The Spanish Episcopal Conference has accused journalist Jesús Bastante of misrepresenting the content of the doctrinal note Cor ad cor loquitur after he published an article on eldiario.es linking that document to movements and initiatives such as Hakuna, Effetá, or Emaús. Through its official X account, the Episcopal Conference stated that this interpretation “misrepresents the content and spirit of the Note published by the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith” and encouraged reading the full text to avoid misunderstandings.
Bastante’s article argues that the episcopal document constitutes a warning against certain evangelization experiences marked by a strong emotional component. The doctrinal note, indeed, warns against the so-called “religious emotivism,” alerts to the “emotional bombardment” in spiritual life, and even mentions the risk of “spiritual abuse” when group pressure or certain supposed mystical experiences are used to influence consciences.
The episcopal text does not mention any specific movement. But the description it provides of those dynamics is precise enough for anyone familiar with contemporary youth pastoral care to immediately identify the phenomena it might be referring to. Bastante does not introduce concepts foreign to the document; he simply puts names to a reflection that the bishops have deliberately formulated in abstract terms.
At InfoVaticana, we are not suspected of sympathizing with Bastante or the editorial line he represents. His positions are often heretical, and his media career is marked by constant defamatory hostility toward sectors faithful to the Church’s Magisterium. But one thing is that, and another is denying the obvious. In this specific case, Bastante has not misrepresented the diagnosis of the episcopal document; he has simply identified the realities that fit what it describes.
The Episcopal Conference’s reaction is therefore difficult to understand if the full context is analyzed. What is the problem with Bastante mentioning Hakuna, Effetá, Emaús, or any other initiative? The real problem is another. For years, the bishops have funded media outlets with institutional advertising campaigns whose editorial line is characterized precisely by hostility toward the Church’s Magisterium. What has not raised particular alarm are the countless heretical positions that Religión Digital disseminates with their economic backing. What now bothers them, however, is that one of their journalists uses an episcopal document to point out concrete realities and leaves the bishops in an uncomfortable position regarding trendy movements.
The controversy is ironic. For years, theological and pastoral approaches hostile to Catholic doctrine launched by that same journalist have been tolerated—if not amplified. But now there is protest because he puts names to the movements that might see themselves reflected in a doctrinal warning about religious emotivism.
If the episcopal document denounces dynamics that can lead to emotional pressure, spiritual manipulation, or parallel structures within the Church, the serious debate does not consist of discussing whether someone has mentioned this or that group. The real debate is whether those dynamics exist or not. And, if they do exist, whether the ecclesiastical authority is willing to address them with clarity and without complexes, as it seemed to have done.