Where do Rome and the Neo-Catechumenal Way Stand In 2006?
by Mark Alessio
Editor’s note: The Neo-Catechumenal Way is one of the largest and most powerful of the “New Ecclesial Movements” that have sprung up in the Church over the last 40 years. Mark Alessio had been a member of “the Way” for seven years, and gives a true picture of the doctrinal heresy and bizarre practices that are constitutive elements of this group. Mr. Alessio also explains that the reported “Vatican crackdown” on “the Way” is nothing more than a slap on the wrist that leaves the doctrinal aberrations and other strange practices of “the Way” untouched.
In his 1999 Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia in America, Pope John Paul II described the underlying principles of the New Evangelization as “a commitment not to a re-evangelization but to a new evangelization: new in ardor, methods and expression.”
Far from being a “reintroduction” (or “re-evangelization”) to that rock-solid Apostolic Faith which has withstood the passage of the centuries and every attempt to blot it from the face of the earth, the New Evangelization is just that, “new.” New and “improved”. It is the mantra of Madison Avenue, hijacked by those dedicated to keeping alive the myth that the Second Vatican Council was the best thing to happen to Roman Catholicism since the Resurrection.
Since 1996, I have written a series of articles for Catholic Family News on the Neo-Catechumenal Way (NCW),1 one of the major forces in the New Evangelization. At one time, I was quite an active member of “the Way.” During my association with it, I was a catechist (part of a team sent out to parishes to form new NCW communities), the “co-responsible” of a community (which meant I would lead the group if the “responsible” was not present), a cantor (one who played guitar and sang during NCW liturgies), a seminarian (who attended the NCW Redemptoris Mater House of Formation in Newark, NJ) and an “itinerant” (who worked with NCW “mission families” in Wheeling, WV and Pittsburgh, PA).
On November 19, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI received Neo-Catechumenal Way founders, Kiko Arguello and Carmen Hernandez in a private audience, after Kiko had participated as an auditor in the recent Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist. According to this report, the NCW subsequently issued a statement, on November 22, 2005, in which Kiko and Carmen said that “the Pontiff had expressed his support for their efforts, especially a project to spread the Gospel in the most de-Christianized regions of the world, and in particular in Europe.”
A month later, in mid-December, Arguello and Hernandez, along with Italian priest Mario Pezzi, a member of the international team responsible for the Neo-Catechumenal Way, received a two-page letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Dated December 1, 2005, the letter begins:
“Following the conversations with this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist in the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way, in keeping with the guidelines issued in the meeting with you on November 11 of this year, I am to inform you of the Holy Father’s decisions.”
Some of the concerns raised in Cardinal Arinze’s letter are:
• The Neo-Catechumenal Way must enter into dialogue with the diocesan bishop in order to make it clear that the community of the Neo-Catechumenal Way is incorporated into the parish — even in the context of the liturgical celebrations. At least one Sunday per month, the communities of the NeoCatechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish — community.
• As for any admonitions issued before the readings, these must be brief.
• On the exchange of peace, permission is granted to the Neo-Catechumenal Way to continue using the indult already granted, pending further instructions. [In the NCW Eucharist, the Kiss of Peace occurs before the beginning of the Offertory.]
• On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neo-Catechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion.
Just what is the import of Cardinal Arinze’s letter for the future of the Neo-Catechumenal Way?
The World According to Kiko & Carmen
 |
|
|
Primitive man, say Kiko and Carmen, “has always met phenomena, things superior to him: storms, illness, death, etc., and he found it necessary to find shelter, to stop in some way these powers which were superior to him.” In an effort to appease these superior forces, man “created a religion, and he built a temple and an altar and put a priest there.” With the acceptance of Christianity under the Emperor Constantine, hordes of improperly catechized pagans swarmed into the Church, bringing with them their pagan beliefs, particularly the idea of fear-induced blood sacrifice to gain the favor of higher powers. These examples of “natural religiosity” infected the celebration of the Mass, so that it, too, became an example of offering things to God to appease Him. As a result, say the NCW founders, “there’s one thing that this mass of pagans are going to see in the Christian liturgy: the idea of sacrifice. It’s a total regression to the Old Testament which Israel itself had outgrown.”
Such is the false history of religion and the development of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, according to Kiko and Carmen. The following quotation for catechesis ... from their Schema for Catechesis (the centeral text that contains the “doctrine” of the neo-Catechumenal Way) is a further example of their utter contempt for the Mass of the Ages:
“So we see a whole series of ideas entering the liturgy from the natural religions: offering things to God to placate Him, sacrifices, lambs, offerings, etc. Israel too did this sort of thing in their sacrificial cult, but little by little God had brought them from sacrifices and temples toward a liturgy of praise glorifying and to the great spirituality of the Passover. The new people in the Church then returned to what the people of Israel left behind, the pagan rites appear in the Christian liturgy.”
In fact, so abhorrent to them is the doctrine of the Mass as “unbloody sacrifice,” that they ask:
“Perhaps God requires the blood of His Son, His Sacrifice, to appease Himself? But what kind of a God have we done [sic]? We have arrived to think that God appeases His Wrath in the sacrifice of His Son in the manner of the pagan gods.”
In the world-view of the NCW founders, the Mass quickly degenerated from a fervent and inspired banquet of praise to a static, superstitious routine filled with destructive images of “sacrifice.” Thankfully, the NCW founders happened along in the 20th Century to take over and set the Church back on course, via a “Eucharist” (the NCW founders seem to scorn the term, “Mass”) which at-tempts to recover the supposed joy of the primitive Christian “banquets.”
This makes the recent news that the Neo-Catechumenal Way must adjust its liturgical practice to the general norms of the church doubly interesting. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, goes the old Latin saying. Our prayer and liturgical life will both reflect and influence our beliefs. A short journey through a NCW “Eucharist” vindicates this saying with a room to spare.
A “Closed-Door” Liturgy?
The NCW “Eucharist” is, at best, a man-centered modern liturgy. It is filled with the chatter of human voices, human whim and human opinion, a gathering where the import of Calvary is secondary, if considered at all.
These liturgies are held on Saturday evenings and, during the previous week, a team from one of the NCW communities is chosen to “prepare the Eucharist.” The team meets at the home of one of the members and goes through all of the Mass readings. Then, it is decided who will do the actual readings on Saturday night, and who will deliver the “admonitions,” (hopefully) brief introductions to the readings.
On Saturday night, there is always a flurry of activity prior to the NCW “Eucharist.” While the table is being prepared with linens and flowers, the cantors will be off to the side, rehearsing the songs (all composed by Kiko Arguello) for the night. Meanwhile, the clanging of folding-chairs fills the air as seating is arranged.
 |
|
|
If all this were taking place in an auditorium, then the noise level would mean nothing. But, more often than not, it occurs in the church sanctuary, only a few feet away from the Tabernacle. For the most part the Blessed Sacrament is virtually unheeded, invisible amid the voices, laughter, and hustle-&-bustle.
These Saturday evening Eucharists are what prompted the decision expressed in Cardinal Arinze’s letter that, “at least one Sunday per month, the communities of the Neo-Catechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community.” One of the most insistent claims made against the Neo-Catechumenal communities by outsiders is that they are “elitist,” locked away behind closed doors and aloof from the parish at large. In an interview with 30 Days, Kiko replied to this accusation:
“We don’t do the liturgy behind closed doors. It’s simply that we have a course to follow. If one goes to university one knows that there’s a first year, a second year and so on. And I suppose that sophomores know that they’re not going to be put in the fourth year but in the first. We too have a course with stages, two periods. The early catechumenate had first a pre-catechumenate, then the catechumenate, election, and neophytism. All terms that indicate moments of passage.”
Kiko goes on to say that “lapsed and secularized people, people who have abandoned God, are dead inside .... they don’t understand the effort we make to bring the lapsed back to Christ and they’re scandalized by Sunday Mass being celebrated in community on Saturday evening with all the richness of the signs wished for by the Council (for example, communion under the two species of bread and wine, as we’ve been granted by the Holy See).”
If you question the NCW’s liturgy, then, you are “dead inside.” But, is the NCW Eucharist a private affair? Recall that this Eucharist is a fabricated event tailored for those who have undergone the eight-week NCW catechesis and have subsequently joined a NCW community. During that initial catechesis, the budding neo-catechumens have been introduced (and rather heavy-handedly so) to Kiko and Carmen’s view of the Mass, with its insistent demeaning of traditional Catholic doctrine and liturgical norms. In fact, during the weekend-long “convivence” which caps the eight-week period, an entire afternoon is spent on the Mass, including a lengthy lesson on the Passover Seder, just in case no one “gets” the connection. Meanwhile, since day one, the potential recruits have learned and sung Kiko’s songs and been subjected to that unique vocabulary which all subcultures seem to acquire. By the time one has actually joined a NCW community, the methodology, songs, language, etc., have become very personal things.
A new face at a NCW Eucharist is briefly tolerated. Boyfriends invite girlfriends. Girlfriends invite boyfriends. Parents invite grown children, etc. The newcomer is welcome, but only as a potential member. It is expected that, bowled over by the power of the liturgy, he or she will hie themselves to the nearest catechesis and dig in their heels. Until then, it is usually recommended that the newcomer remain apart, since only the eight-week catechesis will unlock for him the “richness of the signs” that have been “recovered” by Kiko and Carmen.
In the long run, what will the new guidelines stating that “at least one Sunday per month, the communities of the Neo-Catechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community” achieve? What can it achieve? At bottom, at least one Sunday per month means only one Sunday per month. How this is supposed to “incorporate” the NCW into the parish is anyone’s guess. The fact is that many NCW members are involved in their parishes, outside of their time spent in their NCW communities. In fact, NCW catechists have been asked to run RCIA and pre-Cana classes. Yet, except in cases where the Neo-Catechumenal Way has completely taken over a parish — yes, it happens, more times than one would imagine — this intermingling of community and parish is of little consequence.
“Wake Up!”
Another point raised in Cardinal Arinze’s letter states, “as for any admonitions issued before the readings, these must be brief.” The “admonition” is a staple of all NCW liturgies — Eucharists, Penance Services, weekday evening community gatherings, etc. I delivered my share of them, to be sure.
Once the NCW “Eucharist” is under way, each one of the readings is preceded by an “admonition.” Technically, the name says it all. These are supposed to be very brief “calls to attention,” so to speak. The idea is to invite the assembly to listen carefully.
To call the admonitions “distracting” is to belabor the obvious. As if the constant parade of admonishers and readers to and from the lectern were not enough, the actual content of each admonition leaves the listeners at the whim of their “brothers and sisters.” Admonitions can drag on, becoming longer than the Scripture readings themselves. They can range from the well-thought-out to the ridiculous, wherein people offer their own ideas on “God,” or shout for the people to “wake up!”
There is no need for these admonitions, but they do get people “involved.” They also confer a “unisex” quality to the NCW proceedings. For a seemingly conservative bunch who staunchly object to women priests and altar-girls, the NCW brain-trust has no problem with an integrated liturgy. But, then, to Kiko and Carmen, the very idea of the Sanctuary as a unique, sacred space in which is preserved and protected the very Heart of the Catholic Faith is merely superstition, a holdover from those ancient times when the pagans “created a religion, built a temple and an altar and put a priest there.”
No Eucharist Without the Assembly?
After the Gospel is read (or sung) at the NCW Eucharist comes a period of “sharing.” During this time, anyone in the assembly may speak up and relate how the night’s readings have spoken to him or her. This period of sharing lasts as long as there are people who wish to speak. You can only imagine how lengthy it can run at events where hundreds of NCW members gather for special convivences! It is only after the sharing has ended that the priest’s homily can commence.
Once again, during the sharing the assembly becomes a captive audience to the whims of the speakers. For every person who actually bothers to cite the night’s Scriptural readings, a host of others will prattle on and on about the most mundane subjects: a husband and wife argued in the car on the way to the Church; someone hates her job; a dad feels bad for yelling at his kids. I recall one person sharing on the Gospel episode of the feeding of the five-thousand. This person informed the assembly that it was no miracle at all. You see, Jesus’ words were so persuasive, that all those in the crowd who were hoarding food decided to share it! What was especially striking was that the priest said nothing to correct this unfortunate soul.
This display of commiserating and theorizing fits in perfectly with Kiko and Carmen’s theory of the Real Presence, and its unimportance in the long run. The vital “sacrament” in the NCW is the assembly. Perhaps, the most damning heresy spouted by the NCW founders is Carmen’s opinion on the relative importance of the Real Presence as opposed to the assembly:
“So we’ve got the assembly that meets. Nobody thought in terms of an individual rite. The Hebrews cannot celebrate a Passover unless there are at least eleven people in the family. For the sacrament is not only the bread and wine but also the assembly, the whole Church which proclaims the Eucharist. Without this assembly proclaiming the Eucharist there can be no Eucharist.”
Without this assembly proclaiming the Eucharist there can be no Eucharist. To the NCW founders, there is no intrinsic value to the Mass. It receives its power and its very reason for being from the assembly. A priest saying Mass by himself in order to make reparation to God and implore blessings for the world might just as well be playing solitaire.
One can only state that without this assembly proclaiming the Eucharist there can be no Eucharist if one sees the actual Eucharistic Species (bread and wine) as dispensable. Carmen certainly leans in this direction. She speaks of the “problem” of the Real Presence. Described as “an obsession as to whether Christ was in the bread and wine,” this problem was caused, says Carmen, by the theologians of the 16th Century, whose work she dismisses as “mental gymnastics with little biblical experience of where the Eucharist stems from.” So much for the theologians of Trent and the infallible dogmas of the Council of Trent! Carmen continues, letting us know in no certain terms where her doctrinal allegiance lies:
“The mystery is centered in the Presence; the Protestants say this, Calvin says this. And the Catholic Church gets such an obsession over the Presence that for the Church the whole thing becomes the real Presence.”
The NCW “Eucharist” is the perfect vehicle by which to give form to Kiko and Carmen’s liturgical agenda, an agenda based on a willful rejection of infallible Catholic doctrine that Catholics must believe for salvation. Jesus Christ is mentioned very often in the NCW Saturday night liturgy, but it is the men and women of the NCW communities who rule therein. In fact by the time one gets through the admonitions and the post-Gospel “sharing,” the distribution of the bread and wine seems like an afterthought.
“Nor Do We Have Priests ...”
Cardinal Arinze’s letter also addresses the manner in which the NCW communities receive Holy Communion. The communities have been granted a period of transition (not exceeding two years) during which time the members of the Neo-Catechumenal Way must pass “from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion.”
In the NCW Eucharist, actual bread is used for Communion. During the initial eight-week catechesis, potential NCW members are taught how to make the bread. The method involves special prayers, special symbols etched into the bread with a fork, etc. During the distribution of Communion, the community remains seated, as the bread and wine are brought to each individual by the seminarians or acolytes. Yes, it is “Communion in the hand,” of course. And, depending on the consistency of the bread, its fracturing can cause numerous crumbs and particles to fly everwhere.
Putting aside the fact that the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion today includes this spiritually destructive practice of “Communion in the hand,” there are other aspects of the NCW method of receiving Holy Communion that are worthy of mention. Of particular interest is the jettisoning of the “priest’s Communion.”
Remember that in his brief history of humanity, Kiko described the ancient, fearful, superstitious pagan. Terrified of forces beyond his control, this pagan invented religion. Into this religion, he placed altars and priests. Here’s Kiko again:
“In Christianity there is no temple, no altar, no priest in the sense of religiosity .... The temple in Christianity are the Christians ... Neither are there altars in the sense of sacred stones which no one can touch or go near to .... Nor do we have priests in the sense of people whom we pick out from among men so that in our name they may get in contact with the Godhead. Because our priest, who intercedes for us, is Christ. And since we are His Body we are all priests.”
Sacred spaces, such as a church sanctuary: OUT! Altar stones: OUT! Priests as mediators, acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ): OUT! This disdain for the Catholic priesthood is made concrete in the NCW Eucharistic liturgy, for here, the “priest’s Communion” is omitted. Although the “presider” or “presbyter” is the first to receive Communion, he must sit there patiently until everyone present is cradling his or her piece of bread. Then, everyone eats together. Buon appetite!
One does not need to delve into pre-conciliar documents to find an adequate condemnation of such anti-clerical sentiment. On the contrary, we need only travel back to January 31, 1994 and the Congregation for the Clergy’s Directory on the Ministry and Life of Priests, approved and authorized by His Holiness Pope John Paul II, an uncritical supporter of the Neo-Catechumenal Way. We read therein the following:
“If the priest lends to Christ, Most Eternal High Priest, his intelligence, will, voice and hands so as to offer, through his very ministry, the sacramental sacrifice of redemption to the Father, he should make his own the dispositions of the Master and, like him, live those gifts for his brothers in the faith.”
If the ordained priest offers, “through his very ministry, the sacramental sacrifice of redemption to the Father,” then why does Kiko teach that “we do not have priests in the sense of people whom we pick out from among men so that in our name they may get in contact with the Godhead?” If the priest is, indeed, acting in persona Christi, then why is his own Communion merged into that of the assembly at a NCW Eucharist, as though his role therein merited no special reverence or moment?
Far from being a minor detail, this axing of the “priest’s Communion” speaks volumes concerning Kiko and Carmen’s perception (or non-perception) of the sacramental realities of the Catholic Faith. Compare their attitude with that expressed by St. Alphonsus Liguori in his book, The Holy Eucharist:
“It will be found likewise to contribute very much to keep fervor alive in the soul, often to make a spiritual Communion .... This spiritual Communion may be practiced several times a day: when we make our prayer, when we make our visit to the Blessed Sacrament, and especially when we attend Mass at the moment of the priest’s Communion.”
Another novelty included in Kiko and Carmen’s erector-set Eucharistic liturgy is the absence of the Domine, non sum dignus (“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you”). When everyone is holding his or her chunk of bread, the priest says “This is the Lamb of God ... happy are we who are called to His supper,” and everyone digs in. Perhaps a mention of one’s sinfulness smacks too much of the “fearful pagan.”
I recall an incident that occurred while I was a NCW seminarian. It certainly highlights the rather condescending attitude towards the ordained priesthood that underlies the NCW philosophy. Apparently, a woman had asked our seminary rector to bless a medal. Afterwards, speaking to the assembled seminarians, the rector told us that, if asked by an outsider, a NCW priest should bless a medal, but otherwise, that type of thing is something we really don’t do. Translation: Humor the superstitious imbeciles. We know better, don’t we?
The influence that the upper echelon NCW catechists have on priests in “the Way” can not be overestimated. When I was an “itinerant seminarian,” working with NCW “mission families,” our group was accompanied by a very kindly priest, who once said to me, “Wherever Kiko sends me, that is where I’m supposed to be.”
The Neo-Catechumenal Way Responds
On January 1, 2006, the Neo-Catechumenal Way responded publicly to Cardinal Arinze’s letter. The response arrived in the form of a Zenit interview with Giuseppe Gennarini, the “responsible” in charge of the NCW for the entire United States.
While some conservative-minded Catholics have spun Cardinal Arinze’s letter into the news that Pope Benedict XVI was, somehow, cracking down on the Neo-Catechumenal Way, Giuseppe Gennarini perceives the opposite. “This letter,” he said, “is a very important step within the process of approval of the Way.” Thus, far from being a rebuke, Gennarini views Cardinal Arinze’s letter as an important step taken by the Vatican in favor of full recognition of the Neo-Catechumenal Way:
“The catechetical content of the Way in its itinerary of Christian initiation was studied in detail by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then led by Benedict XVI, who approved it with very few adjustments.
“After the approval of the method and the statute, the next step has been the study of the liturgical adaptations present in this liturgical-catechetical reality, a process which has concluded with this [Cardinal Arinze’s] letter.”
If anything, Cardinal Arinze’s letter vindicates more than it questions concerning the NCW liturgical practices. Closed Saturday night Eucharists will continue, as will the use of “admonitions” and “sharings.” The current NCW practice which places the Sign of Peace before the Offertory will also continue.
As for Cardinal Arinze’s comments concerning the NCW’s handling of Holy Communion? Mr. Gennarini’s analysis tells us that the NCW has little to fear in this regard:
“The way of distributing Communion as it currently takes place, is allowed for a long period of time, if only ad experimentum. Such a grant shows that this practice is not irreverent, but fully legitimate, as can be attested by anyone who participates in a Eucharist of the communities.
“This concession is written within the context of the final approval of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way, which are right now approved also ad experimentum. When this period ad experimentum ends, the interdicasterial commission of the five congregations which approved the statutes ... will verify the necessary adaptations.”
Not only does Mr. Gennarini use the Cardinal’s letter to vindicate the “reverence” and “legitimacy” of the current NCW sacrilegious practice, but, by placing any “necessary adaptations” to this practice into the framework of the “final approval of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way,” he artfully paints a very positive picture of Rome and the NCW working in tandem to give the Neo-Catechumenal Way that final push into full legitimacy.
When asked by the Zenit interviewer, “What is the significance of [Cardinal Arinze’s] letter for the Way,” Gennarini replied:
“For the first time, the Holy See has accepted several variations to the way the Eucharist is celebrated within the context of the Neocatechumenal Way, as licit adaptations to help contemporary man to better receive the grace communicated by the sacraments.
“To the best of my knowledge, this is the only case in which the Holy See has granted such an explicit permission to an ecclesial group.
“Until now we had done so with verbal authorization from the [Vatican] congregation, but not in writing. In fact, John Paul II had always supported this — concept, and he even expressed it in his apostolic letter Dies Domini, in which he spoke about the possibility that ‘in view of special needs in the area of formation and pastoral care such celebrations of the Sunday Mass could take place’.”
Amazing, isn’t it? Not only is Cardinal Arinze’s letter not a condemnation of the NCW and its liturgical practices, but now the NCW brain-trust will continue many of their Protestantized, man-centered liturgical practices with approval in writing from Rome! If only Traditionalists could get such a “rebuke” from their shepherds!
Families on a Mission
There is a huge — no, make that a gargantuan — question that needs to be asked of those conservative-minded Catholics who imagine that the Vatican is ready to overhaul the Neo-Catechumenal Way. Why have we not heard of any serious concerns on the part of the Holy Father concerning Kiko and Carmendoctrinal errors? What do a few suggestions to the Neo-Catechumenal liturgy — which is, at best, only one more addition to the growing list of Novus Ordo inspired liturgical parodies — amount to in the face of an entire ecclesial movement built upon an unadulterated disdain for Catholic history, doctrine and practice? The fact remains that the Neo-Catechumenal Way is not merely tolerated by the Pope. It is praised and supported by him, and in very public ways.
On October 12, 2005, Pope Benedict blessed the cornerstone of the future NCW “Redemptoris Mater” seminary of Sydney, Australia. It is in these “houses of formation” that Kiko and Carmen’s philosophy is instilled into men who will become ordained priests. In these NCW seminaries, the only Mass offered is the NCW Eucharist. In these seminaries, aspiring priests will be dragged out of their classrooms to accompany “mission families,” and they will firmly believe that acting as a type of indentured servant will give them a better preparation for the priesthood than will their studies.
On January 12, 2006, Pope Benedict, following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, offered more public support to the NCW when he blessed over 200 of the NCW “mission families.” These are families who leave everything — jobs, home, even their native countries — to live among the poor and the secularized. Their mission is not to preach, but merely to be a “sign” of Jesus Christ for others.
In his first audience granted to communities of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, the Pope sent more than 200 families on mission to dioceses around the world. Some 10,000 people, including five Cardinals and 30 bishops, took part in the gathering, which took place in Paul VI Hall. Also present were Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez and Father Mario Pezzi, as well as 1,100 priests formed in the NCW Redemptoris Mater seminaries. Addressing the NCW families, the Holy Father said: “They are families that leave without many human supports, but who count above all on the support of Divine Providence.” It was quite a gala event in honor of a group which had supposedly just been dressed down by the Pope.
After the event, Kiko Arguello was interviewed by the Veritas News Agency, as reported by Zenit News (January 15, 2006). He described the work of the mission families as “a mission of the purest ad gentes type .... a mission to the Gentiles, as the Apostles did”.
“We also send families to places in China; this is why they cannot say where they are going,” said Arguello. “But we also send them to many countries, above all in Latin America, where the sects are making inroads.” A concern over the growth of Protestant sects? It sounds Catholic, but a look at the Schema for Catechists reveals a different philosophy of salvation.
“Perhaps we think that the mission of the Church is to get all these people outside the Church and put them inside .... If this were true, then without doubt we can say that Christ has failed after two thousand years,” observes Kiko in his Schema. He goes on:
“The primitive Church never saw itself as the only raft of salvation, but as a mission within history ... Nevertheless, this phrase [i.e., no salvation outside the Church] understood juridically is the mentality of all the ordinary people listening to you. It is at the bottom of our ideas of the Church: extreme unctions to the sick, last-minute confessions, quick baptisms to children, etc.”
The primitive Church never saw itself as the only raft of salvation? Lies do not get more bold-faced than this. And if this were indeed true, then who cares about the sects? But the “ordinary” [i.e., non-NCW] people sometimes believe in this dogma, sometimes entertain these unenlightened “ideas” of the Church: extreme unction, baptisms and confession for the dying, etc. Carmen chimes in with the observation that a belief in the necessity of the Church for salvation “leads to a proselytism which makes you want to baptize all the world ... an absolute imposition with Christ in the hand.” Never mind that Jesus Himself commanded His followers to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Did Our Lord get it wrong because He didn’t read the NCW Schema for Catechists?
The NCW founders portray the mission families as warriors for Christ, tilling the vineyards of the Lord in hostile pagan lands, and the fact is that these people do suffer in their labors. Professional people often leave comfortable homes and lucrative careers to live in squalid surroundings where they are sometimes fortunate to have heat in the winter. True, their communities are generous with monetary contributions, but the hardships exist nevertheless.
It sounds romantic, but I have spent time with these people, and one thing that always disturbed me was the trauma inflicted upon the children of these families. If it is difficult for adults to be suddenly uprooted from their homes and dropped down into a place where they are bereft of friends and oftentimes even the comfort of a familiar language, imagine the toll enacted of those children who are robbed of a stable, secure home life in the name of “evangelization”?
As a NCW seminarian, I was assigned to a mission family working in West Virginia, a family which included seven children. One afternoon, I accompanied the parents of this family to a “soup kitchen” for the poor. We had gone there in the hopes of getting a box of groceries for the family. Two healthy men and a healthy woman asking for a handout, we must have stood out among the homeless and destitute folks who crowded the place, and so we were sent back to speak to the nun in charge. The nun, in full habit, was an old-timer who had probably put in many years serving the poor, and she wasn’t one to mince words, God bless her. When she was told that we were part of a “mission family,” she said to the head of our little group (i.e., the father of the family) words to this effect: “God gave you those children. Your vocation is to provide for them.” Although she wound up giving us a box of groceries in the end, I never forgot her words.
They ring even truer when I think of the weekend-long “itinerant’s convivences” I have attended. These were gatherings of families, individuals, seminarians and catechists who spread Kiko’s message “out in the field,” so to speak. The highlight of these meetings was the spectacle of “mission families” getting up before the assembly to share their experiences, and too often, crying their eyes out — tears, not of joy, but of sheer frustration and depression.
Canon 1113 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that “Parents are bound by a most serious obligation to provide to the best of their power for the religious and moral as well as for the physical and civil education of their children, and also to provide for their temporal welfare.” Temporal welfare suffers among the mission families. For each afternoon or evening during which the catechists of the mission family visit neighbors, pastors or parish councils, days pass by with no such activity, and a father who may have been providing a stable life for his family as a surgeon or businessman in his native country is, instead, making a living delivering doughnuts in a strange land, his family living in a borrowed ramshackle apartment as his children struggle to get by in a school which is taught in a language they do not understand. And this is preferable, in the NCW philosophy, to the parents accepting their states of life, remaining at home, and providing the best and most secure life they can for their family.
That aged nun in West Virginia proved herself a better theologian of the family than all the NCW honchos combined. Pope Benedict XVI’s support for the “mission families” is a troubling phenomenon, to say the least.
Dropping the “Masks”?
The founders of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, believing that they are the chosen ones, destined to rescue a Church which has gone astray for fifteen centuries, are virtual demigods among NCW members. In fact, the story circulates among the communities that it was the Blessed Virgin Mary Herself who personally in-structed Kiko to form Neo-Catechumenal communities. In his “intervention” (speech) delivered on June 28, 2002 at the handing over of the Statutes of the Neo-Catechumenal Way, Arguello said, “We can only thank the Blessed Virgin Mary who inspired this Way leading us to make communities like the Holy Family of Nazareth, which live in humility, simplicity, and praise, where the other is Christ.” And, if one looks closely at the famous Madonna and Child icon painted by Kiko and ubiquitous at NCW events, one will find the Virgin’s “words” included in the painting.
No doubt, there is a certain mystique surrounding the catechists of “the Way.” They claim nothing less than an Apostolic power of discernment, and can behave accordingly on occasion. A fellow Neo-Catechumenal Way member once remarked to me that his stomach always churned at NCW events, that there was never any sense of peace in the midst of these people. And I had to agree. The catechist rules with an iron fist, and it is standard procedure to keep the ordinary community grunts in the dark when the occasion warrants. One never knows when the “trap” will spring.
So imbued with a sense of their own Apostolic authority and power are the catechists of the NCW, that, on occasion, they do not hesitate to appropriate to themselves the role of “exorcist.” During the weekend of the “First Scrutiny” (one of the many rites of passage in “the Way”), the catechists in charge of my NCW community took turns placing their hands upon our heads while praying, in order to chase away any unclean spirits. In addition, whenever a team of catechists goes to work in a new location, they begin by finding the highest point in the vicinity. From there, they attempt to “exorcize” the location. I am somewhat embarrassed to say that I participated in such a farce. My West Virginia mission family/catechist team also worked in Pittsburgh. One afternoon, before we began a new catechesis there, we went to the highest location we could find, a point overlooking Three Rivers Stadium, “where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers join to form the Ohio River.” We spread our hands out over the city below us and prayed over it, supposedly striking terror into the hearts of the local denizens of Hades. In retrospect, I wonder if we looked more ridiculous to the people passing by, or the evil spirits we were supposed to be challenging.
In addition, there is an almost neurotic obsession in the NCW communities with conflict for its own sake. Acting upon the assumption that “masks must be dropped” in the community, in order to effect a genuine “conversion,” the NCW has created a cult out of friction, nit-picking, and obsessing over the motes in the eyes of others. When community members spend a Sunday together at their monthly convivences ... When seminarians gather in small groups ... At larger regional or national gatherings ... There is a constant flow of contention. Someone has always been offended, and needs to get it out in the open; someone has always seen or heard you do something that calls for correction.
I recall a morning-prayer session with the mission family in West Virginia, during which the reading of Lauds from the Breviary turned into a two-hour slugfest (yes, two hours). The cause? The night before, after our team had given a catechesis at a Church, I remarked that I was tired when asked to drive the van back home. That was it. Apparently, the mother of the mission family could not tolerate such impudence or revolt in the ranks. On another occasion, when I showed up for morning prayer in a bad mood, the mother asked me if I had abused myself the night before. They call this discernment.
Back in 1994, I had the pleasure of spending some time with my relatives in the beautiful hills of Northern Italy. During that visit, I was invited to take a little road trip to Assisi with a local priest and a few of his relatives. We stayed in a small retreat house, just outside of Assisi, which was run by Dominican nuns. One evening, after dinner, we were sitting outside in the garden talking, when the Mother Superior came out and chatted with us. She was a large and rather imposing, but pleasant, woman in full habit. Somehow the talk turned to the Neo-Catechumenal Way. The Mother Superior remarked that the local NCW communities often came to the retreat house for their Sunday convivences. Then she made an observation which made me laugh. She said, “They’re always yelling at each other!”
As I have stated before, most of the lower echelon members of the Neo-Catechumenal Way are sincere, well-meaning and truly generous individuals. I myself have been the recipient of a heartfelt charity from the hands of many such people. The problem is that so many of the NCW members are men and women who had once been far away from the Church. The “Church of Kiko & Carmen” is either the only one they know, or the only one whose heads have spoken to them with fire and conviction. Thus, they believe that “the Way” is really and truly .... The Way. Period.
After Pope Benedict XVI blessed the NCW mission families on January 12, Kiko Arguello commented upon the Pope’s comments regarding “the Way’s” liturgical norms, as presented in Cardinal Arinze’s letter. “We were happy,” said Kiko, “to hear him say to us that, with the experience we have lived through in these years, it can be confirmed that the centrality of the mystery of Christ, celebrated in the liturgical rites, is a privileged and indispensable way to build living and persevering Christian communities.”
In addition, Kiko ex-pressed gratitude to the Holy Father “because he has allowed us to continue with the change in the rite of peace, with the echo of the Word ... which for us has been an impulse to do more.” Yes, an impulse to do more. In some ways, the Neo-Catechumenal Way is just beginning and, far from hindering or tightening the reins on Kiko and company, all indications point to continued support for “the Way” from the Chair of Peter.
Note:
1. See Catholic Family News: “The Neo-Catechumenal Way: What do the Founders Really Believe?”, March 1996 (reprint #80, $3.00US); “An Update on the Neo-Catechumenal Way”, July 1997 (reprint #210, $2.00US); “The Catechist in the Neo-Catechumenal Way”, July 1997 (reprint #451, $2.00US); “Neo-Catheumenal Way Gathers No Moss”, Parts I and II, October and November, 2002 (reprint #764, $3.00US).
Reprinted
from the April 2006 edition of
Catholic
Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302
905-871-6292
* cfnjv@localnet.com
CFN is published once a month (12 times per year) •
Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request
sample copy
Home • Audio Cassettes • CFN Index