New Evangelization, they are deceiving you. Indeed:

• despite the big words and proclamations, the Way proclaims an altered and modified Gospel. The self-appointed "initiators" of the Way, Kiko Argüello and the late [and, disturbingly, Servant of God] Carmen Hernández, famously taught errors, ambiguities, and real heresies for half a century, which has been extensively documented by Father Enrico Zoffoli and numerous other authors. It is thanks to ambiguity and money that the Way dodges accusations and punishments. The two "initiators" have never in the slightest corrected the nonsense they have taught.

• for the Way, the New Evangelization consists only in setting up new communities of the Way; all their pompous proclamations ("the parish priest wanted us; we went a the request of the bishop; the Pope sent us!") are just a pile of lies to hide this reality. They have relationships with dioceses and clergy only to the extent that "oiling" is needed, or there is an opportunity to make all the Catholic faithful pay for the self-organized Neocat initiatives.

• despite the misleading staging of the extractions by lot (the Merkaba), the ones "extracted" to go to distant and uncomfortable places are always the smallest and simplest brothers of the community; the Kikian-Carmenian aristocracy, on the other hand, always magically obtains the most comfortable, prestigious, and/or nearby destinations.

• the success of the Way is due precisely to the widespread ignorance in matters of faith. Neocatechumenal cancer has spread thanks to what John Paul II wanted to combat with a New Evangelization: ignorance of the Faith. Those not-entirely-ignorant Christians invited to the so-called "initial catechesis" of the Way sense the scam and do not join. The Way grows only thanks to the weakness of the Church and ignorance of the Faith.

• Kiko has a globe with flags stuck in the countries where the Way is present. It goes without saying that he, like a cartoon supervillain, craves to stick new flags and he would become a furious beast if he had to remove one. So, guess what? There is a Neocatechumenal "mission" even in the tax haven of the "Turks and Kikos" Islands, a country with just six thousand total Catholics which certainly did not suffer from a lack of priests... And do you really believe that the Kikos went there to "evangelize"? Ha ha ha!

• do not listen to the Neocatechumenal fanfare! Their so-called "missions" consist of amateurs in disarray--all smoke and no fire!

What alarmed John Paul II can be understood from his own words: if the novelty of the New Evangelization concerns the attitude, the style, and the effort, it means that he was accusing a wrong attitude and an un-Christian style. If the novelty concerns the ardor, the methods, and the expression, it means that he was accusing a lack of ardor, and bad methods and expressions that didn't previously exist (otherwise they would have already been called out by his predecessors). Let's try to guess: John Paul II really had it against "professional" priests, priests fed up with their "work," sloppy, hurried, devoid of the ardor of faith (and therefore of faith itself!), and who had recently introduced vices and problems that weren't there before.

John Paul II also had it against those "modern" priests and bishops who alter and modify the content of the Gospel message. Maybe they will also be full of ardor, but instead of curing they poison; instead of protecting they devastate; instead of promoting they debase. Anyone who carries on even a slightly polluted faith is not evangelizing, but is doing the devil a favor.

The temptation of the bishops to whom the speech of October 12, 1992 was addressed [and indeed of many bishops today] was [and is] that of trusting "modern" priests fresh from the seminaries such as the Redemptoris Mater. It is the managerial temptation of bishops: to delude themselves that one can turn a blind eye to doctrine and liturgy, as long as the priest is excited and perky and keeps the parish open. John Paul II challenges the bishops to reflect: "How can you give a response to today's man that is accessible, penetrating, valid, and profound, without altering or modifying the content of the Gospel message in any way?"

Clear? John Paul II, in speaking of the New Evangelization, effectively condemned the missions of the Way.

The so-called "missions" of the Neocatechumenal Way are the wrong answer to a real problem. Poison is passed off as medicine. A parasite is peddled as an improvement and a cure.

 

Doctrinal Judgments

Father Enrico Zoffoli (1915-1996) was an Italian Passionist priest who was a notable opponent of the Neocatechumenal Way. This blog has quoted him on more than one occasion, chiefly in our expanded presentation of his letter questioning the Way's possible connections to Freemasonry.

Today we present a list of 20 doctrinal judgments against the Way, attributed to Zoffoli. While we cannot absolutely confirm the origin with Zoffoli (our Brazilian source makes no citations), we nonetheless remain confident in the sound content of these judgments, regardless of who initially postulated them.

---

Declared against the theology of Kiko and Carmen:

It is false that man, even suffering the consequences of original sin, is no longer capable of resisting evil and doing good: his freedom and moral responsibility is indisputable, contrary to Lutheran pessimism.

It is false that the devil, however evil and insidious he may be, can dominate the human will to the point of constraining it to sin, so that the blame does not fall primarily on man.

It is false that man, with the help of grace, cannot and should not fight against his own passions, that is, strive to correct himself and tend positively to the sanctity of his state in life.

It is false that a true conversion involves only the acknowledgment and accusation of one's sins with the hope of God's forgiveness; and does not, therefore, also require contrition and a firm resolution not to sin anymore.

It is false that the recovery of grace does not imply "justification" which is at the same time atonement for sin, reconciliation with God, and real regeneration of the soul, which again enjoys God's friendship and deserves eternal life.

It is false that man, by sinning, does not truly offend God and is not therefore obligated to expiate his guilt, satisfying a grave duty of justice.

It is false that God, demanding such satisfaction through sacrifice, is "cruel." It is also false to say that He does not aim to recover something that man, by sinning, has taken from Him. It is false that man can only harm himself by refusing his only Good. It is false to say that the "satisfaction" to which man is obliged consists in reaffirming the absolute primacy of God and the radical dependence of the creature on Him. Only in this way does he give to God what is God's, and to himself what is his. The duty of justice coincides with that of respect due to the ontological truth of God and man.

It is false that "religiosity," founded on nature and reason, is not true and worthy worship due to God as Creator and Providence, and therefore is not the legitimate and obligatory stage to reach, necessary for man to reach to worship the "living God" of Judeo-Christian Revelation.

It is false that, in the Catholic Church, sacrifice is a residual of a pagan mentality. It would only be that if God, to whom sacrifice is offered, were an idol as He was conceived by classical mythology: jealous and vengeful... the Mosaic Law prescribed an "atonement sacrifice" in addition to others, for which God instituted the "priesthood." Why shouldn't the Church have it as the supreme act of worship?

It is false and blasphemous to assert that Jesus, the Incarnate Word, did not redeem sinful humanity, expiating its guilt with the Sacrifice of the Cross.

It is false and offensive to deny that he presented himself as the supreme and only model of life, and that salvation is possible only for those who strive to imitate his example.

It is false to teach that Jesus, in order to continue his salvific mediation on earth and apply to future generations the merits of his Sacrifice of atonement and redemption, did not establish the Church as a hierarchical society, that is, visible and juridically organized.

It is false to believe that the powers he conferred on the Church are not based solely on the sacrament of Holy Orders, that is, on the ministerial priesthood, essentially distinct from the common priesthood of all the baptized.

Above all, it is false to think that the most sublime and characteristic act of Catholic worship is not the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a bloodless renewal of the unique, perfect, and unrepeatable Sacrifice of the Cross. Only by dying did Christ redeem the world, not by rising again, as only by participating in his death can man merit life in his soul (that is, grace) today, and tomorrow the resurrection of the body.

It is false that the Mass is not the sacrifice par excellence, but that it is only a "fraternal banquet"; it is undeniable that this - that is, Eucharistic Communion - derives its meaning and sanctifying efficacy from the participation of the faithful in the Sacrifice of Christ, represented in the distinct consecration of the bread and wine, performed on the altar by the ministerial priest, not by the community, whose eventual absence does not render the Eucharistic celebration invalid.

It is false that the consecration of bread and wine merely gives these elements a new meaning, leaving them essentially unchanged; in fact, consecration makes those elements the Body and Blood of Christ by virtue of the absolutely unique miracle of transubstantiation.

It is false that, after consecration, there are only signs on the altar of the Body and Blood of Christ, and not both truly, really, and substantially present, that is, the same integral humanity assumed by the Word. We do not worship "the sign," but the Meaning; not the "symbol" of Christ, but his own divine Person.

It is false that Eucharistic Communion does not require sacramental Confession of mortal sins, or that even an act of perfect contrition is sufficient to receive it worthily. It is also false to assert that it is not the confessor, the priest, but the community that reconciles the sinner to God.

It is false that God forgives and saves everyone: he forgives only those who regret having offended him; and only those who, cooperating with his grace, die in peace with him are saved. Hell is very real for the obstinate sinner who dies in the state of final impenitence.

It is false that we should not imitate the virtues of Christ and strive for holiness, possible through the exercise of asceticism and the voluntary practice of the evangelical counsels. The inner purification that follows is indispensable to avoid purgatory.

 

Ogni Qualvolta

[The following is an adapted translation of a recent article from Crux Sancta.]

It never ceases to surprise me that the Neocatechumenal Way's most important papers and documents are plagued with inaccuracies, mistakes, and gross errors. It cannot be coincidence, because chance does not exist for the believer, so something must intend to say and mean so much blunder.

On this occasion, I am going to point out some faults of one of the most hackneyed and oft-cited documents of the Neocatechumenal Way: Ogni Qualvolta.

For those who do not know, Ogni Qualvolta - a name which comes from the first two words of the Italian text - is a letter in which Pope John Paul II, after a series of justifications, made it clear that he recognized the existence of the Neocatechumenal Way.

Period. Only that: not on his own initiative, but at the request of a third party - from Kiko, according what is said here (see the bottom of page 3).

On August 30, 1990 - that is, a little more than two decades since the official birth of the Way - the Pope sent a letter to the then-ad personam manager of the apostolate of the Neocatechumenal communities, a letter in which he let his brothers in the episcopate know that yes, he was aware of the existence of what insisted on being a movement or an association (contrary to the words of the Pope himself, by the way).

The letter, therefore, does not come from the Pope and is also addressed not to the NCW - which would be the case if it contained an approval, which some falsely claim - but to Bishop Paul Josef Cordes, Vice President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity.

And here, in the addressee, is the first weird thing.

The letter is published in Italian, Spanish, and English. In the Italian and English versions, the addressee is not only in charge of the apostolate of the Neocatechumenal communities (he was from 1980 to 1995), but he is also Vice President of the Pontifical Council of the Laity, which is a more substantial position. But in the Spanish version, mysteriously, Bishop Cordes is nothing for the PCL - that is, his position in said Council does not appear in the letter.

• 

• 

• 

Amazing.

Then, almost at the end of the letter, we find the paragraph that so many Neocatechumenals quote--or rather, misquote.

...having seen the documentation you have presented: accepting the request addressed to me, I recognize the Neocatechumenal Way as an effective means of Catholic formation for society and for the present time.

It is important here to highlight a key word that, while absent in English, appears in both Spanish and Italian.

In Spanish: "reconozco el Camino neocatecumenal como un itinerario de formación católica, válida para la sociedad y para los tiempos de hoy."

And in Italian: "riconosco il Cammino Neocatecumenale come un itinerario di formazione cattolica, valida per la società e per i tempi odierni."

The word, of course, is "valid." The Pope recognizes the Way as an itinerary of Catholic formation, which is valid for society and for the present time.

In English, we lose not only the word itself, but also the wonderful fact that it is a gendered adjective. As a feminine, it indicates that the validity for society and for today's times refers to Catholic formation (a feminine noun), not to the itinerary (a masculine noun).

In other words, John Paul II never recognized that a certain itinerary was valid for society and for today's times. What he recognized is that Catholic formation is valid for this society and for these times, and that the NCW is a path of Catholic formation (at least, that's what they made him believe).

Therefore, what JP2 declares is that the validity for society and for today's times lies in Catholic formation and only in Catholic formation, not in the itinerary itself.

But this, which is true, must hurt some sensitivities, so they distort the letter in a foolish attempt to transform the written word into a false approval of absolutely everything, that exists only in some Kiko-tized minds.

But wait, there's more.

John Paul II wants the bishops to "appreciate and assist" this work, provided that it is "in a spirit of service to the local ordinary and of communion with him, and within the unity of the...Church."

It is obvious that it could not be otherwise, no matter how much some gnash their teeth, squirm, and invent persecutions.

And the note at the end of the letter is no less interesting:

The Holy Father's intention in recognizing the Neocatechumenal Way as an effective process of Catholic formation, is not to give binding instructions to the local Ordinaries but only to encourage them to give careful consideration to the Neocatechumenal Communities. However, he leaves it to the judgment of the Ordinaries to act according to the pastoral needs of their own dioceses.

That is to say: full freedom for the bishop who deems it convenient to close the door of the diocese in their faces. Or, to put it another way, the bishop who decides that the NCW is superfluous in his diocese is certainly not possessed.

And once again, it is curious that this note appears in the Italian and English versions, but for inextricable reasons it has been lost and vanished in the Spanish version.

• 

• 

• 

Why is it that error and concealment are inseparable from the Neocatechumenal Way?