Gordon Urquhart's Blog: popesarmada25.blogspot.com, page 8

Focolare President denounces women priests

In a 2017 interview for La Stampa, the major Italian daily (see link below for complete interview - available in Italian and English), Maria Voce, then President of the Focolare Movement, made an extraordinary statement. When asked about Catholic women who feel a vocation to the priesthood, Voce replied, ‘It becomes obsessive. According to me, it’s a psychological sickness to demand to become a priest when you’re a woman.’ (‘Diventa ossessivo. Secondo me è una malattia psicologica voler per forza diventare prete quando sei donna!’) One can understand that, like her predecessor, Chiara Lubich, the founder of the Focolare Movement, she may find the idea of women priests abhorrent. But many qualified Catholic theologians and members of the Catholic hierarchy, take the possibility of women priests very seriously and it’s been removed from the ‘Index’ on which it was placed by John Paul II. To hear the leader of a major Catholic organisation using such extreme ad hominem arguments to put down  ‘opponents’ is disturbing. Is this an acceptable form of expression from a person holding great responsibility in the Church?

Looking back at Church history, two of the four women doctors of the Church - Saint Catherine of Siena and Saint Therese of Lisieux - both felt a vocation to the priesthood. Were they suffering from a ‘psychological sickness’? Are the many women priests in the Anglican communion - and women ministers in other denominations - also impelled by a ‘psychological sickness’. The impression is rather that their ministry is immensely successful.

The Focolare Movement, perhaps the largest and most powerful of the 'ecclesial movements' founded in the 20th century, which includes priests, religious, bishops and cardinals among its members, was founded by a woman and according to its statutes, approved by 'Saint' John Paul II, must always have a woman as its leader.  This fact is often quoted as an example of the progress of women in the Church, even of a kind of feminism. Given the virulent antipathy for women priests expressed by Maria Voce while President of Focolare, careful study must be made of exactly what the Movement's real concept is of sexuality, gender and the role of women in the Church. Is it truly forward-looking?

A German woman who had spent many years as the secretary of one Focolare's top leaders and had often been present at Chiara Lubich's official visits to Germany, once pointed out to me that Lubich ensured  that there were no other women in offcial photographs of her surrounded by men - priests, bishops and cardinals.  What does this suggest about Focolare's view on the role of women in the Church?


https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insid...

It's official: Jesus Moran, Co-president of the Focolare Movement declares that the 'visions' of Chiara Lubich known within the Focolare Movement as the 'Paradise of 1949' are NOT private revelations

 According to the various 'responses' of the leaders of the Focolare Movement to Pope Francis' speech to them on 6 Febraury 2021, it seems they have not understood the full extent of the very serious problems he was referring to.  For example, the final document of the General Assembly of the Movement, which presented itself as a reply to that speech contained the words 'charism' or 'charism of unity' 15 times in nine pages.  Rather than responding to his charges of self-referentiality or that 'the charism is not a statue in a museum' (and elsewhere - to the members of Communion and Liberation - he even said, 'the centre is not the charism, there is only one centre - Jesus, Jesus Christ!'), it seems that either they are unable to grasp what they are being told - or even a kind of defiance.  Even weirder is an interview that the Co-president of the Movement, Jesus Moran gave to the Italian magazine of the Dehonian religious order, Settimana News.

http://www.settimananews.it/ministeri-carismi/focolari-dopo-assemblea-gen, Jesus erale/

In a response to a question refering to 'some critical responses to the mystical experiences [of Chiara Lubich] - especially the early ones from the end of the forties, the so-called 'Paradise of 1949', Moran responds without the slightest caution: It has to be said that Chiara always thought and passed on to us...that this mystical experience is the essence of the mentality of anyone who wants to be a source of unity today in the Church and in society - and also those who accept the charism of the Movement.  Therefore the experience of Chiara is not private or particular.'  I may not be a qualified theologian, but I feel confident to affirm that the experience of Chiara Lubich is without the slightest doubt what the Catholic Church defines as a 'private revelation'.

According to the Apostolic Exhortation of Benedict XVI 30 September 2010, after the Synod on the Word of God, it is necessary for the Church to 'help the faithful to distinguish the word of God from private revelations, whose task is not to 'complete the definitive revealtion of Christ...the value of private revelations is essentially different from the one public revelation.'  This document states clearly that 'the use [of a private revelation] is not obbligatory'.  It appears to me that Moran says something quite different about the revelations of the 'Paradise of 1949' - that 'it is not...private'.  There is a danger here of creating a new church.  To me this is a clear example of the 'Contemporary Gnosticism' that Pope Francis has identified many times - especially in the document Gaudete et Exultate of 2018.  In my book The Pope's Armada, dating back to 1995 (UK hardback edition) there was an entire long chapter in which I analysed gnosticism (I used that very term) in the 'new Catholic movements' - and especially Focolare and its 'Paradise of 1949'.

 

Selon les 'capi' des focolarini, les 'visions' de la Lubich - il soi-disant 'Paradis de '49' - ne sont pas une 'revelation prive'

 Selon les différentes "réponses" des dirigeants des Focolari au discours du pape François du 6 février, il semble qu'ils n'aient rien compris aux questions très graves auxquelles il faisait référence.  Par exemple, le document final de l'Assemblée générale du mouvement, qui se voulait une réponse à ses paroles, contenait le mot "charisme" ou "charisme d'unité" 15 fois en 9 pages.  Plutôt que de répondre à ce qu'il a dit sur l'autoréférence ou que "le charisme n'est pas une statue dans un musée" (et ailleurs - aux membres de Communion et Libération - il a même dit, "le centre n'est pas le charisme, le centre est un - c'est Jésus, Jésus-Christ"), il semble qu'ils soient incapables de comprendre - ou même de relever un défi.  Encore plus étrange est l'interview que le co-président focolarino, Jesus Moran, a donnée au magazine italien des dehoniens, Settimana News (20 février 2021). http://www.settimananews.it/ministeri-carismi/focolari-dopo-assemblea-generale/

 À une question portant sur "certaines questions critiques concernant les expériences mystiques [de Chiara Lubich] - en particulier les expériences originelles de la fin des années 1940" (ce qu'on appelle le "Paradis de 1949") Moran répond, sans la moindre prudence : "Il faut dire que Chiara a toujours pensé et nous a transmis... que cette expérience mystique est constitutive de la mentalité de toute personne qui veut être un ferment d'unité aujourd'hui dans l'Église et dans la société - c'est-à-dire de ceux qui font leur le charisme du mouvement.  Il ne s'agit donc pas d'une expérience mystique privée et particulière de Chiara.”  Bien que je ne sois pas théologien, je suis tout à fait conscient, je pense, d'affirmer que l'expérience de Chiara est sans le moindre doute ce que l'Église catholique définit comme une "révélation privée".  Selon l'Exhortation Apostolique de Benoît XVI du 30 septembre 2010, à la suite du Synode sur la Parole de Dieu, il est nécessaire que l'Église "aide les fidèles à distinguer la parole de Dieu des révélations privées, dont la tâche n'est pas de "compléter" la révélation définitive du Christ... la valeur des révélations privées est essentiellement différente de la seule révélation publique.” Ce document indique clairement que "l'utilisation [de la révélation privée] n'est pas obligatoire".  Il me semble que Moran dit tout autre chose sur les révélations du "Paradis de 1949" - que "ce n'est pas...privé" ! Comme ça on court le risque de créer une nouvelle église.   Cela me semble être un exemple frappant du "gnosticisme contemporain" dont le pape François a parlé à maintes reprises, mais surtout dans le document Guadete et Esultate de 2018.  Dans mon livre, Les armées du Pape (Ponte alle Grazie, 1996), une enquête sur une partie du mouvement des Focolari (j'étais membre interne de 1967 à 1976), il y avait un chapitre entier où j'exposais le gnosticisme (en utilisant le même terme) dans trois mouvements d'église - en particulier les Focolari et le "Paradis de 1949". 

Traduitw.DeepL.com/Translator (version gratuite)

Père Pierre Vignon 23 février 2021 at 21 h 40 min
Cher Gordon, ce que tu exprimes est tout à fait juste. L’Unité c’est Dieu. La mort par amour du Christ sur la croix nous ramène à l’Unité. L’Unité divine dépasse nos conceptions. Elle se déploie dans une variété infinie, car elle ne se répète jamais, et elle ramène tout à l’Unité sans aucune uniformité. Il y a beaucoup de demeures dans la maison du Père.
Madame Lubich ne peut donc pas s’identifier à l’Unité divine et prétendre qu’elle est la seule à pouvoir y conduire. C’est se mettre à la place du Saint-Esprit. Quand Jésus Moran (nouveau président élu des Focolari), emporté par son amour filial (et surtout enfantin et infantile) pour la Mamma Lubich (on pardonne aux méditerranéens l’amour exagéré de leur maman), dit que celui qui veut vivre l’Unité doit nécessairement être focolari, il blasphème, tout comme sa maman. Jésus seul pouvait dire en vérité ce qui a été pris par le grand prêtre pour le blasphème qui lui a valu la mort. Cette fausse pommade focolarine avec lesquels les écoliers de Madame Lubich se sont laissé infantiliser est insupportable. En bonne maîtresse d’école, avec ses sept couleurs, elle les a tous dominés, y compris les cardinaux et les évêques dont la vocation reposait plus sur celle de leur maman que sur un appel du Christ.
Il est donc logique, après le détournement du testament du Christ et la captation de son héritage au sujet de l’Unité, qu’elle s’en soit pris à la Vierge Marie en s’auto-proclamant sa « Vicaire ». Il y a un vicaire du Christ, c’est le pape ; mais il n’y a pas de vicaire de Marie, et Madame Lubich est une faussaire en l’ayant prétendu, et ceux qui la suivent doivent s’interdire de réfléchir pour le croire. La Vierge Marie, notre Mère selon l’ordre de la Grâce, est toute transparence, nous disons dans notre langage à nous Immaculée, afin de ne rien prendre au Christ Jésus et de ne pas lui faire écran. Si elle est la Mère de l’Eglise, c’est précisément parce qu’elle a volontairement refusé d’être la « Mamma di tutti », au sens italien et possessif du terme. Ses inspirations d’après la communion où elle voulait communier avec Igino Giordani et surtout lui avec elle, qui ont donné le Paradiso 49, sont des élans romantiques et pieux des amours platoniques (je l’espère) de jeunesse de la Lubich. Devenue vieille, elle a voulu refiler à tous les popi ses expériences de jeunesse en se prenant pour Thérèse d’Avila qui aurait rencontré Jean de la Croix. Mais tout cela est bidon ! ce sont des cris de chats dans les Dolomites !
Chiara Lubich serait sainte si elle avait su se faire transparence pour aider les chrétiens à découvrir le mystère de l’Unité divine. A l’évidence, elle n’a pas su et pas pu oublier de faire la maîtresse d’école et ce qui est extraordinaire, c’est qu’elle a réussi à infantiliser tant d’hommes et de femmes avec ce sous-catéchisme préscolaire. Comme l’a si bien chanté Charles Aznavour, « Elle va mourir, la Mamma » et tous les zenfants réunis autour du lit vont finir par trouver que ses prétendus écrits mystiques n’étaient que des cahiers de coloriage pour enfants. Si quelqu’un trouve que je blasphème en parlant ainsi, il (ou elle) me donnera raison. On peut envoyer des pomodori pourris sur un écran qui prétend faire passer tous les fils de Dieu par ce qui est projeté dessus. Sauf que Dieu a prévu des gens pour renverser les écrans entre ses enfants et Lui. Question finale : est-on iconoclaste si on envoie une tomate pourrie sur une fausse icône ? Petits garçons et petites filles de Chiara, il va falloir que vous fassiez l’unité avec le cancre que je suis si vous voulez appliquer la doctrine de la maîtresse ! Quant à moi, elle ne m’attrapera pas, ni dans le temps, ni dans l’éternité. Enlève ton masque, Chiara, on t’a reconnue Silvia !

Secondo i leader dei focolari, le 'visioni' di Chiara Lubich non sono rivelazioni private

  Secondo varie 'risposte' dai capi del movimento dei Focolari al discorso del Papa Francesco di 6 febbraio, sembra che non hanno capito niente dei problemi molto seri ai quali si riferiva.  Per esempio il documento finale dell’Assemblea Generale del movimento, che pretendeva di essere una risposta a quel discorso conteneva la parola 'carisma' o 'carisma di unità' 15 volte in 9 pagine.  Piuttosto che rispondere alle accuse del Papa sull'autoreferenzialità o che 'il carisma non e statua in un museo' (ed altrove - ai membri di Comunione e Liberazione - ha detto perfino, 'il centro non e il carisma, il centro e uno solo - e Gesù, Gesù Cristo!'), sembra o che non riescono a capire o persino una sorta di sfida.  Ancora più strano e un'intervista che il co-presidente focolarino Jesus Moran ha dato alla rivista italiana dei Dehoniani, Settimana News (20 febbraio 2021). http://www.settimananews.it/ministeri-carismi/focolari-dopo-assemblea-generale/

 Ad una domanda che riferisce ad 'alcune domande critiche rispetto alle esperienze mistiche [di Chiara Lubich] - soprattutto quelle originarie, della fine degli anni '40,' il cosiddetto 'Paradiso di 1949', Moran risponde, senza la minima cautela: 'Bisogna dire che Chiara ha sempre pensato, e ce lo ha trasmesso...che questa esperienza mistica e costitutiva della mentalità di qualsiasi persona che voglia essere fermento di unità oggi nella Chiesa e nella società - ossia di chi fa proprio il carisma del movimento.  Quindi non e un’esperienza mistica di Chiara privata, particolare.'  Anche se non sono teologo, sono abbastanza al corrente, credo, per affermare che l'esperienza di Lubich e senza il minimo dubbio quello che la Chiesa cattolica definisce una 'rivelazione privata'.  Secondo L'Esortazione Apostolica di Benedetto XVI di 30 settembre 2010, dopo il Sinodo sulla Parola di Dio, e necessario per la Chiesa di 'aiutare i fedeli di distinguere la parola di Dio da rivelazioni private, il compito delle quali non e di 'completare' la rivelazione definitiva di Cristo... il valore di rivelazioni private e essenzialmente diverso dall'unica rivelazione pubblica.' Questo documento dice chiaramente che 'l'uso [di una rivelazione privata] non e obbligatorio.'  A me sembra che Moran dice ben altro delle rivelazioni del 'Paradiso di 1949' che 'non e...privata'!   Così si corre il rischio di creare una nuova chiesa.  Questo mi sembra un esempio netto del 'Gnosticismo Contemporanea' di cui Papa Francesco ha parlato molte volte ma sopratutto nel documento Gaudete et Exultate di 2018.  Nel mio libro, Le armate del Papa (Ponte alle Grazie, 1996) ,  un'indagine in parte sul Movimento dei Focolare (ero membro interno 1967-1976), c'era un capitolo intero dove ho esposto il gnosticismo (usando lo stesso termine)  in tre movimenti ecclesiali - soprattutto Focolare ed il 'Paradiso di 1949'. 

Stirrings of Dissent on Official Focolare Website

 From the written and spoken reactions of the Focolare Movement to the address Pope Francis gave to the leaders and over 300 memebers of the Assembly of the Movement (Saturday 6 February 2021), it would seem that they have not registered that he was giving them (to use their own terms) a 'purgatory', ie a reprimand, rather than the 'paradise', or praise, to which they think they are entitled.

However, in a comment to the page Transform suffering to a source of hope on focolare.org, the official site of the Movement, which gives a summary of the main points of the Pope's speech, it seems that someone really did understand what he was saying:

Gianfranco Bressi comments:                                 6 February 2021  22.27 

'In order to carry out the words of the Pope as far as self-referentiality and transparence are concerned, I would suggest that Margaret should open a dialogue with those internal members who left the Movement slamming the door behind them.'

Even more interesting, however, would be a similar reaction on  behalf of 'Olympus', or the 'Centre of the Work'.

https://www.focolare.org/news/2021/02...

Una parola di dissenso sul sito focolare.org?

 Ascoltando le reazioni dei focolarini al discorso del papa ai loro pezzi grossi e l'assemblea sabato scorso 6 febbraio (per esempio su CH di domencia 7 febbraio), sembrerebbe che non si sono resi conti che li faceva, per usare le loro termini, un 'purgatorio', cioe un rimprovero, piuttosto che un 'paradiso', cioe il lode di cui credono di sempre meritare.

Invece, in un commento sulla pagina Trasformare la sofferenza in fonte di speranza su focolare.org, il sito ufficiale del Movimento, che da un riassunto del discorso del papa, si vede uno che ha capito quello che diceva Papa Francesco:

Gianfranco Bressi ha detto:                                                                            6 febbraio 2021 alle 22:47

'Per attuare le parole del Papa per quanto riguarda l'autoreferenzialita e la trasparenza suggerirei a Margaret di aprire un dialogo con quegli interni che sono usciti sbattendo la porta.'

Ancora piu intereressante pero, sarebbe una reazione del genere - o anche piu ampio - dall'Olimpo, cioe dal Centro dell'Opera.

https://www.focolare.org/news/2021/02...

The Cult of Chiara

On Sunday 3 January the Italian national TV station RAI Uno, screened Chiara Lubich - L'amore vince Tutto (Chiara Lubich - Love Conquers All), a new feature-length drama based on the early years of Chiara Lubich, founder of the vast international Focolare Movement and who was once described by her good friend and admirer Pope John Paul II as 'a Great Catholic'.

Starring prominent film and TV actress Cristiana Capotondi in the role of Lubich, directed by Giacomo Campiotti, director of the 2002 TV series Doctor Zhivago starring Keira Knightley, and filmed on the original glorious locations in Trento, the Dolomite mountains and Rome,  shooting on Chiara Lubich - Love Conquers All was completed in mid-2020, amdist the strictures of the pandemic. This production followed in the wake of feature films reverently depicting the saintly lives of other 20th century Catholic colossi such as Mother Teresa and John Paul himself, both already canonised remarkably fast, while Chiara Lubich's cause for sanctification has passed through the diocesan stage and is currently careening through the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints at warp speed.

In an article by Ferruccio Pinotti in the Italian major daily, Corriera della Sera, which appeared the day after the screening of Chiara Lubich - Love Conquers All, former members of the Movement protested strongly against the white-washed image of Lubich and the Focolare Movement presented in the film.  Many ex-members have recently brought charges of abuse of authority and mind control against the organisation, they pointed out, not to mention a major investigation currently underway in France against an internal member of the Movement for sex crimes against minors and a cover-up by its leaders over many years.  At this point in time, they suggest, Focolare should be taking a much humbler attitude, rather than continuing to blow its own trumpet in the triumphalistic fashion which has always been its hallmark. 

Of, course, Lubich herself, represented in an idealised manner in the new film, cannot be held directly responsible for recent examples of sexual abuse by members of the Movement.  There are core aspects of its culture, however, such as extreme secrecy, manipulative use of authority and the priority of protecting the Movement's image and status at all costs - which were developed under Lubich's sixty years of leadership - that can directly facilitate this kind of abuse.

My book The Pope's Armada, published 25 years ago, was the first international investigation into the Focolare Movement and other similar 'new movements' in the Catholic Church. It was also the first to point out its similarities to organisations generally termed cults (see previous post: The Pope's Armada: 25 years on). But at the centre of it all is the personality cult around Lubich herself - the Cult of Chiara.

Looking back, I can now see clearly, from my own experience as an internal member of the Focolare Movement for nine years, the almost invisible induction process I was put through from the moment I first encountered it at the age of seventeen in 1967.  There was a great deal of talk about 'understanding' aspects of the movement - as though this were a kind of private revelation, like evangelicals and charismatics talk of baptism in the Spirit, or apparently random individuals are the 'elect' in doctrines of predestination.  Leaders of the Movement - none from the UK at that time as I was the first English Catholic man to become a full time member - would declare who had 'understood' Chiara (the word used was 'capito', in Italian, the Movement's official language); who had 'understood' her 'spirituality', (known as 'the Ideal'); who had 'understood' its essential points such as 'unity', 'Jesus in the midst', 'Jesus Forsaken'. Although the latter appear to be ideas drawn from the New Testament, they had to be 'understood' in a very particular way, the way Chiara repeatedly re-defined them in speeches and pamphlets.  At the beginning, end and centre of it all, however, was 'understanding' Chiara.

When I was based at the men’s Focolare community in London, the leader of the male section of the Movement in the UK, a priest, would frequently issue decrees during our evening meals on who had and who had not 'understood' Chiara, 'unity' etc.  Pope Paul VI, for example, had been a loyal supporter of Lubich and the Focolare Movement from the early fifties, having defended it from enemies in the Vatican long before he became Pope and later, as Pope, met frequently with Lubich, offering warm encouragement.  But, he, according to our leader 'had not understood Chiara'.  Furthermore, one of the Movement's greatest proselytisers in the UK, a saintly Benedictine priest who had introduced hordes of new followers to the Movement,  we were instructed, had also 'not understood Chiara or the Ideal'.  Pope John Paul, on the other hand, who, among other favours, donated the audience hall at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo to Focolare as its expanded international conference centre, had understood Chiara and was referred to by the term 'popo', a word from the Trento dialect meaning 'child', which in the Focolare lingo signified someone who had definitively 'understood'.  On one occasion, Chiara Lubich showed remarkable cheek at a formal dinner when she suggested to John Paul that he was also a member of the Movement. 

As a very young man, I found these imperious decrees alarming;  had I truly 'understood'?  Apparently I had, as, gradually, more secrets were revealed to me through ancient reel-to-reel tape-recordings of Lubich or privately circulated documents - flimsy sheets of pale and fuzzy carbon copies.  I learned for example, that we internal members of the movement were one soul and that Chiara was at its centre: the source of all understanding.  In her own words: 'There is no unity except where personality no longer exists' (Nuova Umanita* (2007/6) 174, pp 605-611) or ‘Every soul of the Focolare must be an expression of me and nothing else.’ (unpublished manuscript, Rome 23/11/50)  Particularly alluring were tit-bits we were fed of Lubich's summer of visions in 1949, known as 'the Paradise of 1949'. 

There was strong encouragement for the internal members to recognise Lubich as our true Mother.  The first time I saw her in person at a week-long meeting held at the Movement's centre at Rocca di Papa, near Rome, the leader of the male members of the Movement in London stood behind me during one of her speeches whispering in my ear, 'Don't you feel she is your Mother?'  In meetings restricted to internal members, we sang what were virtually hymns to Lubich, addressing her as 'Mamma'. On the other hand, our real mothers were somewhat reduced in status by the nickname 'mammine' (little mothers). 

We were also encouraged to write personal letters to Lubich about our spiritual progress in the Movement.   And also to ask her for ‘new names’ (after all, doesn't the mother name the child?)   One of the male leaders in the Movement was known as 'Maras' (Maria Assunta), an acquaintance of mine was dubbed 'Alleluia'.  Some of these names seemed like a joke - such as 'Ignis', a make of white goods, or Sprint, which was bestowed on a young Swiss girl.  On request, Lubich would also give out a personal 'Word of Life', usually a brief quote from the New Testament.  We genuinely believed that these choices were inspired and destined for us alone, even though Lubich knew few of us personally.

I wrote to 'Chiara' dozens of times (these letters were screened twice - firstly by our local leaders and again by her personal multilingual 'secretariat' - to ensure that she would only receive letters that 'would give her joy' and presumably show we had 'understood').  The only time I ever received a reply was via her personal secretary Guilia Folonari (new name: Eli), when I was living in the Movement's new centre for men in Liverpool of which I was a founder member. I had written that I now realised she was my true mother.  'Chiara was VERY happy with your letter,' Eli assured me. 

One practice I found difficult to accept was stampeding after Chiara and trying to get as close to her as possible whenever she appeared in public.  But it was compulsory - otherwise you hadn't 'understood'.   In the early seventies, when I was serving my two year 'novitiate' at the Focolare 'town' of Loppiano in Tuscany, a young man from England turned up out of the blue, having seen a programme about Loppiano made by the BBC.  I had been appointed his 'guardian angel' and, following a visit by Chiara Lubich at which he had witnessed the frantic expectancy, the cheering, wild applause, standing on chairs and near-hysteria at her appearance, and the way the crowds clustered around her until she managed to squeeze through the front door of her house, I asked him what his first impression of Chiara had been.  'A bit like the Queen,' he solemnly replied.

In her later years, the focus on promoting the figure of Chiara Lubich increased markedly.  Tremendous efforts were focused on securing secular awards for her, including numerous honorary degrees in subjects as varied as Psychology, Business and Economics, Social Sciences and Art, and promoting her as a heroine of global significance, like Mother Teresa (see Chiara Lubich Wikipedia entry). It was rumoured in the period 1995-2004 that she would only visit centres of the Movement in various parts of the world if you had secured an award for her.  Her major secular awards included the UNESCO 1996 Prize for Peace Education, the Council of Europe 1998 Human Rights Prize and the Grand Merit Cross from The Federal Republic of Germany.  

If anything, the Cult of Chiara, far from diminishing, has vastly increased since her death in 2008.  The cause for her beatification and canonisation was launched in Frascati on the outskirts of Rome in January 2015.  To bolster this, many books have been written about her as well as the publication of many volumes of her own writings (enter Chiara Lubich in https://library.harvard.edu/) - odd, considering that she advised everyone else to 'put their books in the attic'. Now the message of the Movement seems to be more than ever simply: Chiara.  An extraordinary short film made by Focolare and available on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/275668720) shows a trip to Trento and the Dolomites by a group of Hindus from India, including distinguished academics, to learn on the spot the miniscule details of Chiara's foundation of the Focolare Movement.  A new kind of interfaith dialogue indeed!

In a year-end one-hour programme made by Focolare in December 2020, also available on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/focolareorg/review/... - 43 mins 30 secs), Maria Voce, Chiara's successor as President of the Movement, mentions the three highlights of her twelve year presidency, now drawing to a close: 1) the funeral of Chiara (see previous post Jesus Wept) at which a visiting stranger discovered the Movement, thus proving that Chiara lives on; 2) seeing Chiara alive in all the members of the Movement doing good to others all over the world over the past twelve years; 3) the sight of Pope Francis signing the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which, according to Voce signified 'the ultimate Chiara could desire: that a Pope should promulgate to the whole world her [Chiara's] dream.'  Apparently Focolare is now more Chiaracentric than ever. 

Pope Francis has recently spoken out against 'self-referentiality' - especially in reference to new Catholic movements.  Here is a perfect example of what he is talking about: in the eyes of the Focolare Movement and its President, everything boils down Chiara Lubich.  25 years ago, in The Pope's Armada, I included a long chapter called 'The Mysteries of the Movements' in which I defined the secret teachings of the movements as a new form of the ancient heresy of Gnosticsm (see forthcoming post on Gnosticism in the new Catholic Movements), that is, 'the fusion between Christianty and [ancient] mystery religions...a mystical [and heretical] form of the infant faith which promised its adepts access to secret knowledge which would explain its mysteries...Salvation through knowledge is far less of an effort than that which requires sweat and struggle - and faith.'  The Cult of Chiara is a key aspect of  this Gnostic strand - ie the vital element is to 'understand' Chiara .  Readers twenty-five years ago may have felt that I was pushing a point too far in stressing the concept of neo-Gnosticism in my analysis of the new Catholic Movements.  Fascinatingly, however, Pope Francis himself has insisted in numerous recent documents on the dangers of 'Catholic Gnosticism' (Evangelii Gaudium - Apostolic Exhortation 2013; Placuit Dei, 2018; Incontro del Santo Padre Francesco con la Diocesi di Roma, 2018 and many others).  Although he does not give specific examples, he has certainly brought this concept firmly into contemporary Catholic mainstream thought and it can no longer be dismissed as exaggerated or a 'conspiracy theory' as some critics of The Pope's Armada have maintained.

In recent years, many saints have been canonised too fast, with ensuing embarassment for the Vatican - for example, Jose Maria Escriva, the controversial founder of Opus Dei prior to whose canonisation, the Vatican’s PR office had to enforce a two-week news blackout; Mother Teresa - whose canonisation miracles have been challenged - and Pope John Paul II whose cavalier dismissal of a number of high-profile sex abuse cases is now being questioned.  In the latter case, it was the Focolare Movement who pushed his candidacy with the slogan 'Santo Subito'! (Saint Right Now!) - with an eye on the future, perhaps?  Yet it took the Catholic Church 500 years to canonise Saint Joan of Arc, now universally regarded as one of the outstanding figures in recorded history.  At the end of his play Saint Joan, George Bernard Shaw, gives his sublime heroine the poignant prayer, 'O God that madest this beautiful earth, when will it be ready to receive Thy saints?  How long, O Lord, how long?'  Given the doubts expressed about Chiara Lubich following RAI's new feature film, perhaps our plea to the Almighty should be, Hold on, O lord, hold on!'

* Italian academic quarterly  of the Focolare Movement.

Abuse of Authority - shocking revelations of Focolare practices

In a one-hour year-end collegamento of news of the Focolare Movement (which can be seen on Vimeo)  - overwhelmingly good, of course - President Maria Voce, shortly to end her term, and co-president Jesus Moran touch on the not-so-good news of sexual abuse in the movement.  Moran also refers - as though it were something unusual and rare in the movement - to ‘abuse of authority’.  Anyone who knows anything about Focolare, is aware that the very system of the movement is based on a confusion between pastoral and administrative practice which results in an abuse of authority.  This was confirmed when the Vatican recently banned the practice of daily written examinations of conscience - known as the schemetti - by full-time members, single and married, which had to be handed to local authorities and ended up as permanently held records at the centre of the movement.

A recent article in cruxnow.com, entitled Reform or Suppression: Troubled lay movements need outside oversight by Junno Arocho Esteves, highlights this problem:

‘Jesuit Father Hans Zollner, a professor of psychology and president of the Centre for Child Protection at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, told Catholic News Service Nov. 4 that before deciding to dissolve a movement or community, certain criteria should be met to indicate reform is possible.

“One condition would be how much that community or that movement is really willing to revise its statutes and its way of proceeding under the guidance of someone external,” such as a commissioner, Zollner told CNS.

A key issue, he said, is a willingness to have a clear separation of “spiritual guidance and external power” when it comes to decision-making.

“A spiritual director should never have the power to direct the movement or a decision for a person,” he said. “There needs to be a separation between who decides the mission aspect (‘forum externum’) and who knows about the spiritual side (‘forum internum’). This is a very important point which some of those movements and some of those religious congregations have not been taking seriously, against the tradition and the law of the church.” ’

Given these statements, the following extract from a yet-unpublished book of mine, The World and the Flesh* is a shocking example of how the Focolare Movement metes out its supreme authority in a manner which shatters all concepts of human rights and breaks the Canon Law of the Catholic Church on ‘enforced manifestation of conscience’, as described by Father Zollner above:

If the Catholic hierarchy is increasingly vulnerable to prosecution for its sexual politics, this is even more the case for its allies in the Church, the various groups and movements.  Besides being less protected by concordats, these organisations are going one step further than the hierarchy in that they are rigidly applying the Vatican's sexual ideology on a practical level within their own structures.  

In May 2000, US Immigration granted asylum to Carlos Ramirez [name changed].  Ramirez is gay and one of the principle grounds for the decision was that he had suffered persecution for his sexual orientation while training to be a full-time member of the Focolare Movement at its centre of Loppiano, near Florence, Italy.  Having joined Focolare in his own Latin American country at the age of fifteen, Ramirez had dedicated himself unstintingly to the service of the movement.  When it came to choosing a university course, for instance, the decision was made at Focolare's Rome headquarters, according to what would best serve the movement's needs.  Having completed his degree course, he was sent to its training centre at Loppiano, Italy.  

When Ramirez confessed to his superior that he was homosexual, a fact that he had known from his childhood,  'That day, my life changed forever and nothing will be the same again,' Ramirez recalls.  'I was convinced that the Church will understand and the fact of being gay was not the main aspect of my life.  But I was wrong… Even after all those years working with them, I was treated as a criminal, as "a natural sinner, an aberration of God's love".'  

He was immediately dispatched to Rome where he was interrogated by a panel of five senior Focolare members who bombarded him with such questions as 'Did you touch the other members?  Did you touch yourself?  When you played with the kids did you…?  Do you have fantasies?  What kind?  Do any of them involve Jesus?' [From the affidavit of 'Carlos Ramirez' submitted as part of the asylum application – dossier in the possession of the author.] 

Following this consultation Ramirez was sent back to Loppiano where he was kept under strict surveillance by his superiors, who monitored who he talked with, his friends, his study group. He was told to go to bed after everyone else in his single-sex community 'to avoid temptation' and to rise earlier than the others so that he could shower alone.  While in bed, he was to sleep with his arms outside the covers – even in winter - so that he would not be tempted to 'touch himself'.  Ramirez was encouraged to take more exercise in order to help ward off temptation – but in long pants, not in shorts.  He was forced to do an hour of penance each day, praying for his 'conversion'.  Although Ramirez had previously worked with children visiting Loppiano he was now dismissed from this task and sent to the kitchens.  Though he was originally scheduled to spend his summer holidays with a group of other young men by the sea, at the last minute his superior told him he was to go 'to the mountains' alone instead because 'at the beach, people would be wearing swimming costumes and I would be exposed to the devil'.  

Ramirez was summoned to a final consultation in Rome where the panel which had interrogated him delivered its findings: he was indeed homosexual and therefore not fit to become a fulltime member of the movement.  He was to be sent home  within two or three days.  Through a phonecall to friends in his own country, Ramirez learned that his family and Focolare colleagues had already been informed of the reasons for his return.  He discovered that he was to be excluded from the activities of the movement and knew that he would face rejection from his family on account of his homosexuality.  Anxious that Ramirez' hasty departure should not be too much of a 'trauma' for his classmates – his feelings were not considered – his superiors at Loppiano concocted an elaborate lie that he was returning home because his mother was seriously ill.  This subterfuge was compounded by a little sermon on the duty of a Christian towards his parents.  Ramirez was compelled to go along with the deception even when, seeing the young man's distress, his unsuspecting classmates promised their prayers for his mother's recovery and reassured him that she would soon be well and he would be able to return to complete his course.  

At the airport, he was presented with a one-way ticket and a $100 in cash.  When he realised that the plane touched down in the US, Ramirez determined to alight there and seek refuge with friends.  Three years later, having rebuilt his life from scratch in the US, Ramirez was granted asylum on the basis of his treatment by Focolare.  His case is not an isolated one.  In Western society, in which human rights are ever more protected by legislation, the Vatican's sexual ideology as promulgated and practised by its allies is sure to throw up thousands of similar cases.   

According to Jesus Moran, this kind of abuse is totally against Chiara Lubich’s original wishes.  I’d like to see the proof! 

*This book was to all intents and purposes banned by my German publishers (who nevertheless paid my substantial advance in full), because they were taken over by a company in which the Catholic Church was a majority shareholder and were therefore too nervous to go ahead with it.  As it deals with the sexual politics of the Vatican under ‘Saint’ John Paul II and Benedict XVI, I felt that in the era of Pope Frances it is now irrelevant.  Given the new criticisms arising around that period with the MacCarrick report and Frederic Martel’s In the Closet of the Vatican I am not so sure.  I think that the abuses caused and tolerated by the Vatican in that period need to be thoroughly investigated and uncovered.

The Divine Dictionary - A is for Attic

 In 1906, the American writer and satirist Ambrose Bierce published The Devil's Dictionary, giving parallel, but strikingly accurate (and cynical) definitions of common words.  For example: 'Education, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.'  Or: 'Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour.'  Inspired by this example, I am launching a new series on this blog entitled The Divine Dictionary which will supply the world with the much-needed guide to how the Focolare Movement has redefined many common words.  There are numerous examples, so please send me suggestions.  We are starting with...

A is for Attic

'Attic' is one of the first words to be redefined for you when you encounter the Focolare Movement, because it comes at the very start of The Story of the Ideal', the simple, enchanting and rigidly fossilised account of how the movement began.

The definition is clear:  the attic is where you put your books.  All of them.

As I explained in The Pope's Armada, 'An extreme integrism underlies Focolare's anti-intellectualism - indeed, its opposition to thought of any kind in its members.  This atiitutude dates from the very beginnings of the movement.

'Chiara Lubcih described how God told her to give up her philosophy studies: "It was when, in order that He could become our Teacher and instruct us in the truth, God asked to sacrifice all the truth that men could give us. It was when, so as to reveal Himself to us, God gave us the strength to put all the books of other teachers in the attic."

'The symbolic act of "putting one's books in the attic" came to signify, in the lore of the movement, the rejection of human learning.  It remains one of its most powerful slogans.  Chiara Lubich emphasises that this radical rejection of outside knowledge is a fundamental step to be taken by all recruits:  "This act of our life is the basis of all the doctrine of the 'Ideal'. It has to be the basis for anyone who wishes to follow Jesus in His Work [the movement]." 

'...Chiara states categorically that "One thing was certain: He who lived among us was God and therefore he was able to reply to all the questions that all men of all time might pose." And the condition for this 'illumination' is also made quite clear: "... the complete void of our minds".'  I should hastily add, that this means everyone else's minds - the only exception being hers.  In practice, putting one's books in the attic means that she becomes the sole teacher and authority for all the members of the movement.

Clearly she disagreed with that other noted thinker Socrates who said, 'Employ your time in improving yourself by other men's writings so that you shall come easily by what others have laboured hard for.'  She thought differently from Socrates on another subject.  He believed that 'The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing.'  Whereas she apparently thought she knew everything and revealed her teachings, ironically, in numerous books   She certainly disagreed with Socrates' dictum, 'I cannot teach anybody anything.  I can only make them think.'

 'Put your books in the attic' is Focolare's low key equivalent of Nazi book burnings. It is therefore not surprising that this phrase is like a red rag to a bull to those outside the movment.  In the process of publishing The Pope's Armada, the book was closely read by Bantam Press'  top firm of solicitors in the City of London.  They had drawn up a list of possibly contentious items - on all of which I was able to satisfy them  By a strange coincidence, the lawyer handling the matter was a practising Anglican and had attended one of Focolare's Easter Anglican trips to Rome, including a visit to Loppiano.  In reading The Pope's Armada, what really outraged him and alerted him to Focolare's real intentions was the phrase 'Put your books in the attic'.

A French couple who had suffered great distress as a result of their daughter 'Marie' becoiming a Focolarina, when she paid one of her 2-day annual visits to their home, mentioned to her the fact that they had read the French edition of my book (Golias, 1999).  A few days later they received a letter from her, giving the approved Focolare view on the book.  She concluded the letter, rather unwisely: 'Leave this book in the attic'.  As I recounted in the revised version of The Pope's Armada,  'Not surprisingly, aware that this was a Focolare catch-phrase, Marie's mother felt this was the last straw and denounced "your anti-intellectual doctrine which rejects human teaching...It is certainly not thanks to Chiara Lubich that researchers struggle to relieve the scourges of mankind such as cancer, AIDS etc...Any psychologist could tell you that you are in a fool's paradise. " '

In the years I spent as a member of the Movement, I recall specific examples when 'books' were dismissed out of hand.  While I was doing a degree in English and Italian Literature, I mentioned to Jean-Marie Wallet, the head of the London Focolare, that, since meeting the movement, I was having increasing difficulty reading the books on my syllabus.  'Yes,' he nodded sagely: 'once you have read the writings of Chiara Lubich, the great works of world literature fade into insignificance.'  On another occasion I rememebr Fede, the head of the men's branch of the movement, commenting that, 'Shakespeare was a great expert on the "old man".'  This term was appropriated by the movement from St Paul, to signify everything that is evil in human nature and in each individual - qualities also known in the Movement as the 'human'.  Clearly Fede had not read Portia's soaring speech on mercy in The Merchant of Venice or, from the same play, Shylock's speech on racial discrimination, at least four centuries ahead of its time.

When history recalls the enemies of books like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Cardinal Ratzinger (who ordered the pulping of Lavinia Byrne's Women at the Altar, on the subject of women priests, in  the late 1990's  ), and Bishop  Diego de Landa who burnt the Mayan codices  - there's no need to leave out the distaff side.  They had their bonfires, Chiara Lubich had her attic!

The Pope and I - Prologue

Given that I am the author of a book which was considered anti-Pope (which it wasn’t), it is very surprising for me to witness recent actions of Pope Francis, and to read papal documents and speeches which show that we are in very close harmony. Some of his very strongly worded thoughts are virtually identical to those I expressed in The Pope’s Armada twenty five years ago. So I am starting an occasional series of posts on this site which I will call - perhaps cheekily, but with serious intentions - The Pope and I! As a Prologue (like Das Rheingold to Wagner’s Ring), here is an article I wrote in March 2013, just before Francis was elected. Looking at it now, I feel that in Francis we got exactly what we needed - exactly what I described then. After the horrible drought of ‘Saint’ John Paul II and Benedict XVI, finally RAIN! 
 March 2013It has been a papal election like no other. The Catholic Church is torn by a very public crisis. The world-wide paedophile scandal has led to mass walk-outs of members in the Catholic heartlands – including Ireland and the United States. The Vatileaks debacle has highlighted corruption and division at the very heart of the Church, within the Curia, and its central government. All this against a background of division between the faithful about what the basic message and ethos of the Catholic Church should be in the 21st century – the role of women, for example, and an understanding of the nature of man and sexuality in the light of modern science. The urgency of dealing with this crisis has been highlighted by Pope Benedict’s shock resignation – a frank admission that at his advanced age he is simply not up to dealing with a problem on this scale and at the same time an urgent reminder that it must be dealt with. 
 In their pre-conclave deliberations, the job description for the next pope emerged from interviews the cardinals gave before voting began: he must be a man of God yet with the necessary strength and skill to reform the Curia; he must have no interest in cultivating a personal image yet possess a genuine warmth and spontaneity, enabling him to reach out not only to the most alienated among his own flock but also those of other faiths and none; he must be a communicator at the highest level, yet a man of the people; he must possess a vision of the Church’s long-term needs yet bring immediate healing to the divisions, hurt and bitterness felt by many in the Church. He must be a man whose heart and mind can encompass the whole of humanity and not just Catholics. 
 An impossible dream? Possibly, but this job description for our times is a perfect fit for arguably the greatest pope of the last century – perhaps of the last few centuries – Pope John XXIII. Elected as a caretaker pope in 1958 at the age of 76, he turned out to be the Church’s greatest reformer in 500 years with his shock announcement of the Second Vatican Council, an event which would bring the all Church’s bishops together to hammer out a blueprint for ‘The Church in the Modern World’ – the title of one the Council’s seminal documents. What was extraordinary about John – and set the tone for his Council – was that he focused only on the good in people and society. He spoke of the ‘signs of the times’ – his sense of God at work in contemporary society, with its desire for peace and reconciliation in the post-war years. 
In his speech at the opening ceremony of the Council he set himself against 'the prophets of doom' among his own collaborators (he was referring to the traditionalist cardinals of the Curia) for whom 'the modern world is nothing but betrayal and ruination', contrasting this view with his conviction that 'Providence is guiding us towards a new order of human relationships which, thanks to human effort and yet far surpassing its hopes, will bring us to the realisation of still higher and undreamed of expectations.' The Pontiff went on to emphasise that the goal of this Council - unlike most previous Councils, and in particular, his Council's immediate forerunner, Vatican I - would be a positive one of encouragement rather than condemnation: ‘to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. [The Church]...meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.’ 
How ironic, therefore, that Pope Benedict, in a speech late last year proclaiming a Year of Faith to mark the 50th anniversary of the Council, should condemn today’s world in the most bitter terms: ‘Recent decades have seen the advance of a spiritual “desertification”. In the Council’s time it was already possible from a few tragic pages of history to know what a life or a world without God looked like, but now we see it every day around us. This void has spread…This, then, is how we can picture the Year of Faith: a pilgrimage in the deserts of today’s world.’ Benedict’s speech typifies the image of the pope, already well-established by John Paul II, as a finger-wagging, anachronistic figurehead, whose authority has been rendered hollow by the revelations of wrong-doing among the Catholic clergy.
If his successor is to fulfil his mission as bridge-builder (Pontiff) and the servant of the servants of God, then, like Pope John XXIII, he must be able to listen, to discern the positive and hopeful ‘signs of the times’, to encourage the good in individuals and society. He must be able to answer this question (a line from the Pulitzer-prize winning musical South Pacific) to Catholics and non-Catholics alike: ‘I know what you are against – what are you for?’