“Gli uomini credono più facilmente
a ciò che desiderano sia vero.”
a ciò che desiderano sia vero.”
Blaise Pascal
By Francesco Murru
Commissione “Indipendente” dei Focolari: indipendente da chi?
Il 16 ottobre è stato presentato il secondo Rapporto Annuale sulle Politiche e le Procedure della Chiesa per la Tutela, della Pontificia Commissione per la Tutela dei Minori.(1) Il documento propone misure riparative contro gli abusi e presenta un vademecum con indicazioni per un “ascolto informato” e per il sostegno economico, psicologico e spirituale alle vittime. Evidenziata la necessità di una comunicazione più trasparente, di assunzioni pubbliche di responsabilità da parte della Chiesa e di uno snellimento dei meccanismi di denuncia.
La Sezione 4 del documento è dedicata all’analisi delle varie dimensioni della Chiesa nella società, mettendo in luce le realtà che promuovono i diritti dei minori e degli adulti vulnerabili.(2) L’edizione di quest’anno presenta una metodologia pilota, applicata all’associazione laicale Opera di Maria – Movimento dei Focolari. La Commissione accoglie con favore le riforme recentemente adottate dai focolarini, come: l’istituzione di una Commissione centrale indipendente per la gestione dei casi di abuso. (vedi link)
E qui emerge la contraddizione. Questo elogio, a nostro avviso, appare eccessivo e non tiene conto delle criticità interne al sistema di governance del Movimento, che emergono chiaramente alla lettura dello statuto della cosiddetta ‘Commissione indipendente’.(3)
Nel “Regolamento della Commissione Centrale Indipendente per la gestione dei casi di abuso sulla persona nel Movimento dei Focolari”, approvato nel giugno 2025, si legge nel Preambolo, al punto b:
“La Commissione è autonoma e indipendente da ogni organo di governo del MdF.”
Una formulazione che, a prima vista, intende rassicurare vittime, membri e opinione pubblica circa l’imparzialità dell’organismo chiamato a gestire i casi di abuso. Tuttavia, basta proseguire la lettura per accorgersi di una contraddizione sostanziale che mina alle fondamenta questa dichiarata indipendenza.
Alla Parte II, punto "f", lo stesso regolamento stabilisce che:
“Tutti i membri della Commissione sono nominati dalla Presidente del Movimento dei focolari...”
E poco dopo, al punto "i", si aggiunge che la Presidente può revocare l’incarico in qualsiasi momento per motivi gravi. Dunque, la persona che guida il Movimento — cioè l’organo di vertice del governo del MdF — mantiene pieno controllo sulla composizione della Commissione, decidendo chi può farne parte e chi no. Non solo: la Commissione è tenuta a inviare resoconti periodici e bilanci alla stessa Presidente, alla quale resta formalmente subordinata.
Siamo quindi di fronte a una contraddizione strutturale: un organo che viene definito “autonomo e indipendente” nei principi fondativi, ma che in pratica dipende integralmente dalle nomine, dalle conferme e dalle eventuali revoche della leadership del Movimento. In altre parole, l’indipendenza è solo dichiarata sul piano formale, ma non garantita sul piano sostanziale o procedurale. In un sistema davvero indipendente — come avviene in altre organizzazioni religiose o civili — le nomine dovrebbero avvenire tramite:
- un ente terzo
- una procedura di co-nomina tra organi diversi
- un meccanismo interno di autoselezione e cooptazione della Commissione stessa, eventualmente con ratifica esterna solo formale.
- un meccanismo interno di autoselezione e cooptazione della Commissione stessa, eventualmente con ratifica esterna solo formale.
Qui, invece, la Presidente del Movimento dei focolari:
- nomina tutti i membri (punto f),
- riceve le loro relazioni e bilanci (Parte IV, k-n),
- può revocarli (punto i),
e viene costantemente informata sull’attività della Commissione (Parte III, b.V). Quindi, la “Commissione Centrale Indipendente” non è tale in senso sostanziale: è un organo “interno” al Movimento, sottoposto alla sua governance, e la parola indipendente sembra avere un valore più simbolico o reputazionale che giuridico.
Nel linguaggio giuridico e istituzionale, un organismo è indipendente solo se la sua composizione non è decisa — o comunque non può essere modificata — da chi potrebbe avere un interesse diretto negli esiti delle sue decisioni. Nel caso del Movimento dei Focolari, la Presidente rappresenta l’organo di governo più alto, mentre la Commissione dovrebbe essere un organo di garanzia e di tutela, soprattutto per le vittime.
Il risultato è un paradosso: una Commissione “Indipendente” solo di nome, creata e gestita dal medesimo potere da cui dovrebbe essere indipendente. Il rischio, evidente, è quello di una indipendenza apparente, costruita più per rispondere a esigenze di immagine e di credibilità esterna che per assicurare una reale separazione dei poteri.
In un contesto in cui si parla di abusi e di tutela delle persone, le parole “autonomia” e “indipendenza” non possono essere usate come etichette comunicative, ma devono tradursi in garanzie effettive, verificabili e strutturali. Altrimenti, l’istituzione di questa Commissione rischia di diventare non uno strumento di giustizia, ma un esercizio di autoreferenzialità travestito da riforma.
- nomina tutti i membri (punto f),
- riceve le loro relazioni e bilanci (Parte IV, k-n),
- può revocarli (punto i),
e viene costantemente informata sull’attività della Commissione (Parte III, b.V). Quindi, la “Commissione Centrale Indipendente” non è tale in senso sostanziale: è un organo “interno” al Movimento, sottoposto alla sua governance, e la parola indipendente sembra avere un valore più simbolico o reputazionale che giuridico.
Nel linguaggio giuridico e istituzionale, un organismo è indipendente solo se la sua composizione non è decisa — o comunque non può essere modificata — da chi potrebbe avere un interesse diretto negli esiti delle sue decisioni. Nel caso del Movimento dei Focolari, la Presidente rappresenta l’organo di governo più alto, mentre la Commissione dovrebbe essere un organo di garanzia e di tutela, soprattutto per le vittime.
Il risultato è un paradosso: una Commissione “Indipendente” solo di nome, creata e gestita dal medesimo potere da cui dovrebbe essere indipendente. Il rischio, evidente, è quello di una indipendenza apparente, costruita più per rispondere a esigenze di immagine e di credibilità esterna che per assicurare una reale separazione dei poteri.
In un contesto in cui si parla di abusi e di tutela delle persone, le parole “autonomia” e “indipendenza” non possono essere usate come etichette comunicative, ma devono tradursi in garanzie effettive, verificabili e strutturali. Altrimenti, l’istituzione di questa Commissione rischia di diventare non uno strumento di giustizia, ma un esercizio di autoreferenzialità travestito da riforma.
-----
Photo by SHVETS production
1 - Vedi Link
2 - Vedi Link
3 - Vedi Link
La polizia, l'autorita' ecclesiale locale e le regole messe dalle entita' che danno la necessaria assicurazione finanziaria per abusi per fare qualunque attivita' del MdF sono totalmente independenti dal MdF. Le assicurazione finanziarie mettono delle regole da seguire ad ogni radduno del MdF e tra queste c'e' la necessita' di informare la polizia, la commisione del MdF per abusi e la autorita' ecclesiale locale di ogni caso di abuso, perfino da attagiamenti che possono indicare abusi. Tutti i responsabili locali ad un raduno, richiede la chiesa e l'assicurazione, debbono avere formazione su quali comportanmenti e azioni debono essere riportate a queste tre autorita': civile, ecclesiatica ed MdF. Se il movimento non segue le regole della assicurazine finanziarie e della Chiesa locale, tra le quali informare le autorita' civili (polizia) allora il MdF e' risponsabile finanziariamente di pagare i danni alle vittime. Non penso che la Presidente del MdF abbia nessun interesse ad andare contro quello que la Chiesa, Polizia ed entita' di assicurazione finanziaria richiede al MdF quando queste tre realta' possono trovare che non sono state informate adeguatamente ed andare contro il MdF e la Presidente.
RispondiEliminaDear reader,
Eliminawe invite you to reread more carefully the post you commented on. The topic of the post is the label “independent” used for the central commission of the Focolare Movement that is supposed to deal with abuse cases. We pointed out—based on the official documents of the Movement and on the statute of that commission—that this label is problematic and not accurate, since the Commission is subordinate to the President of the Movement and therefore cannot truly be called “independent.”
Now, the fact that in North America you have such “clear” rules to prevent and protect potential victims of possible abuse is the bare minimum. We would like to point out that the very need to establish such rules should already give one pause for thought. Still, it’s a good thing those rules exist—though they mostly arose from the fear of having to pay large sums of money, because that’s what it ultimately comes down to.
Our contribution in this post is simply to highlight the inconsistency of calling something independent when it clearly isn’t. That’s all. A commission that, in its own statute, declares itself subordinate to the hierarchy of the Focolare Movement should not be called independent.
So you basically are admitting that there's plenty of independent supervision just the central commission is not sufficiently independent for your liking.
EliminaTurtles, you are very disingenuous when pointing out that having insurance and clear rules to protect minors in any institution (church, public schools, gyms...) should make anyone wonder why they are there and put a doubt on the institution with those policies and insurance. That's like saying that institutions without insuranrance and policies to protect minors are more trustworthy than those with them. That's clearly what you are insinuating.
EliminaThank you again for your reply.
EliminaI think you’re misreading what I wrote. I never said — nor implied — that institutions without policies or insurance are more trustworthy. That would be absurd. My point is different: the existence of such policies does not necessarily prove a higher moral awareness; it often reflects the institutional consequences of past negligence and cover-ups.
In other words, rules and insurance are necessary — but they are not proof of virtue. They are proof of what went wrong, and of what needed to be legally and financially contained.
When I say that one should “wonder why” such measures are needed, I mean precisely that: it should make us reflect on the historical and systemic failures that required those rules in the first place. That’s not cynicism — it’s realism.
If the Focolare Movement, or any Church-related institution, wants to rebuild credibility, honesty about the origins and motivations of these policies would be a good place to start.
This is for reference the legal policy for protection of minors by the MdF in the US which doesn't supersede any requirements by the local Church which needs to be complied with too at any Focolare event. This policy is a requirement of the MdF, of the Local Church of the Conference of Catholic Bishops and of the entity providing financial insurance. All these institutions aside from the MdF are independent from the MdF.
RispondiEliminahttps://www.focolare.us/children-protection-policy/
Turtles you say: "it’s a good thing those rules exist—though they mostly arose from the fear of having to pay large sums". This statement tells me clearly that you have not attended a basic training of prevention of abuse. If you had done so you would have seem the testimonies of victims and the clear need for the rules for the purpose of preventing this from happening again. The economic pain on an institution that doesn't follow the rules is a means to protect minors it's not the main driver of such rules.
RispondiEliminaThank you for your message.
EliminaFirst of all, I am not required to attend any “basic training” on abuse prevention, and you actually have no way of knowing whether I have or haven’t taken part in such training in the past. Those courses are mandatory for members of institutions such as the Focolare Movement — precisely to ensure that they are not harmful to others. That’s as it should be.
My comment was not meant to deny the importance of safeguarding or the suffering of victims, which I deeply acknowledge. What I was pointing out is the institutional logic behind the sudden emphasis on “prevention” within the Church and its movements. The driving force that finally pushed many ecclesial structures to adopt clear policies was not moral awakening alone, but the enormous financial consequences of legal settlements — especially after the Boston Globe investigation exposed systemic cover-ups and led to the bankruptcy of several North American dioceses.
So yes, it’s good that these rules now exist, but it’s also necessary to remain honest about why they were introduced and what kind of institutional fear truly motivated them. Recognizing this does not diminish the value of the rules — it simply prevents us from turning them into another form of moral self-justification.
Turtles, very disingenuous indeed to put a question without an explanation an now that it is exposed covering your tracks. That's what disingenuous means.
RispondiEliminaThe fact that best practices evolve in history for the betterment of all it's not denying the wrongdoing of the past but to look for what's best for the future and the driving force to every institution should not be the economic pain otherwise the processes are meant to fail because there's not awareness of a meaningful motivation for individuals which at the end are the ones enforcing each procedure.
An employee in a gym can lose his job if he doesn't report a dubious action but might find another job. But if that employee is aware of the implications of that action that might jeopardize the wellbeing of a minor then that employee will be more likely to report that action. That's what's done in abuse prevention training. There is no report on the financial cost of abuse in a training session only the human cost to victims, because that's effective and empowers those who can prevent future cases.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
EliminaYou are right that genuine awareness and moral conviction are essential for prevention — no one disputes that. However, it’s precisely because I take this seriously that I believe we need to look beyond individual training sessions and examine the institutional psychology behind these reforms.
When a system introduces new “best practices” only after decades of denial, cover-ups, and legal exposure, it’s not “disingenuous” to question what truly motivated that shift — it’s responsible. History shows that large institutions, especially religious ones, rarely act preventively out of pure moral awareness. They act reactively when they are forced to confront consequences — financial, legal, and reputational.
The tragedy is that human suffering had to reach unbearable levels before such policies were adopted. Recognizing that fact doesn’t “cover tracks”; it exposes them.
So yes, prevention training focuses rightly on the human cost, but the reason such programs exist at all is because institutions failed catastrophically in the past — and because justice (including financial justice) demanded accountability. That’s not cynicism; it’s historical awareness.
Turtles, yet you don't realize that the way you posed your unanswered question did put a question mark on the reformed institutions, not just their motives, and with that you left untouched those institutions that have not followed through yet putting potential victims at risks.
EliminaYou keep assuming that any critique of motives automatically discredits the reforms themselves. It doesn’t. One can acknowledge the need for reform and still question the honesty of how it’s presented. If an institution claims “independence” while remaining structurally dependent, that deserves scrutiny — precisely because real protection for victims depends on truth, not on image management.
EliminaSo no, I’m not undermining prevention. I’m just not applauding marketing as moral progress. You’re now taking the role of the “defender of victims” — accusing me of somehow undermining the very institutions that have tried to reform, while leaving “unpunished” those that haven’t.
That’s a rhetorical trick, not an argument. It shifts the discussion from a structural and linguistic critique — the misuse of the word “independent” — to a moral accusation aimed at discrediting the critic.
Questioning an institution’s narrative doesn’t harm victims; it protects them from symbolic manipulation. If an organization uses the language of reform to maintain control or moral superiority, then it’s perfectly legitimate to expose that inconsistency.
Pointing that out isn’t cynicism — it’s accountability.
But I did show you independent control prior to you asking that question and you decided to ask it without answering it. Therefore this last answer invalidates itself.
EliminaThank you, but I think there’s a misunderstanding here.
EliminaNow you are using another classic rhetorical move: trying to turn the discussion around by claiming that I “ignored” evidence you had already presented, and therefore my critique is supposedly invalid. In reality, this is a logical fallacy. It does not address the core of my argument, which is the contradiction between calling the commission “independent” and its actual subordination to the President of the Movement.
My critique is not about whether some form of control or oversight exists. It’s about the structural and linguistic inconsistency. Acknowledging some oversight does not erase the contradiction in labeling the body “independent.” The question is about accuracy and transparency, not about denying that any control exists.
Thanks for acknoedging that there's some improvement to be done in the overall sincere and independent control and oversight that already is present in the MdF and that will probably soon be addressed with further ongoing required improvements to the Central Commisssion.
EliminaI acknowledge that improvements can and should be made, and that oversight exists to some extent. My point, however, is not about denying progress or the presence of controls. It remains that labeling the Central Commission “independent” is misleading, given its formal subordination to the President of the Movement. Recognizing ongoing improvements does not erase the structural inconsistency or the need for transparency in how the commission is presented. My critique is about clarity and honesty, not about denying any effort at reform.
EliminaYet the Hitler quote at the beginning makes the post a blatant assumption that the Focolare is just in a purely marketing reform without any pure intentions. That's quite misleading given what you have acknowledged so far and the fact that of all oversights already in place the only thing that you seem to be still concerned is how the members of the central commission are elected. To me the Central Commission is one of the least powerful controls that will ever be in place. The true controls are Local Church rules, local laws and local Insurance requirements as well as the requirements by local Church and insurance to training of agents.
EliminaIf we talk about prevention let's look at everything. Otherwise It is quite disingenuous on your part to start
with a quote from Hitler and end up with saying that you are just worried about the use of the Word independent for the Central Commission but you see that there's i dependent sincere oversight that already works but can be improved.
Thank you for your reply. With this response, you’re actually using three very common rhetorical moves:
Elimina- Moral discrediting – by invoking the Hitler quote, you imply that the post is “extreme” or “malevolent,” rather than understanding it as a reflection on how institutional language can distort truth and build moral legitimacy. It’s not a comparison of regimes; it’s an examination of rhetoric and power.
- Minimization of the critique – by reducing my point to a mere “technical concern” about the word independent, you overlook that language here is symptomatic of a deeper power structure and a systemic hypocrisy. Words matter, especially when they frame authority and accountability.
- Deflection – by shifting the focus to external layers of control (civil law, local Church, insurance requirements), you pretend that the Central Commission has little weight, when in fact its symbolic and institutional framing carries significant political and moral power within the Movement. And that’s precisely what my post exposes.
So yes, my concern remains with the discourse — how a commission that is formally subordinate can still be publicly described as independent. That contradiction is not minor or semantic. It’s the point where language and power intersect. Transparency in naming things truthfully isn’t a side issue; it’s the first real measure of integrity.
You use your knowledge of rethoric to cover up your rethorica moves in many steps is disingenuous too.
EliminaSo you want to say that starting a post with a quote from Hitler doesn't have any weight to the post it's disingenuous.
Then you seem to lack knowledge of the way abuse prevention layers work. The cases of sexual abuse by Catholic institutions in the US have declined enormously because of the local layers of control and enforcement. The USCCB is convinced about the reform and all Bishops enforce it locally. So the oversight of all Catholic institutions is much tighter at local levels.
I'm concerned about the abuse prevention and policies and reforms that work and honest conversations about that topic. I'm not concern about rethoric even if you can analyze every word I say under your rethorical microscope that will make no difference to the true topic of what actually works.
The central commission appointments reflects a European Political and Vatican culture as opposed to a more effective culture of separation powers. The shift in culture at the European and ecclesial institutions including the Focolare is ongoing with pressures from within and without. Yet locally we can do a lot and are doing without those changes.
The Central commission of an institution like Focolare with very limited resources around the world, in certain countries there are just a few hundred members, has little capacity to create locally effective means of training of agents and enforcement of some rules unless they rely in the larger structures of the Church. All the materials and training of agents in the US happens because of the existence of such means due to the larger demand from many institutions, including The Church and the means to enforce it is possible because the training happens online and records are created by the institutions giving the training. Without that local support the training of agents and the ability of the Focolare to enforce its compliance would be impossible even when the Central Commission mandates it. So true change is happening mainly because local realities independent from the Central Commission make it possible.
EliminaIf the Central Commission asks that a member of the Focolare in a tribe in Congo in the middle of the war does an online course it's not going to happen even if the Central Commission was appointed by Turtles.
Turtles I thought this post was meant to discuss the real issue of abuse and that is why you were concerned about true independent oversight. Why then do you call "Deflection" what it is a true independent control or "external layers of control"? Is it your academic formation that leads you into a way of thinking and arguing that goes into the philosophical/platonical realm of "truth" and "Integrity" without any measures effectiveness and practicality? There is no real truth or integrity without looking at the concreteness of reality and pondering about the real/concrete effectiveness of each measure.
EliminaIn reality the layers of control I have referred to, which are required by the President and the Central Commission, are the best/real/existing structures of independent control. Let's say that the Central Commission is stablished by some institution independent from the Focolare, say Turtles, and you nominate the commissioners. Now you can call it an independent Central Commission, will it be effective? will it be able to enforce change? will it be sufficiently transparent? The power and ability of this commission is limited due to the limited resources of the commission. One of the best things the Central Commission and President can do in order to prevent abuses effectively and be accountable and transparent is to rely on and enforce the use of independent structures and rules established by institutions with greater resources and greater ability to enforce them.
The rethorical analysis of my answers by you, Turtles, in my opinion is an unconscious academic/philosophical bias on your part that leads you to deflect and avoid going into the details on how real/concrete/effective prevention of sexual abuse can be accomplished.
I am not deflecting. I am trying to focus on if the Focolare is using resources effectively while accomplishing independent oversight. If part of the Commission gets nominated by a third party such as you, Turtles, that's good but it might not accomplish much change by itself.
Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.
EliminaI think your reply actually illustrates the core of my point: the way the Movement frames oversight as something “practical” and “resource-based” precisely serves to neutralize any conversation about structural or symbolic accountability.
You keep assuming that rhetoric is something superficial — that it’s a “philosophical bias” detached from reality. But language creates institutional reality. When a body that is appointed and financed by the same leadership is publicly presented as “independent,” that’s not a semantic quibble; it’s a mechanism of legitimation.
Your argument about “limited resources” and “local enforcement” may be true in practical terms, but it doesn’t change the fact that the very concept of an “independent central commission” becomes self-contradictory when it lacks both structural and symbolic autonomy.
That contradiction is not solved by appealing to local compliance or technical efficiency — it’s deepened by them, because it allows the institution to appear accountable while remaining self-referential.
So yes, I’m using rhetorical analysis — not to “cover up” anything, but to uncover how the discourse itself functions as a shield. And in that sense, your answer — full of practical arguments that ignore the symbolic contradiction — is the perfect example of why this discussion matters.
Rethoric is not philosophical bias. Philosophical/academic bias is a more European approach to knowledge which departs from the world of ideas, which is deeply rooted in many, as opposed to a more US approach that departs from from tests and data. You assume in your responses that my answers are a representation of the Focolare, another bias. They are not. It's just my personal US programmer practical approach to look at things. If it works do upgrades but don't throw it out.
EliminaThank you for clarifying. I understand you’re speaking from a personal and pragmatic standpoint.
EliminaHowever, your distinction between “European philosophical bias” and “US practical data-based approach” actually proves the deeper point: systems of oversight don’t just “work” in a vacuum — they depend on the language, symbols, and power structures that define what “working” even means.
When an institution uses a term like “independent” to describe a body that is internally appointed, it’s not an abstract semantic issue — it’s a structural one. Words shape legitimacy, and legitimacy determines whether people trust the process or see it as self-protective.
I’m not assuming you “represent” the Focolare, but your defense mirrors precisely the institutional reflex I’m pointing to: reducing critique to cultural or methodological differences instead of acknowledging the political contradiction in how independence is presented and performed.
If a system “works” only by redefining accountability in its own terms, then it doesn’t really work — it only reproduces itself.
You keep on forgetting that Independence and Accountability is built in the system and that's why it's working. It happens that the independence and accountability needs to be added to another layer or point of the system. Therefore the system has the building blocks for working and one block needs to be redone to add another proper layer of independence. But you can trace the independence in the system prior to reworking that block.
EliminaIf it was a program you'd see a call to a third party check and measures of accountability checks at a lower level mandated by the higher level. The higher level has a loop that feeds itself with no independence but calls the independence under itself. The patch to be redone is to add independence also at the higher level.
You’ve now fully technicized the discussion — using the metaphor of a “system” to neutralize its political and symbolic dimension. Let’s unpack that:
EliminaWhen you say “Independence is built in the system,” you assume independence is an internal function rather than an external relation of power. That’s a classic technocratic fallacy: if the code contains the function, then the function exists.
When you say “It just needs a patch,” you minimize a structural contradiction, reducing a systemic dependency to a fixable error.
When you say “It calls a third-party check mandated by the higher level,” you actually admit that the so-called “external” verification is still controlled by the higher level. That’s not independence — that’s authorized dependency.
The implicit conclusion is clear: no need to change the logic of power, just improve the syntax of the system. That’s precisely the illusion I’m pointing out — the rhetoric of “technical improvement” used to disguise a political subordination.
The actual reality you are disregarding is that the higher authority is not only the ICC but also the Church, the Local Church, the Vatican and therefore that mandate will remain. There is no way that a Catholic institution can function in a Diocese without compliance with the rules of the Diocese.
EliminaMembers of independent commission are appointed by the President, but the commission is supervised by the Supervisory Board of the Focolare adding another layer of checks. The Independent commission cannot be made up of more than half members of the Focolare which is another layer of checks. The new appointees need to be reccomended by the existing members and the supervisory commission, which is another layer of checks. We are talking about multiple people that at the end of the day are also checked by compliance with Local Church requirements.
Members of the Focolare in a Diocese (trained agents) are required to report any case of abuse to three independent bodies: the police, the local church and the central commission. It would be really bad if the central commission does not do its job in one case because the agents and the local church would know. So the independence is built in the system by ways of interacting circles that if they don't work in unison the shit hits the fan.
So there is independence checks for the central commission, that is, the shit will hit the fan from the local church, local agents, vatican,...
Even if all these people were in cahoots: the President, the central commission, the supervisory board. The shit will hit the fan quickly if they don't do what they are supposed to do because they have clear statues and there is external independence and checks that exists.
I would also like to point out what an independent commission is in the case of the US government:
Elimina"considered part of the executive branch, have regulatory or rulemaking authority and are insulated from presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited"
In the case of the FM the independent commission has a clear statutory regulation and have the authority of enacting disciplinary procedures in the cases of abuse.
Regarding the limited authority of the President, the statues of the independent commission rules that the President can only dismiss a member in very clear cases when a member does not do their job. This is quite similar to what an independent commissions in the US government looks like.
Just saying...
I researched further and an Independent Commission in a government (US or otherwise) is independent from the Presidency in its executive authoritity due to statutory authority. In the Focolare the Indepence commission has executive authority to dismiss a member of the Focolare if abuse is shown.
EliminaRegarding the nominations an independent commission need not fully be independent from the Presidency in its nomination, and shall not be completely without control from the Presidency, who will keep the ability to dismiss members for reasons of grave nature.
It is quite clear that the Focolare and the Vatican did their work and use their semantics correctly in this matter.
I appreciate your further research — but your analogy with U.S. Independent Commissions actually confirms the core contradiction I’m pointing out. In the U.S. system, an independent commission’s authority derives from statutory law, not from the executive power it oversees. Its independence exists because it’s established by an external legislative act that limits presidential control.
EliminaIn the case of the Focolare, there is no equivalent statutory authority. The commission exists within the Movement’s own legal and hierarchical framework and remains subordinated to the President — who retains both the power of nomination and dismissal. That’s not independence; that’s internal delegation. The ability to dismiss a member after an abuse finding doesn’t make the commission “independent,” it simply gives it operational capacity under delegated authority. True independence would require autonomy in composition, funding, and accountability — none of which are present.
So the semantics are not “correct” — they’re functional. They serve to project legitimacy without altering the underlying structure of control. The key difference is not functional, but constitutional. In the U.S. system, independent commissions are insulated from presidential control because their authority derives from a separate constitutional source — statutory law enacted by Congress. That’s what guarantees their autonomy: their legal foundation exists outside the executive power they monitor.
In the case of the Focolare, the so-called “independent” commission is created by and accountable to the very leadership it is supposed to oversee.
Its statutes, funding, and scope of action all exist within the same hierarchical and canonical framework — there is no external legislative or judicial body defining or protecting its autonomy.
So even if the President’s ability to dismiss members is “limited,” it still depends on internal statutes written by the same institution. That’s a delegated authority, not an independent one.
To put it simply: a body cannot be truly independent when its existence, rules, and enforcement powers all depend on the very structure it’s meant to supervise. The language of independence may be formally correct — but it’s substantively hollow.
Secondo me si cerca di continuare con la solita solfa...dimentica in fretta e noi non abbiamo mai fatto niente di male...praticamente è da 50 anni che lo sento dire dalle foc..terribile mi sembra di sentire le giustificazioni d 80 anni fa
RispondiEliminaLeggendo come funzionano le commissioni independenti del governo degli USA e´ chiaro che la parola "independente" si riferisce a la autorita´ conferita alla commissione non alla nomina dei suoi membri.
RispondiEliminaUna commissione indipendente è un organo istituito dal potere esecutivo (o legislativo) di un estato o una agenzia con uno statuto che gli conferisce poteri esecutivi o legislativi secondo quanto stabilito da quello statuto stesso. La commissione si chiama independente perche ha la autoritá di agire in modo indipendente dal potere esecutivo.
La nomina dei membri della commissione indipendente, e la loro revoca possono avvenire in vari modi secondo lo statuto della commissione. In alcuni casi, al fine di tutelare l'indipendenza dell'organo, la Presidenza non potrà revocare alcuni dei suoi membri se non per motivi gravi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government
Thank you Eduardo — and that’s precisely the problem.
EliminaYou’ve just confirmed that the term “independent” is being used in a purely functional sense: it refers to the commission’s authority to act, not to its autonomy from the power that created it.
But independence, in its genuine meaning — both political and ethical — cannot be reduced to a technical ability to operate. It implies freedom from hierarchical dependency, not merely the permission to act within a delegated framework. By that logic, any body authorized by the same authority it’s meant to supervise could be called “independent,” which empties the word of substance.
That’s exactly the contradiction my post was pointing out: not a question of “procedure,” but of language as power. When independence is defined by the very system it’s supposed to monitor, it becomes self-referential — a semantic shield, not a safeguard.
Turtles, Ti sei perso che è una definizione non dal Focolare? È la definizione comune usata da tutti i governi e istituzioni. Se Newton definisce gravità come una forza da una Massa ed è accettato da tutti non puoi dire che la parada è usata male perché ti fa ricordare ad una situazione pericolosa. Allora una "Commissione Indeendente" è wuello. Se tu non sei d'accordo non puoi mettere la colpa a intenzioni cattive del Focolare.
EliminaNo, non mi sono perso nulla. Proprio perché quella definizione di “commissione indipendente” è presa dal linguaggio giuridico dei governi, è importante ricordare che lì l’indipendenza è garantita da un sistema di bilanciamenti esterni (leggi, poteri separati, tribunali, controllo pubblico).
EliminaNel Movimento dei Focolari, invece, non esiste nulla di tutto questo: la stessa autorità che istituisce la commissione la nomina, la finanzia, ne approva i bilanci e può revocarne i membri. Dire che questa è una “commissione indipendente” perché così si chiamano anche quelle governative è una semplificazione impropria: nel diritto, i termini non cambiano solo per somiglianza linguistica, ma per contesto giuridico.
Inoltre, stai usando una definizione tecnica (“è così per tutti i governi, quindi deve esserlo anche qui”) per neutralizzare il piano simbolico e politico della mia critica. L’analogia con Newton è rivelatrice: paragoni un fatto fisico oggettivo (la gravità) a un costrutto linguistico e istituzionale (l’indipendenza), come se fossero la stessa cosa — un tipico errore logico di reificazione.
Il mio punto non è “accusare d’intenzioni cattive” il Focolare, ma mostrare una contraddizione tra la parola e la struttura. Una cosa può essere chiamata indipendente, ma se dipende gerarchicamente da chi dovrebbe controllare, non lo è nei fatti.
F.M.-Turtle,
RispondiEliminaReferencing an infamous Hitler quote — especially in the context of an institution that is making a genuine effort to improve its safeguarding practices — comes across as deeply insensitive. Safeguarding is a serious and delicate matter that deserves to be approached with honesty, and it needs to be actively supported.
That quote doesn’t reflect irony or genuine concern about safeguarding, but rather seems driven by personal resentment. If there’s a real issue to address, it would be more constructive to do so with greater respect and without any kind of unnecessary aggression.
I understand your concern, but you’re misreading the intent of the quote. The reference to Hitler was not about equating the Focolare Movement to Nazism — that would be absurd — but about illustrating a psychological mechanism: how a lie, when it’s big enough and repeated long enough, can become believable even to good people.
EliminaThe quote is meant to expose a pattern of denial, not to attack individuals or institutions.
In fact, precisely because safeguarding is such a serious issue, it’s important to examine not only the practical procedures but also the narratives that institutions construct to protect their own image.
Calling that “resentment” misses the point. It’s not aggression — it’s analysis.
Irony, in this context, is a way to reveal the gap between rhetoric and reality — the very gap that allows abuse and cover-up mechanisms to persist under the language of virtue.
Francesco, Turtles, dovete riconoscere che non conoscevate che esisteva una definizione giuridica delle commissioni independienti come entità create e sostenute internamente dai governi e che il MdF ha seguito fedelmente questa definizione per fare uso di mezzi di controllo interno in altri modi di governo.
EliminaLa vostro mancanza di conoscenza giuridica non è colpa del MdF.
Yes, I am aware of the administrative definition of “independent commissions” in governmental systems — bodies established within the executive but with limited autonomy to act.
EliminaHowever, invoking that model in the context of the Focolare Movement is not a justification; it is a category mistake.
A government agency operates within a constitutional framework of checks and balances — where independence is guaranteed by law, judicial oversight, and public accountability.
The Focolare Movement, on the other hand, is a private religious organization where the same person (the President) defines, finances, appoints, and supervises the so-called “independent” commission.
So the issue is not my “lack of legal knowledge” — it’s your lack of distinction between formal autonomy and substantive independence.
If independence means “created, funded, and dismissible by the same authority it monitors,” then the word has lost its meaning altogether.
Turtle, tutte le commissioni independenti ad ogni governo sono “created, funded, and dismissible by the same authority it monitors,”. I mechanismi di controllo sono sempre esterni: elezioni e azioni giuridiche. Anche nel MdF i mecanismi di controllo sono elezioni e azioni giuridiche dalle autorità civili ed eclesiastiche.
EliminaThank you for clarifying your thoughts and opinions. Of course, everyone’s ideas always deserve respect and should be respected accordingly. However, I believe you might agree that quoting Hitler, even ironically, is inappropriate. There is profound pain behind those words, especially considering the Shoah. I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time to write again, and I don’t particularly appreciate this kind of online debate. Therefore, I won’t be able to continue this dialogue. I’ve also learned that you’ve already discussed the core issue of your post previously with another person. Once again, thank you for publishing my concern and disagreement regarding the opening quote of your post.
EliminaEdu l’analogia che proponi non regge sul piano logico né giuridico.
EliminaLe commissioni indipendenti di un governo sono “create e finanziate” da un’autorità pubblica, sì — ma rispondono a un sistema di contrappesi esterni: poteri separati, magistratura, elezioni, opinione pubblica, e soprattutto accountability legale.
Nel Movimento dei Focolari nulla di tutto questo esiste: non ci sono elezioni pubbliche, né un potere giudiziario indipendente, né un controllo democratico sull’operato della Presidente.
Dire quindi che “è lo stesso meccanismo” significa trasferire un modello statale in un contesto privato e carismatico, dove le regole del potere sono completamente diverse. Nel MdF, la “Commissione indipendente” resta interna, nominata, revocabile e finanziata dal medesimo vertice che dovrebbe vigilare. E questo — al di là delle intenzioni — è il contrario dell’indipendenza.
Uso ed esempi di Commissioni Independenti fuori del contesto di Stati Democratici. Commissione interne alle organizazioni con statuti, fondi e nomine dalle organizaione che le hanno create.
EliminaNel Vaticano https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2023/02/15/230215b.html#:~:text=%C2%A71%20In%20implementation%20of%20Article%2031%20of%20the,of%20direction%20or%20majority%20control%20of%20the%20Vicariate.
Nelle nazione unite
https://www.bing.com/search?q=independent%20commission%20of%20the%20United%20nations&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=2&lq=0&pq=independent%20commission%20of%20the%20united%20nations&sc=12-44&sk=&cvid=E068B5787BA04A9ABF912F3CA8466CC1
Altre strutture nel settore Privato col nome Independente e che sono interne alla struttura con delle statuti, nomine e fiananziazine dalla struttura: Independent Director or Independent Board of Directors. Queste si usano nelle dite famigliari.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=independent%20commission%20of%20the%20United%20nations&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=2&lq=0&pq=independent%20commission%20of%20the%20united%20nations&sc=12-44&sk=&cvid=E068B5787BA04A9ABF912F3CA8466CC1
Turtles stai dicendo buggie vedi i post che ti ho inviato. Il MdF ha delle elezione interne come ogni paese (in Italia non votano gli spagnoli). La Commissione Centrale fa le ricerche su degli abusi che sono controlati dalle leggi civile, Il MdF e' dentro la societa civile ed ha i mecanismi di controllo giudiziario della societa' civile, i governi e i presidenti dello stato devono essere portati in magistratura per questo controllo lo stesso che il MdF. La opinione publica fa parte di quello che tu Turtles ed altri fanno e questo controlo esiste anche perche il MdF fa parte della societa' civile.
EliminaTi ho inviato alcuni esempi di usi di mezzi di controllo interno ad organizazioni non di stati democratici che usano questi modeli e nomi come lo fa il MdF usando la parola Independenti per riferirsi a persone nominati da e diverse ai Presidenti con capacita' esecutiva, di ricerca o di consiglio alle organizazioni che servono.
Grazie per il contributo e i numerosi esempi portati, che effettivamente mostrano come il termine “commissione indipendente” sia utilizzato in diversi ambiti: pubblico, privato, religioso, internazionale. Tuttavia, la mia analisi riguarda un punto preciso, che resta intatto anche di fronte a tali differenziazioni:
Elimina1. L’indipendenza formale e l’indipendenza sostanziale
È vero che in molte organizzazioni private esistono “commissioni indipendenti” nominate e finanziate dall’organo di vertice. Tuttavia, nel linguaggio giuridico e istituzionale, “indipendenza” ha valenza concreta solo quando chi esercita il controllo non dipende gerarchicamente, economicamente o funzionalmente da chi deve controllare. L’indipendenza “formale” (dichiarata) non coincide sempre con quella “sostanziale” (reale): la commissione del MdF dipende in ultima istanza dal vertice che la nomina, la può revocare e riceve i report, come spiegato dagli atti ufficiali.
2. Il parallelismo con altri enti
Negli Stati democratici, le commissioni indipendenti devono rispondere a poteri separati (es. Parlamento, Magistratura), non solo all’Esecutivo; negli organi privati, lo scenario cambia — ma la differenza tra questi modelli resta fondamentale e lo ammette anche gran parte della dottrina. Le commissioni “indipendenti” del Vaticano o dell’ONU sono spesso (ma non sempre) espressione di equilibri diversi da quelli propri di enti privati, e la loro “indipendenza” viene comunque valutata anche dal grado di autonomia statutaria e procedurale. Gli Independent Directors nelle società sono ritenuti tali se non hanno legami di dipendenza effettiva con la proprietà di controllo (laddove sussistono solo rapporti economici, tale indipendenza è talvolta contestata anche nei tribunali).
3. Sui meccanismi di controllo esterno
Riconosco che la società civile, la magistratura e l’opinione pubblica siano strumenti di controllo reale sulle organizzazioni, anche religiose. Tuttavia, questi intervengono all’esterno (ex post) e non sostituiscono la necessaria autonomia degli organi di vigilanza interni. Il fatto che il MdF sia parte della società civile non ne rende automaticamente “indipendenti” gli organi interni, almeno secondo il significato sostanziale giuridico del termine.
Quindi nessuna “bugia” nella mia analisi (vacci piano con le accuse): baso il mio ragionamento sulla distanza fra l’indipendenza dichiarata nei regolamenti e l’effettiva autonomia procedurale e sostanziale degli organi di controllo all’interno del MdF, ben documentata dai testi ufficiali. Ritengo utile e onesto continuare a interrogarsi non sulla terminologia in sé, ma su ciò che — in concreto — garantisce davvero la tutela degli interessi deboli e la responsabilità istituzionale. Se in futuro il MdF dovesse rafforzare le tutele di autonomia delle sue commissioni, sarò il primo a prenderne atto e darne riconoscimento!
Alla fine stai dicendo che tu hai raggione e che Le nazione unite, il vaticano, le ditte private che usano il termine Independente per riferisi ad un organo con dei membri anche esterni alla organizazione per farsi dare una visione piu' da fuori o per controlarsi in un certo modo, ma nominati internamente, tutti, tutti, tutti stanno usando il termine male e stanno ingannandosi ed ingannando il publico. Sembri che tu pretendi di saper dei mecanismi del linguaggio e del potere meglio che tutti, tutti, tutti e che tutti dovrebbero cambiare come usare il linguaggio perche tu glielo dici.
EliminaNon intendo presentarmi come l’unico detentore del “vero” significato di indipendente, né pensare che tutte le organizzazioni nominino o definiscano male i propri organi. Il mio intento è esclusivamente quello di evidenziare — anche sulla scorta della dottrina giuridica comparata e dell’esperienza internazionale — che tra indipendenza formale e indipendenza sostanziale può esserci una differenza concreta, e che le buone pratiche dovrebbero ambire alla massima separazione possibile tra chi esercita il potere e chi lo controlla.
EliminaNon sto negando che molte realtà adottino la definizione “formale”; sto solo sottolineando che una riflessione critica sul significato e sull’efficacia reale di questi organi sia doverosa, soprattutto quando si tratta di tutelare persone vulnerabili o ricostruire la fiducia pubblica.
Non chiedo di cambiare il linguaggio “perché lo dico io”: suggerisco soltanto che una vera credibilità per un organo di controllo nasce dalla sua effettiva autonomia, non solo dalla dichiarazione statutaria. Questo non è un dogma personale, ma un principio riconosciuto in molti studi sull’etica pubblica e sulla governance.
Ogni critica onesta sul linguaggio istituzionale serve a far progredire le organizzazioni, non a screditarle in modo gratuito.