Talk:Neocatechumenal Way/Archive 5

European Neocatechumenal Community

Greetings to everyone, I think the page should include at least a section about the active European Neocatechumenal Community. Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Against Mass Deletion

@EJHJRH1711: You are repeatedly blanking mass portions of this article including those with proper citation or objective tone. I encourage you to stop deleting and rewriting in favor of YOUR viewpoint and instead take one of two approaches. Either A: edit the article with less of a sledgehammer and more of a scalpel. Instead of deleting, reword the article to remain objective instead of biased, and be careful to keep your own bias or opinions out of the text. You should not be trying to "convince" anyone into a particular viewpoint, but rather trying to inform with facts alone. This way your edits are much less likely to be undone because they can simply be re-edited. If you encounter more resistance to your edits you can B: start a talk section to discuss your intentions with the person changing your edits. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As an addendum if you INSIST on deleting content, make sure you have a good reason to, give an honest explanation in the edit summary, and do it seperately from the rest of your edits. 8.20.65.4 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the thread, 8.20.65.4, I posted on their Talk page as well to encourage them to discuss their ideas for the article here. Hopefully, they'll join this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this thread; all the changes should follow Wikipedia rules; please remain objective and only add text verifiable according to rules.Advocateoftherota (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of sledgehammering a part of the article that keeps on reappearing without any justification. It quotes sources that are contrary to it, appears in unrelated section (further in the article there's a section with documented and moderated criticism), is grammatically incorrect, and is in 90% made of personal, highly biased opinions. Personally, I don't see any other way of "fixing" it. Pahario (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

For those of us who have been in the Neocatechumenal Way, it is our duty to tell all unsuspecting people the truth about what the Neocatechumenal Way truly is, and how people who are lured into the Neocatechumenal Way are subjected to spiritual enslavement that is practiced by the Neocatechumenal Way.

This spiritual enslavement is the Neocatechumenal Way Scrutiny, each stage of The Neocatechumenal Way ends with a Scrutiny, the most controversial aspect of the Neocatechumenal Way. The Scrutinies are a key part of the Neocatechumenal Way spiritual discipline, which, is a blanket practice of the psychological and spiritual manipulation practiced by the Neocatechumenal Way.

After two years in the Neocatechumenal Way, followers will be invited to attend the First Scrutiny or first Baptismal Scrutiny, where they are told will help you break the power of the idols to which we are all in thrall, such as family, money and sex. There is a big build-up and catechists urge members to prepare well. During this Scrutiny, one by one, each person in the community is asked to "share your cross" which is to share your personal problems and struggles with everyone in the room.Everybody shares, often tearfully and complete honesty is encouraged.

The crunch comes at the Second Scrutiny, which is usually four to six years after joining. At the Second Scrutiny there are sometimes other Neocatechumenal Way members from other parishes present as part of their formation as catechists. One by one, each person in the community is invited to answer a questionnaire about their life for about an hour.Some people have a hard time with this and may even cry while some are driven to depression because of this experience. Also, some claim that everything that had happened in your life is twisted to put the blame on you to make you feel spiritually abused and ashamed, embarrassed and guilty about, which some claim is frequently used by the Neocatechumenal Way catechists to prevent people from leaving the Neocatechumenal Way. Later in the Second Scrutiny the lead catechist will invite the participants (victims) to the Rite of Renunciation of Idols, where you are told that you should sell your belongings and give them to the poor. At this rite the participants come forward, one by one, and put the “sign” that they brought into the basket or bag at the front or put it near the basket. These “signs” are substantial amounts of cash, checks, titles to automobiles, titles to property, expensive jewellery and heirlooms, etc.. Members are coerced by the catechists with words like, “Show that you are bigger than your idols!”, or “Throw it into the fire!” At all the Scrutinies, black bin-liners are passed round, and cheques written. The amount donated is announced immediately, and if it is not enough the bag goes round again. Their aim is to eventually get you to agree to tithe - to give a tenth of your income to the Neocatechumenal Way.

The Neocatechumenal Way targets people with low esteem who are depressed and emotionally mixed-up, they know that they can easily manipulate vulnerable people who have a deep and sincere desire to take their faith seriously. It is also claimed that the Neocatechumenal Scrutinies are an insidious way of manipulation of unsuspecting "victims" that are lured into the Neocatechumenal way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.106.133 (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding the goal on wikipedia as an authoritative encyclopedia. No one disputes that there are such steps as scrutinies, these are common in the Catholic Church and RCIA. However, what you are describing is unsourced and unverifiable information. There are no references to cite for the content that is being added. The only reference that does exist is to the statute, which identifies the existence of the scrutinies (again not denied), but none of the descriptions that are shared in the mass block of text can be found anywhere. Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's reliable source standards. Ncwfl (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been in the Neo Cathecumenal way up to the SECOND SCRUTINY / PASSAGE which our community has FAILED. It was very depressing and emotionally disturbing. We did not arrive to the RENOUNCIATION OF THE IDOLS part because we failed on the ONE-ON-ONE confrontation with the Catechist in front of all members. The Catechist probed us with questions to make us all feel guilty about sex, drugs, and idols in general. Everything was presented as an idol: some had money idols, some had sex idols, some had all types of idols. Now in actual fact nothing of the sort is an idol. It is only a tool. But the Catechist wanted us to feel VERY GUILTY. In fact to instil this on us, he failed us and the SECOND SCRUTINY / PASSAGE was repeated the following year. WHICH I WILL NOT ATTEND as I have concluded that The Way is a way of manipulation through guilt, fear and reverence to the Catechist as the word of Go Alan347 (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Unregistered contributors

There is a group of unregistered contributors such as 121.44.123.230, 106.69.194.86, 121.44.111.17 121.44.111.17 , whose only contribution is to represent in block personal opinions, slanders, doubtful facts, etc. Hiding behind a number, they render any dialogue impossible. This attitude is more similar to hooligans or vandals than to serious contributors of a public page. Putting aside their morality, the community should work together to allow only serious and mature contributors for such delicate subject.Advocateoftherota (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Those 'contributors' could be just a single person (all addresses are managed by a single Australian ISP). Let's take a look at just some of the 'contributions': 106.69.194.86 106.69.200.67 118.209.91.206 121.44.67.248 121.44.111.17 121.44.123.230 202.159.173.12. Since per-address reporting won't lead anywhere, I opt for locking the articles affected by this activity for a period of time. Pahario (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this group of unregistered contributors have some thing to say, perhaps they are trying to help us find the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advecateoftherota (talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the above user is an account meant to confuse and muddle the conversations that are tried to be had in earnest. The user AdvECateoftherota is not Advocateoftherota. Given the creation date of both accounts it is clear that advecate (2 days vs 6 years) is trying to confuse the issue. Please submit a username change request as a sign of good faith in the discussions we are having. Ncwfl (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear AdvECateoftherota, this contributor is not interested in "finding the truth," he/she is just trying to post in the article what he/she believes to be true. I can in the same way believe taht the past 4 presidents of the United States are reptilians. It does not give me a license to wildly and stubbornly edit the articles related to them or to that country, posting my opinions, no matter how true I believe them to be. Just see the history of Redemptoris Mater (seminary): this Australian wikipedian believes that an opinion of a priest (which was rejected by the authorities of the Church 25 years ago) is true, while the official approval of the CDF is a part of conspiracy theory. I don't even know why do I waste time writing it. If I see any more sandbox-like behavior, I'm reporting you for removal and the articles for lockup. Pahario (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note that there is a new user Pahario that is again attempting to obfuscate Pahario's revisions. Impersonation of other users means that the person is not acting in good faith. Ncwfl (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Steps

Unknown contributors keep putting everywhere in the main text meaningless and unproven references to the steps of the way. The only reasonable solution would be to open a new section, with the official documentation that prove their true nature.Advocateoftherota (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision of section Iconography, architecture, and songs

Hi all contributors. There are three paragraphs of information in this section that are completely unrelated to what the section is meant to be, without those three paragraphs the section becomes meaningless because it will consist of only the first line. Can we find additional information from reliable sources on the Iconography, architecture and songs of the neocatechumenal way? Ncwfl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

While this idea may be valuable, to prevent vandalism on the page, the parts that are not related to the title, constituting wiki-vandalism, should be removed. If the author will not do it willingly, I have no problem in removing them so that the content of the page may reflect the title, and not deceive any longer the readers.Advocateoftherota (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ncwfl: @Advocateoftherota: While I recognize that this page has been the subject of significant vandalism, I would caution you both against engaging in an edit war. As you both appear to be single purpose accounts, editing only on this article and the related Redemptoris Mater article (the seminaries operated by NW), I would recommend that you disengage from the edit war, and allow impartial observers to sort out the matters based on available reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The content that User:Ncwfl is restoring here, as well as on the Redemptoris Mater (seminary) article, violates WP:NPOV and should not be included in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anupam, That edit was an error on mobile where I accidentally added a paragraph that I had originally deleted. If you review the edit history you can see that the latest and final edit is correct. There was another user pretending to be me in this page going by the name Ncwf1 (with a 1 instead of an L). The admin has solved the issue. Thanks for understanding. Ncwfl (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification User:Ncwfl! Happy editing, Anupam^Talk 00:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

Does anyone have access to the references that are cited as being copied, [1] [2], and [3]? It would be good to clean this up if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncwfl (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Iconografy, architecture and songs

Under this point, there is a lot of talk that do not refer to the subject. I start by proposing to add the content of the following articles and doctoral dissertation, to avoid being out of scope. Let me know your opinions. Only one is in English they will need to be translated. 1. University of Salamanca LA OBRA DE KIKO ARGÜELLO. UNA PROPUESTA ESTÉTICA EN EL CONTEXTO DEL ARTE SACRO CONTEMPORÁNEO MARÍA DIÉGUEZ MELO

2. UNIVERSIDAD JORGE TADEO LOZANO Bogota Colombia LA NUEVA ESTETICA DEL CAMINO NEOCATECUMENAL EN LA OBRA DE KIKO ARGUELLO. 1964-2018 HECTOR JAVIER MARTINEZ CASTAÑEDA TRABAJO DE GRADO MAESTRIA EN ESTETICA E HISTORIA DEL ARTE Kiko, el 'Miguel Ángel' de la Almudena

3. El fundador del Camino Neocatecumenal presenta sus pinturas en la catedral https://elpais.com/diario/2004/04/29/ultima/1083189601_850215.html

4. Premio a Kiko Arguello https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3shYq8nO_1g 5. Gremio 62 – Kiko Arguello https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JjrM_x58do

6. Article almudena http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350541ffae.html?sp=y 7. Article almudena https://es.zenit.org/articles/la-belleza-de-lo-divino-segun-kiko-arguello/ 8. Article almudena https://zenit.org/articles/neocatechumenal-founder-makes-his-mark-in-cathedral/ 9. Article Messori http://es.catholic.net/op/articulos/7371/gracias-kiko.html Advocateoftherota (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am proposing to eliminate completely this section. It does not talk about the "Iconografy, architecture and songs". HOWEVER, since I do not want to begin an edit war, before doing so please confirm your agreement with it. Thanks --76.110.1.163 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC) — 76.110.1.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose removal of section in question. (I have moved it to a slightly less-inappropriate place in the article) You do not have permission to remove adequately sourced negative criticism from the article. To do so would do violence to our neutrality policy. Thank you for this notice. You will be opposed. Elizium23 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that this section should be removed. It does not provide any adequate information. The expression "The movement fosters a special care for some aesthetic questions" is very ambiguous. It is a general statement. It sounds more like an opinion and not a genuine information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.46.109.3 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — 73.46.109.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Rewrite I think that the section needs to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view, there is plenty of incorrect and outdated information in that section, such as regarding diocese that were closed and then reopened. Ncwfl (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Ncwfl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree. Since (as noted above) Playboy-founded pro-choice [sic] writers are considered as adequate authorities on ecclesial realities, this section needs a calm cleanup. Which dioceses were you speaking about? I know about Lingayen-Dagupan as having just a temporal ban. BTW, its bishop in the letter quoted spoke warmly of the Way in general and appreciated the fruits in his diocese, while pointing to strictly local problems. I don't know how the current state can be defended as WP:NPOV in treating the sources like that; anyway, let us not inflame the discussion and do some balanced editing instead. Pahario (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

Elizium23, I've reverted your edit on the introduction, since it appeared to me more an obfuscation than a clarification. Neocatechumenate is a broad reality, and various missionary initiatives are a part of it. Since Popes speak of it as charism (see e.g. Ogni Qualvolta), and such use of this word is in accord with the Catholic tradition, I opt for the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahario (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Pahario, I could not find that usage in any sources, and being that it is contrary to traditional Catholic usage, and you have not provided any sources here, I will be reverting you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, I encourage you to read John Paul II's Christifideles Laici (esp. nos 20-26) to get familiar with some Catholic uses of the word carism. Please also see some quotes:

The various spiritual groups respond to diverse charisms: Franciscan charism, charism of the Order Third, Vincentian charism for the charitable group and then the Neocatechumenal charism. As Saint Paul taught, these charisms form a spiritual body. The various charisms are part of the spiritual body and they take their characteristics from the Spirit. (John Paul II, 1981)

So the first rule is: do not extinguish Christian charisms; be grateful even if they are inconvenient. The second rule is: the Church is one; if Movements are truly gifts of the Holy Spirit, they belong to and serve the Church and in patient dialogue between Pastors and Movements, a fruitful form is born where these elements become edifying for the Church today and in the future. (Benedict XVI, 2007)

Dear brothers and sisters, your charism is a great gift of God for the Church of our time. (Francis, 2018)

There are many more, and I actually did provide one upon reverting your edit. I just did not see a point in putting 6-15 formal references to more proper sources than a newspaper article in defense of my revert, since it would simply disfigure the article. Anyway, if the jump between a charism and a group/movement/order (all of these would be a misclassification of the Neocatechumenate, just as missionary initiative is) still appears stretchy, we can have a further discussion, probably with some other wikipedians. I remain, Pahario (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Pahario, you need to understand that Pope Saint John Paul the Great is referring indirectly to charisms that govern these organizations. Third Order Regular Charism The Franciscans are a family of religious institutes, they are not a 'charism'. The Vincentians are likewise a family of religious institutes as well as a large charitable organization, they are not a 'charism'. They possess charisms which can be articulated by the members. What is the Vincentian Charism? Therefore, the NCW is not equal to a charism, it possesses a charism. You should be able to describe that from the constitutions. Elizium23 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, the Statue speaks of the Neocatechumenal Way as an ensemble of spiritual goods, including (but not limited to) what you call missionary initiatives. You are right that those spiritual goods are not floating in a vacuum. But the distinction between the charism in the way you understand it and its (for lack of a better word coming to my mind) incarnation in the body of the faithful is quite often omitted in the way the Church speaks of charisms (see my references to St. John Paul II's apostolic exhortation). Pope Francis also once spoke of another reality in the Church: In fact, the institution is also a charism, because it sinks its roots in the source itself, which is the Holy Spirit. Anyway, in good faith I replaced "missionary initiative" with "itinerary of Christian formation" with a reference to the Statue. Pahario (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)11

Pahario, here on Wikipedia, we make reference to reliable, secondary, independent sources. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, I appreciate secondary sources, but the article you quote is already mentioned in a more proper part of the article. For some reason you cannot accept that the Neocatechumenal Way encompasses, but is not limited to missionary initiative, and you keep on disfiguring the introduction. You actually asked me to rephrase it based on the primary sources (which are proper references for that part of the article). I ask you not to make any reverts or edits until we get some more reliable, secondary, independent input to the discussion. Pahario (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Restored sourced material

@Mistico Dois: I have restored the text that was deleted by you, claiming no reliable source. On the contrary, they were cited properly. Please discuss their inclusion here. Elizium23 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)