IVE Formation Problems Part II - The Spiritual

This is part two of a four part series.  Part 1 is here.  Parts three and four will follow in the coming months.  

We have warned you that it is probably not a good idea to enter the IVE - at least not until its institutional problems are resolved - assuming they can be.  

At the center of these problems is the process of formation cultivated by Fr Buela and now institutionalized into the IVE culture and all its houses of formation.   It's from this dysfunction in formation that we see the two main fruits of the IVE - the recruitment without proper discernment or concern for the candidate and the diaspora of young IVE priests leaving soon after ordination.

This is the second in a series of posts where we'll highlight the many issues you'll encounter during formation with the IVE (issues, that of course, the IVE doesn't tell you about.)  We are focusing one post each on the 4 pillars of formation laid out by John Paul II in his exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis:  the Intellectual, Spiritual, Pastoral, and Human pillars of formation.

In the first post we covered deficiencies in Intellectual pillar of formation at IVE seminaries - a formation which, judging by their website, the IVE are very proud of.  In this subsequent post we'll cover the second pillar of formation, that of the Spiritual - an area they are equally boastful of:

Self-sacrifice?  Yes, in more ways than you probably can imagine.  Intense prayer life?  Well, as we covered in part I of this series - and in many other posts on this site - the IVE like to say one thing and do another.  Whether this is purposeful or out of ignorance is not our place to say, but it is our place to make you aware of it so you can make an informed decision and give informed consent when entering the IVE and submitting to its superiors. 

No Spiritual Charism

There are several problems in this area. The first and most apparent is that this is a religious community without any true charism.  If one looks at the Orders who have stood the test of time, the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, Salesians etc., they all had a charism given to them by God.  They each had a clear mission.  Jesuits are to be educators.  Dominicans are to be Preachers.  Franciscans are to preach the cross of Christ through poverty, penance, and preaching.  Carmelites are to live lives of penance and be contemplatives.  Salesians evangelize the poor and abandoned - especially the youth.  The success of all of these religious orders, and the struggles and failures many have had as of late, are relative to how faithful they are to their charism.

When an order strays from the mission it was given by God, one shouldn't be surprised when problems begin to arise. This is why these Orders were strongest while their founders were still alive or after a reformer came along.  The founder would have kept them true to their mission and the reformer working to return them to it.  One has only to look at the history of Religious Orders to see the importance of a charism and the necessity of sticking to it.

In practice, the IVE does not have a defined charism.  They do not have a particular mission.  They did not start with a charism.  Their current "Evangelization of the Culture" is so broad it's effectively meaningless in word and deed.  If they are asked what their charism is they'll give various answers ranging from, “We are orthodox and joyful,” to “We are about the New Evangelization,” or “We embrace love of the Cross.”  None of these are true charisms.  They are only broad generalizations without any true path for accomplishment.  "Orthodox and Joyful" is not distinct to a group.  The New Evangelization - what does that mean to them?  Everyone claims to be about the new evangelization.  Love of the Cross - that is not particular to them either.

A Grab-Bag Spirituality

Because they have no charism they have no guiding principle or direction.  They simply take what they like from many other Saints and Orders.  This can be a good idea when done prudently and it is what diocesan priests do.  Unfortunately, the IVE do not do this prudently.  Their founder pieced together many disparate, often conflicting practices with no framework to make sense of them and no way to integrate them.  

Some practices do not work with others and certain practices isolated from their original structure are not efficacious.  Practices of certain saints and religious orders often work very well in their system, but if removed from that environment and placed in another - in combination with things they were not intended for - they are ineffective at best and potentially harmful.  To use an example from nature, a shark is the one of the top predators in the ocean.  It moves quickly and has little to fear.  Yet if you put that same shark in a lake or on land it will die.  Not all things can be isolated from their intended environments without problems.

For example, in the IVE, during their Spiritual Exercises, which they consider a staple of  their spiritual formation and discernment, they have people following Ignatian Rules while simultaneously reading St. John of the Cross.  Each of these is great on its own but they are not intended to be mixed.  They teach contrary approaches to prayer.  The exercises are based on imaginative prayer, using your sensory imagination, while St. John of the Cross states one should never do this.  They both have spiritualities that work but they are based on different forms of prayer.

Using one form of prayer with another spirituality will not allow one to accomplish what  the saint originally intended.  The Institute is trying to build a spirituality by isolating practices and combining them with others they weren't intended for and do not work with.  Imagine if someone tried to build a car using an engine from a jet ski, a tractor tire, a tire from a bicycle and the steering mechanism from an airplane.  All of these things are good if used in the way there were intended in the environment intended.  Yet trying to use each of them without their supporting structures - and then combining them with equally isolated practices - leads to disaster.

A Search For Justifications?

In some cases this mish-mash appears the result of innocent, if misplaced zeal - yet in other cases the Institute seems to have searched quite extensively, often relying on obscure texts from (sometimes very obscure) religious figures to justify some of their practices.  

Take their approach to obedience, for example.  Like the Legion of Christ before them, the IVE claim that their religious vow of obedience is modeled after obedience as St Ignatius prescribed it for the Jesuits - especially their "obedience of judgment", also referred to as "obedience of the intellect."  They would tell you as much if the subject was brought up in conversation.  

Yet they don't quote St Ignatius in the relevant section of their constitution at all - probably because he would not support their view.  Instead they string together various quotes with zero context.  Quotes from religious figures - sometimes very obscure religious figures - all from different orders, with different charisms, thus with different intentions in their words.  Then from this they preach and practice what is essentially a blind obedience to superiors - much like the Legion of Christ did.  This is but one example.  There are many others.

We cannot know their motives for creating such a chaotic, disorganized spirituality, but we can think of a few explanations that make sense.  Either it is born out of ignorance and misplaced zeal or it comes from attempting to justify pre-determined courses of action - though we imagine it could also be a combination of the two.

These aspects of the IVE call to mind the words of Pope Francis when he said:

They tell young people: “Do this, do that.” So a seventeen- or eighteen-year-old boy or girl gets excited and they push them forward with rigid directives [...]  This type of rigid religiosity is disguised with doctrines that claim to give justifications, but in reality deprive people of their freedom and do not allow them to grow as persons.

Problems from Formators to Forums

There are other practical problems with their spiritual formation.  One is that they do not teach correct priestly spirituality.  For instance, there is a clericalism there which, prior to our experience with them, we could not have believed.  They act and demand that they are to be served rather than to serve.  They quite literally treat men in formation and all the sisters as servants, waiters, gophers, personal drivers, etc. - to the extent that even special food and drink is reserved exclusively for the priests at every meal.  

Division of labor and fostering a spirit of humility and service is one thing - instead they foster the idea that with ordination comes graduation into a realm of entitlement.  They  hypocritically, yet openly flaunt their vow of poverty which states they should "choose the worst."  Rather than provide an example to those in their care, the IVE priests lord it over those in formation.  This is a huge problem.

From the clericalism it's a logical extension to their blurring and disappearing of the line between internal & external forum - so much so that - even though it's a basic tenant of formation and is covered by canon law - the concept of "internal & external forum" is never even discussed by the IVE with those in formation.  You'll only learn about it if you have experience with another order or seminary.  We've written in detail on how the IVE disregard internal/external forum and the relevant sections of canon law under "Sign #13" here. 

Danger in Spiritual Direction

These violations of canon law and internal/external forum are just the beginning of the problems you face with IVE spiritual direction.  By being limited to IVE spiritual directors, you are effectively limited to deficient directors.  The saints saw great danger in this.  To quote Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the greatest Catholic Thomists of the 20th Century and academic advisor to a Karol Wojtyl:  

St. Francis de Sales says on the subject of a director: "He must be a man of charity, learning, and prudence; if any one of these three qualities be wanting in him, there is danger." St. Teresa expresses the same opinion.

The clericalism, the lack of concern for candidates, and your own eventual experience will make it clear the IVE is institutionally deficient in charity and prudence.  We've also clearly outlined in the first part of this series how anyone formed by the IVE will be deficient in learning.  Spiritual direction from an IVE priest - as we could personally testify - is dangerous. 

Further, while St Francis de Sales could only imagine one out of ten thousand as a capable spiritual director, nearly every IVE priest is saddled by his superiors with this grave responsibility.  The number of older, learned, and qualified spiritual directors in the area is quite plentiful given the many orders and seminaries in the DC / Catholic University area.  Yet you won't have the option of choosing one of these experienced directors.  IVE seminarians are stuck choosing from the few local IVE priests, many who are less than a few years removed from ordination and - lacking in all three key characteristics outlined as necessary by Garrigou-Lagrange, St Francis de Sales and St Teresa of Avila above - this is dangerous. 

To make matters worse, your IVE director will likely only be interested in you in so far as your vocation to the Institute.  Even if you leave on good terms (which is not always easy to do) and want to continue with your spiritual direction you'll find your spiritual director will quickly be too busy for you - cutting you off from spiritual direction in a time of great spiritual need.  

A Check the Box Off Approach to Prayer

Like their "spirituality" and "charism", even prayer follows a check the box off approach at the institute.  On an individual level, there is very little time available for personal prayer because of the crowded, arbitrary schedule.  In fact, even the most liberal seminaries give more time for quiet, personal prayer than one will receive with the IVE. 

Scheduled prayer is offered with no time for preparation before and no peace after.  Interior silence is further made difficult since you don't have ANY time alone.  Carving out time for individual prayer is impacted since each day is fully scheduled (and though schedules aren't followed, you are subject to the whim of the superior and need to ask permission for any exception - "keep the schedule and the schedule will keep you" is not the rule with the IVE.)  

They often boast that they are so quiet in prayer and so loud elsewhere - well, that's true:

For about 45 minutes of the adoration there will be silence and usually that's the only silence you'll get all day.  

In the US seminary your Holy Hour is crammed between the excessive business of the day on one side and the noisiness of the dinner table on the other.  This is contrary to the instruction of the Spiritual Doctors of the Church.  St Francis de Sales explicitly cautions about going from Holy Hour to a lot of noise - yet the IVE brag about this very practice on their website.

At the seminary in Segni, Italy it's even worse.  Adoration is frequently reduced in duration or cut altogether in favor of work or travel - even though the constitutions and spirituality clearly call for a minimum of one hour mental prayer a day (Though we really shouldn't be surprised when the IVE violate their constitutions.)

For many, the time in adoration is little more than a chance to catch up on sleep or to cry in silence (crying will be a daily occurrence among the sisters and quite frequent among the men as well - tears of joy or contrition we are sure.)  Only one priest will show up for adoration at the seminary.  All of the others are off relaxing or doing work.  The Novice master and parish priests where the novitiate adoration is held almost never show up either.  The same could be said for evening and night prayer.

Busy-Work Trumps Prayer-Life

When in conflict, work takes priority over one's spiritual life.  Your prayer life can therefore be severely restricted based on your "office" or work responsibilities.  If you are on cooking or service duty this greatly affects your prayer life on that day.  If you are cooking you have to leave Mass right after receiving Holy Communion to go and get everyone's breakfast ready and in the evening, while everyone else is in adoration, you are stuck in the kitchen preparing dinner.  (To make it worse, you have to prepare two meals, one for priests and another for seminarians.)  In theory you could get one hour before the Blessed Sacrament at some other time during the day, but in practice this is very difficult to manage due to the overloaded schedule, the lack of personal freedom, and the general disorganization (one could say an almost institutional distaste for applying organization or prudence to any undertaking.)  And there are many offices worse than being a cook.

Regardless of your individual responsibilities, you'll still find yourself working quite often on Sundays and Holy Days - we are not talking about pastoral work, but unnecessary manual labor which could be done any other day.  This is a direct violation of the 3rd Commandment.  If that seems harsh, imagine washing floors or scrubbing toilets on Christmas or Easter Sunday - your superiors telling you it's not really work if you remain joyful while doing it.  

They do this because they want to keep those in formation busy at all times - can't give you too much time to think, after all - even going so far as to order their seminarians to violate God's law.  This sense of busy-ness and activism is harmful to the spiritual life and is warned against by all Spiritual Doctors.

And Much More

Even though a 4th vow of slavery to Our Lady is taken there is no clear sign of extra devotion to Our Lady.  Daily rosary is on the schedule in the USA, but in Italy it's left up to the seminarian's discretion and prior to making the total act of consecration to Our Lady there is no structured preparation.

Though the Institute claims to be orthodox it is frowned on for anyone to receive Holy Communion keeling or for anyone to wear a roman collar. 

And if you entered you'd find many more examples where prayer and spiritual life take a back-seat to the arbitrary practices at the Institute.  

Just So You Know

We don't write this to question the spiritual devotion of the Institute's current seminarians or priests.  We write this so you can be sufficiently forewarned and informed where they were not.  

If you already have a solid foundation for your spiritual and prayer life and are hoping for it to grow then you may be best served looking elsewhere.

Give me Your Heart - The Institute Lying Again?

A big topic on this site is the IVE's approach to discernment, recruitment, and admissions to their houses of formation.  We don't think the Institute is completely honest or open with you on this subject and will even take advantage of your ignorance.  Our aim in this post is to give you the information the Institute won't so you can protect yourself.  

Revisiting "Give Me Your Heart"

It's sad that you can't take a religious order on their word, but as we have documented, that's unfortunately too often the case with the IVE.  That's why, after re-reading an earlier post, we again feel compelled to comment on the IVE's book "Give Me Your Heart", a book on religious vocations that's part of their "Youth Series".

It's worth noting that, while some of the IVE catechisms and pamphlets have Imprimaturs, "Give Me Your Heart" does not.  No Bishop has approved this book as being consistent with Church teaching.  It's purely the work of Fr. Buela, with no support from the Church.  Of course, that doesn't stop the IVE from handing it out to children. 

What struck us on re-reading the book this time was that the 2nd chapter actually made sense.  Ironically, it made sense because it is the one section of the book the IVE doesn't actually ascribe to.  

You can read the chapter yourself, but the relevant passages from Chapter 2 follow. 

Desire for the Vocation is Necessary

We don't want to focus on discernment or vocational calling too much in this post as it has been dealt with best elsewhere, but we will say that this is one of the few quotations from the IVE on the subject that seems in the proper context (emphasis in all following quotes is ours):

"6 St. John Bosco says, "Those who in their heart feel the desire to embrace this state of perfection and holiness may believe, without any doubt, that such desire comes from heaven because it is too generous and is well above natural sentiments."

That's right.  If you feel a desire to that state.  Not if you've just thought about it.  Not, if in your pursuit of God's will in your life, you recognize this state as a potential option.  Not if you feel a calling to loftier things, but aren't sure what that means.  Not if someone suggested it to you.  No.  If you feel a desire to embrace that state, then it comes from God. 

In a footnote on the same page they quote Pope Paul VI who echoes St John Bosco:

The Most characteristic sign - indispensable to a priestly vocation - is undoubtedly a righteous intention, that is, a clear and decisive desire to be totally consecrated to the Lord's Service (Editor: ie. to that priestly vocation.)

Again.  A clear and decisive desire to the priestly vocation is indispensable.  Yet if you read our previous post you'll know that in the eyes of the Institute even thinking about a vocation, even if that thought is planted by an IVE priest, is pretext to enter formation.  Then, after entering, any doubts about your new 'vocation' are "temptations" from the devil - in IVE-logic these doubts, rather than a sign you are not called to that vocation, are instead a confirmation of the calling!  

(See the trick?  "No doubts?  Great!  You have a vocation here!" and "You have doubts?  Great!  That's the devil, he doesn't want you to be here and that means you have a vocation here!")

An Obligation to Gauge Candidates Suitability? 

Later the chapter outlines the Church's responsibility in judging and gauging a candidate's suitability.  It's all very prudent and sensible.  The only problem is the IVE doesn't practice any of it.  

"8 The threefold suitability of the candidate must be: Physical (and psychological), intellectual and moral (which implies having the right intention.)  If the suitability is lacking, it is a sign that God is not calling and thus, that the Church should not call. "

It's shocking that the IVE would even admit that psychological suitability should be a pre-requisite, since that certainly isn't what they practice.  We know they don't have any psychological exams in Italy and we doubt they have any in Argentina either.  In the US, unlike every other religious order who give psych exams (and background checks for that matter) prior to entering, the Institute doesn't give psych exams until the 2nd half of the Novitiate in the Spring.  Even then these tests have no bearing on the candidate moving on to the seminary and temporary vows, even when problems unearthed by these exams would preclude someone from entering any other seminary in the US.

As for intellectual suitability, they make no attempt to gauge this prior to entering in any way.  In fact, they regularly admit students without high school diplomas that barely speak the language of instruction.   Even then, the intellectual formation at the seminary would be lacking for even the most proficient candidate. 

The same applies to moral suitability.  There is no effort made to gauge this prior to entering.  If questioned the IVE will usually say that they live so closely with you they will be able to make those judgements over time - though other seminaries and orders could say the same thing, yet they still try to gauge suitability beforehand.  

While it's swell for the IVE that they have a way to gauge suitability of the seminarian years after he enters, where is the concern for the candidate?  If a candidate isn't fit, shouldn't they make at least some attempt to gauge that before he enters?  Wouldn't that be the charitable thing to do?  Their own book says they have an obligation to do so, yet they make zero effort: 

"9 the ecclesiastical authority not only has the right but also the obligation to use all necessary means to know the candidates suitability and thus to be able to make a strict selection."

Of course, the book also says: 

"11 We customarily make selections prior to entering the novitiate… Before admission to holy orders (or temporary profession), a rigorous selection must be made."

Actually, this is not what they do at all.  It's their custom, rather, to never make any selections prior to the novitiate.  If you want to fill out an application they won't stop you, but it's certainly not required.  Most enter the novitiate with nothing more than a phone call and maybe a conversation with their local IVE parish priest.  All the IVE really want to know is A) do you have a lot of debt and B) are you an active homosexual.  If the answers are "no" and "no" then they'll tell you to show up.  

As a result of this lack of screening, candidates enter with all sorts of psychological issues and various histories of issues.  Further, since none of the canonical questions are ever asked prior to entrance, people will even be allowed to enter without having received any or all the sacraments of initiation.  As strange as it sounds, it's quite common to see someone during the first month or two of the IVE novitiate receive baptism and/or confirmation.  So these candidates weren't even part of the Church, yet the IVE already has them lined up for holy orders.  

The reality is that the psychologically fit candidate who has attempted discernment and had spiritual direction prior to entering (which would make up the majority entering most other US seminaries today) is the rare, rare exception with the IVE.

Is It All For Show?

We can't help but think that, like their constitution, this chapter of the book is simply for show.  As with many of their practices, we feel this is deceptive and untruthful.  They are playing with people's vocations (and souls) with no regard for what is best for the candidates.

Please, for your own sake, be very skeptical when taking any advice from the Institute.  You are better off steering clear of any group that has such large problems with telling you the truth.  

Aquinas Warns Against Deceivers

In fact, St Thomas Aquinas warns against one who: 

...entices another (to enter religious life) by lies: for it is to be feared that the person thus enticed may turn back on finding himself deceived, and thus "the last state of that man" may become "worse than the first" (Luke 11:26).

Does the Institute lie?  It certainly doesn't tell the truth.  True to St Thomas' warning, many who enter leave so wounded they not only leave the Institute, but the Church altogether - their last state worse than their first. 

IVE Formation Problems Part 1 - The Intellectual

This is part one of a four part series.  Part 2 is here.  Parts three and four will follow in the coming months.  

There are many of issues with Catholic seminaries in the USA post Vatican-II.  They've gotten better of late, but there is still a long way to go.  Americans sometimes think they can avoid these issues by joining the IVE.  Unfortunately, formation at the Institute has its own set of problems.   

In this series of posts we'll highlight issues you'll encounter during formation with the IVE.  It is necessary to publish them here because the IVE won't tell you about them beforehand and you wouldn't otherwise know about them until after you've already joined.  

We'll focus one post on each of the 4 pillars of formation laid out by John Paul II in his exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis:  the Intellectual, Spiritual, Pastoral, and Human pillars of formation.

Because the IVE like to think of and advertise themselves as an intellectual - even academic - congregation, we thought we'd address that pillar first. 

Intellectuals?  Academics?

We are a bit flummoxed that this is actually part of their FAQ because this in no way describes the Institute.  Despite trumpeting their size and growth, only one or two of their priests have ever published anything at all and only with their own IVE Press.  Some priests get 2 year licentiates in philosophy or theology (the bare minimum required to teach at a normal seminary) but we aren't aware of any IVE priest that has a doctorate.  We aren't even sure that half of the US seminarians enter with high-school diplomas.  This doesn't make them bad priests or bad people, but it does make this FAQ a bit haughty and disingenuous... though that is certainly not out of character for the IVE.  

We can see from Jack Toller's account of the IVE in Argentina that there has never been a strong academic foundation or intellectual bent - and that this characteristic goes back to the founder, Fr. Carlos Buela:

He did not, however, put much emphasis on the quality of his professors, and most of the better endowed ones soon left the Institute for one reason or another (I’m thinking here of Fathers Carlos Biestro and Ramiro Sáenz, but there were many more that left as well.).  I had visited their premises in 1992 and had seen things for myself.  To begin with, there was no proper library, no proper classrooms, no proper teachers - the whole system of studies amounted to not much more than a hodge-podge of a bit of philosophy here, and a bit of theology there.  This was explained away, of course, with reference to the difficulties that go with all new institutions when at the early stage of their foundation, etc.  Anyway, this never changed much, for Father Buela never had a high regard for scholarly studies - that is, an appetite and quest for truth. Quite different was his approach - as with everything else - if high grades and scholarly distinctions were considered only as a means to other ends

As you will see below, this account is consistent with the current state of IVE academic formation in both the USA and Europe (we can't speak to the current state in Argentina.)  The very idea that you will be in an academic program that is in any way rigorous or an environment that could be described as studious is just bizarre.   

The Thomism is really just Advertising

Thomism is another aspect of their formation that the IVE have become very vocal about  and it attracts more than a few Americans seeking to avoid strains of modernism.  Unfortunately, like so many aspects of their congregation, this is more an instrument for self-promotion than an actual guiding principle.  Their claim to be faithful to St Thomas  lacks any academic foundation.  

A Lord of the Flies Approach to Teaching

While some philosophy classes are taught by the local IVE parish priests who will at best have the equivalent of a Master's degree in philosophy or theology, the majority of non-theology classes are taught by fellow seminarians.  These seminarians are obviously not credentialed.  Most have no degrees in the subjects they are teaching nor any real degree at all.  They are just favored seminarians who took the class a year or two earlier, then with no teaching experience, turn around and conduct class from pre-assembled hand-me-down class notes.

Classes are short and, given the IVE's chaotic schedule-keeping, frequently cancelled.  There are no papers assigned.  Your "study time" outside of class is generally silent so you are not able to discuss or ask questions from fellow classmates as you would at a normal institution.  When you do ask questions from your "professor" you aren't likely to get any depth past what's on the notes he was given. 

So their much-trumpeted intellectual foundation in Thomist philosophy will have faux-professors, rushed classes, limited discussion, no papers...  It's all rote memorization and regurgitation - a surface level understanding of philosophical terms from a perspective that the Institute controls.

That's why, as much as they belittle other seminaries, when they get a seminarian who has actually studied at a diocesan seminary or with a different order he is immediately given teaching responsibilities - because his academic background and rigor will be so much deeper than those that have only studied with the IVE.  If you enter with even a secular undergrad degree you'll probably end up teaching something very early on, simply because you'll be that much further ahead than your classmates.  

No Foundation in Theology Either

Dogmatic theology courses at any other seminary would be taught over the course of a semester by a real professor, with time for reading, discussing, and digesting these important concepts.  Yet at the IVE the majority of these courses are taught over the course of only 1 or 2 weeks.  Why?  Because they don't have real professors.  They have a few priests at the seminary, but they don't have the background or the time to teach all the classes - especially since they are given many other responsibilities (eg. their seminary rector was also the pastor at the seminary's parish.)  So their solution is to fly in IVE priests from US parishes who are able to travel in for only a week or two at a time.  

Usually these are IVE priests who have spent their whole adult life with the IVE, going to the IVE minor-seminary for high-school, then the IVE seminary in Argentina for their philosophy and theology.  At best they will have 2 years at real academic institutions getting licentiates in theology or philosophy.  None of them have published.  None of them have real experience teaching.  None of them will teach full semester classes. 

And when you think it couldn't get worse they will even have some of the more senior, educated seminarians (who fit that description because they had time at non-IVE seminaries) teaching theology classes.

Their Italian seminary in Montefiascone is apparently even worse.  Many seminarians don't even have teachers, but study modules on their own.  English speakers have self-study classes using class notes from the U.S. seminary and non-English, non-Italian speakers spend all their study time translating Italian notes into their own native language.

None of it is Accredited

Not only are the teachers not actual professors, but neither are any of the IVE courses accredited.  What's that mean?  It means if you study with the IVE and then (like most) decide to leave, none of the classes you have taken with the IVE will count for anything.  You'll have to take all the courses over.  There's no real college credit and no real degree.  Nobody else inside or outside of the Church recognizes their coursework.  It also means that if you discern that you don't have a vocation, you leave the IVE with nothing, regardless of how long you studied with them.  They are only able to ordain priests because of their relationships with Cardinals McCarrick and Sodano.

A few seminarians in the US that qualify (ie. are here legally & have  legitimate undergrad degree prior to joining the IVE) will have the opportunity to attend philosophy courses at a real academic institution.  They will study in the 2-year Licentiate in Philosophy Program at the Catholic University of America (CUA.)  The irony is that other orders with local seminarians shy away from CUA (which has some heterodox professors), instead encouraging their seminarians to take as many classes as possible at the more rigorous and more orthodox Dominican House of Studies (DHS) right across the street.  (The likely reason the IVE don't do this is that DHS requirements are too stringent for any IVE candidates to be admitted and, without Cardinal McCarrick to pull strings like he does at CUA, they can't get in.)  

The IVE has Trouble Telling the Truth (Again) about This Too

If you look at the DHS requirements, they include Latin and Greek, which brings us to this:

Notice that they claim three years of both Greek and Latin.  We honestly can't fathom how they put this on their site. While you will get at least some Latin "classes" (often taught by other seminarians) there is not even the pretense of studying that much Greek.  Maybe you'll get a semester of Greek at best in the US and maybe a few candidates in Rome will get it in individual study, but this just isn't true.  Unfortunately, this doesn't surprise us.  As we've mentioned before the IVE doesn't let the truth interfere with their marketing.

What about time to study?

Bright candidates might overlook the lack of structured classes and qualified teachers with the hope of being able to study on their own.  Unfortunately, the schedule is filled with so many mandatory activities that this isn't realistic.  

Even during finals week, instead of having more time to study, more unrelated activities are just added to the schedule.  "Sports" will be scheduled every day during exam week and, as you'll learn when you join, this isn't optional.  Work also continues as normal during the exam period and is, in fact, often increased to fill in the schedule since there are only exams and no regular classes.  Eutrapaelia will also be added to the schedule every single night during the exam week - keeping you up even later than usual.  So even though you'll be mentally exhausted from studying and be physically exhausted from having sports every day, you'll have to attend Eutrapaelia and play games late into the night.  This is very unlike any other seminary - or any normal academic institute for that matter - where students are given additional time pior to and during exams to study and adequately prepare. 

This is the truth

Our purpose here isn't to pick on the IVE, their priests, or their seminarians.  Our purpose is to give prospective seminarians access to the truth.  If the IVE were more humble and more honest in how they portray their formation, this wouldn't be necessary. 

A Layman's Recount of Fr. Carlos Buela and the IVE from Argentina

We recently received this from a concerned Argentine who is well-informed on the IVE situation to say the least.  More commentary to follow.

Father Buela: a Layman's View

by Jack Tollers

IN ARGENTINA TOO?

O.K., this is really difficult for me, what with so many horrible things that seem to be going on all over the world and, as if that wasn’t enough, inside the Church.  Well, anyway, in this piece I want to deal with that subject, never mind the depression that comes with it.

Please bear with me if you will, I’m an Argentine and on top of it all I am attempting to report a story from this remote corner of the world.  Particularly the story of one of Sodano’s creatures, Father Carlos Miguel Buela, yet another of your new founders of the “New Movements” - in this case a congregation of priests, nuns, & laity, with a following spread all over Argentina and a dozen more countries, including the USA (they say their members are over one thousand, and counting - all in less than a quarter of a century.)  But, as we’ll see, it’s now in trouble.  

HOW IT ALL STARTED

In 1971 a young Jesuit,  Father Alfredo Sáenz, arrived in Buenos Aires having just finished his studies in Rome.  Back then the Argentine Church was in a perfect mess with practically every bishop in the country experimenting with liturgy, the clergy dressing up like the laity, nuns sporting skirts, the teachers in several seminaries going into “Liberation Theology,” changing the catechism, delving into Rahner or Congar (or their worst disciples), hundreds of priests and nuns shredding their calling, some of them marrying, some of them going into all sorts of strange doings, quite a few joining the Marxist guerrillas which in this country had begun a violent campaign against the military government then in office.  In those hectic days, a well known bishop, Mons. Podestá, even eloped with a nun!  For those of us who remember them, those were very agitated and confusing times.  Even the devotion to Our Lady was more or less systematically discredited, the Rosary scoffed at, some of her images removed from classrooms, parishes, etc., there were collective confessions, the altars were torn down, in some parishes rock bands played during the Mass, people started to take communion standing up, followed, some years later, with the communion in the hand, the whole liturgy one enormous field of experimentation - all reverence, devotion, or decorum perfectly forgotten, let alone any semblance of uniformity.  It was very difficult to attend a Mass where you could count on a few minutes of silence.  They called that “the new springtime of the Church” and we wondered: if that was spring, what would winter look like?  Now we know.  As Shakespeare might’ve put it: “Now is the springtime of our discontent.”  

Yet, then as now, Father Sáenz seemed undaunted.  He had perfectly impossible plans: to begin a proper seminary with serious studies,  patristical and theological, a solid history of the Church, Latin and Greek, liturgical decorum, heart-felt devotion, a good review, scholarly professors, a good choir, theatre and arts in general and, in short, all that it takes to make a good priest out of young men - a difficult endeavor if ever there was one.  Anyway, one way or another, as we can safely say nearly 40 years later, Father Sáenz pulled it off.  The bishop of the city of Paraná, in the heart of the country, one Monsignor Tortolo, had an enormous seminary that had seen better days: in 1971 there were only a couple of seminarians and little more.  So he offered Father Sáenz the opportunity to take over, which the young Jesuit enthusiastically accepted.  Soon the best priests in the country flocked over to take office as teachers, starting with the renowned Father Alberto Ezcurra, a great friend of Father Sáenz just back from Rome where he had acquired a licentiate in Moral Theology, and Marcos González, a scholarly Dominican theologian who was widely respected.  Soon the seminary was beginning to look up - more than that: it was an astounding success.  Boys from all over the country hearing about this new conservative (or traditional) seminary were signing up.  In 1972, when I went up to see if I had a calling (eventually I decided that I didn't), there were only 8 seminarians, but by 1980 there were over 200; the classes were full to the brim; a joyful atmosphere pervaded; Fathers Sáenz, Ezcurra and González were much loved by everyone; and the seminary’s magazine (“Mikael”) had reached international standards with important contributors (Josef Pieper, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cornelio Fabbro, Gustave Thibon, Thomas Molnar, and Dietrich Von Hildebrand, among many others, come to mind.).  The choir sang beautifully; the boys learned Latin, Greek, French, English, the Fathers, Thomist theology, spirituality, and dogmatic and moral Theology, etc.. And all of it done in little less than ten years.

Of course, the progressive lot didn’t like the thing one bit, and when Mons. Tortolo's health forced him to step down (in 1983, I think), a new bishop with very different ideas took over.  Father Sáenz was recalled by his order, the Society of Jesus; the teachers were generally told that their presence wasn’t exactly wanted; and in less than three months the seminary was, once again, in general disarray. 

NEW PLANS

Here is where Father Buela comes in.  In those days he was a young parish priest, recently ordained, and had become friends with Fathers Sáenz and Ezcurra.  Now Fr. Buela was in good terms with another bishop, Mons. Kruk (of UkKrainian descent), who held his chair in the city of San Rafael, about 1000 kilometers from Buenos Aires.  Bishop Kruk was in the same quandary that had afflicted Mons. Tortolo in Paraná, so why not repeat the traditionalist or conservative experience in San Rafael? 

There was a catch however: as I’ve said, Father Sáenz was a Jesuit, and his superiors then refused to dispense him from his work as a Society of Jesus professor in their main house in Buenos Aires. So, what to do? Here we must go slowly to understand how this story unfolded. The three priests had been good friends for some years now and none of them could claim to be chief or superior among them in any sense - except that Father Sáenz was the eldest and had the natural authority of one who had experience in handling a seminary and that Father Ezcurra was older than Father Buela and had seconded Sáenz in his job. So finally they settled to an arrangement that seemed perfectly natural: Father Ezcurra would be the head of the San Rafael seminary, Father Buela his second in charge, and Father Sáenz would come over every now and then to deliver small courses on this and that and generally oversee things.  At first, everything seemed to go pretty well.  The seminary soon filled up, with many seminarians fleeing Paraná and the changes taking place there under the new bishop.  Bishop Kruk was delighted with his brand new seminary full of enthusiastic youngsters who to all appearances were taking things seriously. Here too, at first, everything seemed quite promising.  Father Ezcurra had a lot to do with this, being as he was, especially charismatic with the boys, helpful, insightful, sensible, patient and always cheerful.
  

And Father Buela – at that time – appeared no different…

PORTRAIT OF THE PRIEST AS A YOUNG MAN

I met Father Buela when he was in his thirties, struggling in a very poor parish in the outskirts of Buenos Aires, a hefty, big-headed, bright priest. He was always in excellent spirits, used to laugh a lot at everything and everyone (including himself), wearing at all times a defiant old cassock - something quite unseen in those days, the black piece of cloth being a symbol of resistance to the generalized progressive trends of the day.  He had studied in Buenos Aires’ main seminary (Villa Devoto), a progressive stronghold, and had managed to work his way through to ordination despite his hard-hitting barbs against all things modernist and strong stand for traditional doctrines and practices.  In those days he was a jolly chap, quick-witted, pouring out energetic and hilarious one-liners and funny stories about almost anything under the earth.  On the other hand, Father Buela—in stark contrast to his counterparts, Sáenz and Ezcurra—came from the Argentine  working class, was not widely read, did not have a polished education, and had not travelled much abroad.  One couldn’t quite say he was a simpleton, but he certainly wasn’t sophisticated.  He rather seemed to indulge in his general demeanor identifying his rather blunt ways with Christian humility in open contrast to the refined manners he seemed to associate with pharisaical tendencies.  Of course there’s something to be said for this, but seen objectively, from time to time one felt he was a bit over the top. Now and then one would feel him a wee bit too rowdy and nearly uncharitable when he took to chiding someone.  He was acute, but sharp too and not always as compassionate and forbearing as you’d perhaps expect a priest to be.

However - all things considered - lots of people (me among them) loved him and respected him quite a bit.   He stood for the best causes, was a good preacher, wrote passably well, had showed valiant loyalty to the best traditions of the Church, had earned some reputation as an excellent confessor (I, for one, didn’t concur on this, feeling him to be too moralistic for my tastes, if you know what I mean), and his friendship with Fathers Sáenz and Ezcurra only contributed to his well earned fame as a living example of what a young Catholic priest should be.

ALAS

Alas, (I’m telling you, this is a difficult and tragic story to recount for American readers) things went wrong for him, for San Rafael’s seminary, for all of us.  First of all, Father Sáenz could only visit the seminary every now and then, so Fathers Buela and Ezcurra had to manage things on their own.  Then, all of a sudden in 1984 Father Buela announced that he had bought a small farm in the outskirts of San Rafael where he was to start a congregation of sorts, taking with him some of the seminarians, in order to live a “religious life” as opposed to that of a secular clergymaen (as to where the money for the farm came from, that remains an open question).  Soon there was talk that he had taken his decision “inspired” by a vision or something and it was announced that the original charism of the new organization included a more exacting religious life for their candidates who, once ordained, would occupy their places in abandoned parishes, wherever bishops would call them.  The plan was that once the recruits were ordained as priests they would go there in twos or threes to their assigned parish and live a common life of prayer and devotion while ministering to the laity.  The general idea seemed to be that leading a cenobitic life of sorts would protect the young priests and help them along with the otherwise daunting job of managing a parish.  In those days it was quite an interesting scheme.  In effect, there were lots and lots of deserted parishes all over the country and to send a young priest with no experience to handle it all by himself, in those days, seemed to all intents and purposes, a self-defeating proposal. 

(I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but I think I should mention here that as things turned out, Father Buela succesively added one charism after another to his congregation so that in the end no one quite remembered what had been proposed as its distinctive feature in the first place.)  

But back to the beginnings… Very soon things soured. First, as we eventually found out, Father Buela never consulted his move with Fathers Sáenz or Ezcurra.  He followed his own counsel much to the dismay of his friends - by the way, we found out about all this long years afterwards: Sáenz and Ezcurra kept their grudges very much to themselves, discreet as they were - though not Buela.  Right from the start he began to court San Rafael’s seminarians in a rather aggressive way, to the effect that his congregation (named “The Institute of the Incarnate Word”), was stricter in its duties and obligations than the ordinary run at the secular seminary.  As time went on things got worse, implying that if a seminarian refused to follow suit, it was because he wasn’t earnest enough about his calling. As if this wasn’t enough, the seminarians that had moved over with Father Buela continued to study in the secular seminary: soon enough a rift was opened between both sorts and sometimes the subsequent arguments and discussions gave way to acrimonious quarrels and unpleasant disagreements. 

Fathers Alberto Ezcurra and Alfredo Sáenz were flabbergasted at this turn of events: firstly, their friend, Father Buela, had turned his back on them and gone his own way without the slightest consultation.  Now he actively promoted the seminarians’ defection from the original seminary in favor of his newly founded congregation, and this promotion was carried out with a fair degree of belligerence and manipulation.  Years later Father Ezcurra confided in me that this aut-aut campaign was being conducted in a  “He that is not with me is against me” (Math. XII:30) spirit - something, Ezcurra said, only Christ could legitimately claim for Himself.

I dare say.

JACK'S PRINCIPLE

Anyone familiar with C. S. Lewis’ work, especially “The Four Loves”, will recognize Jack’s principle: “The highest does not stand without the lowest”, something I’ve been ruminating over the best part of my life to excellent effect. And it also applies to what I’ve told you up to now. For instance, let’s suppose that Fr. Buela had a vision.  Why not?  It’s perfectly possible.  Who am I to presume anything other?  Then, let’s concede that Our Lady indicated to Fr. Buela that it was God’s will that he should found a new congregation to this or that effect.  It’s been seen before.  It could be seen again.  It’s perfectly catholic. Nothing wrong with that.  Of course, an old institution like the Church knows perfectly well that nine out of ten visionaries turn out to be fakes, but abusus non tollit usum -  we couldn’t quite do without, say, St. Theresa or St. Francis. All the same, a wise Catholic is always a bit wary about these private revelations and the like, and jolly well should be. 

But, as I say, this is beside my point, which is this: that the higher does not stand without the lower as well - it’s a perfect rule of thumb if you want to tell the tares from the wheat.  All right, Fr. Buela had a vision - why wouldn’t he tell his friends about it?  Why not joyfully tell his associates Fathers Sáenz and Ezcurra about it?  Why not talk it over?  And above all, why act on it without carefully planning how this was going to be carried out, trying to iron differences, trying to reconcile the new project with the older one?  (I told you it was a good rule of thumb). 

He did nothing of the sort: as I’ve said, he just carried on by himself, without consultation, without reference to older, wiser, more experienced men.  He seemed to know perfectly well what he was about and didn’t seem to need the counsel, the comments, the advice of friends.  In fact, as time went by, he lost all his friends, and continued simply by himself - that is, if you don’t take into account the small clique of very young priests and seminarians which he preferred to have around him at all times (not the best way of avoiding that old enemy of any leader, no matter in what province - sycophancy, the classic curse bound to afflict anyone in charge of a group of people).   

The higher does not go without the lowest, and even if a vision, a calling, a saintly initiative can be as lofty as you will, one shouldn’t do away with friendship, a “lower” thing if you like, but one that Our Lord had in high esteem as we well know, so much so, that he included it as one of the central tenets of the Church he was to found (John 15:15). 

With the benefit of hindsight one cannot help but see in these beginnings the seeds of what was to be.  But that is not to say that we share the views of those who reproach Father Sáenz or Father Ezcurra for their discreetness, forbearance, patience, and general “let it be” attitude.  They were doing their best and could hardly have surmised how bad things would get.  

CANCER

 And things did get worse. Father Sáenz was away for most of the year and to compound everything, in 1991 San Rafael’s bishop, Monsignor Kruk, died, leaving behind him a seminary in something of a disarray.  The following year, Father Alberto Ezcurra, the seminary’s man in charge, was diagnosed with what seemed to be terminal cancer and consequently could handle things less and less, forced as he was to make long trips to and from Buenos Aires for his chemotherapy sessions. 

It was on one of these occasions that I had the privilege of sharing coffee with him in a cosy Buenos Aires café.  It was some months before his passing and our chat took up the better part of that bright winter morning.  I don’t quite know why, but Father Ezcurra was quite inclined toward me (of course, I’ve met lots of people who claim the same thing, maybe he was only addressing his flock one by one as any good shepherd should - John 10:3, 14, 16, 27). Anyway, I took advantage of the circumstances - we were quite alone, we knew each other quite well, and there was no hurry - to ask him what the problem with Father Buela was about.  He hemmed and hawed, he hesitated and beat around the bush for some time, but in the long run his indictment was clear as crystal: he thought that the way Buela courted youngsters, pressing, urging them to be priests or nuns, disregarding the fact that it was a delicate, very personal, decision, one that called for extreme scruple, and on which he, Buela - nor anybody else, for that matter - had any authority or special say – only the youngster himself and his own conscience.  He told me something to the effect that no one has a right to enter there, in a young boy or girl’s conscience, that it was like a sacred garden where only God Himself had a right to walk through.  And that if it was a case of spiritual direction or of someone who asked for advice, a priest must be extremely careful in what he says for he is treading sacred ground.  By then I was 38 years old, but I had never heard or read anything quite like what Father Ezcurra was saying, except perhaps in St. John of the Cross (anyone interested in this would do well to refer to his commentary to the poem “O Living Flame of Love”, chapter 3, number 30 onwards.)  All the same, having heard the idea I later would find it repeated in various works , especially those of Cardinal Newman’s (who, rightly, makes so much of conscience in religious life).

In subsequent years, while the Institute grew its numbers at an astonishing pace, I came to see things in this light and again and again this delicate principle played out before me and Father Buela’s congregation and his numerous following began to seem to me like an unseemly and automatic reproduction of cells, something very much like a cancer. (Why the rush? Where did all this impatience come from? Why not at a slower and more consistent pace?) Anyway, no amount of warnings to our friends whose children were being whisked away into Buela’s congregation - some of them at a very early age in their teens - did much good.  Nobody was listening, except a few friends with which we shared this same apprehension, especially because we ourselves had little children and wanted to protect them from this wind of “enthusiasm” (I believe Ronnie Knox would’ve called it that.)  As a matter of fact, if ever we were interested in Father Buela’s sayings, behavior, or undertakings it was only because our own sons and daughters were on the line. Otherwise, we had, so to speak, other fish to fry.     

I never again saw Father Ezcurra, who passed away a little later in a very peaceful way, his last months dedicated to his beloved seminary of San Rafael, even delivering lectures to his last days  when he could barely eat.

He left behind him loving memories. 

CARLITO'S WAY

 Anyway, by this time, Father Buela had assembled quite a numerous group of seminarians of his own, having started his own house of studies on the Institute’s premises. He did not, however, put much emphasis on the quality of his professors, and most of the better endowed ones soon left the Institute for one reason or another (I’m thinking here of Fathers Carlos Biestro and Ramiro Sáenz, but there were many more that left as well.).  I had visited their premises in 1992 and had seen things for myself.  To begin with, there was no proper library, no proper classrooms, no proper teachers - the whole system of studies amounted to not much more than a hodge-podge of a bit of philosophy here, and a bit of theology there.  This was explained away, of course, with reference to the difficulties that go with all new institutions when at the early stage of their foundation, etc.  Anyway, this never changed much, for Father Buela never had a high regard for scholarly studies - that is, an appetite and quest for truth. Quite different was his approach - as with everything else - if high grades and scholarly distinctions were considered only as a means to other ends. But, once again, I’m getting ahead of myself.

No, not much emphasis on studies and the like. The emphasis was basically centred on enlarging the ranks. An old friend of his, Father Nadal, started a feminine branch, the new nuns eventually settling in a neighboring farm - something also done in a somewhat wayward and unruly manner - and always accompanied by the unpleasant feeling that things were being done in a rush. Anyway, soon enough there were nearly a hundred nuns coming and going, no one quite sure of what they were up to (here I must admit to my own impatience, for I never really bothered trying to find out myself). 

In the meantime lots of people began flocking to the “Finca” as the farm was getting to be known by then, where the priests of Buela’s Institute (and some others associated with, but not properly belonging to it) were holding numerous conferences, retreats, Benediction, the prayer of the Rosary or what will you. The IVE was getting a name for itself and was growing in numbers, influence… and money. 

However, some stories about their ways and manners began to leak out:  foremost, that quite a lot of bullying seemed to be going on, apparently between the elder seminarians and the younger ones.  This was one of Father Buela’s characteristic traits.  I’ve referred to it before, but by this time it was worse. Whenever anyone dared to voice some dissent on any subject under the sun, the way things were being run or a point of dogmatic theology, unvariably he would be subjected to a fair amount of bullying from the rest, if not from Father Buela himself. The boys were being slowly robotized, love of truth for its own sake unheard of, originality banned, personalities ironed into a single spiritual, psychological, & moral mold.

Take what happened when one of the seminarists, a boy named Morsella, died in an unfortunate accident one summer.  Immediately Buela proclaimed him to be a saint, his remains were buried in “La Finca” with great honors, a museum was set up where some of his posessions were exhibited as relics, and everyone was invited to revere his memory.  Well?  He was only a young boy who died electrocuted and, for all we know, he must’ve been very agreeable - but this? This, as with many of the Institute’s activities, was done in Buela’s style: recklessly, precipitately, in a coarse, undignified, profane manner. For him, nothing was sacred enough to be dealt with awe, with reverence, with circumspection.

In those years he published an incendiary pamphlet (titled “Reminiscencias” - ad usum privatum) written with the purpose to undo all and everyone of his ex-associates who had had the cheek to object in one way or another to the way he handled things (Fathers Sáenz and Ezcurra, come out especially badly, but also his old friend, Father Nadal, the founder, if you remember, of the feminine branch, who had fled - followed by no less than fifty nuns - apparently scandalized by what he had seen).  

And in this manner, everything else.  He took to Pope John Paul II, whose every word, he believed, should be digested as coming straight from the Very High - even the Assisi gathering, the general “juvenilia” (the term was coined by Romano Amerio), and his ecumenical-relativist trends. In fact, he sponsored an intercommunion service with local Lutherans in San Rafael (an event not to be repeated, owing to the subsequent scandal.).  He had turned into a Vatican II bigot and welcomed the communion in the hand, obliging his priests do go along with the practice (one Father Bonello from the Institute even published a piece to the effect that that was the way early Christians received communion).

And then, to compound it all, he led an attack on the local FSSPX priests, especially because they held on to the Latin Rite, publishing his demonising pamphlet which he always had at hand in case he met a bishop, just to show what a regular priest he was. (I here protest that I do not belong to Mons. Lefebvre’s set, who locally is not very much considered, but one must recognize that they are basically sound people, and have showed great courage in these last thirty years in their stand.  In any case they certainly didn’t deserve Buela’s treatment).

Anyway, if you’ve got the general picture perhaps you’re able to understand that as time passed one could recognize an IVE member in a five minute chat - all of them saying the same things, sharing the same prejudices, the same expressions, gestures, silly sayings (usually Father Buela’s), disgraceful manners, short-sighted views, dimwitted humor, dumb perception of things in general, lifting debatable views to dogmatic altitudes (“Father Buela said so”), delivering very foolish opinions on complicated subjects, trivial ways of dealing with sacred matters (such as liturgy, for example) and astounding levels of ignorance. 

When together they were a jolly lot of youngsters in their cassocks and, seen from a distance, constitute a reminiscence of better times in the Church (the photographs on their web-site are a good example of this.)  But when approached they were a different story altogether.  The bishop of a neighboring province, Monsignor Laise, saw through them immediately and said they were a sect, like the Ku-Klux-Klan - except that they were not to be taken that seriously, so he promptly began to call them the Ku-klux; the knickname evolved rather speedily into “Kuku” or the plural “Kukus” and that is the way everyone in the know actually referred to them. But there’s more to it than meets the eye: Buela has solidified his sayings and manners in such a way that by now there was a distinctive flavour to all his moral, spiritual, dogmatic or political diktats - so whenever anyone who’s not an IVE proselyte, but somehow adopts any of these bywords or characteristic clichés will be promptly accused of being a “Kuku” (among general laughter, as the exercise reminds us to be ourselves, to think by ourselves, to be real Catholics, which is to say, singular, original, unrepeatable persons who share one faith, one Church and one and only Lord).

SODANO'S CREATURE

Up to now, I can vouch for every single word that I’ve written in this piece.  What follows, however, has some degree of speculation and is a result of putting two and two together.  

As the Institute grew in influence and new houses were set up all over the world, Father Buela, naturally, travelled more and more frequently to Rome.  He seems to have learnt the ropes over there judging by what happened in 1994.  Some parents of children or youngsters who had been charmed into the Institute got wind of strange doings, brainwashing, manipulative techniques, inordinate practises (for instance there was talk of collective flagellation sessions known as “discipline”), and very specially the drilling of young minds to the effect that marriage was second best, women to be despised, and sex a rather filthy thing - one of Buela’s Manichaean tenets that was formulated over time in crude and uncouth terms. (His main Moral Theologian, one Father Fuentes, has a blog where he claims to specialize in sexual addictions, of all things. Fortunately for me, there’s no space here to go into that..)  Anyway, word got to Rome and, to the surprise of many, Father Buela was removed from his office (he moved over to one of his houses in Peru or Ecuador) and the Institute was investigated by a pontifical comissioner (one Rico, as I remember) with a mandate to find out what the heck was going on.  After some time, Rico went back to Rome with his findings, the Institute was put under the supervision of the bishop of San Juan (Mons. Delgado) and a new Father Superior was elected to run the show, one Father Solari - an incredible outcome if you come to consider that Fr Solari was the mechanic in charge of the congregation’s bus!  Talk about manipulation…

Despite Monsignor Delgado’s recommendation to the effect that the IVE should be dissolved, things were straightened out in only a couple of months. Soon Father Buela moved his main house to Rome, under the bishop of Velletri-Segni, Mons. Erba, who gave the congregation diocesan approval, and was reinstated as General Superior. (By the way, Father Solari disappeared, at least from the official account of the Institute’s story, just as it now stands on its web-site - I’m not sure of this, but apparently he left the IVE and resides in Peru, I do not know in what capacity.)  It was at this time that Cardinal Sodano became the object of much praise by all IVE members, including Father Buela, who repeatedly celebrated  - him and still does to this very day. Anyone in doubt will do well in consulting their web page, “Cardinal Sodano visits…”, “Cardinal Sodano celebrates…”, etc.

Anyway, Father Buela and his Institute thrived over the years, the numbers of their members ever growing (even if, it must be said, there is a disproportionate number of ordinated priests who have left the Institute, some of them even shredding their priesthood, leaving the Cchurch, eloping with women and the like - but the exact number of defections is the IVE’s best kept secret and only the Vatican would know exactly how many they are).

THERE'S A BIT OF A HUSH

Let us conclude.

Over 25 years of remonstrating with friends, pointing out our objections to Father Buela’s doings and behavior, it has revealed itself of little avail. And, much to our consternation, many continued sending their children to this Institute.

But at the end of 2009, we began to hear on the grapevine reports which were hard to believe: put bluntly, that Father Buela was involved in one, or several, abuse scandals, similar to those of Father Maciel.  I, along with lots of my friends, was flummoxed: over the years we had been used to expecting anything from this priest, but not this.

By May 2010 we heard that Father Buela had formally renounced his office alleging old age (he’s about 70) and bad health, though only two years before he had stood and won re-election.  He has written to the Pope entreating him not to intervene in the Institute, but allow them to elect a succesor according to their constitutions.

Officialy Rome has said nothing as of yet. In 2010, having got wind of the rumors, the secular press asked for comments from the IVE’s highest authorities: they only got a couple of words from Father Clarey, leader in charge of “La Finca” in San Rafael: “At this point we will give no interviews and have no comment to make.”  And they still haven't.

That was in June 2010.  Now, in 2013, with Pope Francis in charge of the Church (and Sodano out of the way), Buela seems to be in very hot water: we have heard, but have nothing official on this yet, that he has been sentenced in a second case of abuse and that his appeal to the Pope has been rejected. 

But even if these last pieces of news turn out to be false, what we have written and witnessed stands as a cautionary tale of sorts.

A necessary one, in these difficult times.

Let no one be deceived.

Buenos Aires, July, 2013