By Lic. Andrés Baumgartner
Introduction: a case that reveals a deeper ecclesial tension
The recent controversy surrounding the closure of Father Eugenio Fernández Herrera’s YouTube channel, presumably motivated by internal pressures from the Neocatechumenal Way, has brought to light deeper tensions regarding the exercise of authority and freedom within contemporary ecclesial movements. The concrete fact—the alleged order from the catechists for the priest to suspend his public activity—has sparked a debate on the limits of obedience, the discernment of conscience, and the legitimate exercise of authority within the Church.
The Neocatechumenal Way, recognized by the Holy See as “a valid Catholic formation itinerary for our times” (John Paul II, Ogniqualvolta, 1990), was conceived as a path for rediscovering baptism and post-baptismal evangelization. According to its Statute (arts. 2–3 and 6–8), this itinerary takes place in parishes, in small communities, under the direction of the diocesan bishop and with the guidance of teams of catechists appointed by the International Responsible Team. These catechists do not possess governing authority, but rather a moral and pedagogical function of spiritual accompaniment. Their mission is to help communities navigate the stages of the itinerary and maintain fidelity to the foundational charism.
However, in pastoral practice, this structure tends to operate with a strongly hierarchical and vertical internal authority system, in which itinerant, regional, or parish catechists exert direct influence over the communal and personal lives of members. Relevant decisions—from liturgical aspects to family or work matters—usually pass through their discernment or approval. “Obedience to the itinerary” thus becomes a guiding principle that, in the experience of many communities, translates into almost absolute adherence to the catechist’s indications, whose word acquires a quasi-normative weight, although it lacks formal canonical jurisdiction.
Priests who are part of the Way, although incardinated in their respective dioceses, also participate in this dynamic. While the Statute makes it clear that their primary obedience corresponds to the diocesan bishop (c. 273 CIC), in everyday reality they may find themselves torn between fidelity to their ordinary and loyalty to the movement or its leaders. Hence, in concrete situations—like that of Fr. Fernández—conflicts arise when the catechists’ orientations are perceived as binding orders, even in matters affecting the priest’s public ministry or pastoral exercise.
The Statute (art. 3) grants the International Responsible Team the function of “guaranteeing the authenticity of the Way” and “maintaining relations with diocesan bishops,” but it does not confer authority over the internal forum or disciplinary power. Even so, communal practice tends to create parallel structures of obedience, where discernment is carried out more within the itinerary than in direct communion with legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the Neocatechumenal Way; it has also been observed in other movements that combine a strong charismatic identity with centralized organization.
In this context, the case of Father Fernández Herrera should not be seen as an isolated incident, but as a sign of a broader ecclesiological issue: the tension between charism and hierarchy, between obedience and conscience, between spiritual freedom and communal control. The challenge it poses is not only disciplinary or media-related, but deeply theological and juridical: how to ensure that charisms recognized by the Church remain a service to communion, and not an arena where the freedom of the faithful and the legitimate authority of pastors are diluted?
Authority in the Church: service, not domination
Canon Law provides a clear framework for reflecting on these realities. It is not a matter of judging persons or movements, but of recalling that authority in the Church has an essentially spiritual and moral sense, and that obedience cannot be separated from truth or justice.
The Code of Canon Law, in its canon 1752, reminds us that “the salvation of souls must always be the supreme law of the Church.” Every form of ecclesial power—hierarchical or charismatic—must be oriented toward that end.
It is only fair to begin by recognizing the great good that the Neocatechumenal Way has accomplished since its birth. It has generated vocations, missionary families, and communities that have revitalized parishes around the world. It would be unjust to deny that fruit of faith and commitment. However, recognizing the good does not prevent pointing out the limits. Every ecclesial work, no matter how inspired, is human and therefore fallible. No charism is exempt from risk when divine inspiration is confused with one’s own interpretation or with structures that seek to preserve power.
Pope Francis expressed it clearly in Evangelii Gaudium (n. 102): “Charisms are gifts that enrich the Church, but discernment is necessary so that they contribute to communion and mission, and do not become a cause of pride or division.”
Discernment—as an ecclesial virtue—is what prevents fidelity to a charism from leading to rigidity or self-reference. When spiritual authority turns into control or imposition, it ceases to be service and loses its moral legitimacy.
Obedience: a virtue ordered toward truth
Obedience is a fundamental virtue of the Christian, but its sense in the Church has never been that of blind submission. Canon 212 §1 of the Code of Canon Law asks the faithful for Christian obedience to pastors; however, §3 of the same canon states with equal force that “they have the right, and even at times the duty, to manifest their opinion to the pastors on matters pertaining to the good of the Church.”
Obedience, consequently, is not measured by silence, but by fidelity to the truth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “authority is not exercised legitimately if it does not seek the common good and if it imposes laws or commands contrary to the dignity of the human person or to the moral law” (n. 1903).
From a juridical perspective, canon 273 establishes that clerics must show respect and obedience to their own ordinary. This norm defines the frame of reference for the diocesan priest: his obedience is directed first and foremost to his bishop, not to the leaders of a movement. Likewise, canon 678 §1 specifies that, in pastoral activity, religious—and, by analogy, any cleric—are subject to the authority of the diocesan bishop. Therefore, the authority of the movement or the catechist does not substitute for or limit episcopal authority.
Conscience and interior freedom
Conscience occupies an irreplaceable place. Vatican Council II teaches: “Conscience is the most secret core of man, where he is alone with God” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 16). No authority, however legitimate, can force it without violating human dignity.
St. Thomas Aquinas formulated this principle clearly: “Obedience does not bind in what is sin” (S. Th., II-II, q. 104, a. 5). Therefore, if a command contradicts the moral law or legitimate pastoral mission, there is no obligation in conscience to fulfill it. The apostolic principle “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) retains full validity within the Church.
This balance between obedience and freedom is particularly delicate in ecclesial movements, where authority often relies on the figure of the founder or internal government structures. There, the line separating spiritual direction from personal control can easily blur. For this reason, continuous discernment is indispensable. Lumen Gentium (n. 12) reminds us that charisms must be discerned and regulated by pastors, precisely so that everything contributes to the common good.
Charisms and control: the necessary ecclesial vigilance
When a movement or community uses authority to silence or marginalize voices, or to sanction the public expression of a right conscience, it departs from the evangelical style. Pope Francis has been emphatic on this: “Clericalism, even when dressed in lay clothing, is a perversion. It is wanting to dominate in the name of the Church what only God can govern.” (Address to CELAM, Bogotá, 2017).
Canon Law recognizes the autonomy of associations of the faithful (cc. 298–329 CIC), but that autonomy is always subordinate to the vigilance of ecclesiastical authority (c. 305 §1 CIC). The internal life of a movement cannot contradict the hierarchical structure of the Church nor impose on its members obligations that exceed its competence.
Ecclesial communion requires mutual respect between charism and hierarchy. Authority is not exercised to preserve power, but to serve the spiritual good of persons. Jesus himself taught this: “Whoever wants to be first must be the servant of all” (Mk 9:35). In that phrase, the entire ecclesiology of power as service is summarized.
Conclusion
The case of the priest from the Neocatechumenal Way should not be read only as an internal conflict, but as a reminder for the entire Church. True communion does not demand uniformity, but truth. Authentic obedience does not annul conscience, but illuminates it. And authority, to be credible, must reflect the freedom of Christ, who governs by serving and teaches by loving.
The Church needs living charisms, but also free hearts; it needs obedience, but not servility; it needs authority, but only that which is exercised as service. Only in this way will ecclesial communion be truly evangelical, and the face of Christ can be recognized in those who govern, obey, and serve within his Church.
Notes
- John Paul II, Epistula Ogniqualvolta, August 30, 1990, AAS 82 (1990) 1515.
- Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way, Title I, arts. 2–3; Title II, arts. 6–8 (Rome, 2002).
- Code of Canon Law (CIC) 1983, can. 273.
- Francis, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii Gaudium, 2013, n. 102.
- CIC, can. 212 §§1–3.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1903.
- CIC, can. 678 §1.
- Vatican Council II, Past. Const. Gaudium et Spes, n. 16.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 104, a. 5.
- Vatican Council II, Dogm. Const. Lumen Gentium, n. 12.
- Francis, Address to CELAM, Bogotá, September 7, 2017.
- CIC, can. 305 §1; cc. 298–329.