Talk:Neocatechumenal Way/Archive 2

Neocatechumenal Way Statistics

Hi all,I've put on the statistics of the Neocatechumenal Way in Europe and in some other notable countries around the World. I do hope it's made the page even more interesting. Statistics are a valuable part of information. Only I'm not sure if the statistics for England are correct. Feel free to arrane them if you have the real numbers at hand! Peace, James Jdegi 10:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)jdegiJdegi 10:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the statistics. For example turkey: there are only about 20.000 catholic cristians living in turkey (probably even less) and according to this statistic there are 8 communities in turkey... that would lead to an higher percentage than that of Malta which I highly doubt, especially since the turkish try everything to make christian missionary as hard as possible,... and just in turkey the neocatrechumenate claims to be this succesful???

2.) I know very well some luxenburgian goverment guys and we sometimes talked about the neocatechumenate. They do not know a single community in Luxemburg! Just besides, Kiko never mentioned Luxemburg in his welcome speeches, thus I highly doubt that there is such a community in Luxemburg.

3.) I would be very interested WHERE in Scandinavia those communities shall be located! I know personally from neocatechumates that the families which have been sent to Scandinavia returned unsuccesful...!!!

All in all I do not know where this statistic comes from but it seems to be much more of another malevolent neocatechumenale propaganda than a reliable source for an encyclopedia!

I concur, in the sense that it is unclear where the statistics come from, if some kind of trustworthy verification cannot be provided, the section should be deleted. --Isolani 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Isolani, I personally compiled the statistics.

Let me assure you that they are correct. I have been to Turkey myself with the neocatechumenal communities there. There are six communities in Istanbul, saint nicholas of tolentino parish and two in Antalya, near Syria.

In Luxembourg there is one community, I have the contacts. Kiko never mentioned Luxembourg because they travel with Belgium during Wyd.

In Scandinavia there are seminaries in Finland and Denmark. For a neocatechumenal seminary to open, there must be AT LEAST ten communities to sustain the seminarians.

Did that allay your fears? Bdw, malevolent neocatechumenal propaganda was an unusual comment. Malevolent propaganda was your comment, for you did not care to check it out, rather piling criticism on the statistics I compiled.

Oh, and you are VERY misinformed. The communities in Trkey aren't made out only of the Catholic population (of 20.000)... there are many orthodox christians and armenian christians in the communities in Istanbul too. SO no, the number of CHristians in Turkey is around 160,000 (mainly Armenians), so eight communities do not surpass malta's tally of 100 per population. James De Giorgio - Jdegi 10:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)jdegi

---

Perhaps deleting them completely is unnecessary, if anything removing the sections with extremely questionable numbers should be removed.

Also a community does not have to have 60 members per, some are very small thus accounting for turkey.

If you would personally know that the families which went to Scandinavia failed you would have to either accompany them or been part of the family both of which I believe you are not part of.

I never said that I know THE FAMILIES personally... I said I know from german (if this is of interest) members of the Neokatechumente, that those families failed. Probably I can find out, if there are SOME comunities in Scandinavia at present, the numbers I think I won't be able to find out...

OK then if you don't know the families personally, stop providing inaccurate criticism, thank you very much. I DO KNOW the families personally and whoever told you that the mission in Scandinavia failed, is either a liar or very very misinformed. By the way, you're always writing things incorrectly; "Neokatechumente" is supposed to be written like this => Neocatechumenate. For your information, the mission was so succesful in Oulu in Finland, that even the parish church there was built by the Neocatechumenal Way in the style of the Neo. There are also communities in Helsinki and other major Finnish Cities. jdegJdegi 10:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And please do not make the ignorant mistake of smearing every intention to add information to the page as propaganda. More likely than not it was an attempt to expand the content range of the page.Ncwfl 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I've just found this page - and I must say it is totally biased! It's a pure apologetic of the Neocatechumal way, without any serious regard to the many criticisms both from inside and from outside the Catholic Church.

• In what way is the page apologetic? There is no attempt to excuse the Way, nor is it a defense of it. The article is an informative piece, including the latest developments, the addition of statistics of the way.

Only positive references are quoted, many of which are taken out of context, and the main argument for the "neutrality" of the article is the recognition of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way by the John Paul II. in 2002 - which so far is only "ad experimentum", and which, of course, does not mean the Pope considers the "Way" to be totally faultless! Nor can other sources be interpreted this way - usually they are meant to be encouraging speeches, requiring "positive thinking". But a Wikipedia article is not meant to be an encouraging sermon, it is supposed to take into account both the good AND the bad side of its topic!

• The pope does not give "encouraging speeches" they serve a purpose to show the Churches position on matters. If this was not the case then what would be the point of the pope?

Neither is Wikipedia a pure Catholic encyclopedia - so, even if the Pope was totally in favour of the Neocatechumenal Way (which he is not, in my opinion), this still wouldn't justify the eliminating of all critical viewpoints.

As the above discussion suggests that those parts of the article representing a more critical POV have been removed without a trace, I don't see much point in adding new ones. Therefore, I've added the template for neutrality check. Modwenna 11:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• You say that the article is not neutral and contains a substantial bias leaning in favor of the way. I do not share the same opinion because the “top” half of the article is a description of what the Way is, what it has done, and the process which it takes. It also contains both sides (the criticisms are included) thus unless you provide a more substantial reason as to why the page is not neutral then I see no reason to keep the tag on. Ncwfl 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the mere fact that you think it's biased, does not make it such! You are totally wrong when you say that the article brings only "positive reference", since it brings document from the Vatican. Is the Pope biased? If the source is the Vatican, we MUST follow what the documents say and the Vatican has defined the Neocatechumenal Way a post baptismal Catechumenate. You are also wrong in your comments on baptism! You may want to read the following paragraph taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of catechumenate included a series of preparatory rites, which were liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation.

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

--67.83.3.117 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

--Well, actually the above quotation shows that I'm right - it talks of "becoming a Christian" in several stages, leading finally to the sacraments. The catechumenate in the early church was part of the preparation for baptism and the other sacraments of initiation (first holy communion and confirmation), which, in the first centuries, were celebrated along with baptism. (As every theologian knows - this is really not a point of debate ANYWHERE!). Therefore I'm going to revert that. I'd like to give you a second source, but my theological books and encyclopedias are all in German - just go to the next library and ask for any theological encyclopedia! Oh, and a third source would be Wikipedia, of course: Just follow the link provided in the article: Catechumen

About the bias: I think you deeply misunderstand Wikipedia. In such a debated topic, it will never be enough to quote just one side in order to be neutral - even if it's the Pope or other official Vatican documents. Whom I deeply respect, by the way - but that doesn't matter here at all! Wikipedia is no place for preaching my personal believes! It is an encyclopedia that must provide reliable information for Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, Protestants, Hindus ... in short, for everybody, even if he or she doesn't believe in the authority of the Catholic teaching. And that means: giving a honest picture, which includes the whole of the discussion, both the apologetic and the critical POVs.

And anyway, the choice of quotations is rather selective - even if each quotation is authentic and understood properly (unlike the one you gave me above!), it doesn't give a proper picture even of the Catholic POV. I know for sure that many bishops have refused to cooperate with Neocatecumenal communities or restricted their practices, and that the Vatican has always stressed that obedience to these Bishops is crucial. I could look up the sources, but that would be fruitless, since they'd be deleted anyway - like everything else from a critical viewpoint that others have added to this article. The mere fact that all these critical facts keep being deleted are proof that the article is biased! Modwenna 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not concur with the statement that the catechumenate is the time to form catechumens, since a catechumen is one receiving instruction in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism.(Wikipedia) However, I may understand that,as is now, the definition is not very clear. I suggest therefore to change this line as follows: The name of the ministry derives from the catechumenate of the early Christian Church, that was the time of instruction in the Christian religion in view of baptism.
--USeditor 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this change, it incorporates the application of the word 'catechumen' to the purpose of the Way. Ncwfl 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the assessment that this article has become, due to overzealous Neo-Cat editors I suppose, an advertisement for the Way. The addition of articles praising the Way copied in their entirety and totally unnecessary (that's what links and quotes are for) and the criticism section has been reduced to a footnote. The Way is still very controversial in Catholic communities all over the world, so the reduction and addition of the paragraph saying that the criticism has been overcome (that hasn't happened, there is still much of it, especially in the upper echelons of the Church) has made this article a very poorly-veiled infomercial. Please, Neo-Cat editors, stop taking out the very legitimate criticisms of the Way just to meet your agenda. And to the one who said the criticism section shouldn't even be there, please refer to the pages for ALL the major religions (even Catholicism)--they all have criticism sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.246.85 (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I Have removed the criticism part. It doesn't make sense! Do you find a criticism section on the USA page? Or on the article about France? This should be an informative article, not one based on the opinions of individuals. I believe that only facts should be stated, and criticism does constitute facts. Leave only the real infomative facts please, you don't find criticism in encyclopedias, for heaven's sake! James

Well, for heavens sake, if there's a controversial topic it should be addressed as such in an encyclopedia! If you take out the criticism you'll have to take out the appraisal too, which means reducing the article to about one third of its content. And some of the criticism refers to facts, such as the fact that the Neocatechumenate has been thrown out of the Diocesis of Clifton by a valid decree of the Bishop, stating that it's gnostic heresy, and that this has been acknowledged by the Roman authorities.

This whole article is pure advertisement without any substance, as anybody will notice who's a bit familiar with the Catholic church. The "facts and figures" are just ridiculous - those 1500 seminarists and 900 nuns, where have they gone to? We haven't had any significant rise in seminary entries in Germany since the World Youth Day in Cologne. I think the entire number of seminarists in the whole country is about 200 or even less. Nor have I heard of any significant rises in seminary entries somewhere else in Europe. Modwenna 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Modwenna, to further underline your erroneous thinking, take a look at this link, and you'll see for yourself through a reliable source just how many answered the call for the priesthood in Bonn http://www.zenit.org/article-13785?l=english I HOPE that finally convinces you that they were not lost in the Bermuda Triangle ;) Jdegi 12:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)jdegi

Dear Modwenna, forgive me for being so blunt but your speech suggests an ignorance of the topic. The facts and figures aren't ridiculous. It's just that you haven't understood them; let me make them more simple for you to understand. No one said that in Cologne 1500 seminarians and 900 nuns suddenly came into being. 1500 young men and 900 young women answered the call to priesthood or to monastic life. These young people from all over the world do not go into German Seminaries, but into Seminaries all over the World. Now dear Modwenna, if you recieve ZENIT (the catholic news agency) you would notice that every now and then reports come about the Pope ordaining deacons and priests... in Rome last week for example, out of 22 seminarians being ordained, more than half came from the Neocatechumenal Seminary in Rome. We do forgive you dear Modwenna for writing the way you write seeing as you are mis informed and clearly wasn't present for the Meeting in Bonn (after Cologne), but please do check the facts, coz they aren't ridiculous... it's only misinformed people who write as though they know what they're saying, who look ridiculous! James (jdegi)

PS. About the Clifton thing... you said that the way has been accused of gnostic heresies and has been approved as such by the roman authorities. Modwenna my dear, who are you trying to fool? If you are really a thoelogian or something like that, you'll end up being excommunicated by the Pope for heresies. Do you know that the way has been officially approved by the Roman Catholic Church? So how could it have been found guilty of gnostic heresy? Modwenna my dear, check your facts and stop making outrageous statements. Or are you such a good theologian or "study" that you now have more authority than the Pope and more discernment to say exactely the opposite of both what John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 say? (jdegi)

You removed the criticism part because you are totally biased, if you look at the italian version of wikipedia you will see that many criticisms are reported and fully supported with documents. I have just translated the italian version of wikipedia but you keep removing it you are totally biased!!! I also inserted a link to a website run by priests and theologians which is very critical on the Neocatehcumenal way but you removed that as well!! I have puti it back! Just check the italian version of wikipedia and see all the criticisms which after a long debate have been accepted and included!!!

Who said that the Italian version of Wikipedia is correct? WHy should the English copy the italian version? Eventually what the Pope says, counts. And the present Pope, Benedict the 16th introduced the noecatechumenal way into his diocese (Munich). Or oh yes, perhaps of course, you understand more than the Pope does... (jdegi)

Request for comment: Criticism

When looking through the old versions of this article, I find that there have been many criticsms based on facts that have been removed from the article. The Neocatechumenate is a highly controversial issue both within and without the Catholic church (as I know very well, since I'm a Catholic theologian and have been working in a parish disunited for two decades by NC-communities). By now, all those who were adding those critical aspects seem to have given up, because the criticisms kept being deleted. The article, at its current state, is pure advertisement, IMO. I think the critical aspects must be restored in order to make the article suitable for Wikipedia. Modwenna 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. This has been largely discussed both above and in the archives. The arguments are too long to be repeated here.

My experience is totally the opposite to the one of modwenna. In my parish the Neocatechumenal Communities are perfectly integrated with the other realities and serve in many ministries. There is communion, and, in spite of the differences, we have achieved a great sense of belonging and unity. Both the Neocatechumenal Communities and the Parish as a whole are growing well!--USeditor 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My experience is totally opposite to what Modwenna says, so I second USeditor. We should start asking ourselves what's on Modwenna's agenda. Who is she writing for? What's her hidden agenda?

I must say that, whatever the opinion of singular contributors may be, the only way of having an impartial page on Wikipedia, is to present DOCUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SEE, that, I assume all agree, is an IMPARTIAL AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE. Personal opinions of theologians, may be wrong; is not enough to claim to be a theologian to be an authoritative source. As is, the page ONLY REFLECTS DOCUMENTS ISSUED by VATICAN CONGREGATIONS, or speeches of the Pope, or public documents presented on www.zenit.org, and therefore is beyond any accusation of presenting personal opinions, or "advertisement" (sic)--USeditor 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed a large chunk of addition because it only contained personal opinions leading to a personal interpretation of words of the Holy Father and of Bishops of the Holy Land (both text, already present in its entirety in the page).

I thought there was some kind of agreement, dictated by intellectual decency, to present only fact with authoritative sources!

--USeditor 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say, following your own claims of the Wikipedia being the Vatican bulletin (which it isn't, IMO, but of course I agree the Holy Father is an important source), I can only consider the fact that you're wiping out the Holy Father's words just because you don't like them blatant vandalism. The editor should have provided more sources, of course (could you amend that, 203.131.70.226, please?), but the texts still seem authentic to me and cannot be wiped out just like that. I think they give a fair view both of the official attitude and the view of many Catholics: The "Way" ist welcome in the Catholic church, but like every religious movement, it's got its "blind spots" and there is some way to go to find a good balance between charism and communio. Nothing is perfect right from the beginning. The Holy Father has given good examples for this. But there are many other examples in Church history, too, of charismatic movements that have refused to enter into dialogue with the Church and therefore had to be excluded - not because they were more heretical than others (humans are not God, after all), but because they were too proud to enter into discourse with the Church (which, as you certainly know, is built up both by the People of God and their Shepherds - the common sense of the Faithful will never go wrong, says St. Augustine) and correct themselves, if necessary. If you really want the Neocatechumenate to remain part of the Catholic church, you should enter into dialogue and not behave like a sectarian. Modwenna 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah Modwenna, Modwenna... There you go again... so misinformed! DO you know that the Pope (Benedict 16th) has cited the Neocatechumenal Way as an example of a church reality/movement that has managed to build a special relationship with the Pastor and with the Church authorities? Check out ZENIT more often, coz you really are making some totally wrong comments. Better still I suggest you try the Neocatechumenal Way, and you'll see for yourself what it is really all about. Just like so many other critics who ended up leaders within the Neocatechumenal Way. James (jdegi)

I agree with Modwenna that the article was better when it had a "criticisms" section. But, the recent additions (the Pope's comments and letter from the bishops) don't seem very encyclopedic to me. For one thing, they're way too long. For another, there is a lot of POV - describing the Domus as a "bizarre hodgepodge", saying the letter was "courteous in form but stern in content", etc. I'd like to take a crack at a succinct and well-cited criticisms section (including a link to the Holy Land bishop's letter) but I'm afraid to put work into it and see it reverted. Can we agree that it's OK to have a criticisms section as long as it is based on documented concerns? USEditor, I don't think wikipedia can be limited to Vatican sources only, but we can agree to be careful about not misrepresenting the complexity of the situation. Cheers! Athenastreet 18:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point USeditor is making that if it is complete garbage then it does not belong on the page. Yes, the criticism section I believe also belongs there and so I have returned it, since the denial of such criticisms is useless. But one of the major issues that I saw with large section removed was the lack of sources from which it was derived, thus being charged as personal opinion. The section does require a lot of work, some sections I agree are completely irrelevant and wrong. Unless some sources are provided I am going to remove the section in question again.

Regarding the "Vatican Bulletin", what I believe USeditor means is that all of the theologians of the Catholic Church are tied to the Vatican, so if there are any criticisms from within the church the Pope has the final word.

Ncwfl 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Athenastreet, I agree that the removed section contained some POV expressions and that some interpretations were debatable, but they also did contain some important points - e. g. the questions of inculturation and segregation. I think these should be presented, maybe in a different form, maybe using some of the many older edits (with many references) that have been removed from this article before. I would really like to see a good scientific criticisms section, too. Modwenna 13:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In general: Yes, we can use statements from theologians, attributed to that theologian. Theologians are as much a reliable sources on religion as chemists are on chemistry. Of course, we should try to stick to theologians' writings published in peer-reviewed or fact-checked publications, but if they have been, that's a reliable secondary source. It's not our place to say "Well, that's a reliable publication, but I disagree with what it says, so it's not reliable this time." If the article's been criticized in reliable sources, we note the criticism here. As to Catholic interpretations regarding a Catholic group, like pronouncements from the Pope mentioned earlier, that's a primary source and should be handled with the care WP:ATT prescribes for primary and potentially biased sources. Secondary sources, such as theologians, would be far preferable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the section removed, it did not contain a single reference, which is largely in part a reason for its removal. Once these sources are provided then the issue of content will begin and that will no doubt be subject to numerous edits in order to keep irrelevant information out, and to balance the article.

Ncwfl 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If the section contained no references, removing it and requesting sources before readdition is absolutely appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ncwfl, that is a lie. The author had given references both to the papal speech and to the Bishops' letter, and I had added two more in order to have the original texts. Both have been removed. - When I have some more time left, I will edit the article "in order to keep irrelevant information out, and to balance the article." After removing everything that is not based on facts (e. g. the 1500 seminarists who obviously have been lost in the Bermuda Triangle), not much will remain. Modwenna 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Im so sorry I cannot see where exacly they are in the section i removed. Ncwfl 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Modwenna, the 1500 seminarists lost in the Bermuda Triangle is a stupid comment which highlights your lack of understanding of simple and proper English. Go read the article again. and take a look at this link http://www.zenit.org/article-13785?l=english (jdegi)

They were in my edit on March 27th. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what is written in the article? These young men and women, begin a process of discernement in their own dioceses and parishes, that may lead to priesthood or consacrated life.--USeditor 23:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if somebody "answers the call for priesthood", this obviously implies entering a seminary. If he just considers it, this is not yet an "answer to the call for priesthood". And, secondly, if really a number of 1500 men and 900 women had seriously considered entering a seminary or a religious order in 2005, by now at least a few of them should have contacted a seminary, or a religious order, or the local officials for pastoral of vocation, or at least their parish priest, shouldn't they? Anyway, I don't know what exactly these people did, but unless there's a reliable neutral written source for it, I'll take this passage out. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Modwenna, if you don't understand how the system within the Neocatechumenal way works, don't delete the article. It is true, 1500 have answered the call to the priesthood and 900 to become nuns. If you didnt attend the meeting in Bonn in 2005, it's your problem, not ours. So stop being off-track. (jdegi)

Well it actually not as simple as is seems. Once someone recognizes this call in their life then they must see if it is a true call to follow god into a seminary/convent/monastery. Then you must also consider that most probably many of them have school, and the Way will usually let them finish their study choice in order for there to be something to fall back on in case they see that it is not what the lord wants. Also there is the possibility of them being underage (18), so these would naturally have to finish school before entering such an institution. But then i also highly doubt that you have a source to prove that they were "lost in the bermuda triangle", when there were several key figures in the church present at the meeting with Kiko the day after the meeting with the pope. Ncwfl 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the section regarding the approval of the catechetical directory, quoting an Italian note in an interview of a representative of the Pontifical Council for the Laity. Also, I removed a quote (that was not following the order in which it was pronounced by the Pope), because the speech was already quoted in its entirety in the previous paragraph.--USeditor 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the discussion difficult to follow. Can we make another archive?--USeditor 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely removed the section you spoke about. Reason being it was 1. An unnecessary repetition of what was said in the letter. 2. It did not belong there. The section regards the criticism not the status of the Statute or the Directory; the information regarding those two is already present in its own section.

I also added to the archive cutting it to the present issues and topics.

Ncwfl 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section from Chinese Wikipedia

When searching in Google, I found the following criticism section in the Chinese Wikipedia. It's not perfect, but I think it could be a very good starting point for a substantial criticism section here, and it contains lots of references. Instead of going through all the research work again, what about starting from here, by verifying the sources, removing the POV sentences (there are only a few) and then presenting the text on the page? Modwenna 13:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Critical aspects of the Neocatechumenal Way ====

The Way is praised and encouraged by lots of Bishops and priests; the most common citation is from a letter by pope John Paul II to mgr. Paul Josef Cordes (dated August 1990), where he wrote: «having seen the documentation you sent me, welcoming the request addressed to me, I acknowledge the Neocatechumenal Way as an itinerary of Catholic formation, valid for our society and for our times».

There are anyways some serious concerns about its position in the Catholic Church. In 1983, pope John Paul II already told to Neocatechumenal communities: «do not isolate yourself from the Parishes and Dioceses (...) Follow without negligence and without omissions Canonical and Liturgical laws».

There are four kinds of concerns about the Way:

1. doctrine: equivocal and misleading doctrinal statements, sometimes near to heresy;
2. liturgy: serious differences between the Way and the Catholic Church liturgies (large "admonitions" - "introductions" like homilies -, use of a cloth-covered "dinner style" square table instead of the Altar, receiving the Holy Communion while seating, lenghty and closed-doors liturgies, etc);
3. pastoral: aspects like a sect (original catechetical texts kept secret as far as possible; the Way shown as the only way to be Catholic; the lenght of the Way, often way more than 15-20 years; excess of emphasis on the Old Testament; reduction of the importance of the sacraments; reduction of the devotion to the Virgin Mary; Neocatechumenal catechists considered better than priests and Bishops; etc);
4. other aspects: ugly chants, bad ideas about Catholic history between Constantine and Vatican II Council, excessive emphasis about the demon, etc;

The pope said don't isolate yourselves. He didn't say YOU ARE ISOLATING YOURSELVES. So it doesn't count. If your dad tells you don't take drugs, it doesn't mean you are taking drugs. So again, it doesn't count.

Neocatechumenals defend theirselves accusing biases, badmouthing and misunderstandings, and asserting compatibility between the Way and the Catholic Church. Anyways, only Roman Catholic Church has the right to judge if and how the claimed compatibility does exist. In the following paragraphs there are some considerations from Catholic hierarchy about the first three points.

Notes from priests

The first documented criticism to the Way came in 1983 by mgr. Pier Carlo Landucci. Landucci analyzed the "secret catechetical books" of the Way and wrote that, compared to the Catholic Church, in the Way «there is not even a single doctrinal statement or practical action which is not deformed; everything is impressively rough and confused, both in theological and biblical aspects, while keeping an evocative attitude of personal engagement». Landucci stresses that:

• compared to the Church, in the Way «all the fundamental theological truth positions are horribly deformed, and -consequently- also the sacraments»;
• in the Way, while keeping some truth aspect, «all statements are intended to impress» people, as in a sect;
• Neocatechumenal doctrine is «in line with the Protestants negation of the true sacraments»;
• in the Way there is a «great confusion about theology and Bible, but showing an appearance of sharpness and charisma»;
• Neocatechumenal people show a «treacherous identification» of the Way and the Vatican II «as if the Vatican II line was (and only was) their».

Another documented criticism came later by the theologian and philosopher Passionist priest Enrico Zoffoli (1915-1996), who wrote in the last years of his life a number of books about the Way. In his Dictionary of Christianity (1992) he wrote about the Neocatechumenals: «their doctrine is seriously compromised with errors against fundamental dogmatics of the Church, the Popes and the Councils. They negate the Redemption, the sacrifice character of the Eucharist, the transubstantiation, etc... they misunderstand the sin and the Grace concepts... their doctrinal statements are fundamentally wrong».

In a letter to the chief of Radio Maria in 1994, Zoffoli reported that already in the late Sixties saint Pio of Pietrelcina defined Kiko Argüello and the Neocatechumenals as «the new false prophets».

Notes from Bishops

In 1986 Bruno Foresti, Archbishop of Brescia (northern Italy), already reported that in the Way there is:

• a «pessimistic idea about human life»;
• «bad ideas about other Catholic religious styles»;
• problems about «sacraments discipline»;
• a «common disobedience to Bishops» between priests of the Way.

In 1996 Salvatore Cardinal Pappalardo, Archbishop of Palermo (southern Italy), wrote a letter to all Neocatechumenal communities, and also to all priests of his diocese, to prohibit to Neocatechumenals the «closed-doors liturgies... or anyways "isolated" from other Catholics»; he also wrote that «the Way is not equal to the entire Church... so the Way shall not avoid the Parish liturgies».

In 1996 Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster (UK) refused to ordain fifteen seminar students coming from Neocatechumenal Way, because their obedience was to their communities instead of the Bishop.

In 1997 Mervyn Alban Alexander, Bishop of Clifton (UK), prohibited the Neocatechumenal Way in his diocese stating that «the catechetical and evangelisation methods of the "Neo-Catechumenate" are neither beneficial nor appropriate».

In late 2001 Luigi Bommarito, Archbishop of Catania (Italy), wrote a letter to the Neocatechumenal Way of his diocese stressing that in the Way:

• the priest is reduced to a simple "liturgical executor";
• the "pessimism" is substituted to the "Christian hope";
• there is a deliberate "separation" from the "non-Neocatechumenal Catholics";
• the "alleged" "insuperable" Neocatechumenal "method";
• the "serious problems" "emerged in the Parishes where the Way is present";
• the so-called "scrutinies", actually "public confessions of sins", like the worst fundamentalist sects.

I 'strongly' recommend you to read WP:SPS, almost all of the sources cited are from Geocities, and I have asked admins repeatedly regarding the reliability of such sources and they have every time said no they are not.

Well, I think it shouldn't be a problem to find more substantial sources at least for most of the Bishops's statements - Bishops usually don't talk in secret. But I won't go to the trouble to do it unless you tell me you won't delete everything critical at once again - it just doesn't make sense. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of having a substantial criticism section? Currently the first 8 sections are just information about the Way, there are 2 on both ends of the view, the criticisms section and the approval section and the rest are pretty much neutral. Adding this substantial criticism section would tilt the balance of the page, (for more info see WP:NPOV). This all assuming that the sources are reliable in the first place.

Ncwfl 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first eight sections are far from neutral now. It would be a good balance to have some serious criticism contrasting with the advertisement sections at the beginning. But obviously I won't succeed by adding critical facts, as you will delete them at once for SOME reason (instead of improving what you don't like or trying a middle way) - either because they are too old for you, or you don't accept the source, or you claim there are no sources even if there are, or you say it's POV even if it's clearly to be seen from the Holy Father's words, or or or ...

So there's only one option left for me in order to get this article balanced: To do the same as you do, and delete everything that is not neutral, or not based on reliable sources, or too old, and keep deleting it unless you provide 100 % reliable current sources (and no, the website of the Neocatechumenal Way is NOT a reliable source). I'm really sorry there can't be a more constructive way of writing this article together, but I just don't see it at the moment, and I'm really exhausted by this fruitless discussion. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Extremely satisfied with the changes made to the page. It is definitly an unbiased, accurate description of the Way and applaud those who made the necessary changes to the exaggerated and unfounded criticisms that dominated the previous page. Keep up the good work...JA

• I've found another issue with the entire first section, in the note from the priests; the entire section is based on a source which is extremely out dated, over twenty years ago. While it may not seem so outdated in comparison to other articles and sources it is in regards to the Neocatecumenal way, because since it is such a new thing the facts are always changing. An example is Fords model T, how different were the cars thirty years after the availability to the public began?

Well, if the "Way" has had a spiritual development, it would be good to read that in the article, too. After all, it's just one of many spiritual movements starting around the Second Vatican Council, and it would be interesting for readers to compare. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also I’m not sure how many people know how to read Italian, but I was reading the "source" (in reference to the priest section) and I had trouble finding where the actual information was pulled out from leading me to believe that they have been falsely attributed to the page.

Please tell me what exactly you are looking for and I'm sure I can find it for you. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another thing which I saw as an issue was that one of the pages attributed to Zoffoli is written in English, and in this page there is not one citation pertaining to the origins of the letter, the only way the reader knows that it was “written” by Zoffoli is because the publishers of this site have decided to write it at the top of the page. Had that not been there it may seem as though I could have written it.

Again, if the only problem really is the credibility of the source, and you're going to accept this section if the source is verified, I'll go to the trouble to verify it (or find something similar from the books Zoffoli has written on the Neocatechumenal Way). Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another is the quote regarding Zoffoli and St. Pius. I have found that the claim is absolutely ABSURD! In the letter Zoffoli states that he can provide the letter in which St. Pio called Kiko and the Neocatecumenal False prophets, but he dates it 28.12.1993 (English dating would be 12.28.1993) St. Pio died in 1968!!! There is no such letter unless Zoffoli is a renowned forger of documents.

Reading this passage thoroughly, you will find the date doesn't refer to a letter BY Padre Pio, but ABOUT Padre Pio by "un ottimo sacerdote toscano, fondatore di una benemerita istituzione d’assistenza sociale", "a very good priest from Tuscany, founder of a well-merited institution of social welfare". This is a second-hand source, of course, but the fact remains that Zoffoli CLAIMED that Padre Pio said those words, and as he's obviously an important person in this discourse, his opinion should be presented (as an opinion, of course). It is not the goal of the criticism section to defend or accuse the Neocatechumenal Way, but to give a true account of the public debate on it. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I could claim I saw Christ himself. Would that count? Modwenna your argument doesnt make sense. Bishop Milingo was an archbishop after all, but made quite a few gaffes.

• Regarding the second section the one about the bishops, first the reference shouldn’t be in the title makes for bad wikification, but the content of the reference is solely a listing of bishops, and all the links point to a website in a different language (I don’t know what it is...... Polish? Czech? Russian? I don’t know....), without ever taking any information from it (mind you not all of the bishops mentioned are on the site).

Ncwfl 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the links are all in Italian. Please tell me where exactly you found another language. They quote official diosesan documents, so, again, it should be possible to find the original sources, if you wish. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that since the page had been updated only with official documents of the Vatican, fully documented and quoted, with the presence of a brief section in which were indicated the so called controversial aspects of the Neocatechumenal Way with an historical chronology, is enough for the purpose of an encyclopedia.

Following the same argument the article about the NSDAP would be sufficient, if written by members of that party or only referring to official material of that party. Ignoring and actively and repeatedly deleting both inside and outside criticism as "obviously unfounded and baseless" for no more than that reason is not my definition of "unbiased". Swatopluk 13:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To return to a previous version in which the personal and biased opinions of few theologians and few bishops were given way more importance than the statements from the Holy See, would be like to write a propaganda booklet!

Instead of the pro propaganda it is now?Swatopluk 13:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the Holy See in its documents and official pronunciation, also took careful note of those who had negative experience of the Neocatechumenal Way, and issued those after deep study.

Also, every reality has a historical development. To continue posting reference to local documents or personal opinions outdated by more recent pronunciation of a higher authority (remember, the Church is NOT a democracy and what the Vatican states is binding for all the faithful, also for the theologians!), it is not an impartial or civilized way of behaving.

I am for maintaining the page as is.--USeditor 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As the article is now, there are many POV statements and misinterpretations of the Vatican documents, some of which are quoted in the wrong context or plainly given as article text instead of quoting them. The current Vatican documents don't show a complete approval of the Neocatechumenal Movement, but a careful acceptance of it as one of many charisms, linked with serious admonitions expressing certain concerns, e. g. about the need to attend the parish eucharist once a month (which, for anybody who knows the style of Vatican Documents, is clearly a sign of worriedness about parish unity).

As I have already announced above, I will edit the article now in order to take out everything that is POV or not based on reliable sources. Modwenna 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a small request. Can you edit the page not all at once? Meaning by section it is much easier to track that way. Ncwfl 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything that is unfamiliar or seems unfamiliar gets criticized at first

I have been away from this site for a while. Tell me what group (whether it be RENEW or Charismatic Catholicism, or Cursillo, or Opus Dei) hasn't suffered criticism from certain segments of the Church. From an objective viewpoint -- the Neocatechumenal Way has done many good things over the past 40 years. There is no denying that. Does everyone in the entire Roman Catholic Church agree with how the Neocatechumenal Way does things? Absolutely not. You would also get the same response for any other ministry, lay organization, or group within the Church. No group within the Church is above criticism. Doesn't anybody consider the fact that the Neocatechumenal Way has been supported by three popes including this current pope? The changes or modifications that are being made are simply assuring that there will be uniformity throughout the Roman Catholic Church. I want to stress however that the Neocatechumenal Way is part of the body of the Roman Catholic Church. The form may be different but the substance (and for that matter the dogma) is not different, has never been different, and will never be different.

I think part of the controversy over the Neocatechumenal Way has less to do with actual differences and more to do with a large amount of misleading information about what the nature of the Neocatechumenal Way is.

First of all, those who hold the opinion that the Way fosters a «pessimistic idea about human life» really do not understand the Neocatechumenal Way at all. What is being confused here, or taken out of context, is when people in the Neocatechumenal Way speak about being "dead". That doesn't mean that the Neocatechumenal Way fosters a pessimistic idea about human life. Rather, we believe that modern man is "dead" in the sense that we alone are unable to love another person with the same kind of love that Jesus Christ has for us. But the truly uplifting (non-pessimistic) point is something that is repeated often during Eurcharists on Saturdays and at Convivances -- God loves you, freely and he loves you as you are. How is that a pessimistic idea about human life? I really don't understand where individuals are drawing their conclusions from. In my experience, I do not see any of the problems or criticisms of the Neocatechumenal Way as being valid.

I really feel that many Roman Catholics (both within the clergy and outside of the clergy) are afraid of what they don't understand. Anybody can come to the Eucharists on Saturdays, and in fact, Saturday Eucharists are published in the parish bulletin. Nobody is barred from coming to a Eucharist, because all are welcome before the table of God.

I am aware that there are Bishops and others who are uncomfortable with the Way and do not like what they perceive the Neocatechumenal Way to be. Not that this means anything at all -- but if the Way has been around for almost 40 years, isn't that suggestive that it isn't necessarily viewed by most people who are in charge of making decisions regarding doctrine, faith, as bad?

To the people who are posting criticisms, have you been to a Eucharist on a Saturday? Have you been to a catechesis before? Have you been to a convivance? In short, have you yourself (outside of any research you've done) actually experienced the Neocatechumenal Way enough for you to post these criticisms up and defend them as being valid? If you haven't, then I want to extend an invitation to you. Before you post criticism, go to a catechesis, go and see for yourself what goes on in the Neocatechumenal Way and then make up your own mind.

I really feel that if people were just more informed and actually saw for themselves what this is all about -- there might not be as much criticism.

Ladb2000

In short: Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. For personal experience, I can see the disintegrative effect that "The Way" has at St.Joseph right round the corner. Swatopluk 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your tactful quoting of Orwell's 1984. Please describe your personal experiences. I'd love to hear what you have to say about the Way's "disintegrative effect" considering that the newest letter from the Vatican instructed the Way to attend masses once a month. What exactly is your problem?

Ladb2000

When the priest gets the impression that his opinions come second on every instance where they are in conflict with "The Way" and a significant number of regular churchgoers now visit the neighbourhood protestant church because they feel bullied (and say they will return the moment that this stops), I'd say this is disintegrative indeed. Holier-than-thou attitudes are bad enough (including being told: If you are not with us you are no true Christian). Trying to run the show while pretending not to and then blaming the other side for not liking it is not everybody's idea of harmony. "By their fruits ye shall know them" and what I see is nightshade not cherry.Swatopluk 16:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me respond respectfully to the points you made. I find it very disheartening that there are people who see the Way as an anathema or as divisive. First of all, there are many gardens in my father's house. No one is pointing a gun to your head saying you have to join the Way, and no one (at least in my experience) has ever said that you are not a Christian if you are notin the Way. Are there overzealous people, sure. But in everything humans do, there are always going to be people who overreact. But I don't see this tension in my parish. Ladb2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladb2000 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

St.Pio from Pietrelcina

• ...Reading this passage thoroughly, you will find the date doesn't refer to a letter BY Padre Pio, but ABOUT Padre Pio by "un ottimo sacerdote toscano, fondatore di una benemerita istituzione d’assistenza sociale", "a very good priest from Tuscany, founder of a well-merited institution of social welfare". This is a second-hand source, of course, but the fact remains that Zoffoli CLAIMED that Padre Pio said those words, and as he's obviously an important person in this discourse, his opinion should be presented (as an opinion, of course). It is not the goal of the criticism section to defend or accuse the Neocatechumenal Way, but to give a true account of the public debate on it

Actually, «a very good priest from Tuscany» claimed to HAVE an old letter BY Padre Pio stating that Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernández (who began their work in Madrid in 1964-1967) are «the new false prophets». Fr. Zoffoli says that if needed the letter could have been shown (the "very good priest from Tuscany" didn't want to show a private letter). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.225.148.186 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Bias/Agenda

No offense, but Father Zoffoli was vehemently against the Neocatechumenal Way. Though I do not doubt Zoffoli's piety or commitment to the Roman Catholic Church, I take anything he says about the Way with a grain of salt. Futhermore, having read excerpts of Zoffoli's book, I find that his criticisms make no sense and seem to indicate that he never actually attended a convivance or anything remotely related to the Neocatechumenal Way. Ladb2000

Modifications

It is well known that Redemptoris Mater Seminaries are the Seminaries of the Neocatechumenal Way. In fact, these Seminaries do not accept vocations that do not come from Neocatechumenal communities.

When a Bishop refuses to accept a Neocatechumenal priestly vocation (or when Neocatechumenals fear that it will happen), then he enters Redemptoris Mater Seminaries.

There would be no need for Redemptoris Mater Seminaries, except for preparing Neocatechumenal priestly vocations to go spreading Neocatechumenal Way while "in mission".

Please add your comments to the bottom of the page. Ghalas 11:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The belief of many does not constitute as a fact but rather a large quantity of people that are ignorant of the situation. The first point, it is true that the seminaries accept only vocations from within the Way. Second a bishop doesn’t refuse to accept a "Neocatechumenal priestly vocation" rather these vocations are directed toward Redemptoris Mater seminary. And on your last point when a priest is ordained from a Redemptoris Mater they go directly to the diocese then if the ordinary allows them to follow the mission is a totally different question.Ncwfl 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The belief of many BISHOPS about disobedience of Neocatechumenals is sufficient. Basil Cardinal Hume (who also got Order of Merit by the Queen of U.K.) refused to ordain 15 priests of Redemptoris Mater Seminaries because he was definitively sure they weren't willing to obey to him, but to Kiko. This is documented. You shouldn't hide facts you don't like.

Who cares if he got an order of merit by the queen of the united kingdom? She is not a Catholic and is an earthly power. Cardinal Hume is the exception and not the rule. All the other cardinals have had no problems whatsoever in ordering Neocatechumenal Seminarians. Including the Pope, who ordained 11 last week in Rome.

No it is not sufficient, but rather highly ignorant to judge things without any experience. Furthermore it would seem extremely stupid to keep opening these seminaries if they as disobedient as you claim, but rather it is not so. Cardinal McCarrik (would you like his titles and awards?) has opened two of such the most recent being in May of 2006 which is much more recent than the incident with Hume. So yes I believe that it is not a fact but rather a very large misconception. Had the seminarians been as disobedient as you claim then why would McCarrick have opened a second seminary after a bad experience in Newark? The answer is simple because there was no bad experience.Ncwfl 10:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Further Modification

The Neocatechumenal Way has never been called "post baptismal catechumenate". I can tell from my lenghty experience. For this reason I just removed the line which expressed this false idea. --USeditor 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of archiving

I cannot read this discussion. Is totally without any respect for intellectual decency. I propose to archive it and to start again. --USeditor 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more but I disagree 95% about the reasons. Wikipedia is not a subdivision of the RCC and therefore not bound to follow its teachings or to abstain from disputing it in detail. If I followed the arguments brought up by the criticism removers, I'd have to conclude that e.g. anything related to Nazism/Communism could only be presented by Nazis/Communists. Do not bother/waste the time to tell me that of course the church is right while everyone else is per definitionem wrong for I have heard that often enough.Swatopluk 12:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the fact remains of the validity of say truthfulness of the issue. First we must follow Wikipedia guidelines, but second we must also follow intellectual decency which is what USeditor is refering to in this proposal. Then what must also be separated are whims/lies/misconceptions from fact. If something is clearly wrong then it is obvious that it must be removed. Also waht sections are u considering when u placed the PoV tag? I belive Modwenna had made many edits in order to balance the page.Ncwfl 23:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Insults instead of evidence?

After quite a long time I've been reading this site again, and I must say I'm shocked by the insulting language and style of discussion that some people are using here against me. For example:

"Dear Modwenna, forgive me for being so blunt but your speech suggests an ignorance of the topic. (...) It's just that you haven't understood them; let me make them more simple for you to understand. Now dear Modwenna, if you recieve ZENIT (the catholic news agency) you would notice that every now and then reports come about the Pope ordaining deacons and priests... We do forgive you dear Modwenna for writing the way you write seeing as you are mis informed and clearly wasn't present for the Meeting in Bonn (after Cologne), but please do check the facts, coz they aren't ridiculous... it's only misinformed people who write as though they know what they're saying, who look ridiculous! James (jdegi)

_Modwenna my dear, who are you trying to fool? If you are really a thoelogian or something like that, you'll end up being excommunicated by the Pope for heresies. (...) Modwenna my dear, check your facts and stop making outrageous statements. Or are you such a good theologian or "study" that you now have more authority than the Pope and more discernment to say exactely the opposite of both what John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 say? (jdegi)

(...) Or oh yes, perhaps of course, you understand more than the Pope does... (jdegi)

We should start asking ourselves what's on Modwenna's agenda. Who is she writing for? What's her hidden agenda?

Ah Modwenna, Modwenna... There you go again... so misinformed! Check out ZENIT more often, coz you really are making some totally wrong comments. Better still I suggest you try the Neocatechumenal Way, and you'll see for yourself what it is really all about. Just like so many other critics who ended up leaders within the Neocatechumenal Way.

James (jdegi)

Modwenna, the 1500 seminarists lost in the Bermuda Triangle is a stupid comment which highlights your lack of understanding of simple and proper English. Go read the article again.

(jdegi)

Modwenna, if you don't understand how the system within the Neocatechumenal way works, don't delete the article. It is true, 1500 have answered the call to the priesthood and 900 to become nuns. If you didnt attend the meeting in Bonn in 2005, it's your problem, not ours. So stop being off-track. (jdegi)

As a woman, and as a human person, I utterly reject being called "my dear" by a man who's obviously trying to humiliate me. This is neither civilized nor Christian behaviour. Also, I find it insulting and childish to tease me because I'm not a native English speaker and my English isn't perfect - and it's simply ridiculous to get this from a person who doesn't even bother to use proper English himself ("coz", "mis informed", "you clearly wasn't present" ...). Qualifying me as "stupid" or "misinformed" doesn't help either - unless this person wants to detract from the fact that so far no reliable source has been given for the figures of 1500 seminarists and 900 nuns. (And, by the way, ZENIT would only be a half-reliable source, since it's rather POV.)

Also, unfounded suspicions ("Who is she writing for?") and personal threats ("you'll end up being excommunicated by the Pope for heresies") are a very mean way of behaviour, IMO.

I'm not going to keep "discussing" that way; I'm getting out of here. --Modwenna 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would primarily like to apologize for any insult you may have received; if any were from my part I assure you it was not intentional. With regards to English not being your first language that is a natural part of life. If you notice also many other editors’ first language is not English which is why regular proofreading is necessary. But it is still not right, even though it is a natural male occurrence which is a sort of aggressiveness in defending, but this does not excuse it happening.

As far as the validity of Zenit then there is also the reliability of other such sites which can be argued. And since you are not mentioning Chiesa.it and similar sites then I assume that it is not a real issue. I and many others are certain of the events which have occurs, so I have changed the reference link from the blog site to zenith, please let me know if there is still an issue and I will try and resolve it asap.

Ncwfl 06:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh Ok Modwenna, so you feel insulted. Shouldn't I have felt insulted too calling the facts that I present as "being lost in the Bermuda Triangle"? Come on, admit it; it was a silly comment, and you can't expect us to agree with it.

As for saying that Zenit is not a reliable source... I'm speechless. Are you claiming you are more reliable than Zenit, judging by the fact that you think that what you say is right, and Zenit is unreliable?

"Being excommunicated by the Pope" was a tongue-in-cheek comment (means it was made jokingly). It was definitely not a personal threat, come on how insulted can you get?

You titled your argument "insults instead of evidence". We've given you all the evidence there is to give, notwithstanding the fact that we are eyewitnesses. If you don't want to accept them, then I guess not even the Pope himself will be able to convince you!

And yes, accept my apologies if you felt insulted. Take care! Jdegi 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)jdegi

World Youth Day Statistics

Yes Modwenna, there were over 90,000 neocatechumenal way youths in Bonn, Kiko himself said it during the meeting, in the presence of several cardinals and many archbishops. Just in case there were any doubts, since you mentioned that private blogs are unreliable. Jdegi 12:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)jdegi

Well that Kiko himself said it, my dear jdegi, is not a proof of anything. He has been caught several times redhanded "sexing up" his figures. We had already this discussion about Loreto meeting I showed you a report from a reliable source korazym http://www.korazym.org/news1.asp?Id=25057 that quite shows this. In his/her report, a correspondent who attended the event, after praising the Neocatechumenal way (meaning the source was not biased at all)couldn't help but notice that the actual number of youth who responded to Kiko's call was much less than the one given by Kiko himself (one third o the original figures).

About a group-movement you cannot report only the figures given by the group itself which are prone to propaganda, you have to try to crosscheck them when you do that with the Neocatechumenal way you sometimes get nice surprises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather you signed your comments, making them more reliable. I have one question... what if the reporter actually made her opinion up to put Kiko in bad light? ;o) --Jdegi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.198.198 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I was wondering as to what is the controversy here? I would like to clarify ASAP this issue so we can figure out and remove that ugly tag at the top of the talk page.

Ncwfl 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there isn't any controversy in fact. Facts have been provided, therefore no more doubts within reasonable thought prevail. So, i have removed that ugly tag... 217.145.3.108 12:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)jdegi

It's just that some consider the whole Neocatechumenal Way controversial and may not adhere to Roma Locuta Causa Finita as a viable way to conduct a discussion (and that includes Catholics).Swatopluk 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So the issue is nothing about The Way, it is just a matter of sources?

In regards to the site is seems that most of the sources that are currently on there seem all reliable.

For Roma Locuta Causa Finita then in the end it a matter of principle and something that as Catholics must be obeyed. With issues regarding The Way the church is one of the most reliable sources seeing as that is the source of all the official documents.

Which would also give much more credit to one of these official documents rather than someone else's. If anything I do not believe this to be a controversial subject but maybe a misunderstood one, I hope I might I have clarified any issues that may exist.

Ncwfl 15:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To give an example: Would you consider official statements of the Scientology Church to be automatically more reliable than critical statements made by critics of the organization? There should be in my opinion no dispute that the official position of any organization should be a significant part of an encyclopedia article but not to the exclusion of divergent opinion (where legitimate criticism ends and slander begins is of course a matter of opinion). Argumentum ad autoritatem (Rome, Marx, The Delphi Oracle) would be legitimate in an encyclopedia targeted at an "in" audience (e.g. an encyclopedia officially backed by the church) but not in an "open" one.

At the current state the article at least retains a limited "criticism" section which in the past was repeatedly removed completely (accompanied by verbal abuse from both sides here on the talk page).

Clarification: the example does not intend to equal the RCC with the ScCh. That would be slanderous.

My personal experience (as stated above) with The Way has been exclusively negative and in strong contrast with the official self-image (and I am not the only one there). This does not justify me to put a "poisonous satanic sect in disguise" into the article but at least to criticize the treatment of it as saintly and above criticism (as tends to be the behaviour of some of the proponents here). This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, not an advertisement page (pro or con).Swatopluk 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends; I could be a critic of scientology and say that they are all demon worshippers. And then if I had an article on my personal website could any of the other documents be trusted? The incorporation of other third-party sources has already occurred.

Regarding the criticism section, there are some that believe that it is too much already to have that section. I have not seen any such section on another wiki-articles. By including this sections it already removes the saintly impression, as you call it, and inserts a negative notion (which would also violate neutrality, but I have not made a big issue of this.) That section exists because of an understanding, which has been established in the past.

Regarding your negative experience I can easily counter it with my own positive experiences and those of many others. While I must agree that some times it is possible for difficulties to arise they are never intentional nor sanctioned. The communities in the Way must always be in communion with the Bishop primarily and then with the pastor of the church. If your experience would truly be extremely negative I believe your Pastor would have the wisdom and discernment to see that it is harming the parish and thus terminate its existence within the parish.

Ncwfl 19:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll file that under: definition of neutrality may differ. Articles in other languages seem to have no problem in providing a balanced portrait that is neither an open advertisement nor an attack piece but simply stating facts that are independent of personal philosophy.

Concerning personal experience observed SOP seems to be: if the priest doesn't submit, go to the local bishop, if he doesn't submit go even higher up until a level is reached that can force the will down the line. Legal but it's no good style in my book. Such details of course don't belong in a comprehensive article.Swatopluk 12:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The only section which contained a substantial criticism section is the Italian one, and if I may that is one of the worst articles I have ever seen. The lack of user editing has turned it into a landfill of garbage with very little clarity or organization in mind.

And while definitions of neutrality may differ under the one which the page is now the creation of a section titled Praise of the Neocatechumenal Way is not only suggested but it must be there in order to balance the page.

You and many others have stated that the page is biased towards the way in a positive manner. The page went through a major overhaul some time ago by Modwenna and others in order to remove the “propaganda” and I see the page currently as neutral as possible.

Ncwfl 06:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

More points to add

1. Can we please stop the insults?

I've been away from this talk page for a while. I would like to change the wording and structure of the Neocatechumenal Way article to streamline it. We do not need to put every positive or negative point on this article, the article should attempt to present a balanced assessment of the Way without spinning off into a forum where people can just levy any criticism they want on the Way.

I would like to reiterate that almost every major movement or ministry that has arisen in the Catholic Church has suffered persecution and/or continues to suffer some sort of persecution (i.e. Opus Dei). Not everyone has to agree with the Neocatechumenal Way, and the Way is not for everyone. The Way is also not the only path to salvation, nor does it claim to be that. Jesus Christ states this clearly in John 14:2: "In my Father's house there are many place to live in." However, the criticisms I have found concerning the Way border on, not simply disagreement, but attack the Neocatechumenal Way as not being valid as a vehicle for Roman Catholics.

1) The Neocatechumenal Way is not a separatist movement within the Church. It is not even a movement. It is a ministry within the Roman Catholic Church that has as its highest goal adult faith formation. That is essentially all there is to it. Along these lines, the Neocatechumenal Way is also a ministry. It isn't divisive, because it is part of parish life. People who go to the Way are actually participating in a ministry and in the parish life.

2) It is valid within the Roman Catholic Church. The criticisms levied by Zoffoli and others related to the Neocatechumenal Way are presposterous, and seem to indicate a lack of familiarity with or understanding of the Neocatechumenal Way. The impression I get from many of these critiques is that they are based on misinterpretations or second-hand information. In much of what I have read both offline and on the internet, there seems to me, to be very little indication that many of Way's critics have spent much time observing what the Neocatechumenal Way does. My general impression is that certain individuals or groups take issue with the form in which the Neocatechumenal Way approaches the liturgy. My answer to these concerns is that the dogma is the same, and even the form is essentially the same. The use of cantors, of songs (based on scripture and the psalsm), and other features are not unique to the Way. Furthermore, echoes and admonitions (and this is stressed by the catechists and the priests on a continual basis) are never supposed to be homilies or used in the place of the homilies. These are merely introductions to the readings and (in the case of echoes) expressions of an individual's personal experience (i.e. how the Word or the liturgy has touched you or acted in your life). My point is that the dogma, the liturgy itself (everything about the Way) is Roman Catholic. The differences are only in form, and not even present in all of the form. The Neocatechumenal Eucharist is not unintelligble to Roman Catholics, it is a Catholic mass, nothing more or less than that.

3) I do not question the faith or the piety of those who criticize the Way. We are all Roman Catholics. It appears to me that many criticisms and issues raised about the Way stem in large part either from a lack of understanding about the Way or out discomfort with something that appears to be new or out of the ordinary. These sentiments are not new, a large portion of Catholics were not necessarily comfortable with the dictates of Vactican II, and there are those who also criticize Opus Dei, RENEW, and other ministries and decisions related to the Church. Can the spirit of mutual respect in our faith live in this environment? Is it possible for Catholics to not agree with each other but to mutually respect each other? There is a venom in many criticisms that seems to go against the idea of loving one other as Christ loved us.

Ladb2000

Intro

The Neocatechumenal Way or Neocatechumenate, is one of the various new realities within the Roman Catholic Church that have been founded during the second half of the 20th century, around the time of the Second Vatican Council. It dedicates itself to "a post-baptismal catechesis in the form of the catechumenate"[1], i.e. a Christian adult faith formation process similar to the Catechumenate, the ritual preparation for baptism in the early Christian church. It was initiated by the Spanish painter Kiko Argüello in the early '60s.

Huh? In my opinion, something should be done about the intro, to make it more accesible to the average reader. The only bit of the intro that somewhat explained the article to me, is the second-to-last sentence.CatBoris 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well to me the intro is a simple explanation not of what is in the page, but of what it is. Are they any terms specifically which you would like to have simplified?

Also many of the words are chosen specifically for their meaning thus altering them can, in effect, change the meaning of the sentence. Ncwfl 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Neocatechumenal Way or Neocatechumenate, is one of the various new realities within the Roman Catholic Church [...] around the time of the Second Vatican Council - This is, in my opinion, far too dense and/or too steeped in jargon. What does it mean by reality, and what makes it new? Is the Second Vatican Council important to explain this, and if so, it should be expanded or replaced somehow.

"a post-baptismal catechesis in the form of the catechumenate"[1], i.e. a Christian adult faith formation process similar to the Catechumenate - Jargon jargon jargon... The following part (the one that I referred to in my first post, as the only one I understood) is too short to adequately explain post-baptismal somethings (how do you pluralise catechesis or catechumenate?).

Now, I don't think the intro should explain each and every thing; that's why we have the article itself :) However, in my opinion, the intro should give a layman a brief and general idea of what the subject is about. And as a layman (non-practising lutheran), I just felt confused. CatBoris 08:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take a crack at writing the introductory paragraph. Let me know what you think. Ladb2000

I haven't really had a chance to read through the intro with my 'rapt attention' yet (and won't have for another two or three weeks), but I think a good addition would a small section, that says what the Neoc. Way's goals, beliefs (if applicable) and suchlike are, in a "Basically, the Neocatechumical Way is about..." kinda way. CatBoris 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Neocatechumenal Way Loreto Meeting

I've added an article from Zenit.org reporting on the Loreto meeting of the Neocatechumenal Way in recent developments. I am an eye witness and can substantiate that all the article is true and that 3.200 youths responded to the calling. I'm saying this to avoid having vague comments such as Modwenna's previous "1500 seminarians lost in the Bermuda triangle".

Jdegi

With the user Jdegi we had already a discussion on the italian version of wikipedia about Loreto meeting. There is a controversy about the actual number of the youth who responded to Kiko Arguello's call. The 3200 total number is the official number of the organizer another independent source http://www.korazym.org/news1.asp?Id=25057 who was present at the meeting states that these figures were overestimated and the total number was not larger than 1000. (This source is not biased since all the rest of the article praises the Neocatechumenal way but corrects those official figures, so I think can be trusted) For a correct information I asked the administrator to show both the sources and he/she agreed on that aknowledging my argument. I have added this independent source and I am asking the administrator to leave both the sources also here. I think when there is a controversy both the sources have to be cited. This is the only fair thing to do. I ask in case of further cancellation of the second source on Joedgi's action to block this section and leave both the sources. Mynollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynollo (talk • contribs) 11:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I request the INTERVENTION of the adminstrator. Wikipedia has to be a media for correct information not for propaganda of biased uesers. I have provided independent information that the number of youth who have responded to Kiko's call was not 3200 but was not larger than 1000. I am just asking to show both the sources as any principle of correct information would require. I ask the administrator to aknowledge this simple simple common sense argument and avoid that wikipedia be a tool of propaganda from biased users. I have made again my changes adding the other independent source http://www.korazym.org/news1.asp?Id=25057 which testifies that the figures were sexed up by the organizers and the actual overall number of youth was not larger than one thousand

Mynollo

Who cares what that article from korazym says? I could go and put up an article myself and say that the actual number was not larger than a hundred, and then have gullible people quoting it to prove Kiko's "sexing up" mania. Pur-lease, who are you trying to convince here?? --Jdegi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.198.198 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jdegi your argument is very weak. I can say the same about Kiko Arguello, he can as well claim that 10000 youth responded to his call just for the sake of good propaganda so as to gain more "political" power in the Vatican but that might not be the truth. You need double checks in this case. Korazym is a well known news website about the Church, it is run by "l’Associazione Ragazzi del Papa Onlus" (the Pope's youth association) therefore directly connected to the Catholic Church, and if you read the article they praise the Neocatechumenal way all along, so they are not biased at all.

You have to come to terms with reality my friend, and on how correct information works. Both sources have to be shown for honest information.

I have a good deal of direct information on the Neoc. way and the way truth is twisted inside of it, but this is another story.

Korazym is an independent source, actually supports the Neoc. way (read the article please!) so for this reason its numbers are even more reliable than the numbers given by the organizers which are obviously prone to propaganda.

But in the end the fair thing to do is to show both sources.

Mynollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mynollo, were you at the loreto meeting? NO YOU WEREN'T. But I was, and i can testify that the numbers stated as 3200 are CORRECT. I was there under the stage, I will send photos to you directly if need be, maybe someday you'll understand that I was there, I saw it and it's true.

Jdegi 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Jdegi

Jdegi you yourself said "I could go and put up an article myself and say that the actual number was not larger than a hundred, and then have gullible people quoting it to prove Kiko's "sexing up" mania. " by this you meant that the testimony of a single person doesn't count since he/she can lie, so also your testimony according to your argument shouldn't count (even more so since, as you admitted before on the italian page, you didn't count the persons on stage) I am sure you speak in good faith but I cannot help but notice that you contradict yourself my friend, and your logic is a little tainted.

SO in the end one has to go with reliable sources. we have Zenit, which is reliable, but simply reported what the organizers said and Korazym reliable as well, whose correspondent says the numbers were "sexed up".

Sorry, for the sake of honest information both sources have to be shown. If you were honest you would leave both sources. I have already asked the intervention of an administrator and I am asking again so that this simple principle for correct information can be enforced. Mynollo

For your information, I have the video of the Loreto meeting and the rivers of youth speak for themselves. I repeat, i was there, i saw it. The contradiction is all yours since you state that both zenit and korazym are reliable sources even though korazym gives only a third of the number zenit gave. My logic ain't tainted thank you very much. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you're all intelligent and I'm stupid. --Jdegi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.201.33 (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you are stupid, I don't know you, I wouldn't dare I said you contradicted yourself according to the rules of logics. Of course one of the two sources in this case must have made a mistake, but we can't simply tell which one of them, the reader will form his/her opinion based on complete information. I personally would go with Korazym, if you read the article is all full of praise for the Neocatehcumenal way they would have no reason to tell something not true. This is like some political manifestations, organizers tend to exagerate their numbers and if you listen to the news different sources giving often very different numbers are reported. It is a little ridiculous that you say I have a video etc. if this is not public isn't worth a penny. We have to go with public reliable sources and as I mentioned before the honest thing to do is to show both sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.13 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Awkward Wording

Since "Kiko" is a nickname, the article had a rather badly worded sentence in the first paragraph:

It was initiated by the [ [ Spain|Spanish ] ] painter [ [ Kiko Argüello ] ] in the early '60s. Kiko is not his real name, he has a different name but that is the name people call him.

Unfortunately, the article on Argüello is under "Kiko Argüello", rather than his full name, so this was an easy/lazy way to link it (using [ [ Kiko Argüello ] ] ). I replaced with a link using alternate text (as [ [ Kiko Argüello | Francisco "Kiko" Argüello ] ] ), so the somewhat awkwardly worded final sentence is no longer necessary. 76.100.205.82 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed my wording to match the name used in 3d paragraph. Changed from Francisco "Kiko" Argüello to Francisco (Kiko) Argüello to make usage consistent. 76.100.205.82 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Kiko is not a nickname; it is Francisco in short, in Spanish of course. It's like saying Betty for Elizabeth. jdegi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.200.151 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I added an {{NPOV}} template to the page, because of some serious flaws in the writing. The entire article reads like an information pamphlet for the Neocatechumanl Way, with each section a glowing review for the organization. Even the "criticism" section, woefully short, ends with a statement to the effect that "all these problems are overcome, and eliminated." Unfortunately, I am undereducated on "the Way," but there is no article or organization on Wikipedia that should have a such a one-sided report. 149.150.236.99 13:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Which are the sections which you believe should be edited in order to remove the PoV? And my belief was that Wikipedia pages were supposed to be informational pages... it is an encyclopedia is it not?

Ncwfl 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag due to a lack of a response. You cannot claim the article is biased and then abandon it when asked for specifics. Ncwfl 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to the NPOV tag

I second Ncwfl. First of all wikipedia is supposed to be informational. Granted, that does mean that the Neocatechumenal Way article should more fully address the criticism aspect. However, what individuals who raise the criticism argument need to understand, is that there was a point when the Neocatechumenal Way article was excessively biased so that it read like a an anti-Neocatechumenal Way propaganda site and not an informative encyclopedia article. Ladb2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladb2000 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)