From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archives

November 2005-December 2006

Contents 1 Neocatechumenal Way Statistics 2 Bias 2.1 Criticism 3 Request for comment: Criticism 3.1 Criticism section from Chinese Wikipedia 3.1.1 Notes from priests 3.1.2 Notes from Bishops[8]

[edit] Neocatechumenal Way Statistics

Hi all,I've put on the staistics 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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!!!

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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^[1] 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»^[2].

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»^[3].

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;

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.

[edit] Notes from priests

The first documented criticism to the Way^[4] came in 1983 by mgr. Pier Carlo Landucci^[5]. 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^[6]. 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^[7] 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».

[edit] Notes from Bishops^[8]

In 1986 Bruno Foresti, Archbishop of Brescia (northern Italy), already reported^[9] 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^[10] 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^[11], because their obedience was to their communities instead of the Bishop.

In 1997 Mervyn Alban Alexander, Bishop of Clifton (UK), prohibited^[12] 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^[13] 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)

• 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.

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!

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)