Saturday, August 9, 2014


I believe that 99% of the people who are in the Neocatechumenal Way are in it because they genuinely want to deepen their walk with God, have found genuine fellowship and personal support, and appreciate the intimacy of a small community. They have nothing to do with the mess that is being perpetrated by their leadership.

I am sorry that these good people are being caught in the crossfire of a war that was begun by the militant faction of their group whom I call "the kiko's". I call them this so as to distinguish them from the good members of the NCW, who I otherwise refer to as "the neo's", but wish I didn't even have to use a title at all. 

This blog exploded in late July of 2013 after Fr. Paul Gofigan was unceremoniously fired from his post and kicked into the street. (Read all about it in Target equals Priest.) I took particular exception to Archbishop Apuron's threatening of Fr. Paul to resign or face an "arduous and painful closure to your assignment." This is not how a bishop speaks to his priests even if they are guilty of something serious, which, as it was proven, Fr. Paul was not.

Up until July 2013, while there were problems and disagreements at the parish level, there was no all out War as there is now. The current War began because Archbishop Apuron chose to start it, or should I say, chose to follow orders and start it.

Given the timing of the beginning of this War, we can only suppose that Archbishop Apuron's sudden and hostile action was related to the annual visit of a major Kiko general, Giuseppe Gennarini. 

Gennarini, who operates his kiko-syndicate out of New Jersey, is famous for making war. In 2011, Gennarini engaged in a hostile all-out shouting match with Atty. Ed Terlaje at a meeting at the seminary. Mr. Terlaje was only doing what he thought he was supposed to do. As the legal counsel to the archdiocese he was defending the interests of the archdiocese. Gennarini attacked him when Terlaje would not submit to his will. And the Archbishop sided with Gennarini and against his faithful friend and legal counsel who had served him for decades.

Also, as we previously demonstrated, Gennarini put himself in control of all the "most important affairs" of the seminary, including deciding who is to be ordained and when. (Go here for an explanation.) This is why Giuseppe Gennarini wanted the title to the Yona property signed over to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. HE CONTROLS IT!

The average member of the Neocatechumenal Way probably has no idea that they are being used and abused by a major international confiscatory syndicate, a syndicate which enables its major operators to jet around the world lounging about in First Class sipping champagne (read an account here), though Bloody Mary's (lots of them) are reported to be Archbishop Apuron's adult beverage of choice. (Seriously, doesn't he know that people who know him also fly First Class?)

But back to our friends who are simply sincere Catholics who have joined the Neocatechumenal Way for all the right reasons. Let us review the Statute of the NCW and please compare it to what you see in your experience of it. I don't have time to go through all the points and would encourage you to thoroughly review it yourself, but let's look at a few:

Art. 1. § 2. "The NCW is at the service of the bishop..."

Is this what you see? Or is our bishop at the service of the NCW? If he is an authentic member of the Way and he is "walking", then he must be submissive to his catechist and accountable to his responsibles. 

Art. 4. § 1. "The NCW...has no material goods of its own."

Then what happens to the money that is collected? Canonically it belongs to the parish in which the community is situated. § 3 allows for the administration of certain collections for "different needs" but only with regard to the law. Where is the regard for the law in the administration of money and goods collected by the NCW community? There is not even an accounting to the parish, unless of course, the pastor is himself a kiko.

Art. 6. § 2. "...the implementation of the NCW must be coordinated with the proper function that the pastor/parish has in each parish community."

Does your community coordinate and work with the priests and pastors of the parish? Or, like at St. Anthony's, do your leaders ridicule, insult, and even publicly scream at them? (Obviously if you have a neo-pastor, as more parishes increasingly have, then this requirement will be easy.)

Art. 6. § 3. "The NCW will seek to foster in its recipients a mature sense of belonging to the parish and to promote relations of profound communion and collaboration with all the faithful...."

Does your community "seek to foster...a mature sense of belonging to the parish"? Is that what you're taught? Is that what is promoted? Do your leaders set an example of promoting "relations of profound communion and collaboration" with the rest of us? 

Art. 9 states that "The NCW starts in the parish, at the invitation of the pastor..." 

Is that how yours got started? Or was the pastor first replaced with a neo-priest and then came the NCW? And what happens when pastors resist? See Fr. Paul. 

Art. 12. § 3.  Regarding the celebration of the Easter Vigil, the letter Paschalis Sollemnitatis, 39-42 and 77-96 is referenced. Par. 94 instructs: "The celebration of the Easter Vigil for special groups is not to be encouraged, since above all in this Vigil the faithful should come together as one and should experience a sense of ecclesial community." 

Do your leaders encourage you to "come together as one" with the the rest of us, the "ecclesial community", or do you celebrate the Easter Vigil apart from the entire "ecclesial community" in a "special group"?

Art. 13. § 3. "For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, with the exception of the explicit concessions from the Holy See." 

This means that your Mass must be celebrated EXACTLY as ours is except for the "explicit concessions" which are referred to in footnote no. 49:

The "exceptions" noted are: 1) reception of "communion under two species, and 2) transfer "ad experimentum" the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful." 

The only other change allowed is noted in Art. 13. § 3. : "Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place." 

There is no "explicit concession" to separate the act of reception from consumption wherein the communicant sits back down, still holding the consecrated bread and awaiting a signal from the priest to consume. In fact, reading the whole footnote, one sees this practice FORBIDDEN by the inclusion of two references: the 2005 letter from Cardinal Arinze to the leaders of the NCW, and the 2006 address of Pope Benedict requiring your leaders to follow his directive as delivered by Cardinal Arinze.

There is also NO "explicit concession" for your presbyter to change the place in the Mass for his own communion. The "liturgical books" which must be followed require him to complete his own consumption of the consecrated species BEFORE he distributes it to the communicants. 

Compare what is required by the liturgical books with what happens at your eucharist. 

There is much more, and maybe I will come back to it. But meanwhile, understand that regardless of any  papal "blessings" your leaders may speak of, your Statute is the only authoritative "blessing" that matters. And departure from it is a departure not just from a papal blessing, but from communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 

This is why there is a War. It was inevitable. It was inevitable because the bishop of this diocese, the one person tasked by Rome to govern and moderate these kinds of things, has taken sides with the kiko's, and in so doing, both in belief and practice, has separated himself, at least to the degree he has knowingly embraced these errors, from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 

What will you do? 

Recommendations by JungleWatch