Talk:Neocatechumenal Way/Archive 2

message: I've just found this page - and I must say it is totally biased! It's a pure apologetic of the Neocatechumal way, without any serious regard to the many criticisms both from inside and from outside the Catholic Church. 
:::* In what way is the page apologetic? There is no attempt to excuse the Way, nor is it a defense of it. The article is an informative piece, including the latest developments, the addition of statistics of the way.
Only positive references are quoted, many of which are taken out of context, and the main argument for the "neutrality" of the article is the recognition of the statutes of the Neocatechumenal Way by the John Paul II. in 2002 - which so far is only "ad experimentum", and which, of course, does not mean the Pope considers the "Way" to be totally faultless! Nor can other sources be interpreted this way - usually they are meant to be encouraging speeches, requiring "positive thinking". But a Wikipedia article is not meant to be an encouraging sermon, it is supposed to  take into account both the good AND the bad side of its topic!
:::* The pope does not give "encouraging speeches" they serve a purpose to show the Churches position on matters. If this was not the case then what would be the point of the pope? 
Neither is Wikipedia a pure Catholic encyclopedia - so, even if the Pope was totally in favour of the Neocatechumenal Way (which he is not, in my opinion), this still wouldn't justify the eliminating of all critical viewpoints. 
As the above discussion suggests that those parts of the article representing a more critical POV have been removed without a trace, I don't see much point in adding new ones. Therefore, I've added the template for neutrality check. Modwenna 11:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * You say that the article is not neutral and contains a substantial bias leaning in favor of the way. I do not share the same opinion because the “top” half of the article is a description of what the Way is, what it has done, and the process which it takes. It also contains both sides (the criticisms are included) thus unless you provide a more substantial reason as to why the page is not neutral then I see no reason to keep the tag on. Ncwfl 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I Have removed the criticism part.  It doesn't make sense!  Do you find a criticism section on the USA page?  Or on the article about France?  This should be an informative article, not one based on the opinions of individuals.  I believe that only facts should be stated, and criticism does constitute facts.  Leave only the real infomative facts please, you don't find criticism in encyclopedias, for heaven's sake!  James
:Well, for heavens sake, if there's a controversial topic it should be addressed as such in an encyclopedia! If you take out the criticism you'll have to take out the appraisal too, which means reducing the article to about one third of its content. And some of the criticism refers to facts, such as the fact that the Neocatechumenate has been thrown out of the Diocesis of Clifton by a valid decree of the Bishop, stating that it's gnostic heresy, and that this has been acknowledged by the Roman authorities.
:This whole article is pure advertisement without any substance, as anybody will notice who's a bit familiar with the Catholic church. The "facts and figures" are just ridiculous - those 1500 seminarists and 900 nuns, where have they gone to? We haven't had any significant rise in seminary entries in Germany since the World Youth Day in Cologne. I think the entire number of seminarists in the whole country is about 200 or even less. Nor have I heard of any significant rises in seminary entries somewhere else in Europe. Modwenna 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I have been away from this site for a while. Tell me what group (whether it be RENEW or Charismatic Catholicism, or Cursillo, or Opus Dei) hasn't suffered criticism from certain segments of the Church. From an objective viewpoint -- the Neocatechumenal Way has done many good things over the past 40 years. There is no denying that. Does everyone in the entire Roman Catholic Church agree with how the Neocatechumenal Way does things? Absolutely not. You would also get the same response for any other ministry, lay organization, or group within the Church. No group within the Church is above criticism. Doesn't anybody consider the fact that the Neocatechumenal Way has been supported by three popes including this current pope? The changes or modifications that are being made are simply assuring that there will be uniformity throughout the Roman Catholic Church. I want to stress however that the Neocatechumenal Way is part of the body of the Roman Catholic Church. The form may be different but the substance (and for that matter the dogma) is not different, has never been different, and will never be different. 
I think part of the controversy over the Neocatechumenal Way has less to do with actual differences and more to do with a large amount of misleading information about what the nature of the Neocatechumenal Way is. 
First of all, those who hold the opinion that the Way fosters a «pessimistic idea about human life» really do not understand the Neocatechumenal Way at all. What is being confused here, or taken out of context, is when people in the Neocatechumenal Way speak about being "dead". That doesn't mean that the Neocatechumenal Way fosters a pessimistic idea about human life. Rather, we believe that modern man is "dead" in the sense that we alone are unable to love another person with the same kind of love that Jesus Christ has for us. But the truly uplifting (non-pessimistic) point is something that is repeated often during Eurcharists on Saturdays and at Convivances -- God loves you, freely and he loves you as you are. How is that a pessimistic idea about human life? I really don't understand where individuals are drawing their conclusions from. In my experience, I do not see any of the problems or criticisms of the Neocatechumenal Way as being valid.
I really feel that many Roman Catholics (both within the clergy and outside of the clergy) are afraid of what they don't understand. Anybody can come to the Eucharists on Saturdays, and in fact, Saturday Eucharists are published in the parish bulletin. Nobody is barred from coming to a Eucharist, because all are welcome before the table of God.
I am aware that there are Bishops and others who are uncomfortable with the Way and do not like what they perceive the Neocatechumenal Way to be. Not that this means anything at all -- but if the Way has been around for almost 40 years, isn't that suggestive that it isn't necessarily viewed by most people who are in charge of making decisions regarding doctrine, faith, as bad?
To the people who are posting criticisms, have you been to a Eucharist on a Saturday? Have you been to a catechesis before? Have you been to a convivance? In short, have you yourself (outside of any research you've done) actually experienced the Neocatechumenal Way enough for you to post these criticisms up and defend them as being valid? If you haven't, then I want to extend an invitation to you. Before you post criticism, go to a catechesis, go and see for yourself what goes on in the Neocatechumenal Way and then make up your own mind.
I really feel that if people were just more informed and actually saw for themselves what this is all about -- there might not be as much criticism.
Ladb2000
In short: Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. For personal experience, I can see the disintegrative effect that "The Way" has at St.Joseph right round the corner. Swatopluk 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything that is unfamiliar or seems unfamiliar gets criticized at first 

message: *...Reading this passage thoroughly, you will find the date doesn't refer to a letter BY Padre Pio, but ABOUT Padre Pio by "un ottimo sacerdote toscano, fondatore di una benemerita istituzione d’assistenza sociale", "a very good priest from Tuscany, founder of a well-merited institution of social welfare". This is a second-hand source, of course, but the fact remains that Zoffoli CLAIMED that Padre Pio said those words, and as he's obviously an important person in this discourse, his opinion should be presented (as an opinion, of course). It is not the goal of the criticism section to defend or accuse the Neocatechumenal Way, but to give a true account of the public debate on it
Actually, «a very good priest from Tuscany» claimed to HAVE an old letter BY Padre Pio stating that Kiko Argüello and Carmen Hernández (who began their work in Madrid in 1964-1967) are «the new false prophets». Fr. Zoffoli says that if needed the letter could have been shown (the "very good priest from Tuscany" didn't want to show a private letter). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.225.148.186 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: St.Pio from Pietrelcina

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

message: I cannot read this discussion. Is totally without any respect for intellectual decency.
I propose to archive it and to start again.
--USeditor 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the fact remains of the validity of say truthfulness of the issue. First we must follow Wikipedia guidelines, but second we must also follow intellectual decency which is what USeditor is refering to in this proposal. Then what must also be separated are whims/lies/misconceptions from fact. If something is clearly wrong then it is obvious that it must be removed. Also waht sections are u considering when u placed the PoV tag? I belive Modwenna had made many edits in order to balance the page.Ncwfl 23:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of archiving 

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

message: I've added an article from Zenit.org reporting on the Loreto meeting of the Neocatechumenal Way in recent developments.  I am an eye witness and can substantiate that all the article is true and that 3.200 youths responded to the calling.  I'm saying this to avoid having vague comments such as Modwenna's previous "1500 seminarians lost in the Bermuda triangle".
Jdegi
With the user Jdegi we had already a discussion on the italian version of wikipedia 
about Loreto meeting.
There is a controversy about the actual number of the youth who responded to Kiko Arguello's call.
The 3200 total number is the official number of the organizer
another independent source http://www.korazym.org/news1.asp?Id=25057
who was present at the meeting states that these figures were  overestimated
and the total number was not larger than 1000.
(This source is not biased since
all the rest of the article praises the Neocatechumenal way
but corrects those official figures,
so I think can be trusted)
For a correct information I asked the administrator to show both the sources
and he/she agreed on that  aknowledging my argument.
I have added this independent source and 
I am asking the administrator to leave both the sources also here.
I think when there is a controversy both the sources have to be cited.
This is the only fair thing to do.
I ask in case  of further cancellation of the second source  on Joedgi's action
to block this section and leave both the sources.
Mynollo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynollo (talk • contribs) 11:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neocatechumenal Way Loreto Meeting 

message: Since "Kiko" is a nickname, the article had a rather badly worded sentence in the first paragraph:
It was initiated by the [ [ Spain|Spanish ] ] painter [ [ Kiko Argüello ] ] in the early '60s. Kiko is not his real name, he has a different name but that is the name people call him.
Unfortunately, the article on Argüello is under "Kiko Argüello", rather than his full name, so this was an easy/lazy way to link it (using [ [ Kiko Argüello ] ] ). I replaced with a link using alternate text (as [ [ Kiko Argüello | Francisco "Kiko" Argüello ] ] ), so the somewhat awkwardly worded final sentence is no longer necessary.
76.100.205.82 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward Wording 

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