I have yet to post the full KOLG episode which began with the Archbishop mocking Rome's instruction to conform the neocatechumenal liturgy to the liturgical books. There is much more to that episode, and now that I have a worldwide audience, it's about time to post it.
I also have not yet recounted the events of the meeting which followed that fated event on KOLG, a meeting, in the Archbishop's presence, at which a cover up was concocted and would explain why the episode was never aired again.
I also have yet to make public the stories of at least three priests, all already verified, involving sexual misconduct, and not only covered up by the chancery, but, at least in once case, we are still paying for.
And I have more. I haven't revealed these things because I am hoping that Rome will act first. But the thing that now makes the revelation of this other information more urgent is the increased personal attacks on me.
At times, I let the attacks through, so others can see the vileness and rot at the heart of the neocatechumenal way which is rooted in its founder's declamation of January 17, 2006: "I will not obey", and echoed in our own Archbishop's mocking of Pope Benedict.
I also let them through so you can see what cowards these people are. I am willing to use my name. I don't hide. I stand up in full view. But, cowards that they are, they hide behind their bushes and throw stones.
But as everyone can clearly see, attacking me is all that's left them. They have no argument. No evidence to refute the facts that I have posted. Thus they scamper and swarm and vomit and spit.
And now they attack a young woman whose spiritual trust was violated in the confessional by a neo-agenda-driven priest, who was told to return to an error that she had painfully escaped as condition of absolution; who was told that being forced to submit once again to this error was a direct gift of "mercy" from the priest to whom she had confessed!
While I am going to hold off (for now) on the other matters I mentioned, I am going to copy here again, the response of a neo-priest, in fact, a professor at the seminary, to my question in 2008, as to why, after more than two years after the pope had directed the NCW to conform its liturgy to that of the rest of the church, the NCW continued to disobey the instruction. His reply to my question, especially since he tells us exactly what Kiko said, more than anything else, illustrates the grave waywardness at the heart of the neocatechumenal way. (My comments in red.)
Kiko spoke to Cardinal Rylko, the head of the Council for the Laity, back in December when the two year transitional period ran out. [Okay, let's look at this. The original instruction was issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship with the words: "The Holy Father wishes you to know..." There is no higher authority. The NCW was given two years to conform. But here we have the evidence that after the "two year transitional period ran out", the NCW not only never made the change, but never intended to make the change.]
Both Kiko and Cardinal Rylko knew that the statues (sic) would contain a modification of Cardinal Arinze's instructions. Rylko gave an oral reply to Kiko to maintain the present practice so that the Holy See would not be put in the awkward position of seeming to change its mind by going from Arinze's letter to the new statues in a very short time. [So the rationale for complete disobedience in the matter of this instruction is to save the Holy Father from being put in an "awkward position" because Kiko believed that his way of doing things would be approved. That would be both presumption and disobedience.]
The pope approved the statues (sic) in the beginning of February and they were to be promulgated on February 27th. [Since there is no record of this, we are left to presume that once again, this is one of Kiko's tales.]
But just before the promulgation, the statues (sic) were removed from the hands of the Council of the Laity and sent back for further considerations by the other four dicasteries of the Curia that have to review any changes in the statues (sic). We were just told to hold tight until you receive further word. No explanations were given at the time. [Told by who? By Kiko of course. Translation: continue to disregard the Pope's instruction.]
There is, however, evidently still some strong resistance to the statues (sic) on the part of some in the Curia and they are trying to introduce further changes. [The implication is "how dare they!" How dare the Curia mess with Kiko's designs. How funny to read this in light of the insult of the woman who went to confession wherein we are told she approached confession wrongly because she did not accept the priest's penance to attend a meeting of the neocatechumenal way. It is okay for Kiko to reject the Curia and the Pope himself, but it is not okay for a humble laywoman to object to an illicit penance from a priest with an agenda.]
However, there are no documents to show you at this point. All our instruction have been oral, but we are satisfied with that. We have no choice. [You see, there is NO CHOICE. Kiko has spoken. Obeying the Pope is not an option. No document is needed. Instructions are oral. Instructions are from Kiko. Screw the Pope. Screw Rome. End of story.]
All we were told is to take no action until the Holy See resolves these matters. This is what we are doing. [And of course, in April of 2008, the Holy See DID resolve "these matters", and incorporated the original instruction to the NCW to conform its liturgy to the liturgical books with only the following exceptions: 1) the movement of the sign of peace, 2) receiving communion under both kinds, 3) communicants were allowed to remain in their places for the reception of communion but must stand. There was no exception for 1) the priest NOT communicating before distributing the sacred species, and 2) the communicant NOT consuming the sacred species immediately upon reception. Both are still the practice of the neocatehumenal way EIGHT YEARS after the original instruction. And you're going to mock a small laywoman for being disobedient to a neo-agenda driven priest?]
However, I hope you understand that this information is not for publication. I share it with you so that you will understand the delicate position we are in at the moment. I would caution against reading into these events more what I have said. I mention them simply to show that we are not disregarding Arinze's letter, but that subsequent events have changed the situation in which we find ourselves. [For a priest to say this, and a seminary professor at that, is staggering. He just admitted in the first two sentences that the instructions in the Arinze letter in the manner of the distribution of Holy Communion HAD NOT been implemented and had been DISREGARDED. Yet he says here that "we are not disregarding Arine's letter." What an incredible web of lies the neocatechumenal way has had to weave.]
[Consider my not printing the name "an act of mercy from me to you." Go here if you don't understand.]