Wednesday, September 7, 2016
NEOCATECHUMENAL OBEDIENCE AND THE IMMORAL BISHOP
Posted by LaPaz, Jungle Watch Correspondent from Spain.
"Funnel Law" is perfect to draw Neocatechumenal Ethics. Black label catechists are expert on applying it. Kiko, as always, is the supreme master.
If you observe a neocatechumenal along his/her walking life, sooner or later you will realize how "Funnel Law" appears on scene. It never fails. Why? Because human being can not be limited to rigid neocatechumenal formulas, which are supposedly based on a man called Kiko and his missinterpretations of supposed ancient traditions hidden and forgotten by catholic Church for centuries.
At the end, Kiko and the Way consist only in a few schemes to explain the human infinitude. For example: if your child is asthmatic, then you, mother, are a neurotic. It is a universal formula stipulated by Kiko Arguello and universaly applied by neocatechumenal catechists.
Here we have the champions of hypocrisy. Kiko and his crowds wanted to finish with a faith of "cumplimiento", full of dogmatism and empty rules, and here they are, prescribing their owns to explain every human thought and act in terms of a strange melting pot for a new "holy superstition".
As a mother, you can not stop your little son's asthmathic crisis. As a mother, your first obligation is to look for medical care for him. The doctor -and not the neocatechumenal catechist- is the only who can and must study and treat his asthma.
Your catechist can explain your little son is suffocating just because you idolize him and the Devil is tempting you with his crisis to drive him to the hospital instead of assisting to your community celebration. That is how Kiko and the Way do explain all. When something makes you to excuse your assistance to neocatechumenal duties, then it comes from the Devil. Then, it is bad for you.
I can not imagine the Pope preaching such kind of interpretations of God will. I can not imagine a cardinal or a bishop saying "mothers of asthmatic children, convert because your neurosis is killing your sons!". These kind of neocatechumenal interpretations remind me that ancient jewish belief of the disease as a fruit of sin, not the own sin of the ill person, but his parents.
Among these few simple neocatechumenal formulas, there is one they love very much: "Who obeys never mistakes". Sorry if translation is too literal. In the Way, obedience is a supreme principle. Blind obedience, of course. But blind obedience in a descendant way from the upper in the piramidal neocatechumenal scheme until down.
You have to obey your chatechists yes or yes. Always. No exception allowed. Your catechists do obey theirs as well. And their catechists do obey Kiko blindly. Kiko does not obey anybody. Only God because only God is above him. Hierarchy of catholic Church has to obey Kiko. He will never say that openly. He will always say "hierarchy has to obey catechists" or "the international team of catechists", language does not matter. The fact is Kiko is over them. He is the lay Pope.
But sometimes rules can be applied inequality -if necessary- of course. "Right and necessary". That inequality and discrimination goes as well from upper down for neos, never in the opposite way. Narrow part of the funnel is required for common people. For the mass of people. They need to walk through the narrow door. For catechists, specially "black label" ones, God treats them with generosity. They can do exceptions whit their discernment. Discretionary service (width of the funnel).
In the real world it would be called simply corruption. Or influence peddling...or many other things. Not for neocatechumenals. Exceptions are right and necessary for the choosen ones, the ellected, the workers of God: the catechists. Also RM's included. And friendly ordained priests (for example, a supportive cardinal or bishop are included in that group).
Diana, the one who brings the Insider's View, is touched by this neocatechumenal grace and she can afford things like: "I never advocate for blind obedience. If a bishop tells you to do something inmoral, then it is okay to disobey".
She makes me remember a nice trick used by Maciel when he landed in USA to extend his Legion of Christ. There, he had to change the vow of "blind obedience" by one called "motivated obedience", just because he said Anglo were not used to obey in such heroic way. LOL.
Kiko discriminates people by the place occupied by their families into the Way's inner structure. "Tell me who is your neocatechumenal family and then I will discern". Diana, with her affirmation, shows there are two types of obedience within the NCW, which exactly could be similar to Maciel's differentiation. One is "blind" and another is "motivated". Neos never will use those words, but at the end they coincide in the same little nuance.
Diana, as a good neocatechumenal, preaches obedience in the way of "just obey and you will never be wrong". Just obey and do not question. Then, why is she making the difference between "blind obedience" and "not blind obedience"? Maybe is she not impelled to obey blindly in the Way by her catechists? Why does she make that distinction?
By her words, it seems that "blind obedience" implies doing inmoral things. Things which go against moral rules and values. But which moral? We have to suppose she means catholic moral, rules and values based on Gospel. But wait a minute: she does not say it is OK to disobey when SOMEBODY tells you to do something inmoral. She says "when a BISHOP tells you to do something inmoral".
Of course, it does not include when a catechist tells you to do something inmoral, it is, something against catholic moral. She assumes that a neocatechumenal catechist will never ask her to do something against the Gospel. And she assumes it just by her blind obedience. Her catechists have said they are always directly inspired by Holy Spirit and Holy Spirit could not go against God.
In the opposite hand, by Diana, a bishop can tell you to do something inmoral. It is because a bishop is not inspired directly by Holy Spirit. A bishop, as she showed with Hon's spite, can sin. But a neocatechumenal catechist can not sin when is being inspired by Holy Spirit as it occurs when he is evangelizating you (in this case, Diana).
So, what is the problem here? The bishop is falible. The neocatechumenal catechist is not falible. At least, your catechist is just copying exactly what Kiko said in the beginning. He does not invent anything, everything is in the mamotretes, all was inspired to Kiko and a catechist has only to memorize letter by letter each Kiko's words.
Maybe Diana and neocatechumenals are convinced that is a guaranteed system since the moment Kiko was just moving his lips while Holy Spirit gave him the words to be said. And the system is even more guaranteed -double checked- because the Holy See has aproved all. Which guarantee do I have over a bishop words for the eyes of any Diana in the world?
Diana, you are lost in the labyrinth of neocatechumenal contradictions! Look: there is a perfect way to check if something is really moral or inmoral, with independence of who is the one who tells you to do it. Forget the bishop and forget the catechist for a moment. Just JesusChrist. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
If a bishop tells you "X" when a neocatechumenal catechist tells you "Y", just ask Jesus. He will never play with Funnel Law nor language games. And this practical advise: Who has named the bishop for his mission? Who has named that neocatechist for his mission?; Can you distinguish the difference between consecrated and non consecrated order?; Who of them has been consecrated to be an objetive authority for you as a catholic in moral field?
Diana, I would not trust on any moral system, its rules and values, when somebody tells you to do something against the Gospel. You do not have to obey a catechist when he tells you to do something against the Gospel.
Kiko said it again in Poland: "Obey your catechists! Your obedience to your catechists is the umbilical cord! ". That means if you do not obey them, you will die. And that is false and a great mistake. It is a sin against the truth. Nowhere the catholic Church says a word about it. Any catechist of the Way, even being one of the 12, can tell you to obey them against the Gospel. If he does, he is not telling you to do something inmoral, it is against God.
Today I specially have a couple of Spanish former members in my mind. The woman, when Second Scrutiny, was told to dress her best gala clothes to stay at the principal door in the temple of their parish, during masses, asking for charity money.
Of course, she would be reprimanded first of all by the actual poors who used to beg there. And second. by all the people of the parish who noticed she was not a poor, but a burgues. The goal was to look for being insulted as a thiev, as a impostor, etc. and being humiliated. Her catechist ordered she had to spend that charity money with her husband having a beer in a popular bar. She would have to do the same during several Sundays.
These kind of methods commonly used by neocatechumenal catechist are objetively against the Gospel. Nobody can ask other to do the evil to achieve the good. Evil is never a medium. It is against the Gospel.
So, Diana, do not think on exceptions to the rule because there is a "but...". When you are worried about a "but" is because you know the Funnel Law. If you want to live your neocatechumenal "obey is never mistake", then do not tell us it is moral to desobey a bishop when he tells you to do something inmoral but it is always inmoral to desobey your catechist. Do not play with your neocatechumenal missunderstandings.
Your Funnel Law shows that any bishop could be suspect of the most terrible sins but the Way will always support him if he is one of yours. If the same bishop won't be a neocatechumenal member, then the Way will never move a finger to help him.
The Funnel Law is perfect for kleptocracy and the Way is a kleptocratic system.