Operation Paperclip
Operation Paperclip, carried out by the United States after World War II, consisted of recruiting German scientists who had worked for the Nazi regime and had been involved in war crimes or weapons developments for the Third Reich. The U.S. government decided to draft them rather than prosecute them, due to the urgent need to advance the technological race against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Although the U.S. government was aware of the troubled background of these scientists, it “turned a blind eye” because of the strategic advantages they offered.
The Boeing case
After two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 that left hundreds dead, investigations revealed questionable corporate practices within Boeing’s 737 Max program, such as prioritizing profits over safety and pushing to avoid regulatory delays. However, despite the seriousness of the irregularities, Boeing was not dismantled, due to its strategic relevance.
The case of IVE/SSVM
In the midst of all this major imbroglio that we have been witnessing for almost 30 years with the IVE/SSVM, a recurring question arises: why has the Vatican not yet suppressed and dismantled the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE) and the Servants of the Lord and of the Virgin of Matará (SSVM), despite the numerous irregularities of these institutes?
The answer, to a large extent, lies in the support they receive from certain bishops, who intervene on their behalf before the Holy See. This support is not always formalized in written agreements, but is usually governed by tacit pacts and implicit understandings.
We want to analyze in this modest blog the reasons behind this episcopal support and how this support has prevented the Vatican from taking more drastic measures against abortion and SSVM.
It is important to note that in many cases, this support does not arise from genuine enthusiasm for the Institute, but from the practical need to have priests and religious willing to work in places where the shortage of clergy and pastoral workers is chronic.
Bishops who endorse IVE often need pastoral coverage. For example, in countries like the United States, where the Hispanic community is huge and there is a lack of Spanish-speaking priests, bishops open the doors to IVE and SSVM. This includes assignments in parishes and missions, as well as authorization to found new religious houses.
Many bishops who support the IVE/SSVM even fall into the category of what the IVE might consider doctrinally “progressive” (or “progressive”). If they sat down at the same table to debate seriously, it is very likely that these doctrinal differences between the bishop and the members of the IVE would end in tensions or even serious lack of civility, given the diametrically opposed positions on fundamental issues.
Pope Francis and Father Gustavo Nieto (superior of the IVE “in the shadows”) are at the opposite ends of the spectrum on many points of theology. The priests of the IVE and the SSVM sisters publicly profess fidelity to the Pope, but they cannot stand Francis and privately criticize him without hesitation. It is impossible for Francis not to know this. Francis has known since he was archbishop of Buenos Aires what the IVE is made of. (Yes, let’s remember the origins of both Buela and Bergoglio in the River Plate).
In addition, the bishops, aware of the sectarian characteristics of the IVE/SSVM, tolerate with resignation the chronic inability of their members to work on joint programs with other Catholic organizations. This behavior generates tensions and reinforces the perception that episcopal support is motivated exclusively by an urgent need and not by a full approval of its operating model.
The flexibility and mobility of Incarnate Word members allow bishops to respond to urgent needs, especially in remote or under-resourced regions. This level of commitment ensures mutual benefit: the bishops receive reliable pastoral support, while the Institute consolidates its presence in the diocese. However, this mutual benefit is marked by the pragmatic instrumentalization of the Institute, which often operates in contexts where others do not wish to work.
It is common for IVE superiors to send their members to extremely difficult places, such as war zones, areas of extreme poverty, or high-risk regions. However, important questions arise: How many of these members have managed to persevere in such extreme conditions?
In Gaza, which the IVE/SSVM cites “ad nauseam,” before Father Romanelli there was Father Da Silva, now exclaustrated, and former Father Jorge “Caballo” Hernández, today “missing in action.”
In Albania, the young priest Andrés Fernandez, who left the ministry shortly after his ordination.
In Papua New Guinea we have the case of former Father Alejandro “Gaucho” Molina, once an idol in the ranks of the IVE; or the ex-Father “Pancita Ávila”, another zealous missionary, who left the priesthood to join a friend of his youth.
In Iraq, the “founder” of that mission, Mariol “Chori” Ibarrarán, spent almost two years alone in the mission. On his first vacation trip to Argentina, he stayed, left and left the priesthood.
These examples reflect the human cost of these decisions to send young priests as “cannon fodder,” sent on missions where they face extremely adverse conditions without adequate support. This explains why many end up with burnout, depression, and other serious psychological consequences. This model of “total sacrifice” not only puts the health of religious at risk, but also questions the sustainability of these practices in the long term. Of course, these failures are left out of the official discourse.
In addition, the bishops are aware of irregularities and abuses in vocational recruitment within the IVE and the SSVM. However, in many cases they prefer to turn a blind eye, prioritizing the pastoral needs of the diocese over the rigorous supervision of these institutes.
Another very interesting aspect is that the bishops who tolerate the Institute do not usually support them publicly within their own dioceses. This is because most of the local clergy are not sympathetic to the IVE or its methods, and if the bishops were to be openly in favor of the Institute, they could face significant opposition from their own clergy.
Conclusion
Pope Francis, who has shown himself to be firm in the reform of problematic religious congregations, even going so far as to suppress some of them outright and simple, only a few weeks ago took drastic measures against the IVE/SSVM (closure of novitiates). But no definitive closure. This delay in acting firmly is probably due to the intervention of many bishops who have asked that the Institute not be closed. Despite this, there are enough misdeeds and internal problems within the IVE to justify its definitive closure and dismantling.
Leave a Reply