Asian bishop bans Neocatechumenal Way activities [CWN]

[CWN_News]

Bishop Anthony Sharma, the apostolic vicar of Nepal, has suspended the activities of the Neocatechumenal Way."We have about two dozen regular members who were involved in only two …

More…

 

[nagyszakall]

Don’t see what you can discuss about this…

 

[Dale_M]

I am unfamiliar with the Neocatechumenal Way, but they do seem to be controversial. The main complaints have to do with their secrecy and separatism.

On December 15, 2007, on the “ad limina” visit to the pope, their president at the time, Tokyo archbishop Peter Takeo Okada, told Benedict XVI that “the powerful sect-like activity of Way members is divisive and confrontational. It has caused sharp, painful division and strife within the Church.”

The Japanese bishops were demanding the closure of the seminary that the Way had opened in 1990 in the diocese of Takamatsu. The Way put up resistance. In 2008, the bishops had to go to Rome twice to plead their case. Vatican secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone studied the question, and agreed with the bishops. Within the year, the seminarians and their rector would have to move to Rome.

But the members of the Way present in Japan did not accept the matter peacefully. The bishop of Takamatsu, Francis Osamu Mizobe, wrote them a letter complaining that they celebrated separate liturgies, and asking them to obey the dioceses instead of their leaders.

chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346356?eng=y

Pope Benedict has taken a supportive interest in the organization for several decades, working with The Way to make iron out doctrinal and practical difficulties.

The Pope familiarized himself with the community originally as an priest in 1973 in Germany and has long been at their side to guide them to full recognition in the Church. He sees something special in their work, and while being well aware of complaints against them, he continues to encourage them to continue their work while forming better relationships with priests.

“With these seals of ecclesial approval,” said the Pope during the morning audience, “the Lord today confirms this precious tool which is the Way and again entrusts it to you so that, in filial obedience to the Holy See and the pastors of the Church, you may contribute with renewed energy and ardour to the radical and joyful rediscovery of the gift of Baptism, and offer your own original contribution to the cause of new evangelization.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/neocatechumenal-way-receives-vatican-approval-for-its-teachings-instructions-from-pope

 

[nagyszakall]

And what does this have to do with a priest in charge of youth ministry not wanting the Nepalese youth attend WYD and resenting if some of them go anyway, and then blowing this up and making international news with it, in such a way that the bishop feels forced to do something about it?
You could have the same news about the Rosary Altar Society in Nepal, it wouldn’t change a bit.

 

[Dale_M]

And what does this have to do with a priest in charge of youth ministry not wanting the Nepalese youth attend WYD and resenting if some of them go anyway, and then blowing this up and making international news with it, in such a way that the bishop feels forced to do something about it?

Hm?

You seem have information which wasn’t reported on in news articles. Do you have inside knowledge, or are you basing your comments on some other news article?

 

[nagyszakall]

Yes Dale, these are the articles I read:
cathnewsphil.com/2011/08/01/nepal-won%E2%80%99t-attend-world-youth-day-say-officials/
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11296&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29
ucanews.com/2011/08/08/bishop-bars-neo-cat-group-activities/

and also I read between their lines a little bit. But you haven’t answered my question.

 

[nagyszakall]

The main complaints have to do with their secrecy and separatism.

It seems that the Nepalese youth weren’t secretive enough…

 

[Gearoidin]

They are also gone from our parish having caused more than 20 years of problems, division, and rifts.

Gearoidin

 

[Dale_M]

Yes Dale, these are the articles I read:

d also I read between their lines a little bit. But you haven’t answered my question.

Thank you for the links. The last two are the same which were included in the first post, but the first one does add some information. However, none of the articles seem to support the allegation you implied in the question you asked. Here is that question again:

And what does this have to do with a priest in charge of youth ministry not wanting the Nepalese youth attend WYD and resenting if some of them go anyway, and then blowing this up and making international news with it, in such a way that the bishop feels forced to do something about it?

Why do you think the bishop was unduly pressured by the opinion of one priest? Are there any news articles which indicate that the priest made an international issue of the situation before the bishop announced his decision?

 

[nagyszakall]

Are there any news articles which indicate that the priest made an international issue of the situation before the bishop announced his decision?

Are you in Nepal? If not, the issue appears to be international. But in case you were in Nepal, I assure you, I am not there and have never been: our mere discussion of the situation is a proof that something hit the fan.
I also know people who are going to WYD, and I also know people who are not, yet you don’t get to read about it in a news article. Therefore, someone obviously must have blown something up out of proportion.
There is a difference between someone deciding not to send a delegation and forbidding people to go [which probably was not the case anyway, because bishops don’t even have the authority to forbid casual travelling of the laity – therefore, the decision of the bishop not to send a delegation was, deliberately or not, misinterpreted] (first news article, published August 1)
Not long after this, you hear that the bishop “bans” NCW. Again you need to read between lines, knowing that bishops don’t just get up in the morning and “ban” a juridical person which is approved on numerous occasions by four popes and by five dicasteries of the Holy See verbally and in writing. Also, the two Japanese bishops, for example, didn’t ban but suspended activities for 5 years against the explicit advice of the Holy Father, and that is an extremely unlikely course of action for a bishop to take (or at least I would hope it is).
Therefore, I conclude that there had to be some pressure from somewhere, (and I never said that that pressure was the opinion of the priest, this was your twist on my words) and, according to the article, it appears to be in connection with the WYD conflict which “increased tensions” between priests an NCW… (this second article was published on August 8)
But most of these are things you already know from the articles you referred to in your previous post. You just need to take the facts and do the math.
And you still did not answer my question.

 

[Dale_M]

Are you in Nepal? If not, the issue appears to be international.

Yes, obviously the news we are discussing is international. However, you have implied something which was not covered in the news, at least not in the news I have seen. The question you asked implied that one priest made an international issue out of Neocatechumenal Way sending Nepalese youth to WYD. And you implied that the bishop issued his decision only due to the international pressure. However, the only news articles I have seen on the topic, and certainly the only news articles introduced in this thread, were in coverage of the bishop’s decision. What evidence do you have to support the idea that a priest made an international issue over the matter before the bishop announced his decision?

There is a difference between someone deciding not to send a delegation and forbidding people to go [which probably was not the case anyway, because bishops don’t even have the authority to forbid casual travelling of the laity – therefore, the decision of the bishop not to send a delegation was, deliberately or not, misinterpreted]

The first article says that the bishop has suspended all activities by Neocatechumenal Way. His decision applies to Nepal only. Obviously, individual laypersons are able to attend if WYD they wish. However, they would not be licitly able to travel under the banner of Neocatechumenal Way, as an apostolate in Nepal.

Not long after this, you hear that the bishop “bans” NCW.

Your timeline seems to be off. There has only been one announcement, one news coverage. The articles you have cited all cover the bishop’s suspension of NCW. There seems to be no news before that suspension.

Again you need to read between lines, knowing that bishops don’t just get up in the morning and “ban” a juridical person

Indeed, I am sure there are many other irritants which led to the bishop’s decision. However, we don’t know what they are because no English-language news (as far as I know) has covered such matters. “Reading between the lines” is impossible in the absence of any understanding of the background in Nepal.

And you still did not answer my question.

Since you say I have misinterpreted your words, perhaps you would be willing to restate your question?

 

[nagyszakall]

I guess I wasn’t able to explain myself clear enough. Never mind. Just drop it.

 

[nagyszakall]

Here it is. I read this article too, and forgot to indicate it, this is even earlier, July 29 and it states some interesting facts you also mentioned:

ucanews.com/2011/07/29/nepal-will-not-attend-wyd-say-officials/

Maybe this helps. But if not, really, never mind.

 

[nagyszakall]

And come back to the Church. Please.