This exchange between Mario Gomez and Frenchie deserves some attention so I am copying their comments to this post. Mario Gomez is responding to an episode in Frenchie's account of Kiko and Carmen's history.
Frenchie's account and his replies to Mario are very important to our overall cause because, as I have emphasized from the beginning, getting rid of Apuron or even the NCW on Guam is not our sole aim.
Paul VI, 1972, Sermon on the Feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul).
It just so happens that this "smoke" has grown chokingly thick on Guam thanks to a bishop who appears to have welcomed it, apparently mistaking it (maybe) for Shekinah glory.
frenchie has left a new comment on your post "KIKO AND CARMEN - THE REAL STORY - 7/30/15":
Lets take your statement in, step by step.
1) " Kiko has never been a francoist, but marxist, in the manner of so many young European artists and intellectuals of the 60s"
What I said was that Kiko came from a family that was close to the Franco regime. I also said that it was doubtful that he ever was a Marxist, (a real one) in view of his age at the period of time.
He might have tried to read about some of the Marxist thinkers, but such books were illegal in Spain at that time, and dangerous to be caught with.
At best Kiko titillated his ego with some "fashionable" thought in school, without the benefit of really partaking in them.
As far as Kiko being an intellectual or an artist, it is more than debatable. He went to an Art school (of renown), but that does not make him either an artist or an intellectual.
Yes he won a prize for the best promising young painter, but if you understood how these prizes were given at that period in time, you would not make a fuss of it. (Only compliant and friendly individuals to the regime were rewarded.)
Young intellectuals and artists might have had Marxist affiliation in the 60s, in France, England and other western countries, but in Spain they would have had to be very much underground.
We know our dear Francisco loves the limelight way too much to be pushed underground.
2) "Kiko was also charm of the thought of Sartre and Hegel, and art by Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko".
Whoa! That is indeed a pot-pourri of ideas. I would suggest you start with Hegel first.
His books were not authorized in Spain, because of its content and the fact he was a protestant philosopher. For Sartre, I suspect that since his magazine "les temps moderne" was passed in contraband it is possible that some might have filtered to Madrid. But then the magazines are in French, a language Kiko does not master.
As for his pretended art inspiration, they vary according to the period and public. He goes from Picasso, to Pollock to Rothko. It is an eclectic selection, almost contradictory in the narrative.
But I guess one can find inspiration where he chooses to.
3) "The first community that was born in Rome....blah, blah....and instead he conquered them".
Sorry if I don't quote you verbatum, but it was long.
The main idea being that Kiko transformed young Catholic leftist to his "conservative"views..
I have always loved this rationalization of the Kikos, for their Guru's first tentative steps in Italy.
They are very interesting, because in fact a lot of the Neocatechumenal philosophy is based on the teachings of the early Church and the need to go back to the original way of leaving and preaching the gospel.
Definitely an idea at the core of the Theology of liberation from the 1950s south America's Church, later developed by the Jeunesse Ouvriere Chretienne of Belgium and the French theologian Paul Gauthier.
One could say that the corner stone of a large part of Carmen and Kiko's teaching is straight out of the Liberation Theology. With the advantage that many of the works available at the time were from South America and written in Spanish.
Then of course there is the proposal that Kiko is a conservative who gave a backbone to the errant young Catholics who were rejecting Catholic moral teachings.
Ummm, I will pass on this one since, people much better versed than me have written extensively on the con job Kiko has done on his so called conservatism, while actually pushing, Judeo-protestant concepts in direct conflict with our Church and made some heretical changes to the Orthodoxy of said Church.
Therefore this would take too much time. Lets say that this is extremely controversial, and would take us away from my discourse.