- Parishioners Against a Secret Churchby Ronald Haynes, in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton, Bristol, England
published in the Diocesan Justice & Peace Newsletter, January 1996
Understandably, most NC members seem to believe what their own leaders have told them about the movement, about the special need for and goodness of their approach. Many members exhibit a sincere conviction that 'it has helped them' and that 'it has the Pope's backing' as well. In response to charges of cult-like activities and the use of coercive indoctrination techniques some have added that 'they haven't been brainwashed'. However, no evidence is offered of the members' freedom to question, to pick and choose personal options, or to amicably leave 'The Way' as they call it, nor is there evidence that members have any clear understanding of what the NC stands for, what sets them apart in the Church, what they teach, or how to explain such things to non-members.
Given the difficulty in discovering such important details as
these, and because members seem so eager to share a lifestyle
which they are told will lead its members to 'something wonderful',
the only other possibility for the lack of openness about the
NC seems to be that members do in fact know more about the movement,
but they're not supposed to tell the rest of us. Whatever is the
case, something is wrong ... very wrong. A number of people -
parish priests included - are following some system based on experiences,
on 'catechesis' they've had, and on the promises that it will
lead to 'something wonderful', even though this is something that
seemingly cannot be spoken of with other members of the Church.
(return to the beginning)
Those 'catechesis' sessions began on the same night as the usual RCIA meetings and the Curate told me that he was under pressure by the Parish Priest to attend (and join) as well. After some angry complaints by members, the RCIA group was restarted, but sadly some members never returned. In addition, while the Curate continued for a time with the RCIA, he also completed the 'catechesis' and joined the newly-formed NC 'third community'. Although I attended some of those NC sessions, I found them to be misdirected and even offensive in many respects. All the while, however, I stayed with the RCIA group and offered to assist the Curate in co-ordinating the program as well. This was welcomed by him, as he increasingly had other problems and demands on his time, which meant that I began to more-or-less be his substitute for what was left of the group.
That Spring (1992), parishioners found that the Easter Vigil had been planned secretly and exclusively by the Neo-catechumenate communities, without consultation or warning, except that the Vigil would last all night. Instead of the usual liturgical absurdity of the NC keeping their own Vigil (after the parish's), the liturgy of the parish community was replaced by the NC liturgy (which has been described by the local NC leader as 'their own rite' which is 'approved for them'). Those who 'thought that would be too long for them' were advised by the Parish Priest from the pulpit to attend a Vigil in another parish, and a list was put up in the porch. Soon after, more parishioners started sharing how 'wrong' things were in the parish, and how long it had been going on. That same Spring, the Curate left the parish, the Diocese (and, sadly, the priesthood as well). While he had his own problems and concerns to deal with, I have little doubt that the pressure and conflicts he felt and the demands made on him by the Neo-catechumenate amplified his troubles and helped lead to his departure.
I carried on with the RCIA group and made sure that it kept going.
That Autumn, the Parish Priest officially asked me to be the RCIA
Co-ordinator and I agreed to continue. Soon after, however, tensions
rose again and even though the group wanted to continue to meet,
it was often threatened with closure by the Parish Priest. Worse
still, a number of new inquirers were held back from the RCIA,
in favour of the Neo-catechumenate, and eventually the group was
literally locked out of the Parish Hall, resulting in the loss
of some of the existing inquirers. At the same time as these developments,
even seemingly less controversial actions such as the many attempts
to organise parish social events were greatly impeded, including
through the severely limited access to the Parish Hall, and all
while the Neo-catechumenate communities enjoyed the use of parish
rooms and facilities as they wished (a situation which still persists).
Despite numerous protests and reports to the Parish Priest and
to the Bishop, and despite assurances from the Bishop, made after
conferring with the Parish Priest, these and other events which
have been so very damaging to the parish community have not yet
been redressed.
(return to the beginning)
As indicated above, a major problem of evaluating the appropriateness of the NC has been the great difficulty obtaining their teachings, or indeed finding any material that would introduce or explain anything substantial about them. Partly, this is because the NC leaders say that theirs is an 'oral tradition' which hasn't been written down. At other times, however, we've heard that the Spirit is working through this movement and that the teachings and the 'charism' is to be transmitted and accepted exactly as it was given to their Spanish founder Kiko Arguello. What has been puzzling, of course, was how the same teachings could be transmitted so precisely - without significant alteration or error - if the teachings were preserved and transmitted in a wholly 'oral' fashion. What was even more puzzling to learn, when some of the concerned members of the NC-active parishes started meeting, was that not only were the teachings and drawings that the NC 'catechists' made on the board very much the same in all, but so too were the special words, gestures, questionings and methods of presentation that they used.
Unsurprisingly, NC teachings have in fact been written down, but these are not meant for general circulation. Instead, the teachings are in the form of very specific directions, most of which appear to have been typed out straight from the mouth of the founder Kiko Arguello, for how the 'catechists' should carry out the various stages of 'catechesis'. Extracts from some of these instructions are shared in The Pope's Armada, and some of those of us concerned about the NC have seen some of the original documents. Significantly, however, a priest of this Diocese who used to be a member of the NC has produced a report which includes copies of the official instructions for presenting 3 of the 16 or so days of the introductory 'catechesis' sessions. The typescripts, which are badly photocopied and appear to be unevenly translated into English, are very detailed (the 3 days' worth of instructions take up some 35 pages). A few excerpts from those instructions, with selected responses, will give a further hint of the controversy (the punctuation and emphasis are as shown):
Neo-catechumenate teaching:
The progress and the development of people is in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit. This is a completely different line from social action, so fashionable now, which tries to develop man before speaking to him about Jesus Christ and the Gospel. As though Jesus Christ were not true man, or as if the Holy Spirit and His grace wouldn't act upon humanity
- (First Day, page 5)
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
This task (to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life) is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity 'to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice.'
- Section 2442 (with reference to Sollicitudo rei socialis 47)
Man's vocation to eternal life does not suppress, but actually reinforces, his duty to put into action in this world the energies and means received from the Creator to serve justice and peace.
- Section 2820 (with reference to Gaudium et spes 22,32,39,45 and Evangelii nuntiandi 31)
Neo-catechumenate teaching:
I want to say something important to safeguard the unity of the Catechumenal Way. God, whether we like it or not, even if some one might call me presumptuous - is acting through a series of persons to whom He is giving charismas and services, in this Way. ..... the door to the Kingdom is very small; only the children and those who make themselves like children can pass through it. THE KINGDOM OF GOD COMES WITH US. ..... Jesus is passing by and may be He will never pass again. Take this opportunity now and cry out to Him now that He is passing - Jesus will stop. Jesus is passing: WITH US JESUS IS COMING. And who does Jesus cure? THOSE WHO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE BLIND. JESUS IS PASSING BECAUSE HE IS COMING WITH US. But maybe you don't believe that the one that is passing is Jesus, because you don't believe that an imbecile like me can bring Jesus.
- (First Day, page 7,10,12)
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. 'This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ' (Lumen gentium 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.
- Section 567
The Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, and the apostolic catechesis describe for us the paths that lead to the Kingdom of heaven. Sustained by the grace of the Holy Spirit, we tread them, step by step, by everyday acts. By the working of the Word of Christ, we slowly bear fruit in the Church to the glory of God.
- Section 1724 (with reference to the parable of the sower: Mt 13:3-23)
The Kingdom of God has been coming since the Last Supper and, in the Eucharist, it is in our midst.
- Section 2816
Neo-catechumenate teaching:
... those who no longer go to Church, those who have left the Church, do not have faith ... Here arises the question of the signs of faith. We must find a presence of Christ wherein faith is not necessary, where a man who is a pagan, an atheist, a desacralized man, a technical or pragmatic man, who does not have faith in Jesus Christ and who no longer comes to Church, by seeing this presence, this sign may come to know Jesus Christ. ..... we are about to form in the parish a Christian community that may be a sign. This community will end up by changing the pastoral work and the structure of the parish. ..... Thus we arrive to a new type of parish, an atomical parish, made up of small Christian communities all in a way of conversion, on a Catechumenal Way, reliving the Baptism in a Christian community.
- (Second Day, page 3,9,11)
The Easter People:
(Bishops of England and Wales' message following the 1980 National Pastoral Congress in Liverpool):
We were glad to recognise in the voice of the Congress an insistence upon the parish as the natural and most effective apostolic community within the life of the Church. Whatever be its size, the parish is seen as a communion of Christian communities made up of all the faithful, whether lapsed or practising their faith, and coming together for prayer, liturgy and the eucharist, the study of the scriptures, for works of charity and mercy, or for social celebrations. Small communities of this kind are a source of strength to the parish as a whole, and must not be exclusive in themselves nor seen as an alternative to parish commitment. Much depends upon the priest in the parish as to how fully these small groups are in fact integrated into the parish community.
- Paragraph 120
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Liturgical diversity can be a source of enrichment, but it can also provoke tensions, mutual misunderstandings and even schisms. In this matter it is clear that diversity must not damage unity."
- Section 1206 (with reference to Vicesimus quintus annus 16: John Paul II)
Neo-catechumenate teaching:
It is clear that you cannot invent the signs of faith. Either they exist, or else they don't. Thus, in many of your communities, it may be that there is Jesus Christ, or maybe not. ... Who knows this? The Apostle. ... It is not you who know if you are Christian, if you are still in the Catechumenate. Perhaps what you think to be signs of Jesus Christ are only a sign of your honesty, of your human qualities, which a Marxist can give as well or better than you. Moreover, during the Catechumenate, you cannot give the signs of an adult faith. It is the apostle, the catechist, the one who leads you in the Catechumenate: it is he who must watch over the Way, as an elder brother, given that it is supposed that the Bishop has recognized him in this charisma, to bring you to the faith. Without doubt this brother is the one who knows.
- (Second Day, page 11)
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
'In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them "their own position of teaching authority"'. Indeed, 'the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.'
- Section 77 (with reference to Dei Verbum 7,8, St. Irenaeus and others)
Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie.
- Section 157
Catechumens 'are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope and charity.' 'With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own.'
- Section 1249 (with reference to Ad Gentes 14, Lumen
Gentium 14 and others)
(return to the beginning)
Thankfully, the Bishop does have a copy of the report from the former NC priest, in which it is suggested that the NC catechists should work closely with the Diocesan Religious Education Centre (the Dunstan Centre), which prepares and supports so many other catechists in the Diocese. While this principle is helpful and should be worth pursuing, it may be difficult in practice. As you might imagine, given the claims and very name of the Neo-catechumenate, there is often a confusion and tension between the RCIA and the NC, especially because the RCIA is the official Catechumenate for the Universal Church. What is worse, the sentiment of some members of the NC often echoes the words of Deacon Dennis Sutton (Director of the Dunstan Centre) who, after meeting with both NC and RCIA groups concluded that "the Neo-catechumenate and RCIA could not coexist in the same parish". Opinions about the NC itself run even stronger elsewhere as Fr. John Phillips (of the Little Brothers of Nazareth) has said he believes that the Neo-catechumenate (as a movement) is "sinister", while both Mgr. Joseph Buckley and Mgr. William Mitchell (the Vicars General) have stated that they believe the movement to be "evil".
The Neo-catechumenate have not continued unrestricted, however. In July of 1993, the Bishop and both Vicars General met with the Parish Priests from the three NC parishes. At that time they were asked to restrict the activity of the NC in three ways: to stop celebrating a separate Easter Vigil, to stop separate weekend (e.g. Saturday night) Masses and to stop recruiting members through new 'catechesis'. The intention of the restrictions were to attempt to bring the parish back together as one community, at least at weekly Masses, and to give some time to study the NC teachings.
The following March (1994), after his wishes had long been disregarded, the Bishop wrote an extraordinary letter, which was 'appointed to be read at all Masses', confirming that the three restrictions would be in place for one year. At the end of that year of restriction, the Bishop announced (in a press statement) that the restrictions would continue until the end of his term. All of these actions indicate his grave concern with these matters. Even though there has not yet been a study of the NC teachings, the Bishop's ban until the end of his term indicates that he believes the NC teachings (and perhaps methods) are not appropriate to share more widely with others.
Since then, in July of 1995, a small group of the concerned parishioners
from St. Nicholas met with the Bishop, Mgr. Joseph Buckley (Vicar
General and Vicar Judicial) and Fr. Robert Corrigan (Bishop's
Private Secretary) to discuss the further need for some sort of
official examination of the various concerns surrounding the Neo-catechumenate.
Of the various options, we all agreed that an Inquiry, including
local and Diocesan-wide meetings, was the best path to proceed.
To be most sensitive, and to provide plenty of time, we also agreed
that the process should begin in the Autumn, after the 10th September
Centenary celebration of the dedication of St. Nicholas'. In addition,
we received the Bishop's support for a respectful 'leave of absence'
from the parish which we planned to take until at least the beginning
of the Inquiry. Regrettably, although many offers were made to
assist in the efforts needed to start the Inquiry, we were still
waiting for the Bishop well into Advent (at the time of this writing),
and so it is unlikely that we of St. Nicholas will be in a good
position to return by Christmas. We await with anxiety and hope
for additional Providence and progress.
(return to the beginning)
Despite including these and other anomalies in a letter to the panel, no reply has been sent, although a request has been made for us to provide further information about the people who have been affected by the presence of the NC but who, we have pointed out, might be missed by the panel's current approach. Meanwhile, concerned members in another affected parish in the Diocese who have contacted the panel with a request to meet with members from all three affected parishes have received a letter denying the request but indicating a plan for meetings to be held sometime in May. This further delay is particularly interesting when considered with the fact that the Parish Priest at St. Nicholas will be of retirement age a few weeks later, in the month of June. We had hoped that these two important events would not interfere with each other too much.
Since the beginning of the process of planning for this Inquiry,
we have asked (first the Bishop and later the Panel) if we might
assist with the process of clarifying the terms of reference,
objectives and practical implications (dates of meetings and so
forth) of the Inquiry Panel, or at least to be informed of these
crucial matters. These requests are still unanswered and so we,
and perhaps the Panel as well, run the risk of having divided
views of what is most important in these matters and perhaps being
unresponsive to the range of concerns built up over so much time.
Surely this is a surprising approach for an Inquiry (certainly
in other spheres of life). In the meantime, due to the lack of
progress at the parish level (especially in terms of the meetings
which should have begun last Autumn), some of us are still in
temporary 'exile' from St. Nicholas and miss (and are missed by)
the dwindling numbers of parishioners remaining. While Easter
comes and goes once more, we, and they, long for some resolution
and revitalisation of the parish.
(return to the beginning)
| St. Nicholas of Tolentino, Bristol | ||
| Neo-catechumenate members | - Saturday, 27 April, 1996 - | 2:00 pm |
| non-Neo-catechumenate members | - Sunday, 28 April, 1996 - | 2:00 pm |
| St. Peter’s, Gloucester | ||
| Neo-catechumenate members | - Saturday, 8 June, 1996 - | 2:30 pm |
| non-Neo-catechumenate members | - Thursday, 13 June, 1996 - | 7:15 pm |
| Sacred Hearts, Cheltenham | ||
| Neo-catechumenate members | - Saturday, 22 June, 1996 - | 2:00 pm |
| non-Neo-catechumenate members | - Saturday, 29 June, 1996 - | 2:00 pm |
The format of the meetings have largely been in a Question/Answer style, with the Chair of the Panel asking most of the questions. This, he announced, is to establish certain facts, based on a variety of claims, some of which are conflicting, as well as matters arising from the written submissions, personal testimony and other reports.
Of the two non-N-C meetings so far, many familiar concerns have been expressed - the secrecy, the disruption of the Parish community, the unknown purpose and the uncertain authority of the N-C, as well as the reluctance to link the Parish Priest with the Parish harm and confusion. Even given the different people involved and the particular character of each Parish, it is evident that there are similar differences among the 'non-Neo-catechumenate', that is, between the ‘pro-N-C’, ‘anti-N-C’ and the many who don’t know what to think, but who believe we all need to know more about the N-C. It was interesting to hear the ‘pro-N-C’ lobby (for that is what they seemed) revealing the same apparent double-standards - with the N-C perceived as ‘one of the Parish’, yet separate in life and liturgies, and the admitted lack of clear information about the N-C, but the assurance that ‘anyone can know them (only) if they join them’.
The Enquiry Panel set out to examine whether there has been any harm done by the N-C in the three Parishes concerned. It has been stated, however, that this examination has not included consideration of the spiritual, theological or psychological types of harm that have been reported or indicated over the years nor has it been able to attempt a comprehensive survey of the many people who have been affected by the N-C, some of whom have left for other parishes, or perhaps moved away from the Church altogether. These exclusions have been noted to the Enquiry Panel, with great concern and regret, and they are said to be due to a lack of time, resources and expertise.
All of these lacks can - or it is hoped in the near future will - be
overcome by either extending the rather rushed current Enquiry process
(three parishes, thousands of people and hundreds of written submissions
alone), calling on the appropriate resources and expertise, or by planning
suitable follow-up discussions (within the Parishes and the Diocese).
These will help respond to the need (as advocated so wisely by the RCIA
process) for people - even Parishes - to reflect on and share their own
stories. This vital process of listening and coming to an understanding
of personal and parishional experience requires more time and more
discussion than has been allotted for in the current Enquiry, but, it is
hoped, this will be addressed in what is surely an essential follow-up
process. We also continue to hope for the necessary healing and renewal
process - which goes beyond the Enquiry process - of the three Parishes
and all the people who have been involved over the years (whatever their
allegiances and wherever they may be).
(return to the beginning)
- Parishioners Against a Secret Church