Action against abuse in the Focolare movement

The TV series Impeachment: American Crime Story is a shocking account of how, in the mid-1990s, the White House intern 22 year-old Monica Lewinsky was set up by her supposed friend Linda Tripp and an unscrupulous band of hardline Republicans and forced to testify publicly against her will about an alleged affair she had had with President Clinton.

Episode 6, ‘Manhandled’, is a harrowing depiction of how Lewinsky, innocently meeting up with Tripp, whom she trusted as a close friend, finds herself trapped in a hotel room  by an all-male group of FBI officers who, over a period of 12 hours, bully her mercilessly, restricting her access to a phone, pressurising her not to seek the help of a lawyer.  As well as being shockingly cruel, their methods were also unlawful and, despite their threats of a 28 year jail sentence, at the end of this episode Lewinsky walks out of the hotel room and the FBI can actually do nothing to stop her.

One of the problems of those who have been abused by the Focolare Movement is that, at the time and perhaps even now, they are unaware of the fact that they were being abused and are not capable of appraising the cruel treatment and in some cases the crimes that had been inflicted on them.  While watching the sequence of Monica Lewinsky and the FBI - a helpless, rather naive young girl trapped by a hard-bitten group of men trained to be harsh and cruel and also skilled liars - I remembered an episode that happened to a member of the Focolare Movement which was much more cruel, far more inhuman and degrading, and furthermore was in grave disobedience of the laws of the Church and arguably civil law.

Having grown up within the Gen Movement in his Central American country ‘Carlos’, also in his twenties, was attending the School at Loppinao in order to become a full time focolarino.  In a routine discussion with the then head of the School, ‘Carlos’ happened to mention that, as a teenager, he had had homosexual experiences although now, as required by the movement, he was leading a celibate life.

To his astonishment, he was despatched to the Centre of the Focolare Movement in Rome where he found himself in something resembling a Soviet ‘show-trial’, faced with a kangaroo court of five leaders of the movement who subjected him to an interrogation on his intimate sexual feelings - ‘Have you touched other members?...Have you touched yourself?...What are your sexual fantasies?’  Their queries even included astounding, almost perverted questions as ‘Do you have sexual fantasies about Jesus?’

It is almost impossible to imagine how shocked, terrified and helpless ‘Carlos’ must have felt to have been ambushed, unprepared and without any kind of support.  Almost anyone -  Catholic or not - would agree that such a procedure was heartless and invasive, far worse than the FBI’s attack on Monica Lewinsky.  But from the point of view of the Catholic Church it was also an extreme and serious crime against at least two articles of canon law which safeguard the pastoral care of the individual.  

The first of these - which counts both for the initial interview at Loppiano as well as the subsequent interrogation - was referred to by Pope Francis in an address made to Focolare leaders on 6 February 2021 when he took Focolare to task for a number of very serious errors in their methods. [1]  I refer to ‘confusing the inner forum and the outer forum’.  This means combining highly personal pastoral care, such as one might receive in confession or with a spiritual director - i.e. the inner forum - with the kind of dialogue one might have with a leader of the organisation - i.e. the outer forum.  This has been banned by the canon law of the Catholic Church for over a hundred years in order to avoid abuse of power.  Furthermore, the interrogation to which ‘Carlos’ was subjected was a particularly extreme crime against of this aspect of canon law as well as being a serious transgression of human rights. 

But another important point of canon law was also broken, particularly in the case of the 5-man interrogation.  Canon law forbids ‘enforced manifestation of conscience’, i.e. forcing a person to reveal the kind of intimate detail that they would normally reveal only under the seal of confession - or indeed the kind of confidentiality that a secular psychologist or counsellor would offer.  The members of this ‘court’ could use the information they had elicited by force from ‘Carlos’ without any kind of seal - and, as we shall see, they did.

From the Church’s point of view, this incident was a serious abuse of pastoral care in flagrant disobedience of the Church’s teaching.  But looking at it from a civil point of view, could it not also be seen as a particularly savage example of a hate crime in which a member of the LGBTQ community is degraded in a situation in which he has no recourse to preparation or assistance as he would have in a civil court or even a church court?  It’s hardly surprising that through its Italian magazine Citta Nuova the Focolare Movement is a  rabid opponent of the ‘Zan law’,  a recent attempt to pass a law in Italy against anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.

After the ‘show-trial’ ‘Carlos’ was sent back to Loppiano and here began another sequence of horrifically inhuman treatment. He was kept under strict surveillance by his superiors who monitored everyone he spoke to, his friends, his study group.  He was instructed to go to bed after everyone else in his single-sex community ‘to avoid temptation’ and to rise before 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’.  He was encouraged to take more exercise in order to ward off temptation - but in long pants, not in shorts.  He was forced to do an hour of penance every day, praying for his ‘conversion’.  

Although 'Carlos' had previously worked with children visiting Loppiano, he was now forbidden to do this and sent to work in the kitchens instead. Although he was originally scheduled to spend his summer holidays with a group of other focolarini by the sea, at the last minute his superior told him he was to go ‘to the mountains’ alone ‘because at the beach people would be wearing swimming costumes and I would be exposed to the devil.’  It must be remembered that all this was as a result of the fact that he had mentioned his orientation in what should have been a totally confidential private encounter with a leader of the Focolare Movement, not because he had been guilty of any misdemeanor.  

‘Carlos’ was summoned to a final consultation in Rome where the Focolare leaders who had interrogated him delivered their findings: he was indeed homosexual and therefore not fit to become a full time member of the movement.  He was to be sent home within two or three days.  Through a phone call to friends in his own country, Carlos 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 his hasty departure should not be too much of a trauma for his classmates - with no thought for 'Carlos’' own feelings - 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 to the focolarini novices on the duty of a Christian to his parents.  ‘Carlos’ 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 $100 in cash.  Fortunately, ‘Carlos’ was able to break his journey as the route passed via the US, contacted sympathetic friends and later successfully sought asylum in the US on the grounds of ‘religious persecution’ by the Focolare Movement.  I have a copy he sent to me of the substantial dossier in which he made his case for asylum, with the help of lawyers, which contains a number of extracts from my book The Pope’s Armada, as well as a full account from which the above details are taken.  He has gone on to great success in his new life in America.

Assessing the treatment meted out by Focolare to ‘Carlos’ from the civil point of view - the restrictions placed on him, the unnecessary and humiliating nature of these restrictions, the level of degradation, the isolation, the lies spun around him that he was forced to collude with, the revelation of his sexual orientation to his parents and friends back home, not to mention the hate-crime towards an LGBTQ person - it occurs to me that it falls under the term used in civil law of ‘a cruel and unusual punishment’.  This term was originally used in British law, later in American law and is enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In judging the abuse of power in the Focolare Movement, therefore, it is necessary to re-interpret such events from a new perspective, categorising them in the terms of the laws of the Church - which are probably unknown to many, including the members of the movement - and civil law.  There may be many reasons which may prevent the victims of such abuse in the Focolare Movement from becoming conscious of it and naming it, and these reasons will be discussed in this blog.  

However, as a group and with the help of legal experts, these abuses must be named and made public.  In the case of ‘Carlos’ described above, for example, all those who took part in this shameful incident - including the leader at Loppiano who made the report, the five leaders of the interrogation and any others at any level whose authority or intervention was involved - should be publicly named, they must admit with full awareness that their actions contravened the canon law of the Church and possibly civil laws of abuse, they must ask forgiveness of their victim and some kind of financial compensation must be made - even though nothing can be done to make good the pain that has been caused.  This was clearly an example of a process and a system, and all other similar examples in the Focolare Movement - whether concerning LGBTQ people or others - should be independently investigated and brought to light.  

The many testimonies included in investigative journalist Ferruccio Pinotti’s The Divine Cult (La Setta Divina) which was published in Italy 9 November 2021, feature examples of treatment which is unlawful either from the ecclesiastical or civil point of view, including illegal terms of employment, proselytising methods which could be interpreted as kidnapping, attempting to force people into arranged marriages and numerous other varied examples.

If you have experienced abuse of any kind in the Focolare Movement, please feel safe and free to share on this site or to ask any questions. 

[1]  https://international.la-croix.com/news/religion/pope-francis-gently-takes-to-task-another-new-ecclesial-movement/13830

[2] There is an interesting contrast here between the homophobia of the Movement and the fact that a large number of the focolarini (at least the male members) are gay.  This will not come as a great surprise to those who are familiar with the book In the Closet of the Vatican by Frederic Martel.  This watershed book reveals that under ‘Saint’ John Paul II and Benedict XVI, a largely homosexual Vatican (closeted) persecuted the LGBTQ community with astonishing fanaticism.  Something similar exists among the focolarini and I will shortly publish a post on this subject.

'Storie dell'orrore' o orrori storici?

 In uno studio unico e prezioso, Naufraghi nello Spirito: Implicazioni di alcuni movimenti cattolici controversi. Movimenti cattolici, Cultic Studies Journal, 1999, volume 16, numero 2, pagine 83-179 (per riferimenti dettagliati, vedere il documento originale: https://www.icsahome.com/articles/shipwrecked-in-the-spirit), la scrittrice americana Judith Tydings, accademica specializzata in "nuovi movimenti cattolici", trae alcune importanti coclusioni sulla ricerca di queste organizzazioni. Sebbene il suo studio è stato scritto nel 1999, esse sono più che mai attuali.

Oltre a recensire e valutare tre libri sul tema dei "nuovi movimenti cattolici" - Beyond the Threshold: a Life in'Opus Dei (Tapia, 1997), Les Naufragés de l'Esprit: Des Sectes Dans l'Eglise Catholique (Baffoy, Delstre, & Sauzet, 1996), e il mio libro The Pope's Armada (Bantam, 1995) - la dottoressa Tydings porta la sua esperienza diretta del Rinnovamento Carismatico negli Stati Uniti, essendo stata vicina alla comunità Mother of God nel Maryland per vent'anni, anche se se ne è separata nel 1995.

L'aspetto più importante di questo documento, un lavoro estremamente ben studiato ed erudito, sono le sue conclusioni su come tali organizzazioni - spesso molto segrete - possano essere studiate efficacemente.  Ciò che colpisce è la sua opinione che l'approccio accademico convenzionale non si sia dimostrato efficace nel caso delle organizzazioni cultuali e perché:  

La mia revisione della letteratura suggerisce che un campo, composto principalmente da accademici, tendeva ad avere una visione neutrale o positiva dei gruppi tradizionalmente definiti "sette".  Negli anni '70 e '80, i professionisti della salute mentale e alcuni accademici hanno iniziato a criticare alcuni "sette" per le loro pratiche di sfruttamento e manipolazione.  I media tendevano a riportare il lato negativo del fenomeno delle sette (Richardson, 1997).  Gli accademici del primo campo, sconvolti da questo quadro unilaterale e negativo, iniziarono a usare il termine "nuovo movimento religioso" per ridare un tono neutro-positivo alla loro ricerca.  Ma il loro tentativo di bilanciare la controversia sembra averla solo aggravata, perché i loro scritti sono spesso interpretati come tentativi di minimizzare i danni subiti; da qui l'etichetta di "apologeti delle sette" (Langone, 1993).  L'uso dei termini "storie dell'orrore" (Saliba, 1995) e "storie di atrocità" (Bromley & Shupe, 1981) in alcune analisi ha rafforzato questa percezione, perché queste frasi implicano che le testimonianze negative degli ex membri sono false per definizione.  Questi ricercatori non chiamano i resoconti positivi di ex o attuali membri "storie di buona volontà" o "storie di crescita spirituale"; solo le persone che dicono cose "cattive" sui gruppi di culto stanno raccontando "storie".

Queste osservazioni forniscono un eccellente sfondo agli approcci contrastanti a questo tema, che certamente si applica ai movimenti cattolici simili alle sette.  Più avanti nello studio, Tydings sottolinea anche che un'ulteriore confusione è nata dal fatto che incontri accademici apparentemente neutrali sul tema dei culti sono stati talvolta sponsorizzati dai culti stessi, con gli accademici che sono stati assunti, pagando tutte le spese, dai culti.  Esempi di organizzazioni cultuali con "fronti" che conducono studi cultuali sono i Moonies e figure legate al Movimento Tradizione, Famiglia e Proprietà, un esempio estremo di movimento settario cattolico fondato in Brasile nel 1973 dal defunto Plinio Correa de Oliveira.  

Tydings prosegue con un'osservazione molto importante per i ricercatori di oggi.  Fa notare che:

Zablocki afferma che "nei casi in cui molti individui riportano in modo indipendente resoconti simili di disincanto, e dove non ci sono evidenti incentivi finanziari o emotivi per fabbricare prove, questi resoconti meritano di essere presi sul serio" (Zablocki, Exit cost analysis: Un nuovo approccio allo studio scientifico del lavaggio del cervello.  Nova Religio, 1(2), 1998, p. 231).  Lo psicologo Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi avverte che "le catastrofi recenti e meno recenti dei MNR ci aiutano a capire che in ogni singolo caso le accuse di estranei e detrattori ostili sono state più vicine alla realtà di qualsiasi altro resoconto. Fin dalla tragedia di Jonestown, le dichiarazioni degli ex-membri si sono dimostrate più accurate di quelle degli apologeti e dei ricercatori dei MNR" (Beit-Hallahmi, Dear Colleagues: Integrità e sospetto nella ricerca sui MNR. Documento presentato all'incontro annuale della Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1997, p. 5).

Una recente [febbraio 2021] dichiarazione del co-presidente dei Focolari Jesus Moran illustra perché i nuovi movimenti sono così difficili da inquadrare.  Parlando della cultura del Movimento dei Focolari, egli sottolinea l'importanza della "mentalità", contrapponendola ad aspetti più misurabili e concreti della cultura come quelli politici, economici e sociali:

Noi abbiamo in mente [di esercitare] un'azione culturale nel senso più ampio, che comprende certamente la dimensione politica, sociale ed economica - quindi un'azione culturale nel senso di incarnazione di una mentalità, di stili di vita e di pensiero.  Sottolineo il tema della mentalità perché credo sia un concetto fondamentale. Ovviamente, in questo lavoro le agenzie culturali del movimento sono fondamentali - e questo perché esprimono l'esperienza di un popolo: il popolo dell'unità, che Chiara ha definito come popolo nato dal Vangelo. 

Quindi non è solo un compito concettuale, un lavoro accademico fatto a tavolino.  È cultura in questo senso più ampio di stili di vita e di mentalità che si incarnano e diventano storia. (Settimana News, 20 febbraio 2021)

(http://www.settimananews.it/ministeri-carismi/focolari-dopo-assemblea-generale/)

Buona fortuna all'accademico che crede di poter spacchettare questa affermazione con l'aiuto del materiale pubblicato dal movimento stesso (che rivendica e cerca di praticare) - che si tratti degli statuti ufficiali, degli scritti di Chiara Lubich o di altre figure di spicco dei Focolari - e presentare al mondo un profilo esatto della "mentalità" dei Focolari.  

In primo luogo, il principale metodo di trasmissione delle idee fondamentali del movimento dei Focolari è stato - ed è tuttora - la tradizione orale.  La maggior parte delle conoscenze del movimento che le nuove reclute ricevevano all'epoca del mio ingresso nel Movimento dei Focolari, nel 1967, quando il movimento aveva 24 anni, era trasmessa da scritti inediti o registrazioni sonore di Chiara Lubich, o di persona da membri di lunga data del Movimento.  Le "prime compagne" di Chiara Lubich  ancora molto vive e attive.  Una di queste, Doriana Zamboni, si trovava a Londra quando mi sono iscritta, data l'importanza attribuita all'ecumenismo nel Regno Unito.  La maggior parte dell'insegnamento impartito ai potenziali focolarini a tempo pieno a Loppiano e in altri centri di formazione veniva comunicato nello stesso modo.

In secondo luogo, gran parte della "gnosi" focolare - compresi gli insegnamenti o il "pensiero" come indicato da Moran - o quelli che egli definisce i suoi "stili di vita" - come la sua struttura e il modo in cui viene dispensata la sua rigida autorità - era ed è rivestita della segretezza tipica delle organizzazioni settari.  Basti pensare alle visioni di Chiara Lubich, nota all'interno del movimento come il "Paradiso del 1949", che fino a poco tempo fa erano tenute nascoste anche ai membri a tempo pieno e sono state pubblicate solo parzialmente (tralasciando le affermazioni più controverse "perché potrebbero essere fraintese").  Quasi tutto ciò che può essere descritto come l'essenza del movimento, tutto ciò che vale la pena di sapere, non è stato pubblicato o reso disponibile al pubblico o alle autorità della Chiesa. 

Il fatto è che sia la Chiesa che il pubblico hanno scarso accesso a ciò che accade all'interno dei Focolari dietro l'infinita e blanda propaganda.  Persino il cardinale Braz de Aviz, membro interno del movimento da lungo tempo e che deve molto a Chiara Lubich, ha dichiarato di recente:

Oggi trovo grandi difficoltà con il movimento.  Ci sono diverse domande sulle quali non sono riuscito a ottenere risposte, perché ci sono barriere che impediscono di instaurare un dialogo; questo mi turba molto perché il carisma dell'unità ha questi muri che impediscono di ottenere una risposta.  Per me questa situazione è una domanda senza risposte. A volte mi sento più a casa nella Chiesa, con tutti i suoi peccati, che nel Movimento.  Non voglio lasciarlo, ma non riesco a trovare un modo per avere un dialogo aperto e libero.

Questo spiega perché - dato che i membri interni sono stati allevati nella sua cultura di segretezza - solo gli ex membri, la stragrande maggioranza dei quali sono vittime delle varie forme di abuso di autorità del movimento e hanno avuto il coraggio e la forza di andarsene, possono raccontare all'esterno la "mentalità" - in altre parole, secondo Jesus Moran, il vero significato del movimento.

 

 

 

'Horror stories' or the horrific truth?

 

In a unique and valuable study, Shipwrecked in the Spirit: Implications of Some Controversial

Catholic Movements, Cultic Studies Journal, 1999, Volume 16, Number 2, pages 83-179 (for detailed

references, please see the original document: https://www.icsahome.com/articles/shipwrecked-in-the-

spirit-tydings), the American writer Dr Judith Tydings, an academic specialising in ‘new Catholic

Movements’, draws some valuable conclusions about research into these organisations. Even though her

study was written in 1999, today they are more relevant than ever.

As well as reviewing and assessing three books on the subject of ‘new Catholic movements’ - Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Dei (Tapia, 1997),  Les Naufragés de l'Esprit: Des Sectes Dans l’Eglise Catholique (Baffoy, Delstre, & Sauzet, 1996), and my own book The Pope’s Armada (Bantam, 1995) -Dr Tydings brings her first hand experience of the Charismatic Renewal in the US as she had been close to the Mother of God community in Maryland for twenty years, although she had parted company with it in 1995.

The most important aspect of this document, an extremely well-researched, scholarly piece, are her conclusions on the way in which such - often highly secretive - organisations can be effectively researched.  Striking is her view that the conventional academic approach has not proved effective in the case of cultic organisations and why:  

My review of the literature suggests that one camp, comprised mainly of academicians, tended to have neutral-to-positive views of groups that were traditionally termed "cults."  In the 1970s and 1980s mental health professionals and some academicians began to criticize certain "cults" for their exploitatively manipulative practices.  The media tends to report on the negative side of the cult phenomenon (Richardson, 1997).  Academicians in the first camp, upset by this one-sided, negative picture, began to use the term "new religious movement" in order to restore a neutral-to-positive tone to their research.  But their attempt to inject balance into the controversy seems merely to have aggravated it, for their writings are often interpreted as attempts to minimize reported harm; hence, the label "cult apologists" (Langone, 1993).  The use of the terms “horror stories” (Saliba, 1995) and "atrocity tales" (Bromley & Shupe, 1981) in some analyses reinforced this perception, for these phrases imply that negative reports of former members are false by definition.  These researchers don't call positive reports of former or current members "benevolence tales" or "spiritual growth tales"; only people who say "bad" things about cultic groups are telling "tales."

These observations provide an excellent background to the contrasting approaches to this subject - which certainly applies to Catholic movements with a cultic quality.  Later in the study, Tydings also points out that further confusion has arisen from the fact that supposedly neutral, academic encounters on the subject of cults have sometimes been sponsored by cults themselves, with academics being hired, all expenses paid, by cults.  Examples of cultic organisations with ‘fronts’ that carry out cultic studies include the Moonies and figures linked to the Tradition, Family and Property Movement, an extreme example of a cultish Catholic movement founded in Brazil in 1973 by the late Plinio Correa de Oliveira.  

Tydings goes on to make a very important point for researchers today.  She points out that:

Zablocki says, “in instances where a great many individuals independently report similar accounts of disenchantment, and where there are no apparent financial or emotional incentives for fabricating evidence, these accounts deserve to be taken seriously” (Zablocki, Exit cost analysis: A new approach to the scientific study of brainwashing.  Nova Religio, 1(2), 1998, p. 231).  Psychologist Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi warns that “recent and less recent NRM catastrophes help us to realize that in every single case allegations by hostile outsiders and detractors have been closer to reality than any other accounts. Ever since the Jonestown tragedy, statements by ex-members turned out to be more accurate than those of apologists and NRM researchers” (Beit-Hallahmi,   Dear colleagues: Integrity and suspicion in NRM research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.1997, p. 5).

A recent statement by Focolare co-president Jesus Moran goes some way to illustrating why the new movements are so hard to pin down.  Speaking of the culture of the Focolare Movement, he emphasises the importance of ‘mentality’, contrasting this with more measurable and concrete aspects of culture such as political, economic and social aspects:

We have in mind [exercising] a cultural action in the widest sense, which certainly includes the political, social and economic dimensions - therefore a cultural action in the sense of an incarnation of a mentality, styles of life and thought.  I emphasise the theme of mentality because I think it is a fundamental concept. Obviously, in this work the cultural agencies of the movement are fundamental - and that is because they express the experience of a people: the people of unity, which Chiara defined as people born of the Gospel. 

So it’s not just a conceptual task, an academic work carried out at a desk.  It’s culture in this wider sense of styles of life and mentality that become incarnate and become history. (Settimana News, 20 February 2021)

(http://www.settimananews.it/ministeri-carismi/focolari-dopo-assemblea-generale/)

Good luck to the academic with the cockeyed belief he or she can unpack that statement with the help of the movement’s own published material (which they both claim and attempt to practise) - whether it be the official statutes, the writings of Chiara Lubich or other leading Focolare figures - and present the world with an exact profile of the Focolare ‘mentality’.  

Firstly, the Focolare movement’s main method of transmitting its core ideas was - and still is - via an oral tradition.  Most of the knowledge of the movement received by new recruits at the time I joined the Focolare Movement in 1967 when it was 24 years old, was  passed on by unpublished writings or sound recordings of Chiara Lubich, or in person by long-standing members of the Movement.  Chiara Lubich’s ‘first companions’ were still very much alive and active.  One of these, Doriana Zamboni, was based in London when I joined, because of the importance given to ecumenism in the United Kingdom.  Most of the teaching given to potential full time focolarini at Loppiano and other formation centres was communicated in the same way.

Secondly, much of the focolare ‘gnosis’ - including its teachings or ‘thought’ as indicated by Moran - or what he terms its ‘styles of life’ - such as its structure and the way its rigid authority is dispensed - was and is clothed in the secrecy typical of cultish organisations.  One need only think of the visions of Chiara Lubich, known within the movement as the ‘Paradise of 1949’, which until very recently were even kept hidden from full time members and have only been partially published (leaving out the most contentious assertions ‘because they might be misunderstood’).  Just about everything which can be described as the essence of the movement, everything worth knowing, has not been published or made available to the public or even Church authorities. 

The fact is that both the Church and the public have little access to what goes on within Focolare behind the endless bland spin.  Even Cardinal Braz de Aviz - a long term internal member of the movement who owes much to Chiara Lubich recently said:

Today I find great difficulty with the movement.  There are various questions on which I have not been able to get answers, because there are barriers that prevent you from setting up a dialogue; I find this very upsetting because the charism of unity has these walls which stop you from getting a response.  For me this situation is a question without answers. At times I feel more at home in the Church, with all its sins, than inside the Movement.  I don’t want to leave it, but I cannot find a way of having an open, free dialogue.

This explains why - given that internal members have been bred in its culture of secrecy - only ex-members, the vast majority of whom are victims of the movement’s various forms of abuse of authority, and have had the courage and gumption to leave, can tell the outside world about the ‘mentality’ - in other words, according to Jesus Moran, what the movement is really about.