"Cult Fiction" 20 Years Later, Part 1

Twenty years ago, Graham Moorhouse published "Cult Fiction: The Protestant Cuckoo in the Catholic Nest." This short work, the full PDF of which is linked on our home page under "Other Helpful Sites," was absolutely pivotal in my education about the Neocatechumenal Way. It was the disturbing similarity between Moorhouse's years-old and continents-away experience and my own which made me realize the truth of it all. It has since become one of the first things I recommend people read when inquiring about the Way.

I think it is often the "years old" factor that turns many people off sources of information. "Oh, this was published when? It must be completely outdated and irrelevant by now." With our modern glut of information and facts seemingly changing daily, this is certainly understandable.

So, since this was such a foundational and go-to document for me, and because it is now two decades old, I thought it would be helpful to do a bit of a "retrospective breakdown/compendium" of Moorhouse's work to see how it has withstood the test of time. While the articles may not all run consecutively, my plan is to run a series in 9 parts on this subject.

---

Moorhouse begins with an epigraph from the (pre-approved, unedited) Catechetical Directory. His translation is terse and shockingly direct:

Traditional Christianism, with Baptism, First Communion, Sunday Mass, Commandments of God, was not Christianism. It was dirt. We were pre-Christians. (…) God called us now to found a catechumen movement turned towards rebirth (of real Christianism).

Whether this was the literal text sitting in front of Moorhouse, or whether he did his own editing for effect, I do not know. Based on the unedited Italian edition in my possession, however, the text reads like this:

...deep down we feel we are people vaccinated by a traditional Christianity, and we believe that we are all children of God, that we are all Christians because we have been baptized and made our first communion, we go to Mass on Sundays, we do not steal and we don't kill, so all is well. Thank God that fortunately today things are changing: there are Marxists who do not confess themselves Christian because nothing good has been achieved with this Christianity...

The important thing, brothers, is that something is really changing: we weren't Christians, we didn't know anything about Christianity, we are pre-Christians... we did not bear fruit and our Christianity was disgusting...

God has called us together to begin a catechumenate, that is, a journey towards this encounter, towards a rebirth. (p. 283)

A near-identical version of this passage (conveniently missing the bit about "disgusting Christianity") can be found on page 304 of the Vatican-approved English edition. It comes from an admonition early in the evening of the first night of the initial convivence.

So, while Moorhouse presents a very condensed and slightly edited version of Kiko's words, the message remains essentially the same: what most people believe to be Christianity is in fact disgusting nonsense that turns people into Marxist atheists, and now, thank God, the Way has arrived to lead people to a rebirth of real Christianity.

---

I am not one of those traditional Catholics who believe that everything I disagree with should be suppressed. However, I passionately believe that the dignity of my fellow man is such that when one is asking people or groups to make important decisions about their lives, particularly their spiritual lives, one has an obligation to be honest, everything up front and out in the open, with all one's cards on the table. (Cult Fiction, p. 1)

I absolutely agree with this sentiment. (Although I personally tend to reject the "trad" label in favor of "orthodox.") My initial experiences of the Neocatechumenal Way gave me absolutely no delusion about them being "out in the open," which certainly bothered me, but I was at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Many people, including perhaps you reading this, have similar reactions. That's a big part of why this blog exists: naivete is dangerous.

---

[The Way has] patrons in high places, including the Holy Father, and Rome has recently given them its formal approval... However, the faithful may be excused in these confusing times for taking such ecclesial approval with a very large pinch of salt... This recognition of their movement by Rome is shamelessly exploited by the Neocatechumenate's apologists... Their purpose is to plant in your subconscious the thought that if these come from the Pope they must be okay. (Cult Fiction, p. 1)

Pinch of salt indeed. Moorhouse includes the example of Marie-Paule Giguère and the Army of Mary, which was condemned as heretical by the Church after having previously receiving formal approval. (You can read the 2001 Doctrinal Note of the Canadian Bishops Conference regarding that movement here. I particularly like the part of the closing statement which reads: "It should be obvious that a group can no longer represent itself as truly Catholic when its leaders teach a doctrine that is contrary to that of the Catholic Church." Indeed.)

In our own times, of course, we see pagan goddesses being welcomed with open arms into the Vatican, and German bishops are seemingly allowed to operate in open contempt of Mother Church with no sign of a forthcoming formal correction. If the Neocats carry on their various activities with Church approval, that certainly appears to mean very little regarding their adherence to orthodoxy, despite their vague and baseless claims to the contrary.

---

The biggest difficulty in coming to a balanced opinion about the Way is their institutionalized secrecy. Nothing is written down for public consumption. Their apologists are evasive. Public questions from those attending their introductory meeting are not invited. Questions are deflected ... There is no true dialogue with enquirers. You are expected for the most part to just sit and listen. (Cult Fiction, p. 1)

All 100% true.

The only way to find out much about the Neocatechumenate Way is to question people who have come out of the movement... The only other source of information is that provided by high placed moles within the movement. Fortunately a number of such people in recent years have been prepared to photostat and leak copies of Kiko's and Carmen's teachings... Principal among these leaked documents is the Neocatechumenate Orientation Guide... which is their instruction course for their leaders. This revealing document would not normally be seen by the ordinary rank and file member, let alone the general public. (Cult Fiction, p. 2)

We here at this blog are proud to feature both a former Neocat on the writing team, as well as multiple editions in multiple languages of the aforementioned catechetical guide for primary-source referencing. When I first read Moorhouse, of course, I had access to neither and was just taking his word for it. But coming to rely on both of these sources in later years has proven invaluable.

---

The "sales pitch" to induce you to enter... is all very inoffensive and even attractive to orthodox Catholics - much about the love of God and implementing the reform of Vatican II. You will be beguiled by many personal testimonies from earnest people along the lines, "My life was an utter mess until the Way turned round my life and brought me back to to God and the Church and joy everlasting." (Cult Fiction, p. 2)

Also all 100% true. I can't tell you many times I've heard some variation of that exact testimony. But that also made me suspicious--why does everyone seem to have the exact same testimony? How is it that Christ seems to be working in these peoples' lives in the exact same ways for the exact same problems?

This "orthodox Catholic" was never attracted by it, though. Benefit of the doubt or not, the secrecy and lack of publicly available materials bothered me from the beginning.

Many of them are good earnest people and the Church certainly desperately needs the sort of radical re-commitment to Christ, the faith of His Church and orthodoxy that at first they appear to be preaching, for there will be and can be no new evangelisation without it. (Cult Fiction, p. 2)

Yes, absolutely. This blog has nothing but contempt for the Way's leadership, from Kiko all the way down to his brutish and narcissistic catechists in local parishes, be they laymen or clerics. But the members themselves are often very good people who genuinely desire to love and serve our Lord more deeply. That the leadership takes advantage of this only fuels our contempt.

This short paragraph is also a picture-perfect representation of why so many otherwise good, godly prelates accept and promote the Way seemingly unquestioningly and unhesitatingly (We tend to use Pell, Aquila, and Chaput as the most frequent examples on this site, but there are certainly many others--most especially the two late pontiffs Benedict and St. John Paul).

---

Gordon Urquhart, an ex-member of Focolare (another of the modern movements) wrote a book entitled The Pope's Armada. This book has become the "Bible" of the opponents of the Way. However, Gordon Urquhart is a self-confessed homosexual who also abandoned his wife and three children. Such witnesses are obviously radically disaffected and have a great number of large axes to grind, so need to be treated with a considerable degree of circumspection. (Cult Fiction, p. 3)

To this day, I have not read Urquhart's book (you can find it here, though), nor do I know of anyone who has. In all my research, I have never (knowingly) seen it quoted, cited, referenced, or even recommended. So perhaps it has lost a considerable degree of favor in the last twenty years--because his biases proved too unreliable, or for other reasons.

Bishop Mervyn Alexander famously banned the Way from his Clifton [England] diocese and set up some sort of counselling service for those damaged by the Way. However, Bishop Mervyn Alexander is regarded by many Catholics as a modernist who Protestantised his Clifton diocese with the help of his liberal underlings. His successor, Bishop Declan Lang, a true thoroughbred modernist... has kept these measures in place... Nevertheless, to be fair to both these bishops, the divisions, trouble and indeed widespread anger caused in three parishes in the Clifton diocese by the Neocatechumenate are well-documented matters of public record. (Cult Fiction, p. 3)

I really appreciate what Moorhouse is saying with his points about Urquhart and the liberal Clifton bishops.

With Urquhart, the point is that just because someone may share your critical viewpoint doesn't mean that their information (or their assessment of that information) is good. We should always seek to avoid confirmation bias in our research. For instance, I have come across numerous unflattering articles about the Way in my time. One blog even made some salacious insinuations about Kiko. That blog's author, though, proved to be very much in the "axe to grind" category (about Catholicism more broadly, not the Way specifically) and was almost assuredly writing titillating gossip content for clicks rather than doing any kind of real reporting. You may find that article or its contents reposted elsewhere, but you'll never see it here.

Conversely, just because a piece of information comes from someone we might consider to be an "ideological opponent" doesn't automatically mean it's bad information. Urquhart may have untold numbers of grudges and may be a terrible moral example, but if what he says about the Way is true, who he is as a person makes that information no less true. Bishops Alexander and Lang may be flagrant modernists, but this does not make it impossible for them to render genuine pastoral service (such as expelling the Way and offering counseling for those it traumatized). Credit where credit is due.

Finally, Moorhouse makes the point that many of the Way's opponents at the time of his writing seemed to come largely from the Church's ideological left. This is not a phenomenon I have widely observed in today's Church. I don't think I've ever heard a Jimmy Martin or a Thomas Reese or an Austen Ivereigh or whoever else say word one about the Way, good, bad, or indifferent. In fact, more and more it's exactly the opposite: it's the conservatives and the traditionalists speaking out, such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider. And our friends at The Thoughtful Catholic and the Osservatorio certainly aren't modernists, judging by their content. Your mileage may vary, but I think this is a promising shift, if indeed it is a real shift and not just a few isolated observations.

---

Join us next time for Part 2 on Doctrine.

And, to read other articles in this series, check out: Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9.

If It Walks Like a Cult, Talks Like a Cult.....

Once again I have encountered someone who was in the Way and is experiencing confusion, despair, and ultimately suicidal thoughts.  With permission, I share a brief synopsis of her story, leaving out details to protect her identity.  Even in doing so, this story within the Neocatechumenal Way world is sadly so common, that I question my ability to believe any bishop that says he has a “no tolerance” stance on abuse within the Church.  I suppose these bishops mean more specifically pertaining to sexual abuse, and even then, I would argue that investigations can be generally weak.  

This young woman reported that she had been involved with a Neocat community as her parents had become members.  She increasingly fell more into despair, and finally during the second scrutiny, she ended up hospitalized with thoughts of suicide. Her parents and catechists refused to accept that her mental state was largely attributed to how the Neocatechumenal Way was making her feel about her outlook on life.

It may be easy to trivialize this one brief story as just someone who obviously had mental issues to begin with, or perhaps that it’s the general state of young people today.  My own experience led me to never-before-felt suicidal ideations, and I witnessed an entire charter bus full of young people (numbering 56) for World Youth Day attest that they too had frequent thoughts of suicide (all in the Way, many since birth). 

It would be easy to think that with today’s young people, depression is par for the course.  Post-pandemic statistics show as of February 2023, suicide is the second-leading cause of death among people age 15 to 24 in the U.S. Nearly 20% of high school students report serious thoughts of suicide and 9% have made an attempt to take their lives, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness. While suicide rates are rising among young people, the highest rates are among young adults ages 25 to 34. 

Another woman I encountered inadvertently found herself “walking in the Way” without really knowing she was in the Way, as she was never told what going to the catechesis really meant. She reached out after becoming so full of despair that she began questioning her Catholic faith, her faith in God in general, her marriage, and ultimately the purpose of her own existence. Thankfully, she was able to determine what she had gotten involved with after seeing the Neocat logo on one participant, recalling what others had warned about the Neocatechumenal Way, and was able to reach out to untangle the twisted mess they had made in her mind in such a short amount of time. 

The term “cult” or sect has been thrown around and most come to think of the worst-case scenarios such as the Branch Davidians, Fundamentalist Mormons, or the People's Temple/Jonestown. A Neocat will be quick to say they are in no way a sect or cult (they don’t even like the term movement as that would imply it’s something new within Catholicism and not the “original” Catholic Church as they claim to be).  The Neocat will cite as proof that they have been “approved” by multiple bishops and even the last three popes (you can read more about approval here).  The Thoughtful Catholic does a great break down on cult aspects of the Way (see the main page here, specifically under the sub-heading "Cult or Sect?"), and you can read a 1997 article from Cardinal Schönborn (ironically himself a great patron of the Way) on sects in the Church here.

On a relational level, however, here are my own experiences and observations using an adapted checklist developed by Dr. Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., Executive Director of International Cultic Studies Association. 

• Does your group show unquestioning commitment to its leader, alive or dead? During World Youth Day, attention to the Holy Father’s papal Mass was far secondary to the gathering following gathering of Kiko Argüello in 2016. Of the two World Youth Day events in which we actually participated with other youth from around the world, we were extremely late and on the outskirts. (Read here for more about the humble cult of Kiko). With Kiko’s age and many faux pas of late, however, the community seems to be distancing themselves a bit from senile Kiko.  However, since her death, there is a huge push to get Carmen canonized, and she is even now recognized as "Servant of God". (Read here why that's a terrible idea.)

• Are doubts and questions discouraged or punished? Absolutely discouraged. When I began in the Way, before I even knew I was in the Way, I was simply going along, trusting my pastor, Fr. Felix Medina, and then-catechist Fr. Giuseppe Fedele (curiously now nowhere to be found). Any questions we had we were told would be answered in time.  We were continually kept in the dark, we were just "dumb sheep", and told to follow along. If anyone dared to push for further information, they were belittled in front of the community “the Lord has a word for you and you want to get back to the babysitter!” “The Lord wants to have an encounter with you and you and your job comes before the Lord!” These were just questions regarding when the function, already going past 11 pm might end, or how long we should expect to be gone so as to reconcile work scheduled with a weekend “convivence”. Imagine the scrutiny over less mundane questions! 

• Are mind-altering techniques such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, and sleep deprivation or overworking used in excess (which, unwittingly or not, often serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leadership)? During retreats, convivences, general meetings regarding Kiko’s Advent Letter, Lenten Letter, World Youth Day; the long hours, sitting and listening to the same mantras of how we are shit, but God loves us in our woundedness, brokenness, etc.; well into the night or early morning hours along with the intensely repetitive Way songs, clapping, and drum beats which have me cringe when I hear them today. There is little to no use for silence within the Way; quiet meditation would be filled with some narcissistic catechist bellowing on and on about how we are simply good for nothing.

• Does the leadership dictate how members should think, act, and feel? How they should dress, where they should live, and whom they should marry? We were strongly encouraged to stay with those only among the communities.  Judgment is HUGE.  Any question or complaint would be answered with “why are you judging?!" only to find at the convivence that we were encouraged to air our grievances and, essentially, judge. Oddly, I remember when no one really had anything they felt was bad enough to address, we were told we were being fake, wearing our masks. It was as if the catechists wanted us to hurt each other. 

• Does the group feel they’re on a special mission to save humanity? Do they see their leader as a special being or an avatar?  “You have been chosen, the Lord has called you here for an encounter. To be salt and light”.  If you leave…well, you’re Judas.

• Does the group have an us-versus-them mentality? When you’re in the community, you’re “in the club”. Quite literally, on retreats involving the parish, lists are marked with those “already in community”. We were told to keep things to ourselves as those not walking wouldn’t understand - those of course being the other Catholics from our parish.  Favoritism among the Neocat parish priest was most notable when you were “in” versus when you were “out”. I slowly started to see long-time parishioners who volunteered or worked for the parish replaced with Neocats who you rarely saw at "regular" church Mass or functions.

• Does the leadership induce feelings of shame or guilt in order to influence or control members? Often this is often done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. The “open confessions," whether done one-on-one with a priest but with music playing, or within a scrutiny for all to hear - the Way is insistent on getting to know whatever shame you have.  They will say it is to help you; "peel the onion", so to speak, but there is no absolution from this.  It will be used against you, if not in service of the Way, to label you crazy when you dare to leave. 

• Does the group require members to cut ties with family and friends, or to radically alter the personal goals and activities members had before they joined? The Way will occupy so much of your time that relationships with friends and family outside of it suffer. I justified much of my time away thinking I was working on my spiritual growth, all while neglecting my family and friends.  Heck, those catechists with big families, and small children, how many times, how many hours do they sit through the catechesis, leaving small children at home, sometimes states away?

• Is the group preoccupied with bringing in new members and/or making money? The catecheses target existing and active members of the Catholic faithful. They are not "on mission" except to convert Catholics to the Way.  I once asked why these catecheses continue in the church, not evangelizing those without a church. I was told over time the communities bring in those by invitation, and soon the catechesis engages those outside the Church…this was a lie - the catechesis continues in my former parish to this day targeting regularly attending Catholics.  

Passing the trash bag around (because money is trash and evil, but apparently an important and necessary one) was passed multiple times, without clarity on how much was needed to cover the expenses or how much was gathered - ever.  I asked our pastor how this could possibly be reconciled in an audit and I was yelled at and told the communities give more than any parishioners. "How so? Where is this “collection” in the statements?" No answer. 

• Do you fear backlash to yourself or others if you leave—or even consider leaving—the group? Many people, like myself, joined for a deeper sense of belonging in my parish.  You spend so much time invested with these other people, it is one of the biggest reasons not to leave.  When someone does stop showing up, rightly, they were to be contacted.  I was treated as a leper, told I was weak and couldn't handle it, and looked past as though they never knew me after I left and happened to see them at regular church functions. 

The Catholic Church I know and have grown up with encourages openness and being able to ask questions. That my immediate family should be treated as a "little Church" and that my duties as a parent are the most important tasks God has given to me.  Those in the Way sometimes espouse these sentiments; however, if I excused myself from a community function such as the Eucharist to attend Mass with my family, to attend my child’s game instead of Liturgy of the Word with my community - I was making my family my idol, according to them. When is it going to be enough for more bishops to say no to this?

Belief in the Real Presence is Both Visual and Physical

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

A 2020 American study reports that 70% of surveyed Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence.

One priest, commenting on the belated reaction of the US bishops, remarked, "It is rather like a man being bitten by a shark and only screaming an hour later."

In fact, this lack of faith in the Blessed Sacrament has been going on for half a century--precisely the span of time in which certain "theological lucubrations" took effect, intended to make the people feel more like "protagonists" in the liturgy, that is, to make the liturgy a little self-managed performance: precisely the same mistake that occurs in the Neocatechumenal "small communities."

The author of the article linked above proposes four solutions to buffer the problem:

1. bring the tabernacle back to the center of the church (instead of hiding it in some side chapel)
2. abolish communion in the hand
3. eliminate so-called "extraordinary ministers"
4. restore "kneeling-only" communion

The central tabernacle visually serves to make it clear that God is the "Lord of the house" and it is He towards Whom everything is oriented. The first thing that strikes you is what you see, which is why churches have always historically been beautiful, harmonious, and full of art: beauty will save the world, says Dostoevsky, but that same beauty has already largely contributed to the faith of twenty centuries of Church history.

If the tabernacle is not central, the idea is visually conveyed that the church is a kind of "liturgical hall," a place where "prayer activities" are conventionally held--a reductive concept indeed compared to a "place consecrated by God." And so, in the long run, the sacraments are gradually perceived as mere additional symbols to the liturgical form and the sacred furnishings used.

We recall that in the Neocatechumenal Way, this "liturgical hall" is almost always a small, isolated room that has nothing sacred and is filled only with Kiko-designed gadgets--a small room (or hotel hall) in which to "celebrate" separately (therefore functional to "separate from the Catholics"). As if the Way were a Kikolatric religion completely foreign to Catholicism, of which it limits itself to aping certain formulas and ceremonies.

Communion in the hand, even more than the figure of the so-called "extraordinary minister," visually conveys the idea that the Blessed Sacrament is a kind of "symbolically important snack, perhaps even a little sacred," for which a priest (that is, a consecrated intermediary between man and God) is not even necessary.

And in fact, in the Neocatechumenal Way, the liturgical waiter "will come and serve them," as Kiko says, subverting the principle that only the priest is the intermediary between man and God.

Those who have lost faith in the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist quickly exaggerate the "banquet" aspect (and in the case of the Way, take it to extremes with "seated Communion," as if it were you generously granting an audience to God).

With seated Communion where you are served, the idea is conveyed in particular way that "it would seem bad not to receive Communion" (how many Neocatechumenals loaded with mortal sins make sacrilegious communions!). The idea is transmitted that everything must be festive and convivial (including everyone pretending to be happy to make others believe they are "doing well"). The idea is conveyed that Communion is a "symbol of community unity," rather than the most important moment of your personal journey towards salvation; so much so that in the Way, the particle is eaten "all together at the same time as the priest," contrary to what is provided for by the liturgical documents.

The Catholic way of receiving Communion, that is, on one's knees and on the tongue, made in procession (one goes to receive it), from the priest (rather than from a so-called "extraordinary minister") instead leads the faithful to understand many things. For example:

• The priest is the intermediary between man and God. It was our Lord who instituted the priesthood, in the person of the Apostles, and therefore those to whom the Apostles have transmitted the mandate. No layman should assume priestly prerogatives.
• Only through the priest can you receive the Bread of Eternal Life.
• The decision to receive Communion is your personal free choice--you process for Communion by your own choice.
• Communion is not an obligatory gesture: anyone can decide not to receive, simply by not getting up to go receive it--whether because they may not have a clear conscience, or even just because they plan to participate in another Mass, or have already received Communion in a previous Mass that day.
• It is wrong to consider not taking Communion "undignified" - there is no symbolic representation in doing it "all together."
• You humbly welcome the Lord on your knees, since the Bread of Eternal Life is the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a symbol, and it is not a gesture that symbolizes something else.
• Kneeling (when healthy and able) helps you physically understand the importance of what you are doing and the need to be humble before the Lord.
• Your hands, even if neat and clean, are not the consecrated hands of a priest and are not worthy to touch the Blessed Sacrament. After all, you are receiving Communion for your own salvation, not to perform some pseudo-religious show. The important thing is to eat the Bread of Eternal Life, not to take some kind of "sacred token of sacred presence."

 

On Cleromancy

What is cleromancy? Cleromancy, according to Merriam-Webster, is "divination by means of casting lots." The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us:

All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. (CCC 2116)

This article, describing the practice of divination in the Neocatechumenal Way's Redemptoris Mater seminaries, is an adapted translation of two sources: primarily a detailed correspondence from an Italian Catholic online forum called "Cattolici Romani;" and secondarily from the Osservatorio, who edited and commented on the primary source. Both are from 2012. Our translation largely follows the Osservatorio, with some additional edits and notations of our own. We apologize in advance for the more rambling, less-structured tone of this particular article, as the original author was composing thoughts in a discussion forum as opposed to any sort of clear-formatted essay.

---

This discussion illustrates the Redemptoris Mater seminaries and the liturgy of the Merkaba (from the Hebrew מֶרְכָּבָ֖ה, meaning "chariot"), which in practice appears to be the divinatory art of cleromancy.

The first Redemptoris Mater seminary was erected in Rome in 1988 at the invitation of Pope John Paul II. [Note: in reality, the decree of erection "ad experimentum for three years" is dated February 14, 1988, and is signed by Ugo Poletti (1914-1997), then-Cardinal Vicar for the Diocese of Rome. Before the end of the ad experimentum, on October 1, 1990, Poletti confirmed the seminary's erection. The haste is explained by the fact that on January 17, 1991, Poletti resigned, having surpassed the age limit.]

This event was recorded by L'Osservatore Romano as "the rebirth of an institution, that of diocesan seminaries for missionary priests, which until the 1950s was quite common in many dioceses." [Note: this article in L'Osservatore Romano, published on April 28 1998, page 6, was written by the Neocatechumenal Giuseppe Gennarini, famous throughout the world for his mystifications. As such, it can hardly be considered objective.]

I have known these seminaries personally and they have given me an excellent impression, just as the seminarians have given me an excellent impression, whom I have found very serious, prepared, and of great generosity.

However, for these seminaries a highly questionable liturgy is used, the so-called Merkaba, which left me very perplexed because in practice it would appear to be a real and true divinatory practice, that is, cleromancy. In fact, the candidates who begin the process of becoming priests accept the destination, except in special cases, by lottery.

Basically, these young men, these candidates for the priesthood, do not enter the seminary closest to their own diocese; nor do they enter a seminary of a certain nation, chosen with the discernment of their superiors. Rather, all the candidates beginning their seminary courses gather at a convivence (the Merkaba), and in a special liturgy a drawing of lots takes place in the belief that the city drawn by lot (any city in the world where there is a Redemptoris Mater) is specially chosen by the Lord.

Such a practice is, in fact, a divinatory art, namely cleromancy. I can say with certainty that these candidates, and these priests, possess the conviction that the Lord guides the lots by obtaining the city that represents his will.

This cleromancy is also used for Neocatechumenal families who want to go on a mission. In fact, these families also participate in a convivence, and cleromancy takes place in the liturgy, with the belief that the cities drawn by lot for the missionary families represent the cities specifically chosen by the Lord. However, we will maintain our focus in this article on the seminaries.

As we have seen, although Hebrew terminology ("Merkaba") is used, the belief in lots directed by the Lord is a divinatory art called "cleromancy."

In Hebrew, "Merkaba" stands for "the throne of God" and "the chariot," a means of taking the body elsewhere. Reference is found in the Bible, in Ezekiel, where we find the famous chariot of fire (Ez 1:4-26) and it is configured as a kind of pilgrimage in which the pilgrim assumes the role of traveler towards his home in God.

Obviously in Ezekiel, in Judaism, and in early Christianity, we find no draw and no divination because the image of the Merkaba is only symbolic.

[For a somewhat deeper analysis on Merkaba symbolism, see our previous article on Jewish mysticism.]

Cleromancy, that is, the belief that God draws lots, is an art of divination as old as the world. It has appeared in the Catholic Church several times throughout history, and has always been harshly condemned by the Church [including the passage from the Catechism cited above]. In particular, I would like to report the condemnation of cleromancy by St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, which also cites the condemnations by other saints such as St. Bede, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose.

We read:

If we ascribe it to chance, and this can only take place in “sortilege of allotment,” it does not seem to imply any vice other than vanity, as in the case of persons who, being unable to agree upon the division of something or other, are willing to draw lots for its division, thus leaving to chance what portion each is to receive.

If, on the other hand, the decision by lot be left to a spiritual cause, it is sometimes ascribed to demons. Thus we read (Ez 21:21) that “the king of Babylon stood in the highway, at the head of two ways, seeking divination, shuffling arrows; he inquired of the idols, and consulted entrails:” sortilege of this kind is unlawful, and forbidden by the canons.

Sometimes, however, the decision is left to God, according to Proverbs 16:33, "Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord:" sortilege of this kind is not wrong in itself, as Augustine declares [Exposition on Psalm 31 (30):16; cf. arg. 1].

Yet this may happen to be sinful in four ways.

FIRST, if one have recourse to lots without any necessity: for this would seem to amount to tempting God. Hence Ambrose, commenting on the words of Luke 1:8, says: “He that is chosen by lot is not bound by the judgment of men.”

SECONDLY, if even in a case of necessity one were to have recourse to lots without reverence. Hence, on the Acts of the Apostles, Bede says [Commentary on Acts 1:26]: "But if anyone, compelled by necessity, thinks that he ought, after the apostles’ example, to consult God by casting lots, let him take note that the apostles themselves did not do so, except after calling together the assembly of the brethren and pouring forth prayer to God.”

THIRDLY, if the Divine oracles be misapplied to earthly business. Hence Augustine says [Letter 55, Chapter 20]:

“Those who tell fortunes from the Gospel pages, though it is to be hoped that they do so rather than have recourse to consulting the demons, yet does this custom also displease me, that anyone should wish to apply the Divine oracles to wordly matters and to the vain things of this life.”

FOURTHLY, if anyone resort to the drawing of lots in ecclesiastical elections, which should be carried out by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Wherefore, as Bede says [Commentary on Acts 1:26]: “Before Pentecost the ordination of Matthias was decided by lot,” because as yet the fulness of the Holy Ghost was not yet poured forth into the Church: “whereas the same deacons were ordained not by lot but by the choice of the disciples.” It is different with earthly honors, which are directed to the disposal of earthly things: in elections of this kind men frequently have recourse to lots, even as in the distribution of earthly possessions.

If, however, there be urgent necessity it is lawful to seek the divine judgment by casting lots, provided due reverence be observed. Hence Augustine says [Letter 228], “If, at a time of persecution, the ministers of God do not agree as to which of them is to remain at his post lest all should flee, and which of them is to flee, lest all die and the Church be forsaken, should there be no other means of coming to an agreement, so far as I can see, they must be chosen by lot.” Again he says [On Christian Doctrine, 1.28]: “If thou aboundest in that which it behooves thee to give to him who hath not, and which cannot be given to two; should two come to you, neither of whom surpasses the other in need or in some claim on thee, thou couldst not act more justly than in choosing by lot to whom thou shalt give that which thou canst not give to both.” (ST II-II, Q 95, A 8, co.)

Therefore, reading St. Thomas Aquinas and the whole Tradition (Fathers of the Church), we can affirm that:

--Relying on fate for the things of this world is not a sin. In fact, this action about resorting to chance draws for worldly affairs can only be seen as a lack of virtue, because the inability to agree peacefully is manifested. However, in worldly affairs, it is fully permissible and it is a random draw.

--Relying on the drawing of lots for spiritual things is lawful only and exclusively for exceptional cases of urgent necessity, and Saint Augustine cites examples (see above).

--The gesture of having recourse to lots for spiritual things, without a serious urgency, is to be condemned, as this is reduced to tempting God. Hence the words of St. Ambrose, “Whoever is chosen by lot escapes human judgment.”

--The only case of an election by lot in the New Testament is the choice of the Apostle Matthias, but St. Bede clearly states that Matthias, ordained first at Pentecost, was chosen by lot because the fullness of the Holy Spirit had not yet been infused into the Church; later, however, the seven deacons [see Acts 6:1-7] were called to ordination not by lot, but through the choice of the disciples.

It must be said that in all Redemptoris Mater seminaries, the seminarians are chosen through cleromancy, and I myself heard a priest of these seminaries say: “In this way (lottery) we make Lord choose directly.”

Now let’s try to reason.

If cleromancy were true, that is, if the Lord really intervenes in the casting of lots inserted in a liturgy, why should we waste time with a conclave? A quick cleromancy could be done within a special liturgy and the Pope would be chosen by the Lord himself without wasting too much time.

If cleromancy were true, diocesan bishops could assign their priests to parishes through a quick cleromancy within a special liturgy, in the certainty that those assignments represent the Lord's will.

If cleromancy were true, any Catholic could choose his wife, his university, or his profession through the divinatory art of cleromancy inserted in a liturgy, and in this way he would let himself be guided directly by the Lord, avoiding errors.

The irrationality of cleromancy seems quite obvious to me.

In reality, the Holy Spirit is the One who puts the right cards before men to play, and it is the Christian, in an atmosphere of profound prayer and with the help of spiritual directors, who understands the Lord's will. You can make a mistake in your choice, but the Lord still writes straight with our crooked lines.

The cleromancy of the Redemptoris Mater seminaries, as it is a divinatory art, is contradicted by real life. In fact, I know a seminarian who underwent cleromancy convinced that his destination, a foreign city on another continent, was the will of the Lord. For a while, it really seemed that in that city there were signs that confirmed this will of God, but... Later, due to very serious difficulties, he was recalled to his homeland and, after adequate discernment by his superiors, he was sent to another seminary. Undoubtedly in these cases we find a lot of lost time. Above all, though, is the evident contradiction of the superiors who must intervene to correct the presumed choices of the Lord obtained with cleromancy.

So, there can only be two options: Either God intervenes in the draw, or he does not. Let's consider the choices.

God intervenes. This case is to be excluded and St. Thomas explains clearly why in the Summa. In fact, in that case, we would have irrational consequences. If cleromancy really worked for these seminarians, then it must work for everyone and everything (conclaves, appointments, vocational choices, etc.). But, as we have seen, it would be irrational and anti-Christian to use such a practice.

God does not intervene. In this case the question arises spontaneously: is it convenient to trust one's life to fate; that is, to a draw where the result is not the Lord's will? St. Thomas and the Tradition of the Church, in the text quoted above, also condemn this option. In fact, it would be as if one were entrusting to chance the choice of one's husband or wife, or it would be as if a young person with a religious vocation entrusted to chance the choice of which religious order to join.

It should be noted that the existence of international missionary seminaries fulfills the auspices of the conciliar decree Presbyterorum Ordinis. However, wouldn't it be more appropriate, rational, and Christian to entrust the destination of these seminarians to discernment and collaboration between seminarians and superiors, avoiding cleromancy?

For example, if a young Italian has particular characteristics and a particular attraction to South America, why should a "random" draw send him to Asia? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for his superiors to choose destinations through discernment?

It is very important to underline that cleromancy occurs with certainty, in the sense that this is not an article based on "hearsay." I have personally spoken with priests of these seminaries: the lottery of names within a liturgy most certainly happens. Likewise, it is certain that these priests, seminarians, and missionary families are firmly convinced that the Lord acts through lots (cleromancy).

Furthermore, it would seem that the Magisterium of the Church has never approved this practice of drawing names within a liturgy (with the belief that the Lord manages the lots). In fact, in the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, approved by the Magisterium, we find no trace of the lottery for seminarians, priests, and families. There is no trace of this lottery even in the Statute of the seminaries themselves (Rule of Life of the "Redemptoris Mater Diocesan Seminary" of formation to the presbyterate for the new evangelization).

I have not found this practice in documents approved by the Church. It would be very useful if someone could provide appropriate explanations, and possibly provide documents approved by the Magisterium which explicitly speak of this alleged drawing of lots guided by the Lord.

Surely we find harsh condemnations regarding the drawing of lots (with or without cleromancy) in St. Thomas and in the Tradition of the Church.

I find it appropriate, briefly, to distinguish cleromancy from bibliomancy, as they are very similar divinatory practices.

In bibliomancy, the Bible is opened at random in the certainty that the Lord will give a precise indication of the actions to be performed. For example, a young woman wonders if she should get married or enter a convent, so she randomly opens the Bible and finds the Gospel passage about the wedding at Cana, and believes the Lord wants her to get married.

This is both illicit, because it is divinatory, and irrational. It would be completely impossible to find the precise will of the Lord with this method. In fact, the wedding at Cana could also signify the marriage between the Lord and his Bride, or something else entirely. Whereas, on the other hand, it is entirely legitimate to open the Gospels at random in a prayerful context and read a passage to find enlightenment for one's life (as St. Francis and St. Augustine did), perhaps also with the help of a spiritual director, without any divinatory pretenses.

Returning now to cleromancy. Anyone can call their local Redemptoris Mater and ask for an interview with the rector. I have personally spoken to a seminary rector who told me honestly: "We draw lots to be on the safe side, because we let the Lord choose directly." I listened to a catechist, in person, who said about the families drawn: "They will go where the Lord decides they must go."

I spoke with a seminarian who explained everything about the Merkaba, and told me that the draw manifests God's will. Not only that, this seminarian also confided to me that during the Merkaba, after drawing lots for the city, the seminarian is asked if he accepts or refuses the destination. In case of refusal, the seminarian is seated and his vocational future becomes uncertain.

In summary and conclusion, the drawing of lots - with or without divine significance - is objectively illicit. If a divine value is associated with the draw, we have a true and proper divinatory art: a serious and illegal action. If a divine value is not associated with the draw, we have a more serious action than cleromancy. No serious and prudent superior would throw the spiritual destiny of a young man subjected to him to chance.

If we say that the Lord somehow intervenes in the draw, then we return to the first point, which is cleromancy. If, on the other hand, we say that the Lord will repair any destination that does not conform to the young person's characteristics, then it would essentially mean saying, "we do damage which the Lord will then take care of repairing." Such a practice seems far worse than cleromancy.

It is not true that this practice works. A seminarian friend of mine was tossed around the world without achieving anything, and only after a few years did they realize that he had to be recalled to Italy because he was having enormous problems. Do we want to deny the evidence? In fact, even in this case there is a rationalization: the Lord allowed him to be tossed around the world for a few years without concluding or learning anything because he wanted to put him to the test.

Using the same criterion, a bishop could randomly draw lots for parish assignments in his diocese and then, when faced with an unsuitable priest for a certain parish, the bishop says to the parish: "The Lord permitted it to test you."

With this technique, man can mess up, and then calmly transfer all the blame to God: "It was the Lord; He allowed it."

---

We hope this has given you a clearer understanding of how seminarians (and missionary families) are chosen for the Neocatechumenal Way, and subsequently the process by which most, if not all Neocatechumenal priests have ended up in your local parishes. When taking into consideration that many young men from Neocatechumenal communities are simply told by their catechists that they will be entering seminary, as opposed to discerning a vocation for themselves, you can understand how many priests and seminarians for the Way are less than good fits for the environments in which they find themselves.