...and no surprise, the bishop is a Neocat from Malta.
Neocatechumenal Way faces controversy in Catholic dioceses
The implementation of the Neocatechumenal Way is at the heart of a growing division in the Diocese of Las Cruces and linked to the removal of a priest from a Basilica in Mesilla.
Amidst suspicion and rumors that the integration of the Neocatechumenal Way is changing the traditional practices of the Roman Catholic faith locally, parishioners are asking what exactly it is and what it means for the Diocese of Las Cruces.
...
The last part of the article is about similar problems in Guam
The fact that a diocese, especially one as small as Las Cruces, NM (and of course an even smaller diocese like Guam) has to have two seminaries, one for the Neocats and one for the "regular priests," should say everything we need to know: that the Neocats subscribe to a different faith and thus their "priests" (they don't even call them that) require a different formation. That would be fine if they were a religious order, or even part of some personal papal prelature; however, they want to be thought of as "diocesan." Without getting into their theology, the very fact that they are NOT formed to serve a specific diocese is the red flag that the Neocats are not "diocesan," but choose that label wherever they can find a bishop they can control.
ReplyDeleteThe Redemptoris Mater Seminary (RMC) is a pipeline designed by the Neocatechumenal Way (NCW) leadership in connivance with certain bishops to control the personal lives of NCW priests for their own ends.
ReplyDelete1. Isolation and Strategic Incardination
• Foreign Recruitment: Most seminarians entering the RMC are brought from outside the host country. They are entirely unfamiliar with the local culture, language, and social structures.
• Transitional Incardination: These foreign seminarians are ordained and incardinated by a local bishop. However, immediately after ordination, they are dispatched to entirely different countries for ministry.
• Untraceable Clergy: The whereabouts of these priests are frequently shrouded in mystery. Their names are often missing from official diocesan clergy directories. When they are listed, they are falsely recorded as serving at the local RMC, despite physically residing and working in another country.
2. Canonical Violations and Parallel Authority
• Bypassing Itinerancy Laws: Canon law strictly prohibits vagrant or itinerant clergy. The NCW circumvents this by legally binding a priest to one foreign diocese while moving them globally at the whim of the movement's leadership.
• Neglected Canonical Contracts: Under Canon law, when a diocesan priest is sent to serve in another diocese, the sending bishop must issue a formal written agreement (scriptum) to the receiving bishop detailing the contract terms. Evidence suggests this mandatory requirement is routinely ignored for NCW priests.
• The Dual Allegiance Conflict: NCW priests face a severe conflict of interest. While Canon 273 demands strict reverence and obedience to their Ordinary (the local bishop), these priests are functionally ruled by lay catechists and NCW itinerants.
• Infringement on Scrutinies: The NCW operates as a parallel power structure—a "church within a church." Lay catechists frequently exercise vetting power over a seminarian’s readiness for Holy Orders. This directly infringes upon Canon 241, which reserves the right of scrutiny exclusively to seminary rectors and bishops.
3. Deficient Formation and Systemic Vulnerability
• Segregated Training: By isolating seminarians within specialized NCW communities instead of integrating them into the broader diocesan presbyterate, the system breaches Canon 245. This canon mandates that seminary formation must prepare men for the common pastoral life of the local church.
• Lack of Awareness: Because these men do not attend standard diocesan seminaries, many remain completely unaware of universal canonical norms and their personal rights as rights-bearing clergy.
4. Financial and Psychological Exploitation
• Economic Dependency: NCW priests working abroad are left entirely at the mercy of lay catechists. They receive NO standard Mass stipends or the mandatory monthly sustenance allowance guaranteed to diocesan priests.
• Abuse of Public Confession: Priests who do become aware of these structural abuses are often too terrified to leave or report the matter. The NCW practice of public scrutiny and public confession means their personal sins and vulnerabilities are known to the community, leaving them highly susceptible to psychological pressure and blackmail.
• Episcopal Abdication: By participating in this system, local bishops effectively wash their hands of their administrative, spiritual, and financial responsibilities toward their diocesan priests, abandoning them to an unaccountable lay-led structure.
5. Institutional Compromise at the Vatican
• Systemic Oversight Failure: The Dicastery for the Clergy is fully aware of these global operational patterns due to the sheer volume of RMCs worldwide.
• A Blind Eye: By refusing to intervene or investigate these serious canonical delicts and clerical abuses, officials within the Vatican administrative apparatus have effectively surrendered their duties as institutional watchdogs, siding with the system rather than protecting vulnerable priests.
All true, as far as I know. I would add that the discernment process at the beginning of the priestly pipeline is seriously defective.
DeleteThe RMS system, particularly as we saw it here in Guam, always smelled of a human trafficking operation, which, given Apuron's now known predilection for young male flesh...well, you get the idea. Maybe some remember "Daniel."
ReplyDelete