Talk:Neocatechumenal Way

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is currently the subject of informal mediation.

You are encouraged to read current and past discussion on this talk page.
The informal mediation case and its related discussion is here.
Archive

Archives
November 2005-December 2006
December 2006-October 2007
October 2007-April 2008

Contents

[edit] Style

When editing the article:

  • do not "unwikify" text
  • edit "pidgin English" expressions
  • do not erase large sections (because others need a chance to read, explore and correct mistakes)
  • write correct names ("Argüello", not "Arguello"; and so on)
  • do not call "inappropriate" or "slanderous" documented relevant facts

Neocatechumenal contributors:

  • should not add unproven/undocumented things (like "the NC Way (and particularly the Statutes) have already been approved")
  • should not add irrelevant material (example: encouraging does not mean formal approval)
  • should not wipe out criticisms (verify sources instead! did the Cardinal XYZ actually say ABC?)
  • should not edit the article to match Neocatechumenal propaganda

[edit] Sources

Some "googling" will help to verify that the internet-available sources below are cited almost everywhere in the websites publishing NC-related news.

Most of the documentation is in Italian language. The letter by Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi (Jan 17, 2006) was written in Italian. The letter by Cardinal Arinze (Dec 1, 2005) was written in Italian. Interviews to cardinals Cipriani Thorne and Medina Estévez (April 2008) were in Italian. Most of the sources are in Italian language.

Translating them is not a trivial work, but Italian-speaking contributors will continue to translate the relevant parts, or cite the official translations.

[edit] Zoffoli

Fr. Enrico Zoffoli (1915-1996) is perhaps one of the most known Italian apologetics authors of the XX century (known at least in Italy). He wrote quite a number of books (mostly philosophy and apologetics). See Enrico Zoffoli (Italian wikipedia page).

He wrote six books on the NC Way, and a large number of articles and letters, which are the main known source of criticism to the Way (and known for their completeness and deep analysis).

Zoffoli is thus a reliable source.

Zoffoli has been dead for 12 years and wrote about the NC Way prior to the approval of the Statutes. This is an outdated source of dubious merit.Reetex (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then everything older than 11 years is not reliable?
Also, you seem to not to remember that the Statutes were incomplete ad expired. Did you read them, to compare them to Zoffoli books? -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of Reetex's point is not so much that Zoffoli sources are outdated, but that they were written previous to the temporary approval of the statues. This being said it is not logical for the Holy See to approve, even temporarily, if in fact the catechisis given in Neocatechumenal way were in fact full of heretical statements. It just doesn't add up, any way it is looked at. Cardinal Ratzinger did in fact say to rewrite the catachesis, this is completely understandable. A published book cannot be a transcript, especially in the church, where ideas need to be checked to see that they do not detract from the church. The only recent concerns, and in fact real concerns, are the liturgical ones, and if anything parochial issues, even these are not as often, either the pastor likes the neocatechumenal way or they don't.
Ncwfl (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Either way, those sources need to be there.
The Statutes did not solve anything: today the criticism to the NC Way is always the same.
Your opinions about "a published book cannot be a transcript" is not a source for wikipedia. Notice also that other movement leaders published their transcripts (examples: Lubich, Giussani) but there were no problems.
You Neocatechumenals just keep fighting against Zoffoli, only because Zoffoli criticised the NCW.
-- Rpgon2 (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is the reason the cannot be there, because they statute have in fact overcome this. If there were doctrinal errors the Holy See would have never, ever, given a 5 year approval of the statutes. Did they give Luther 5 years to recant his statements, and give him temporary approval? Unless my history is faulty, i think not. So it doesn't add up. I am not against Zoffoli, i don't care about him, the issue is what hes written presents a view other that detracts greatly from the official view of the church, and so one that doesn't make sense with the approval of the statutes.

Is it really an issue if it was being rewritten so it wasn't in transcript form? Or do you feel the need to argue everything?Ncwfl (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions (however, they are not relevant to the article).
Luther did not immediately receive a formal excommunication. Didn't you know? And Kiko is trying to hide heretical statements... as much as possible. But his strategy did not last - thanks to fr.Zoffoli and others.
Did you read the (expired) Statutes? I did. They told what the NCW has to do. They did not say "well done, NCW!" They did not mention the "heresy" issue, because they required the Catechetical Directory... that was never published. And the Catechetical Directory cannot be published because of heretical statements and liturgical abuses that Kiko does not yet want to erase. Also, do not forget that Kiko and the NCW do not obey to Arinze's letter containing "Holy Father's decisions" (especially on the manner of receiving the Holy Communion).
Thus, even if the NCW gets some new Statutes, doctrinal errors will not become truth, and liturgical abuses will not magically become liturgy. The Statutes give generic guidelines only. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You obviously misunderstood my reference to Luther. I did in fact know that Luther was not excommunicated immediately, but they did not wait 40 years to do it either. If there were in fact heretical statements in the catechisis given wouldn't the pope have demanded that he recant them, no such action was ever taken, but rather the pope gave an ad experimentum approval to its statutes. What does this indicate? Well primarily the statutes do not solely contain, as you claim, what the Neocatechumenal Way must do, but it also gives an approval, even if temporary, to what it has been doing, all of the elements that are outlined in them. Ncwfl (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Kiko has always been well aware of his errors, and always required the followers of the NC cult to keep liturgies and doctrines secret. Until early 1980's, NC did not have big troubles.
The massive misinformation about the NC Way, and an intelligent fact-hiding propaganda did most of the work. But the most winning strategy was (and currently is) to avoid every public statement about doctrinal and liturgical issues.
This is why Kiko does not answer questions about his heresies - and he never left anything written as well.
Thus, we have a case of a heresy that cannot be explicitly documented. This is the same case that happened until Irenaeus compiled his Against Heresies.
The Statutes are not meant to declare that the NCW is not heretical; instead, they are meant to keep in the Roman Catholich Church the NC people refusing the errors of the NCW. Simply a "pastoral charity" method.
Also note that in some cases entities approved by the Church were found to contain heretical or other weird things; the last one, a few years ago, was a community (approved and praised by highest Vatican cardinals) where its founder... proclaimed itself to be a "reincarnation" of the Virgin Mary.
Neocatechumenal propaganda, instead, thinks that the Statutes -past or future ones- only mean that no one can criticise the NCW. --- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rpgon2 I get it -- In your OPINION, the NC Way is bad. However, shepherding a few obscure sources that comport with your OPINION does not supernaturally transform your OPINION into truth. Normally, I would leave this alone but you insist on manipulating the wiki system to present the NC Way in a false light. You bandy about words like "opinion" and "propaganda" as if you were the sole arbiter of the terms but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are not at all interested in providing an accurate picture of the organization. Instead, your raison d’entre appears to be to provide a distorted view of a fledgling charism of the Church. How do I know this? Because you made wholesale changes to NC Way page almost immediately. This is a clear indication of your malicious conduct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reetex (talk • contribs) 16:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC) oops! forgot to sign Reetex (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In your OPINION, anything that does not praise the NC Way is bad.
If you think that this article presents a "false light", then have a look at other wikipedia articles related to the Catholic Church, and examine how many "false lights" are out there.
If you read the history of the article, you will see that NC "watchdogs" are indeed the ones wiping out everything that does not comply with NC propaganda standards.
-- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Marighetto

Don Elio Marighetto, I segreti del Cammino Neocatecumenale, edizioni Segno, Udine, Italy, 2001, ISBN 88-7282-547-4 (note: "Don" is the Italian term for "Fr.", Roman Catholic clergyman title).

Title means: "secrets of the NC Way". The first part of the book contains criticism on the NC Way; the second part of the book contains large excerpts of documents from Italian Bishops.

While this book has a critical point of view on the NC Way, the excerpts from Italian Bishops statements against the NC Way are reliable and verifiable.

Has anyone been able to find this book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncwfl (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you want me to send that book to you? If you don't know how to verify an ISBN, you may at least check that it was cited in the Italian wikipedia page about the NCW. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It was just curiosity if anyone else had ever found it. I attempted to find it using various World, European and Italian ISBN databases but could not find it.Ncwfl (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Then, have a look at the books cited in this page and at Zoffoli. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rpgon2 your method of authenticating sources belies your bias. It is circular. You have dubious sources vouching for other dubious sources... you are reaching. Your sources are nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.Reetex (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for insulting - it means that you do not have better documentation. And it also shows the most common NCW method. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Insulting? Since when is questioning the veracity of your sources insulting? There is no room for ipse dixit logic on Wikipedia.Reetex (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems you did not read the article and the beginning of this page.
You call "good" any pro-NC sources, and "biased" any con. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alterinfo

"Alterinfo" is an Italian group of former Neocatechumenals, led by fr. Gino Conti, a Roman Catholic priest (something like the "awareness networks" and groups criticizing other religious movements and communities).

Its internet website is hosted on Geocities since 1999 and contains large excerpts from Zoffoli, Conti and Marighetto books and articles. With a few exceptions (letters to the webmaster, etc), everything on that website was already published "on paper".

Thus it is safe to link those pages in that website.

The pages from the books represent a copyright infringement and Wikipedia says to remove any information tied to these sources. -Ncwfl (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice humor!
We all are waiting you for wiping out every citation from every Wikipedia page. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Citing sources is not a copyright violation. The article Neocatechumenal Way cites many documents (books and articles and Bishops letters), and excerpts by some of them are available on that Alterinfo website (other websites exist, but may not be fully relevant to the article). User:Ncwfl (incidentally member of Neocatechumenal Way) is fighting his own battle to "normalize" the article to official propaganda. By "removing links" he means "deletion of entire well-documented sections". User:Ncwfl looks like playing with Wikipedia rules... -- Rpgon2 (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
How about you let an administrator decide? Entire pages are subject to deletion if they infinge on copyright laws. My attempt is to create a page according to wikipedias standards, with neutrality, a well written article, and with proper sources. If you look at the standards Geocities pages are not allowed, but I disregarded this and asked if the information gived was reliable as a source in wikipedia. Another user pointed out it might infringe on copyright laws so I followed instructions found on wiki's copyright pages and am now leaving it to an administrator. --Ncwfl (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, be fair.
You argument about "copyright violation" issues without any sort of demostration.
Personal opinions are not source for wikipedia.
Your hostile attitude towards anything that does not praise the NCW is well known.
Also, you play with wikipedia rules trying every possible trick to get out of this article the most relevant sources.
"Administrator"? Incidentally, this is the common Neocatechumenal strategy: forced interpretation of "administrator" words to your own advantage: «looks like», in your opinion, means «surely is»; and immediately you stated (your own words): «remove any and all information tied to this source» (not "links only").
Clearly you lack any fairness.
Please, stop your war against this article. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The possiblity of copyright infringement was not offered by me, but by a third-party user.The website does in fact list excerpts from published books, which may violate copyright laws. I am seeking arbitration in this issue since we are both biased. If you have no doubt that you're not violating said laws, then administrative review should only enforce your argument. --Ncwfl (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the possibility of copyright infringement was your opinion offered to a third party user who did not take the time to verify this article, this discussion, and that website.
It seems that you will need some other trick to wipe out Alterinfo. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me you area afraid of having the website reviewed for copyright infringement.--Ncwfl (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep trying to game the system.
Alleging "copyright violation" on simple citations, even when they are "rather large", is not that fair.
We all understand that it is not always easy to hide the truth. All sorts of tricks have to be tried. First, call it "blatant, false, misleading" and erase "any and all", hoping no one will notice the WP:3RR. Then, call it "inaccurate" because of its hosting, hoping no one will find that it was an exception that proves the rule. Then, argue that the author of that book died 12 years ago and thus his book should be considered non-relevant, hoping that everyone will believe in you. Then, name those articles "copyviol", and flood talk pages and admin pages, hoping that no one will verify. What trick will appear next time? -- Rpgon2 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magister

This is a Catholic reporter working for L'espresso, a somewhat leftist magazine (Italy). He is an important source because he has access to original Vatican documents, and he was always the first to publish them. For example, he was the first to publish the text of the letter by cardinal Arinze (also with English translation), a very few weeks after it was sent; and he was also the first to publish the letter by Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi («Very Content with the Norms», Jan 17, 2006).

Since 2004, all of his articles are published in Italian, Spanish, English and French. English translations are complete and accurate.

In which case he is in fact a source only for documents, his opinion and interpretation of them has absolutely no bearing whatsoever, or the opinions of others which he chooses to publish since he is 100% against the Way.
Ncwfl (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please be fair.
He had first-hand access to original Vatican documents related to the NCW.
Thus, his articles are relevant.
You Neocatechumenals, as usual, try to badmouth everyone who does not praise the Way. Even if it is the first man on the Earth to publish the Arinze's letter and the reply from Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi. --- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not an issue of fairness, its a matter of truth. I am not badmouthing him, and have tried to be as understanding as possible in the presentation of the way, unlike yourself. Magister does have access, but his opinions are no more important than my own or yours, and as a result neither are his interpretation of the documents. In principle we cannot provide views of anyone other then the official view of the church which all faithful are bound to. When ever I make an edit I avoid, as much as possible, inserting phrases which would sound as propaganda. I try to limit my own writing and not plaster the page with slogans as is claimed. You, and many others, seem to think that unless the page is filled with criticism then it is not balanced. While i maintain that a page is balanced when it is completely devoid of praise and criticism, which explains why i have tried my best to not praise it in my writing, and let the reader assert their own opinion in the article. Previous to your involvement in the page there was in fact a criticism section, i don't recall writing it but i do remember seeing it, and it probably did not encompass the magnitude which you desire, but it was in fact there.
Ncwfl (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Magister's opinions have relevance because he has access to those documents. Neither you nor your NCW-catechists had access to those documents. Thus, your opinions - and your NCW-catechists opinions - are not relevant for this article, while Magister's comments are.
Wikipedia articles are full of "anyone other than official view"; just have a look to politics, music, religions articles. You Neocatechumenals want to erase any criticism, be it "official" or "unofficial".
Criticism to the NCW is a fact - and a largely documented fact. And it comes from everywhere in the Roman Catholic world. Thus, until the NCW will stop calling itself "Catholic", that criticism is actually relevant. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It still does not grant him infallibility, his opinions aren't worth anything. Perhaps if he was at least a priest, but he isn't, and even then basis for validity changes. It is not erasing the criticism, it is still mentioned elsewhere, you managed to repeat everything more than once. If you managed to represent the criticism section without a negative view point, then I would perhaps be more likely to leave it, but you seem to have claimed the page as your own and immediately revert any changes made.Ncwfl (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But no one granted Kiko infallibility as well. Kiko's opinions aren't worth anything, because currently the NCW is an organisation that does not have any formal acknowledgement (because the incomplete one... expired 11 months ago). Perhaps if Kiko was a priest - but he isn't - many issues would be already solved.
I see, you wipe out everything that is not a praise of the NCW. Your contribute history shows that you exist on wikipedia only for "normalisation" of the NCW page. Many years as a watchdog, to spread out the official NC propaganda. Every time you erased criticism that was "mentioned elsewhere", you wiped out the "elsewhere" as well. Your behaviour makes me (and -maybe- others) that it's true that Neocatechumenals have to defend the NCW even if this requires them some badmouthing, false statements, forgetting fairness...
-- Rpgon2 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No one claimed Kiko was infallible, only the pope and even then under certain circumstances. You may want to rephrase your last sentence, as it stands it makes no sense.Ncwfl (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You did not understand some ironical statement. Kiko's disobedience to Benedict XVI (and Neocatechumenals' obedience to Kiko instead of Benedict XVI) is still verifiable.
And... does the "Under Certain Circumstances" apply to the Statutes? -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I apologize, the humor ecapes me. I find it with great difficulty to believe that the allegiance to the Kiko is any greater than that to the Pontiff. The "Under certain circumstances" refers to the infallibility, not the statues, those are binding to whatever is mentioned within them. Ncwfl (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Petrus (papanews.it)

This is a well-known Italian on-line magazine featuring articles and documents about Benedict XVI. It was largely cited by pro-Neocatechumenal websites until recently (examples: in Segni dei Tempi website, in Korazym website), when it began featuring articles and interviews on the NC Way.

I am having an issue finding validity in this web page, seems it hosts a lot of unverifiable information.Ncwfl (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carmen Hernández

The official speech of Carmen Hernández on June 28, 2002 (presentation of the ad experimentum Statutes) contains lots of informations on the history of the NC Way coming from one of the two initiators. For example, she says that Casimiro Morcillo visited the slums in 1964; she defines the young Kiko as a «cursillist bigot» and states that when she met him «in a bar», he told her to have had a Marian apparition.

This does in fact represent one of the biggest mistakes that anti-neocatechumenal members make. Did Carmen say this? Of course, but it is taken out of context. If you read the entire part it represents an entirely different view.
Ncwfl (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And how do you prove that?
What "context" is need, to make her say that Kiko is a bigot and all that stuff? -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The original quote says

"E quando Kiko comincia a parlare della Famiglia di Nazareth io ho pensato: "Questo è un giovane bigotto cursillista". Ma dopo ho visto come Dio lo aveva condotto a questa idea della "piccola comunità", che tante volte aveva cercato di fare, in altri posti prima delle baracche, e non c’era riuscito."

Now, according to the quote, she does in fact say that she thought he was cursillist biggot, but only that was her original impression when she was him in the bar. Then she saw how god worked through him, so it is in fact a misconstrued truth if you only say the first part. (This is not a translation of the text) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncwfl (talk • contribs) 11:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Then you also were able to verify that Carmen Hernández (one of the Initiators of the NCW) defined Kiko as a bigot. It's you that misconstrued the truth, because you think that the second part completely erases the first part. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of language is exactly that. Example, I saw Felix in a bar and I thought he was a fox, but then I saw that he was a cat. Now, is felix a cat or a fox? Obviously a cat, and Carmen's words operate in the exact same manner. Ncwfl (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the ice is melting beneath the feet of Rpgon2. Carmen actually sounds pretty funny too bad this was taken out of context by NC Way detractors.Reetex (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you cannot understand it better than me. You are not Italian native speaker. I am. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting considering if you had checked my user page you would find that I am in fact a native speaker of Italian. Ncwfl (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This is very interesting, because it means that you were always able to fully understand sources. Then, why did you call them "blatant", "inaccurate", "misleading"? -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is because I can verify the information, thus giving the ability to judge them and your use of them. I never made the claim that they are "blatant, innacurate, and misleading" because they were in Italian, I made it because of the contents and the interpretation presented by yourself. Ncwfl (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You called them "blatant, inaccurate, misleading..." only because they were different from NCW Propaganda.
You never erased anything that was pro-NC.
You understand Italian language, and still go questioning those sources (incidentally, books, articles, public statements from Catholic hierarchy). -- Rpgon2 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I called them exactly what they are, I know the truth and I also know what is false. Once again, I question because I understand, if one follows blindly then all you do is run into a wall and make yourself look like a fool.--Ncwfl (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is not relevant to wikipedia. Sources are relevant. Even when they do not comply to NCW Propaganda.
Calling "truth" only what praises the NCW, is not good for Wikipedia (and for real life). It's only good for NCW Propaganda. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
But theres a difference between truth and blatantly wrong.--Ncwfl (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article

[edit] History of the NC Way

The term "Neocatechumenate" actually refers to the doctrines of Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernández, contained in the (currently unpublished) Catechetical Directory (also known as "secret catechetical books" because their existence was denied by NC catechists up to a few years ago).

Italian Bishop Olmi said that NC Way catechists do not use the Catechism of the Catholic Church (this is known everywhere, but that was the first time a Bishop stated it).

The existence of the letter by fr. Dino Torreggiani to card. Angelo Dell'Acqua is cited in a number of pro-Neocatechumenal websites and in the NC Way Italian wikipedia page.

[edit] Description of the NC Way

The first sections of the article (up to Statistics and World Youth Days) contained almost only NC Way sources; somewhat a "describe yourself" article. That is: self-promotion.

Criticisms coming from Roman Catholic areas will help balance NC propaganda, and understand better the NC Way. Since the Way describes itself as a Roman Catholic thing, then Catholic hierarchy comments are highly relevant. As a counter-example, see the large Opus Dei article sections on controversies and their sources (rarely coming from Catholic hierarchy): this means that the quality of this article is even bigger that the Opus Dei one.

[edit] Statutes Problems

The Statutes were approved ad experimentum and referred to a (currently unpublished) Catechetical Directory. The "experimentum" ended (June 2007). No official statements from the Holy See came yet. This means that:

  1. the Statutes were incomplete (because of the missing Catechetical Directory)
  2. the Statutes expired (thus, since June 2007, NC Way is only an informal association).

The Statutes section of the article should not hide the facts.

Most Neocatechumenals highlight the "approval" of the Statutes, but deliberately forget to say that they referred to a yet non-existing document (the Catechetical Directory) and that they expired. They say that an "informal" approval is out there, but this is not documented. Kiko saying "we're approved", is a private opinion, not an approval by the Roman Catholic Church.

Kiko Argüello announced many times an "imminent" definitive approval, but to date nothing official came out. An Italian pro-Neocatechumenal website (Korazym) said that those «rumors» always came from Kiko; the Statutes case was therefore named "a telenovela" by Korazym authors.

June 2002: "John Paul II did not mention the event". You cannot cite the Pontiff when praises you and forget the Pontiff when deliberately ignores you (on such a great event, this has a meaning).

"Heresies": doctrinal errors have not yet officially corrected. For example, Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernández have been often been accused to deny the transubstantiation, but they never issued any declaration to defend theirselves.

Therefore, the term «problems» in the title is definitely correct.

"Rumors": many times Neocatechumenals claimed to have had some «informal» approval; these events often became featured news (the interview on La Razón, where Kiko said that Benedict XVI told him about the imminent approval, was considered reliable by a large number of newspapers and websites - example: Petrus/papanews.it).

[edit] Liturgy Problems and «Holy Father's decisions»

Catholic hierarchy is concerned about NC Way liturgies (documented by a rather large number of sources).

The letter by Cardinal Arinze contains «Holy Father's decisions». In one point (the "kiss of peace"), it grants a permission «pending further instructions» (that is: a temporary permission). In all other points, it restricts the Neocatechumenal liturgies to existing Missals and documents.

This means that Neocatechumenal liturgies deviated from the ritual norm of the Roman Missal (if this was not the case, then no «Holy Father's decisions» would have been sent to Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi; instead, the letter begins with: «in the celebration of the Holy Mass, the Neocatechumenal Way shall accept and follow the liturgical books approved by the Church, without omitting or adding anything»: this means that up to 2002 Neocatechumenals "omitted" and "added" to their own will, instead of "accepting anf following" the liturgical books).

Therefore, the term «problems» in the title is adequate.

Neocatechumenals leaders try to hide the problem (see the notes of Gennarini's interpretation on the cited Jimmi Akin's pages).

[edit] Criticism from Catholics

Again, you cannot cite the Pontiff when praises, while ignoring the Pontiff when admonishes.

John Paul II wrote the letter Ogniqualvolta in 1990 (incidentally, it was addressed to Cordes, not to Kiko), but also reprimanded the Neocatechumenals in 1983 (and deliberately ignored the approval of the Statutes in June 2002, as said above).

Summary of the "concerns": everything is documented in the notes. For example, a famous Italian Catholic novelist writing on a widespread newspaper that Neocatechumenal chants are ugly.

Many priests, bishops, cardinals, criticized the NC Way. In this section there are only the well-documented ones. Many other criticized the NC Way without publishing documents (incidentally, also my Bishop and my parish priest).

Criticism to the NC Way coming from Roman Catholic world is still happening. In April 2008, cardinals Medina Estévez and cardinal Cipriani Thorne criticized the disobedience of the NC Way about liturgy. You cannot hide it.

Wiping out documented criticisms to the Way - criticisms from Catholic world -, will reduce the article to boring NC propaganda.

[edit] Recent Official Statements

Again, a number of important facts was discarded.

[edit] «Certain Norms» and «Very Content with the Norms»

In every Neocatechumenal community, it has always been described as «Pope sends 200 NC families in mission». Even on Zenit and it was incorrectly described as so. But in the official speech available on the Holy See website, Benedict XVI did not say anything that could be described as «Pope sends families»; instead, he talked about «certain norms», «imparted to you in my name». If you read the transcript of his speech, you can verify it. The event of Jan 12, 2006 could be better described as: "Benedict XVI notifies Neocatechumenals members and NC families going in mission, about his decisions on restricting liturgies of the NC Way".

A very few days later, Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi wrote a letter to the Pope claiming to be «very content with the norms», but also declaring they will act on their own: if the Pontiff requires «one Sunday per month», why do they need to notify to the Pontiff the need to «speak with the Bishop of each Diocese in order to arrange this participation, paying particular attention to the least brethren and those farthest away»? couldn't they just tell to the Neocatechumenals "one Sunday per month go to your parishes Mass, as Benedict XVI required"? why is dangerous having «the least brethren and those farthest away» going to the parish Mass one Sunday per month? It is thus an easy task to comment as Sandro Magister did.

[edit] «Many complications still exist today»

Again, you cannot cite the Pontiff when he says «I knew the Neocatechumenals from the very outset» and ignore the Pontiff when immediately after he says «It was a long Way, with many complications that still exist today».

Fr. Carcar is a NC Way member, and the Pope answered him explicitly about the NC Way.

It was easy for Sandro Magister to comment «Benedict XVI has stated in person that the definitive approval of their statutes is in question» after reading the transcript of the question-and-answer session.

[edit] «Reprimand» from Bishops of the Holy Land

Again, you cannot cite only the courtesy part of the letter. It was easy to highlight the «reprimand» parts of the letter. Neocatechumenals «are welcome», but shall «avoid making a group apart» (if this was not happened, then the Bishops would not have asked), shall «have the charity to understand and respect the attachment of our faithful to their own liturgies» (if there were not liturgy problems or divisions, the the Bishops would not have asked), and so on.

An independent and reliable source called it a «reprimand». Titling «Letter from Bishops of the Holy Land» will hide the real contents of the letter.

[edit] Melkite Leader Invites NC Way

«Melkite Leader» was one of the Bishops of the Holy Land that «reprimanded».

The «Melkite Leader» subsection is a logorrhoea about that "invitation"; it is hard to understand why «Melkite Leader» wrote to fr. Rossi to invite the NC Way, instead of writing to Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi. The «damage control» argument was an easy way to describe it (this is also documented).

[edit] Thousands of Neocatechumenals Show Readiness to Follow Call

The alzate (Italian term meaning "standing up") were described by a pro-Neocatechumenal source as being well below the estimates of Kiko Argüello. Kiko figured 2,000 men and 1,200 women; Korazym talked about hundreds, but not exceeding 1,000 total (70% less!) and, between them, lots of «7-year-old children» and «people who did it only for fun».

Thus, «possibly inflated figures» is correct (in the above case, they were «excessively inflated figures»; the other cases should be described as «possibly inflated» only for correctness).

[edit] «Will take some time»

Using automatic translators will lead to serious errors (a few days ago, Google Translate incorrectly translated «nicht in kurzer Zeit» as «in a short time»; today it correctly translates to «not in a very short time», euphemism for «a long time»).

We can expect the Holy See not to approve Neocatechumenals at least until major liturgical and doctrinal problems are solved.

[edit] External Links

The external links section should not contain "official links" only. If you want official links, go to the official website. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV (Neocatechumenals' POV)

This article has been hijacked to the point of rendering it worthless. It is disjointed, contradicts itself and gives the reader the impression that NC Way is in a state of disarray. Perhaps that was the objective? Reetex (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hijacked", "worthless" "disjointed", "contradicts"... are your opinions. Everything is documented: please have a look at the cited sources. You are a new user (your first and only contribute to wikipedia were the above words) and already talk high about "balance" and "reader's impression"? Does this mean that you are going to do some vandal editing? Rpgon2 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Documented? Not exactly. You cite to obscure foreign language sources that are virtually unverifiable independent of your own links. Your shenanigans are utterly laughable. I can't see how the NC Way folks let you get away with this. Yes, I am new... so what? Editing?! Don't worry I won't be editing because I wouldn't dare attempt to inform people about something I don't know much about. Perhaps you might try the same? Lastly, here are a few tips to the genuine contributors who edit this page. 1) get rid of the literature section altogether it provides absolutely nothing to the article because it is 100% foreign language cites. 2) stop all the nonsense about approval of the statutes... if they are approved, say so. If not, say that they haven't been approved. What's the big deal? The NC Way still has the tacit approval of the Pope, right? He hasn't excommunicated anybody has he? Whatever the status is say it once and don't mention it again because it only confuses the reader. The first time I read the recently edited page I thought "is there more than one set of statutes? Did some get approved did others not get approved?" Lastly, clean-up the footnotes. Way too much commentary and foreign language usage. Reetex (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems you did not read this page. Read above: Most of the documentation is in Italian language. The letter by Kiko-Carmen-Pezzi (Jan 17, 2006) was written in Italian. The letter by Cardinal Arinze (Dec 1, 2005) was written in Italian. Interviews to cardinals Cipriani Thorne and Medina Estévez (April 2008) were in Italian. Most of the sources are in Italian language. Translating them is not a trivial work, but Italian-speaking contributors will continue to translate the relevant parts, or cite the official translations.
I agree that the Literature section is almost useless. A translation of a few of those books is available in electronic format (HTML, PDF) in the cited sources. Neocatechumenals added books and books to make the reader of this article think: "well, the pro- books outnumber the con-".
The large footnote section contains sources for everything stated in this page; you may have already noticed that Neocatechumenals edit the article to wipe out every criticism.
Needless to say, if you state "tacit approval of the Pope", then you need to demonstrate it...
Rpgon2 (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I would not be so quick to judge others when you yourself only have just joined 2 days ago and as such are considered a new user yourself. The page was in a state of normalcy and you came and in fact did Hijack the page by including information which was placed there only for a single purpose, to discredit "The Way". The page is in fact in a state of disarray, everything seems to have been mushed together wherever there was space and gives it the appearance of a garbage dump, and I will not uphold such defamation, the page must be intellectually decent.
Ncwfl (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well:
  1. you have been "so quick to judge" me and the data I added to the article
  2. who wants to "discredit the Way", only has to add some verifiable content
  3. in your opinion, the "normal" state of this article is the total absence of any reference to criticism, especially if documented
  4. you are a long time "NC Way article normalizer": your edit list is somewhat funny
I'm reverting again your vandalism (and continuing to add content). Face the truth!
Rpgon2 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In order to not make this a reverting war which you seem to insistent on, I will be making section my section changes in order to facilitate the review.

Ncwfl (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutley correct. This is my opinion (I prefer argument). But I posted this in the “Talk” section of the article… was that wrong? If so, I apologize. However, your use of the words "opinion" and "fact" appear self-serving and do not comport with the scholarly definition of the words. I will illustrate: "Mr. Blackacre was born on June 30, 1901" is a fact. "Mr. Blackacre does not follow the doctrinal teachinigs of the Roman Catholic Church" is an opinion. Unless, suported by a reliable source like the Holy See. Moreover, citing to questionable authorities that share the opinion does not make an "opinion" a "fact". If that were the case then two opinions would equal a fact. If I find a website that agrees that the NC Way article was hijacked, worthless, disjointed and/or contradicts itself does that make it a fact? Again, the Wiki position could provide some guidance. A reliable source is one "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The sources provided on this page (mostly con but sometimes the pro) do not meet the standard. Also, they do not meet the rigid Wiki standards of verifiability and should therefore be removed.

Maybe you did not see that for every fact, a reliable source was cited (see above in this page).
If something has been described by both pro and con sources, then you have no reason to erase it from the article.
If something "con" has been described by a "pro" source (example: the telenovela of the Statute) or, vice versa, something "pro" by a "con" source, then you may assume that it is safe to cite it.
You should not erase data like: "Mr. Blackacre, as said by Mr. Yellowacre, does not follow..." -- Rpgon2 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interst of full-disclosure, I am not in the NC Way but I have been invited to some “talks”. I have never attended but I remain amenable to attending. I read this page about six months ago to find out more and found it a bit "flowery" and only slightly skewed. I agree that it was in need of a bit of revision because the NC Way certainly has detractors and people should know that too. However, the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction. Currently, the article is replete with commentary from sources that are fatally biased against the NC Way. In short, the article is not balanced.

Please, document what and why is not balanced. Placing an "NPOV" tag without explaining, is not that fair.

I revisited the page a few days ago because I returned from a trip to see the Pope in Washington, D.C. where I met people from the NC Way. They were energetic and greeted the Pope with zeal and fervor. It was a very memorable expereience and I was curious to see if there were any new developments. The page was decimated. What a shame.Reetex (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to have an exact measurement of zeal and fervor. Applauding Benedict XVI does not automagically mean rigorous doctrines and liturgies. Rpgon2 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting NPOV (Neocatechumenals' POV)

It seems that a number of clones of User:Ncwfl appeared to wipe out all of Neocatechumenal propaganda.

What proof do you have of this? I made mistake and forgot to log in on 5 edits, was not using my own computer at the time. I hope you don't usually function in such an incorrect manner. Primarily due to the fact that it is illogical for a supporter of the way to remove positive things of the way..

Notes about the article:

  1. «zeal» and «fervor» do not change any of the cited sources
  2. «biased against the NC» neither means «false», nor «irrelevant», nor «missing fact-checking», nor «inaccurate»
  3. if you have a look at the article history, the «war» appears coming only from Neocatechumenal vandals.
A war is undertaken by two sides, You have most graciously chosen the side which throws any sort of muck it finds.
"Muck"? Why are you calling "muck" documented facts? Didn't you read the footnotes?

[edit] Rouco Varela photo

I moved Cardinal Rouco Varela photo in the World Youth Day article.

Seems highly unnecessary to have removed it, seems to me as if you are trying to hide the fact that he supports the way. and without it the page seems a bit bland, since it it relevant to the WYD and the meeting kiko had in the most recent one it intend on making sure it stays.
Being "relevant to the WYD", that photo should stay in the WYD article page.
You think that Rouco Varela photo means that he supports the NC Way. But you did not explain why, neither you did explain how. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, Neocatechumenal User:Ncwfl inserted it again. Rpgon2 (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You must not be aware of where the image was in fact taken if you insist on removing it. This being said it would also be inappropriate for it to be in the WYD page because it in fact did not occur at the WYD but the day after at the meeting with kiko. The Cardinal was at the meeting in Bonn the day after the WYD at the meeting that was set up by the Neocatechumenal Way so it is 100% relevant. Ncwfl (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This is your own opinion. You did not yet prove it. Rpgon2 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you really this blind or are you just pretending to be ignorant? Why would a cardinal attend a neocatechumenal meeting if he did not support it? For kicks? To spend a day in the sun because he needs a tan? Obviously not. A cardinal does not waste his time unless it is something he cares about, it is natural human psychology, and you pay attention to things you care about, so he does in fact care. I doubt you would be able to prove otherwise. Ncwfl (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you did not yet prove anything.
Lots of Cardinals attend lots of meetings... and you state that "Rouco Varela being there, he (kind of) supports the NCW" (and in this context, what does "support" mean? why do we actually need a photo?) -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My original attempt was to add some sort color to the page, it is quite bland. So i found a picture that was snapped at the NCW meeting after the WYD in Bonn, found it appropriate for the page seeing it was a NCW sponsored event so i placed it in the page. I am uncertain of your view of the photo.. Who cares if he supports the way of not. If we look at the facts then we see that he was in fact at that meeting which is enough.Ncwfl (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There are many ways to "add some sort color". You previously stated that Rouco Varela "supports" the NCW, without further documentation. If we were to add a photo of every Cardinal who had a talk with NCW members, then this article will become a collection of photos.
Also, keep in mind that other cardinals (for example, Medina Estévez and Cipriani Thorne), may change their mind about the NCW, and express criticism (as happened with Medina Estévez and Cipriani Thorne). So, are or aren't "relevant" their photos? Will they add some sort color to the page, or won't they? -- Rpgon2 (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redemptoris Mater Seminaries - that is: Kiko's Seminaries

Why many vocations coming from Neocatechumenal Way need Redemptoris Mater Seminaries instead of "standard" seminaries? (diocesan ones and missionary ones). R.M. seminaries follow Kiko guidelines both in liturgical and doctrinal issues. There is no other reason to create those so-called "Neocatechumenal Seminaries" instead of making NC priestly vocations enter diocesan seminaries.

Corollary: it is thus correct to say "Neocatechumenal priests" for vocations entering R.M. seminaries.

On this topic lies not one ounce of truth. Most of the priests ordained by the seminaries work within the diocese, others have been given permission by their ordinary (and only their ordinary) to serve the needs of the mission. The RM seminaries are a necessity because the standard ones are found lacking in many respects, (Eg. priests that after a few years lose faith or become discouraged by a difficult parish, those that leave the priesthood, need I continue?). Under no circumstance can the priests be instructed in what you call the "kiko doctrine", this because all of the religious studies are done at the university in which the seminarians attend.
Your equivocal assumptions are not supported by facts.
  1. standard seminaries are "found lacking...": found by you? Then, if they are "lacking", why Roman Catholic Bishops do not close them? Are they more stupid than you?
  2. "after a few years lose faith": how can you demonstrate that this will never happen to NC priests? how can you demonstrate that "losing faith" is only due to "non-RM seminar" formation?
  3. "religious studies at the university": are you saying that RM seminaries are no more than hotels?
  4. if the RM seminaries are so "standard", why only Neocatechumenals priestly vocations enter them?
  5. "serve the needs of the mission": you should say "of the Neocatechumenal missions". There is a large number of missionary communities, seminars, organisations; why Kiko needed to create another one?
No wonder that everyone calls them "Neocatechumenal seminaries". No wonder that everyone knows that seminarians of the RM are instructed in "Kiko doctrine and liturgy". No wonder that NC priests are called "volatile priests" (they follow Kiko words, not their Ordinary). Rpgon2 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Redemptoris Mater Seminaries (RMS) are actually Neocatechumenal Seminaries, because they only accept priestly vocations coming from Neocatechumenal Way (NCW).

RMS were started by Kiko and Carmen for NCW priestly vocations. Why they needed "special" (RMS) seminaries? If you want to help "normal" seminaries, then you do not need to create new seminaries.

The only reason to create RMS is that Kiko and Carmen think that diocesan and missionary seminaries are not good for NCW priestly vocations. If they were good, then all NCW vocations would have entered normal seminaries and religious communities.

Since they were started by Kiko and Carmen, then RMS follow NCW guidelines. If this was not the case, then NCW priestly vocations have no reason to prefer a RMS instead of a normal seminary.

Thus, priests coming from RMS are more "Neocatechumenal-oriented" than NCW priests coming from normal seminaries. This means that RMS priests will most likefully support NCW communities.

Official statements describe RMS as "international, missionary, diocesan" seminaries: while this does not formally contradict the above notes, what attitude will have NCW priests coming from RMS towards anything that does not follow NCW guidelines?

Finally, RMS priests have often been cause of divisions and sect-like behaviour, as stated -for example- by Japan Bishop Conference and Australian people (already cited in footnotes).

[edit] Redemptoris Mater Seminaries, a summary

  1. RMS are neocatechumenal seminaries
  2. RMS began because Kiko and Carmen do not trust diocesan seminaries
  3. RMS follow NCW guidelines instead of diocesan
  4. RMS priests are not willing to waste their time on non-Neocatechumenal affairs
  5. RMS priests cause the same problems that NCW causes worldwide.
Thank you for your opinions, when you find evidence from a reliable source let me know.--Ncwfl (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese Bishops Conference stated even more than that; you just need to read the sources. (Japanese Bishops Meet Pope For Second Time In Five Months; Sunday Catholic News of the Week). -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statute: a partial approval

If "partial" is unacceptable to Neocatechumenal propaganda, then -please- find another adjective summarizing that:

  1. the Statute was ad experimentum and silently expired
  2. the Statute was born formally incomplete, and expired formally incomplete, because the Catechetical Directory (to which the Statute referred) was never published
Why is there are need to describe the statues, if the reader chooses to know of the statues they will find all of your information regarding the partial approval which you so blatantly pasted wherever you managed to find space. The title which you have written includes a negative conotation, in my attempt to balance the pages PoV I removed it.
Again, you think it is negative to call "partial" a "partial approvation".

[edit] Recent Official Statements

The events should be described without censoring the parts that do not comply with Neocatechumenal Propaganda Standards. Examples:

  1. «Certain Norms»: did Benedict XVI talk about "certain norms imparted to you in my name", or didn't?
  2. «Benedict XVI sends Neocatechumenal Families»: should a wikipedia article support such a misinterpretation?
  3. «Very Content with the Norms»: did Kiko and Carmen and Pezzi wrote that, or didn't they?
  4. «Many Complications Still Exist Today»: did Benedict XVI say it, or didn't?
  5. «Reprimand» from Bishops: why relevant third party comments are not allowed? (and who are you, to tell us that those Bishops did not actually send a «reprimand»?)
Who are you to say the bishops were sending a reprimand? Who is Magister to say so? It is not written, there is no hinting of any sort that it is a reprimand within the actual text of the letter. Also there is no need to put a quote in every title, especially ones chosen for a specific purpose. Do not claim that BXIV sending the families is misinterpretation, you have filled the article with it, twisting every word phrase and syllable against "The Way" in order to discredit it, you hide under the shield of "informing" the public, but to what end. What is it you wish to accomplish?
It was not me to call «reprimand» that «reprimand». It was a reliable source (cited in footnote), that you did not read. You call "twisting" what actually was "citing".

Is this a Neocatechumenal propaganda article, or important details (Benedict XVI and Kiko words) are allowed?

From the looks of it the page is a a Anti-Neocatechumenal article.
Ncwfl (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Then you say that "documenting facts" means "anti-Neocatechumenal". Great. Rpgon2 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is getting to be ridiculous

Why can we not respectfully conduct ourselves on this article? Everytime I come on here, I find someone insultingly trying to discredit the Way. I am not saying that the Way is perfect. Nothing is perfect. But, it seems to me, that a large portion of the sources cited in this article are biased against the Way. My point here is that I find that discussions and debates that we should be having in the talk page are, more often than not, landing smack in the middle of this article. The article as it stands is vehemently against the Neocatechumenal Way and indulges far too much in biased opinion and Anti-Neocatechumenal Propaganda. I urge all contributors to this article to 1) engage in respectful debates and 2) stop citing sources that are clearly biased and start relying on more official sources. If you are going to cite websites, please be sure to translate them accurately before using them. It is unacceptable to spread lies and rumors based on opinions rather than grounding yourself in facts. I want to see a balanced and respectful treatment of the Way, not some rumor filled, hate-mongering, Anti-Neocatechumenal Propaganda page.

I stand by both Ncwfl and Reetex on the status of this article. It is anti-Neocatechumenal, far too extreme in its criticisms to be of any objective use, and it is disjointed, and in need of balance.

As Reetex mentioned, the Neocatechumenal Way was present in large numbers to welcome the Pope in Washington D.C. and in New York City. There is nothing in this article that refers to that in the very least. I think that a balanced article should acknowledge this fact (which was also covered by the media: Fox News, CNN, ABC, etc.)

ChristeVita

Neocatechumenalspeak:
  1. "insultingly trying to discredit the Way": documenting facts like "Cardinals criticised the Way", or "Benedict XVI said «Many Complications Still Exist»" all with appropriate reliable source
  2. "biased against the way": reliable sources that do not comply with NC Way propaganda standards
  3. "rumor filled, hate-mongering": news filled, truth mongering (note: a pro-NC source said that Kiko was spreading rumors about the "final approval": is this the reason why you wrote "rumor filled, hate-mongering"?)
  4. "need of balance": censoring everything that is not compatible with the NC Way propaganda.
NC Way members hate to read truth about the Way, especially when documented.
But this is a wikipedia article, not NC propaganda page.
Please read this entire page from the beginning, before adding other useless opinions. Rpgon2 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Need For Respect

I will reiterate what I have said before: We need to engage in a more respectful dialogue throughout this article. Stating that anyone's opinion is "useless" goes against that idea. And I have read this article from beginning to end, and I find that it does not cite very many sources that praise the Way. What is on here are sources that expcitly criticize the Neocatechumenal Way. There are very few sources here that give a more positive perspective.

I don't see how anything that you are doing here is different from what you label as "NC Propaganda." The case can be made that you are making this article, which is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article which must include both negative and positive perspectives, into an article filled with sources and opinions that support Anti-Neocatechumenal Way propaganda.

We need to respectfully dialogue with each other. Reliable sources also include Fox News, ABC, and the New York Times. I direct your attention to the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/14pilgrim.html?_r=4&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1208196052-0QxgXzmuqZ6DMjih6RKWTg&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin User:ChristeVita

Neocatechumenals, please note:
  1. this is not a Pro-Neocatechumenal Propaganda article. You shall not hide the truth.
And you shall not misrepresent it.
Who does misrepresent it? You wipe out Benedict XVI words. Is Benedict XVI "misrepresenting" the Way?
  1. It is OK to wipe out totally irrelevant information; but if you erase the documented facts that NC Propaganda wants to hide, then it means that...
Example: "Pope Meets Roman Clergy". But he always meets Roman Clergy: then, why is that a noticeable event? It is, because when asked about the NC Way, he answered: «Many Complications Still Exist Today».
Have you even read the article? He was not asked about the NCW, he was asked about 'on how he should fit into them (movements) to develop a real ministry of unity in the universal Church'. During his lengthy response he briefly mentioned The Way, and your picking of certain lines are obviously with malicious intent, if not you could have simply chosen improved the relationship between the Pastor and the Way. Now the reason i did not highlight any certain part of the quote, in order avoid emphasizing any POV of my own, but rather included the complete section.
Benedict XVI talked about the NC Way and said «Many Complications Still Exist Today»: is this "emphasizing a POV"? If you remove NCW-relevant information, then the entire paragraph makes no sense.
If you wipe out that "Many Complications" comment, then you are stressing that either the event or the comment was irrelevant. That is: you ware transforming it into NC Propaganda.
Neocatechumenal propaganda, always in the "we're praised! we're approved!" style, feels the urge to hide any «Many Complications Still Exist Today» (even when it was Benedict XVI to assert it). Then, in the morning erases it from the title, and in the evening erases it from the body. Exaggeration? Have a look at what it was one year ago and what it was a few days ago, and browse its history searching for massive censorship by neocatechumenal users...
A few days ago, this article was a Fully Neocatechumenalised page. There was a description of all relevant Recent Developments... stripped by every relevant detail. Example: a reader would ask himself why Bishops of the Holy Land need to write a letter to the NC Way to praise it... until discovering its true contents (that were not shown in this wikipedia article), and some reliable sources correctly describing it as a «reprimand to the NC Way».
It was not a praise, if read the letter one of the first things it mentions is that they sent the letter "in the context of the common pastoral plan for this year," in other words to relay their wishes onto the NCW, not to praise it, and not to reprimand it. It contents were never hidden, they have always been there...
Also the «reprimands» have always been there. There is no reason in hiding them. Rpgon2 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
A respectful dialogue cannot be based on hiding the truth. Many sources praise the Way, but all that praising cannot make us forget that Benedict XVI said «Many Complications etc», or that Bishops of the Holy Land said «avoid making yourselves a group apart», or that Kiko said many times «we're approved» and no approval came out yet, or that Carmen defined Kiko as a «cursillist bigot claiming to have had a Marian apparition» in 1964 (incidentally ignored by Church authority).
NY Times reports about a NC pilgrimage. Good. But does this wipe out Benedict XVI speech about «Certain Norms»? Does it wipe out the «partial» approvation of the expired Statutes? Does this wipe out the «disrespectful» way to receive the Communion by the leader of the NC Way? Does this mean that only Neocatechumenals are doing pilgrimages?
Rpgon2 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ncwfl (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overestimated NC Statistics (document them, or erase them!)

The NC Statistics section shows a total of more than 44,000 communities (22400+ in Europe, 20200+ in Americas, 130 in Middle East, 1279 other), while in the heading the total number in the world is suggested to be some 20,000. That "44,000" is surely overestimated. And also that "20,000" could be overestimated (round numbers always raise some suspicion).

As of April 30, 2008, in Italy, the Way is present in 997 Italian parishes. That should mean some 10 communities per parish to get that "10,000" figure out. This is, without any doubt, largely overestimated: for every parish hosting 1-2 communities only, we'd expect another one hosting 18-19 communities )or -example- other three hosting 6 communities). But in Italy the number of parishes hosting more than 10-12 communities is less than a dozen (actually, parishes hosting more than 4-5 communities are quite rare), while the vast majority of the parishes only hosts one NC community.

Until a formal verification, it is safe to assume that in Italy NC communities hardly exceed 2000-2500 (and we did not take into account the large number of communities which join together because of the small amount of members).

That said, if no reliable source appears to correct the figures in the NC Way Statistics section, then the entire section should be erased.

Overestimates are a known specialty of Kiko Argüello, as pointed out even by pro-Neocatechumenal news websites. Rpgon2 (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Texas to East Coast, Pilgrimage to See the Pope NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL Published: April 14, 2008

SPRING, Tex. — The Texas sky was still dark and studded with stars Sunday when Ricky Pequeño Jr., rubbing sleep from his eyes, stumbled downstairs to add his bag to a pile of backpacks, sleeping bags, food cooler, baseball glove and ball, football, drum and guitar — everything a family of ardent Roman Catholics might need for a 1,600-mile pilgrimage to see the pope.They would end up in a borrowed van with a hastily added trailer and, with little spare cash and no overnight reservations, set off. “It’s up to God in the end,” said Ricky’s father, Ricardo Sr., 44, a machinist who grew up in Mexico, before driving off for a final blessing from their pastor.

As Pope Benedict XVI prepared for his first papal voyage to America, Mr. Pequeño and his family — his Mexican-born wife, Maria, 40; Ricky, 17; Andrea, 11; Rachel, 8; and Emily, 3 — and 14 neighbors were leaving from this blue-collar suburb north of Houston in two packed vans, headed for Washington and New York and, they hoped, at least a glimpse of the pontiff.

“We don’t know if we’ll ever see Benedict up close,” said Rosalind Alvarez, a fellow passenger. But Ms. Alvarez added, “Somehow the word he says is going to reach us.”

Only Ricky had a prized ticket — two, in fact — to enter Nationals Park in Washington, where the pope is to celebrate Mass on Thursday. They were gifts from his pastor, the Rev. Miguel Solorzano of St. Charles Borromeo Church in Houston, who had managed to get 11 from his bishop, although he had asked for 100.

Ricky had once voiced an interest in the priesthood, and Father Solorzano said he wanted to encourage the boy. Ricky ended up inviting a friend, a girl. “He’s young,” the priest said, laughing.

With the church struggling to stem an erosion of faith in the face of secularism and scandal, the fast-growing Hispanic population of Texas and the Southwest has long been a major bulwark of Roman Catholicism in America — and an avid constituency for Pope Benedict’s visit.

The Pequeños and their fellow pilgrims are a particularly ardent band. They are followers of the Neocatechumenal Way, a communitarian church movement, founded in Spain in the 1960s and accepted by the Vatican, that emphasizes a return to early Christian roots, evangelism, intense religious practice and sacrifice.

The Pequeños’ house is filled with Bibles and Christian images. Over the fireplace hangs a copy of an icon by the Spanish painter Francisco (Kiko) Argüello, who co-founded the movement.

Before they joined, Mr. Pequeño said, “we would just go to church for Sundays and holidays.” Now they go several times a week, he said, and often evangelize door to door, sometimes playing music.

“We use a lot of instruments,” added Ricky, who plays the drum. “The devil uses a lot of noise, and we fight against the devil, also with a lot of noise.”

The family credits their faith for helping them through many crises. Mr. and Mrs. Pequeño, who migrated to the United States from Mexico and became citizens, said their marriage had undergone strains. Mr. Pequeño said he complained about his wife but learned through prayer that “the way to change my wife is me.” He said they were also distraught when a medical condition prevented his wife from bearing more children. They prayed over it, he said, and quickly learned of a 2-year-old girl needing adoption. They happily took in the child, Emily.

Mr. Pequeño earns about $45,000 a year making couplings for oil-drilling tools. Mrs. Pequeño studied cosmetology and hopes to get a license soon.

The family, then living in a poor neighborhood in the Greenspoint section of Houston, was traumatized in 2005 when Ricky fell in with a gang, began committing petty crimes and vandalism, and was kicked out of school. (He said he had no police record.) Comrades, he said, savagely turned on him, forcing the family to flee for safety and often change addresses before settling in Spring two months ago.

“That’s when I started getting into the church a lot,” said Ricky, who now expresses contrition.

A junior in high school — he lost a year — he said he had considered becoming a priest but now feels attracted to a career in law enforcement, perhaps with the F.B.I. “I like solving crimes, things of that nature,” he said.

Father Solorzano said he knew of Ricky’s problems and credited God’s workings.

This is not the Pequeños’ first trip to see Pope Benedict. In 2005, leaving the younger children with a relative, Ricky and his parents spent almost $5,000 to travel with a group to World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany, attended by the pope, although they were too far away to see him. The family raised money for the trip by holding garage sales and other fund-raisers. In Europe, they detoured to Amsterdam, where they say they proselytized among prostitutes and drug addicts, and visited a former German concentration camp.

This pilgrimage — in showery April, like Chaucer’s to Canterbury — will be cheaper, although the Pequeños figure it should cost about $1,000 in gas alone, which the travelers will split. The pilgrims, who hope to make side trips to Christian shrines like the tomb of St. John Neumann in Philadelphia, expected to lodge free with other Neocatechumenal followers but planned to stay in a motel Sunday in Tennessee.

Early Sunday, as the pile of luggage by their door grew to alarming proportions, Mrs. Pequeño carried a still-sleeping Emily to the family’s Chevrolet Suburban and strapped her in. Ricky retrieved sports equipment his mother had removed from the pile and restored it.

“We can get bored,” he said.

Andrea, who had been wearing a jokey T-shirt reading “Doesn’t Play Well With Others,” exchanged it for one reading simply, “Benedict XVI.”

The sun was coming up.

“Ricardo!” Mrs. Pequeño shouted to her husband. “Vamanos!”

They set off to a rendezvous point at St. Charles Borromeo Church, where the Pequeños and their neighbors swapped vehicles. Mr. Pequeño took over a 12-person van for six passengers plus his family; someone else would drive his S.U.V., packed with eight. But the supplies overflowed the van. Someone was sent to pick up a trailer.

Father Solorzano finished Mass and came out to bless the pilgrims. He was also going to Washington, to concelebrate Mass with the pope. But he planned to go by plane.

He sprinkled holy water on the bowed heads. “Bless them O Lord,” he said, “as they begin this journey.”

User ChristeVita —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristeVita (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neocatechumenal Way Saying "Yes" to Europe

A positive view (from Zenit) of the labors of the Neocatechumenal Way in Europe:

http://www.zenit.org/article-22170?l=english —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristeVita (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Crucial Set of Questions

I am going to pose the following questions and I would appreciate honest answers. I am speaking mainly to those individuals who focus either on criticizing the Way or highlighting the negative aspects of the Neocatechumenal Way. All I am saying, is that in your zeal to stress negative criticisms of the Way, you seem to be overlooking the positive good it does within the Roman Catholic Church.

Have any of you attended an entire Catechesis? Have any of you ever walked in a community? Gone to a convivance? A Wednesday Word celebration? A Eucharist on Saturday? Have any of you gone to the lengthy Easter Vigil (from Saturday night to Sunday morning)? Have any of you been in a Redemptoris Mater seminary? Have any of you conversed with a seminarian who has studied at a Redemptoris Mater seminary? Have any of you shared a meal during an Agape? In short, have any of you experienced, first-hand, the totality of the Neocatechumenal Way?

  1. Please note: this is wikipedia. Our lives and our opinions are not relevant.
  2. Please note: "experiencing" the NC Way is not needed. You do not need to try LSD in order to know what it actually is, how does it work, and every positive (?) and negative aspect.
  3. Please note: it was not me to criticize the Way, it was a (rather large) number of Roman Catholic Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Theologians, and former NCW members. Read the sources, face the truth.
  4. Please note: even if wikipedia highlights negative aspects of the NCW, you still are able to enjoy the NCW. Wikipedia does not need NC Propaganda.
  5. Please note: when you Neocatechumenals edit this article, you wipe out every non-praising aspect, even the biggest ones, even Benedict XVI remarks. But this is wikipedia, this is not the Official Neocatechumenal Propaganda Page.
If you keep avoiding discussions and posing non-relevant questions, then the nNPOV tag is not needed.
Rpgon2 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Respect

I reiterate the point I have made before...there needs to be respect in this article. There needs to be a balanced perspective and right now there isn't one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristeVita (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree: User:Ncwfl should respect the work of other contributors. Erasing documented sources and verifiable content is vandalism.
Please note that "balanced perspective" does not mean "hide the truth, to have Neocats stop whining". Rpgon2 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I was following the suggestion from Reetex, a much less biased user than myself or you Rpgon2. I removed very little actual content, I incorperated many of the recent developments sections (some of which are not so recent) into the text of the article, removed most repetition, and simplified the notes (removing extreamly long blocks of text, italian lines), and changed a few spelling mistakes. I undersand i was wrong to have done the edit in one solid peice, i should have done it section by section to allow for easier review.
Ncwfl (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting: "A Much Less Biased User" asks you to erase anything that does not comply with NC Propaganda guidelines.
Interesting: "I Removed Very Little Actual Content" - that is, you removed half of the article (and you did it every time)
You think that wikipedia is the right place for NC Way Propaganda. You contribute only by erasing what you do not like. Please stop your vandalism. Rpgon2 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, the page is better.

Here are a a few more suggestions stop using <<quote>> in the US the common practice is "quote".

This is "en.wikipedia" - not "us.wikipedia" for US users.

Rpgon2 isn't going to like this suggestion but the following sources are blantantly biased, outdated or unverifiabale. Zoffoli, Don Elio Marighetto and Alterinfo. For example, Zoffoli has been dead for 12 years. He wrote, as far as I can tell since no English translation was available, six books critical of the NC Way. The Pope approved the Statutes in 2002, right? What can we infer? The Holy See considered Zoffoli criticisms and the Statutes that were approved were free of heretical statements, correct? We still believe in doctrine of Papal infallibility, correct? Therefore, why cite to his work? If I find a priest that thinks the world is flat I should be able to cite to him too? The Marighetto source is totally unverifiable. The ISBN comes back bogus and googling only takes you to blantatly biased websites in languages readers won't understand. Alterinfo? The English page's newest article is 12 years old.

"Old" does not mean "false".
The Statute do not fall under "Papal infallibility" because it was approved by a Pontifical Council (uh, did you actually not know?)
The Statute expired in 2007; it has thus historical interest only.
Reliability of the sources was already demonstrated at the beginning of this page. Those sources are all used in Italian wikipedia page. You blame them because they do not comply with your own opinion.
You Neocatechumenals call "blatantly biased, outdated, unverifiable" everything does not comply with NC Propaganda.
Rpgon2 (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, my humble research finds a deep resentment by a small but vocal group of detractors. However, most of the criticisms are old. The only legitimate criticism I can find is the Cardinal Arinze letter controversy. That should stay in and an effort should be made to put this in context. Everything else sounds like territorial squabbles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reetex (talk • contribs) 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You call "deep resentment" and "small group of detractors" people reporting NC-related news that do not comply with NC Propaganda statements.
The "small but vocal group of detractors" contains a rather large number of Cardinals and Bishops and Theologians... and even Benedict XVI.
And the controversies are related to liturgy and doctrine, not to "territorial squabbles".
Again, you try to minimize everything that is not a praise of the NCW.
Rpgon2 (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thing: I found a week-long series in the NY Times about a family in the NC Way from Houston, Texas here are the links. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/14pilgrim.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/nationalspecial2/16pilgrim.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/nationalspecial2/18pilgrim.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/nationalspecial2/21pilgrims.html

Could this be worked into the article?Reetex (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed all of the quotation marks to the appropriate. I have been trying to be as careful as possible in my removal of certain content without validated support. If you are indeed suggesting removing the sources and the information tied to it I am certainly willing to put the effort into weeding it out, or just deleting the entire section and start again from scratch.
I'm finding it difficult in trying to incorporate the NY times articles into an appropriate section, if you can think of a certain context to include the information i am also willing to work with it.
Ncwfl (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] God Loves You

That's all I have to say.

ChristeVita (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.182.219 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you do not understand how much that assertion was useful to enhance the article about NC Way on wikipedia. Rpgon2 (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

  • Note: This is a newbie posting a reference that could ease the disarray. The statement that Cardinal Ratzinger said over 20 years ago seems to still apply. :)

See chapter, "A Council to be Rediscovered", page 43:

... 'the Church of today does not need any new reformers. The Church needs new saints'." So you don't see, I insist, any other positive signs -- except for those that come from the "negative" -- in this period of Church history? "Of course I see them. I will not speak here of the momentum of the young churches (like that of South Korea) or of the vitality of the persecuted churches because that cannot immediately be traced back to Vatican II. Just as the crisis phenomena cannot be directly attributed to it. What is hopeful at the level of the universal Church -- and that is happening right in the heart of the crisis of the Church in the Western World -- is the rise of new movements which nobody had planned and which nobody has called into being, but which have sprung spontaneously from the inner vitality of the faith itself. What is manifested in them -- albeit subdued -- is something like a pentacostal season in the Church. I am thinking, say, of the charismatic movement, of the Cursillos, of the movement of the Focolare, of the neo-catechemenal communities, of Communion and Liberation, etc. Certainly all these movements also give rise to some problems. They also entail greater or lesser dangers. But that happens with all living beings. I am now, to an increasing degree, meeting groups of young people in whom there is a wholehearted adhesion to the whole faith of the Church, young people who want to live this faith fully and who bear in themselves a great missionary e'lan. The intense life of prayer present in these movements does not imply a flight into interiority or a withdrawl into the private sphere, but simply a full and undivided catholicity. The joy of faith that one senses here has something contagious about it. Here new vocations...

Right.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger's statement ("NC Communities... also give rise to some problems") seem to still apply. For example, see the letter by Francis Cardinal Arinze about the "decisions of the Holy Father" severely restricting the liturgies of the NC Way. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you add or change emphasis of the original source for a neutral article? I think Pope Benedict XVI expresses a fairly balanced point of view. Problems, yes. A vitality of faith, yes. Insurmountable, no. Hope is a virtue. Love requires patience. It takes time to work things out, especially dealing with an imperfect rabble of people such that Christians are. When Moses went to Mount Sinai, he was absent for over a month before the 10 commandments were set in stone. I certainly can wait a while before Pope Benedict XVI sets things in stone. If it's a situation that has become grave, I'm sure we'll hear from Pope Benedict XVI at WYD in Sydney with the Holy Spirit being the theme for the whole thing. Things to consider for further resources: RCIA and the catechumenate throughout the history and Teaching of the church; the origin, history and processes of valid catholic rites, etc. This is a problem that's too big for me, but no one is more suited than the blessed popes we've had in current and recent history. --203.59.111.28 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (newbie)

Benedict XVI expressed a fairly balanced point of view because that "some problems" refers also to Cursillos and others.
But we here are discussing about the NC Way. And the NC Way has "some problems". Rpgon2 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From Zenit: http://zenit.org/article-22595?l=english

Regarding Church-movement relationship, Cardinal Rylko stated, the current Pope has given priority to the Pauline rule "do not snuff out the charisms," and as a second criteria, "the Church is one." He synthesizes both guidelines in the words "gratitude, patience and also acceptance of the sufferings that are inevitable," the cardinal noted. Following the magisterium of Benedict XVI, the pontifical council president affirmed, "It is not enough to welcome a movement; it is necessary to follow it with due pastoral solicitude." This task, he acknowledged, implies "an adequate knowledge of the unique realities present and active in the diocese." In this task, the cardinal said, the pastors can count on the Pontifical Council for Laity, "a common house for the ecclesial movement and the new communities, and a direct expression, regarding these [groups], of the paternity of the Successor of Peter."

The Pope is moving slowly and deliberately... would we expect anything different? Interpreting the pace of movement as tacit rejection seems premature. "Some problems" doesn't mean "heresey" as has been suggested by some on this talk page. Reetex (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You should not jump to conclusions about future events.
Past events - and, specifically, the documented ones - show that the NC Way does not have any formal approval.
A partial approval (the Statutes) expired 11 months ago without being completed with the Catechetical Directory.
Kiko always says "we're approved! we're approved!", but no approval came out yet. Instead, criticism by Bishops and Cardinals continues.
And most of them talk about "heresy", "liturgical abuses", "disobedience".
Everything is documented.
But you Neocatechumenals only want to read praises to the NC Way.
Face the truth!
-- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] After the prayer of the Regina Caeli, Pope Benedict XVI (4 May 2008)

I greet with joy the English-speaking pilgrims who have come here today, particularly the members of the Neo-Catechumenal Way from Mumbai in India. In the course of this week we will pray with the whole Church for the coming of the Holy Spirit. May all of you receive abundant blessings of peace and joy.

I wish you all a good Sunday.

That's funny.
A few lines above, you blamed "changing emphasis on the original source". And now you change emphasis on another original source.
Also, you should explain why is that important a "greeting" to "pilgrims" of the NC Way: didn't you know that the Pope always greets groups and pilgrims coming in Rome?
Rpgon2 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Merely providing a reference or recent event. I'm not making statement about it. I'm not blaming anyone. When citing sources, I thought it's practice in wikipedia to just provide a reference and not a commentary of it. - --203.59.115.135 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As said above (in this page), sometimes a short comment is needed.
The Pope always greets all groups of pilgrims. Why NC pilgrimage is such a great news? You did not yet prove anything. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Ncwfl keeps censoring the article

  • The term neocatechumenate, in the NC Way, is related to the doctrines taught by Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernández. - This is true, because the NC Way does not use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but Kiko's doctrines. Which have been accused to be "heretical". Kiko himself admitted that there were "errors" and that they were "not-so-exact". The statement is not
  • The NC Way is known to be one of the most controversial entities... - This is true: documentation of criticisms about the NC Way (already in the article) should be sufficient. That statement also had two different sources, that were not already cited in the article.
  • Cardinal Rouco Varela: - that photo does not add anything to this article. If we were to add in every Cardinal who spoke to some group, wikipedia would explode. Neocatechumenals kept adding that photo because, in their own opinions, it means "Cardinal R.V. supports the NCW". Neocatechumenals do not even explain what that supports means.

About censoring sources (Magister and other newspaper articles):

  • Neocatechumenals shoot in "double-action" mode: first, they call "opinions" any reliable source of criticism to the NC Way; then they wipe out criticisms to the NCW, calling them "undocumented". This is quite unfair.

About paragraphs titles:

  • Neocatechumenals wipe out even Benedict XVI words, when those words do not comply with NCW propaganda standards.
  • Also, they wipe out even the paragraph titles, when they correctly explain anything about the NCW.

Thus, please, User:Ncwfl stop vandalising this article! Your contribution history shows that you have been for many years on guard, to... neocathecumenalise this article. Face the truth!

-- Rpgon2 (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I be blamed if i try to remove false and misconstrued information, which you seem to be a fan of, in order to provide a less opinionated article? Please don't waste your time making personal attacks, I work with the truth, and in the end the truth comes out.Ncwfl (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Rpgon2 your bias shocks the conscience.Reetex (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You wipe out everything does not comply to Neocatechumenal Propaganda Standards... and then tell me "your bias shocks the conscience"?! -- Rpgon2 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting considering that Reetex has never edited the page......Ncwfl (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Your "truth" is actually the NCW propaganda (this is not a personal attack; it is only a description of your years of work on wikipedia, because you kept wiping out every relevant and documented word that did not comply to NC propaganda standards).
I did not erase sections that I believe misconstrued.
Example #1. I am still waiting for some Spanish source to know what exactly mgr.Morcillo did and said. Maybe you do not know that he was Bishop of a 5+ million people diocese, having some more 3,000 priests... and you NC say that he had enough spare time to look after a 25-year-old painter and a former-nun? Most of the news about mgr.Morcillo and Kiko and Carmen are well-built mythology.
Example #2. NC communities in the world: largely inflated figures, without any reliable source. We know that Kiko always inflates everything: "3,200 vocations" was in fact "no more than one thousand", including "7-year-old children and people who jokes" (news coming from a NC source - inflated as well). Who can rely Kiko figures about the NCW communities in the world? If he says 3,200 then expect a very few hundred.
Example #3. Kiko kept spreading out news about "we're approved! we're approved!" (May 2007, September 2007, December 2007, February 4, 2008, February 21-22, Easter, Pentecost, May 20...) and they always proved to be false. Well, if you get "misconstrued (and false) information" by Kiko... why should we publish it on wikipedia? If you get false informations on such questions, how can one rely onto him about Catholic doctrine and liturgy?
-- Rpgon2 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the NC Way (and an active member of my parish) I want to make a short comment. Rpgon2 is asking for facts from the NC Way. Our responsibility will be to provide this page with facts. The criticisms against Rpgon2 about hypocritical bias seem true. It does seem that Rpgon2 has an anti-NC agenda (citing certain one-sided facts while ignoring others) but at the same time I understand. There has been an obvious NC bias without cited facts or accurate documentation. Further, there has been a biased emphasis over certain phrases in favor of the NC Way or ignoring criticisms or problems. On this point, I understand Rpgon's trying to balance the picture. We have to wait for the Church to officially declare the final approval of the statutes before declaring that they have been approved. We cannot make claims on hearsay. The NC Way has its problems, to be sure. This is undeniable. And declaring that all movements and groups have their problems doesn't address the issue. This isn't about any other group. It's about the NC Way and our problems. Pray for those who persecute us (especially unjustly) and take to heart the criticisms. Are they true? Very seldom are things just totally true or totally false. Find the truth and explain it. As for wikipedia, we have to use documented sources. If they are not there, how can we get upset that the critics are wielding that against us? PDR1234 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MedCabiation

I have just started mediation on the WP:MEDCAB request. To gebin mediating, I first need to know just a small summary of your views on the subject matter. If you accept the case, please post your view in your appropriate section below.

[edit] View by Rpgon2

Clarifying slang:

  • "criticism" does not mean "non-praising"
  • "unofficial" sources (example: newspaper articles) may be relevant
  • article should not contain self-describing sources only
  • "balancing" does not mean "wipe out any criticism and any unofficial"
  • personal "experiences", "testimonies" and opinions are not relevant

This article describes NCW, an entity within the Catholic Church, thus:

  • Catholic-related sources are relevant
  • "criticism" by Catholic-related sources is very relevant
  • so-called "criticism" helps to give an accurate description of the NCW

Note:

  • context explanation is often needed (example: praising does not mean formal approval)
  • original sources are mostly in Italian language
  • special nature of "paper" documents (example: pastoral letters of Italian Bishops)
  • translated sources and comments are easy to find in the net (and in magazines, books, etc)
  • "conflict of interest" (NCW members trying to make this page a collection of their slogans)

Thus, this article:

  • should largely cite Alterinfo, Zoffoli, Magister, Petrus
  • should barely cite Pequeños, Rouco Varela, etc
  • should not hide NCW-related controversies within the Catholic Church
  • should not resemble official NCW-propaganda

Current version is not that far from neutrality and completeness:

  • the POV tag is not needed
  • the Cleanup tag is not anymore needed
  • every important statement cites at least a valid source ("Magister wrote... Vaticanist said... Bishop wrote...")

-- Rpgon2 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] View by Ncwfl

The first issue regards the information presented by the books and letters of Fr. Zoffoli.

A little bit of background information. The first of his books was written in 1990 and wrote many more regarding “’The Way’” until his death in 1996 (he also published one in the same year). In his books he claims many doctrinal and liturgical errors, many nearing heresy and lining with protestant beliefs. Approximately six years after the last of his books was published the Holy See and 5 congregations signed into approval (‘Ad Experimentum’ for 5 years) the Statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way. In the statutes there was also mention of the Chatecatical Directory. This consists of all of the teachings given during the full experience of the movement. This second document requires a single approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Now what is being brought into question is the validity of the source. In 1995 Fr. Zoffoli wrote to the Holy See regarding the “’The Way‘” and he received a response from Cardinal Ruini, the Vicar of the Pope, which he asked Fr. Zoffoli to “Not substitute the competent organs and to not include, even with good intentions, personal bias and premature judgments on topics that regard the orthodoxy of ecclesiastical realities, or even more so the Holy Father.” While not expressing the validity of Fr. Zoffoli’s claims he does discourage any behavior, such as publishing books, which would undermine the Holy See’s official position or even the popes. In 2002 with the approval (even if temporary) of the statutes it is my view that any validity to these claims was removed. This is because I do not find it logical to approve any portion of an ecclesiastical reality that contains “fundamental doctrinal errors” which would go against the Catholic Church. Fr. Zoffoli has said that Kiko, the founder, must publicly recant any of the incorrect statements in the catechism presented by “’The Way’” in order to avoid committing heresy, such action was never taken by the Vatican.

The Second source issue is in relation to the Geocities webpage Alterinfo. I asked on the Reliable Sources notice board and asked if it was reliable to cite the books and letters on this webpage. A user said that it was possible that the source did, in fact, infringe copyright laws by hosting excerpts of the book. I attempted to have an administrator check if the source broke copyright laws but was never able to due to administrative backlog and User:Rpgon2.

Sandro Magister is an Italian Reporter that works for a center-left L'Espresso.In his articles he is always the first to publish documents from the Vatican. It is my view that the opinions presented by the sources are in fact unreliable for the article since he is 100% against “’The Way’”. In his writings presents facts mixed in with his opinions, hardly reliable in my view. Magister is cited for the official document, that’s fine, but his opinions do not have any reliability.

I’m unsure what credibility Pietrus has, but it seems to me it’s just a blog hosting rants.

In its current state the criticism section tilts the page very strongly against “’The Way’”. This does not mean remove them completely, but rework them to show the Neocatechumanal Way in its true light. The criticisms do in fact exist, but most are unvalidated claims that have died out, i.e. Zoffoli and Margheritto. I have not found any recent criticisms that validate any of these claims. Now it is important these criticisms but nearly not to the extent which they are, noting that they have been overcome. Now I am abhorred by the claim of NCW propaganda which has been constantly thrown around against my edits and others which share similar opinions. It has been my intent to remove the “slogans” since day one, and User:Rpgon2 hasn’t removed any slogans either, meaning that there aren’t any to remove. Now given the rather large criticism section, I find that it does unbalance the article giving it an overall negative view of “’The Way’”. I find that any controversial statements must be written in such a way that it does not contain opinions or interpretation, but be presented as it is, so the reader may make his own opinion without being influenced by the opinions of others. --Ncwfl (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Once I have both views, the mediation can begin. Soxred 93 04:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The statutes have been approved, enough said. JA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.27.34 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ChristeVita —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristeVita (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Ok, now that I have both views, I can give some comments. Ncfwl, the geocities cite by itself is not a reliable source. While I don't know Italian (or whatever language it is), I do know that Geocities cites are rarely reliable. Pietrus also appears to be unreliable. Rpgon2, you mentioned the "X said" words. Those are called weasel words, and you should probably tag the article with {{subst:dated|weasel}}, or put it in the sandbox I created for the purpose. Soxred 93 23:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To The Mediator

Please see the Neocatechumenal Way article as it is right now. I reverted it to the way Rpgon2 had it several days ago. It is worth taking a look at while you are making your recommendations. ChristeVita —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristeVita (talk • contribs) 14:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed to the most recent version. The version in question can be found here.--Ncwfl (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NCWFL, you are quite wrong.

Those books about the Way are still being cited everywhere (try googling for Marighetto and Zoffoli)... Then you cannot state that they are not relevant.

Zoffoli was never punished by the Church for his books and articles about the Way: some of them even gained the Imprimatur... and the only exception, Ruini's letter, does not say you are wrong, but only do not anticipate... Then you cannot state that Zoffoli books are no longer relevant.

Wikipedia generally does not accept blogs and webs like Geocities... but you cannot affirm that since it has been hosted on Geocities, then it has to be false.

Publishing excerpts from books is not by itself a copyright violation. Those books, by their nature, are not intended to make money, but to make people know. The copyright argument is clearly a product of your bias.

You say that Magister is 100% against the Way and presents facts mixed with his opinions... Can you prove it, please?

You say that Pietrus is a blog hosting rants... you understand Italian language and you know that it is totally false... how comes that a rants blog has two priests and a dozen writers, a phone number, a snail mail address?... and it was legally registered in the Italian online journalism association.

NCWFL only wants to enforce the official point of view of the official NCW association... using a strict interpretation of the letter of Wikipedia policy to violate the spirit of the Wikipedia policy.

But... is this an NCWikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antotech (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note also that:
  • in the beginning of this page there were already notes about sources reliability
  • Magister is a reliable source because he knows very well the NCW and had first-hand access to otherwise non-public documents. You may classify his articles as "weasel words" only if he was some random journalist, or if he was something different than a "vaticanist" reporter.
  • Even some Roman Catholic Bishops contribute to Petrus/papanews. May be that the rants are User:Ncwfl's ones.
  • The "NCWikipedia Censorship Campaign" won't end until NCW users stop wiping out relevant, reliable, verifiable material. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)