Neocatechumenal Way

[jaxster99]

Again, the personal attacks on
my own personal experience
with neocats does not help
your argument at all. Curiously,
you have not responded in
any substantive way to anything
I described. Many people, including
some of the Senior Apologists with
Catholic Answers, have serious and
legitimate concerns about what
neocats are being taught. It seems
like a marked departure from the
Catechism of the Church and this is
most apparent in the liturgy. Do you
bow at the altar and Blessed Sacrament
(or are you being taught this is paganism?)
Do you believe that Jesus is really present
in the Eucharist? Do you believe it is an
altar (or just a “table”)? Do you say the
Confetitur “I confess to Almighty God …”
and “Lord I am not worthy to receive
you…”? Do you believe the neocat way is
the ONLY way to salvation?

 

[nagyszakall]

Sorry, I did not realize you wanted someone to respond in any substantive way to the things you described. The nature of your comment didn’t make me think that.

Whether some music played in your parish is hippy like or not (I don’t know hippy music, so I wouldn’t know anyway; one thing for sure, it is not kindness that makes one say something like that), people show reverence or not, they are 20 or not, who is willing and able to work together with the bilingual choir, certain persons refuse to give sign of peace to other persons or not, I can’t comment; I’ll just leave it at that the tone of it does not sound very charitable or compassionate. Whether what you have observed is sufficient to form a well informed opinion about the NCW is another question.

Also, it seems that this group attracts lots of fallen away Catholics (who don’t really seem to want to be Catholic).

It seems like that, indeed. The worldwide experience that many members (about 70%) of the Neocatechumenal communities weren’t practicing before they joined. Whether they seem to you to want to be Catholic is again another question (it would be helpful if you clarified what you mean by it, if you really want a reply). The facts are usually that many broken marriages are restored, week ones are strengthened, many couples stop contracepting and begin to accept more children, people abandon sins and addictions, reconcile with enemies, and many vocations to priesthood and consecrated life arise.

I also don’t understand why these neocat’s are always trying to evangelize me.

Evangelize meaning tell you good news? Even if you feel like you don’t need it, I hope you don’t take that as an offense.

Again, the personal attacks on my own personal experience with neocats does not help your argument at all.

? When did I do that?

Many people, including some of the Senior Apologists with Catholic Answers, have serious and legitimate concerns about what neocats are being taught. It seems like a marked departure from the Catechism of the Church and this is most apparent in the liturgy.

Could you give me a concrete example? If it were so, then it is rather strange why the Holy See approved the Catechetical Directory of the NCW, loaded with references to the CCC
laici.va/content/laici/en/sezioni/associazioni/nuova-stagione-aggregativa/direttorio-catechetico-del-cammino-neocatecumenale.html
Replying to your questions that follow, I am afraid it will be to no avail. My profile says I am Catholic. Asking me these questions shows that you haven’t believed that. Why would you then believe my answers? But I’ll give it anyway:

Do you bow at the altar and Blessed Sacrament(or are you being taught this is paganism?)

yes I genuflect and bow, no I was never taught that it was paganism.

Do you believe that Jesus is really presentin the Eucharist?

yes

Do you believe it is analtar (or just a “table”)

it is both, since the Eucharist is both sacrifice and banquet. What other altars have cloth on top?

Do you say theConfetitur “I confess to Almighty God …” and “Lord I am not worthy to receive you…”?

It is called CONFITEOR and I do say it when the priest chooses the first form of the penitential act; we now actually say “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” which is the current approved translation of the amended Latin Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal.

Do you believe the neocat way is the ONLY way to salvation?

no. I am Catholic.
Did I pass your inquisition? If you don’t want to take my word for it, make a search on zenit.org or vatican.va and see if if you find anything that would prove the contrary. I am afraid many other sources will mislead you: such as articles of Sandro Magister and blogs of the followers of Fr. Enrico Zoffoli (RIP).
I have been a member of the NCW since 1991 and I have joined liturgical celebrations on four continents and numerous countries. I have never heard teaching contrary to the answers I gave you in the Neocatechumenal communities.
You may not like the music, or might be displeased with the behaviour of members you come in contact with (as it could happen with any other person you meet; after all being part of the NCW doesn’t effect an ontological change, and we don’t get a tattoo on our forehead spelling out “NEOCAT”), but that doesn’t mean that you are exempt from adhering to the hierarchy including the decisions she makes regarding the NCW.

 

[anare]

I have actually been looking into the Neocatechumenal Way of recent and have been considering getting involved with them if they had a significant presence in the UK. To now hear from you is just brilliant because you are British!

Well I have a whole stack of questions

I’d suggest that you ask: What is a scrutiny? What does it consist of? And that you do further research on that subject by yourself.

If you join the Neocatechumenal Way please keep in mind the Church approved the following:

Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way:

Art 19.2: The scrutinies, inspired by the catechumenal itinerary of the RCIA, help the neocatechumens in their way of conversion, respecting the conscience and the internal forum, in accordance with canonical norms.79

79 See c. 220 CIC and c. 23 CCEO

Code of Canon Law:

Can. 220: No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.

Statute of the Neocatechumenal Way:

Art 28.4: during the scrutinies of passage guided by them,** they are to maintain the maximum respect for the moral aspects of the private life of the neocatechumens which belong to the internal forum of the person**.

camminoneocatecumenale.it/public/file/en_Statute2008.pdf
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM

I can’t talk by the whole NCW but those articles are not being respected in lots of NCW communities, so please remember scrutinies are subject to Canon 220, you have the right to protect your own privacy if that is your decision and they must respect it

If you attend a NCW catechesis compare everything they told you with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, **some **catechists teach very grave mistakes such as the Mass is not a true sacrifice and the idea of sacrifice appeared in the fourth century.

I have to say I am very disturbed by what I have observed in my own parish of the neocat way. About 20 neocat’s were dancing around the altar at the end of the Easter Vigil mass a few days ago while singing some hippy like music with a lady playing the guitar (very badly). Not one of these people bowed with any sign of respect towards the altar or Tabernacle before approaching the altar. My parish has a beautiful, very talented bilingual choir which has repeatedly try to no avail to include the neocats in the Easter Vigil celebration. I was very surprised and offended to see them suddenly hijack the sanctuary with such odd music after the bilingual choir had worked so hard together on the music for the mass.

At this same mass, many refused to give the sign of peace to anyone who was not part of their “way”. Also, it seems that this group attracts lots of fallen away Catholics (who don’t really seem to want to be Catholic). I also don’t understand why these neocat’s are always trying to evangelize me. I am a big “C” Catholic, attend daily mass, participate in the choir & parish council. I find the neocat’s very odd and concerning.

Unfortunately your experience is not an isolated incident, that same story repeats itself time and again and everyone can find on the internet the same testimonies and complaints in different languages (English, Italian,Spanish, Croatian etc).

We can’t generalize, maybe there are communities who are faithful to what the Catholic Church really teaches and has approved but the reality is that those things are happening in lots of places and we can’t be silent we must denounce them. And often when we do it, we are called Pharisees or whited sepulchres by other neocatechumens and that is not an isolated fact either. **Those **neocatechumens think (or are told?) we are like the Pharisees because we are worried trying “to obey the Law” and we go to Sunday Mass or daily Mass but “we don’t really have faith” and we persecute the NCW.

Please we don’t persecute NCW we just tell experiences and denounce abuses.

 

[nagyszakall]

those articles are not being respected in lots of NCW communities
…]
**some **catechists teach very grave mistakes such as the Mass is not a true sacrifice and the idea of sacrifice appeared in the fourth century.
…]
everyone can find on the internet the same testimonies and complaints in different languages (English, Italian,Spanish, Croatian etc).
…]
We can’t generalize, maybe there are communities who are faithful to what the Catholic Church really teaches and has approved but the reality is that those things are happening in lots of places and we can’t be silent we must denounce them.

These are serious accusations. If you really witnessed them and not just know about them by hearsay, if I were you, I would bring them to the attention of the parish priest. You say, you can’t generalize: so don’t.

And often when we do it, we are called Pharisees or whited sepulchres by other neocatechumens and that is not an isolated fact either. **Those **neocatechumens think (or are told?) we are like the Pharisees because we are worried trying “to obey the Law” and we go to Sunday Mass or daily Mass but “we don’t really have faith” and we persecute the NCW.

Interestingly, the vast majority of the times I heard reference to Pharisaism in the NCW, the speaker was referring to oneself. Even in my previous comment when I said that Jesus used to upset Pharisees (a statement which you can verify in the Gospels), someone took it as a reference to traditional Catholics, which wasn’t my intention at all… In this thread, certainly no one called anyone else a Pharisee.

Please we don’t persecute NCW we just tell experiences and denounce abuses.

Of course, you are free to express your thoughts, but, for example in this thread, who said you were persecuting anyone?
For my part, I am just concerned with the objectivity of some of the comments. I have heard catechesis for 22 years literally around the globe, and never once heard a catechist say that “the Mass is not a true sacrifice and the idea of sacrifice appeared in the fourth century.” If someone says such a thing, this person needs to be corrected, of course. I simply can’t fathom how, if it is really not an isolated incident, I never managed to come across it in all these years. Besides, the Catechetical Directory of the Neocatechumenal Way, which contains the catecheses that are given in the parishes, has been studied and approved by the Vatican. Also, regarding scrutinies, I have participated in innumerable scrutinies and never seen anyone’s privacy violated in any way. Rather, the scrutinies have been an immense help for me and for hundreds and hundreds of people I know.

 

[nagyszakall]

Sorry, I linked the wrong document on my previous post about the approval of the Catechetical Directory: that was a letter of Card. Rylko to Mr. Argüello about the upcoming approval. Here is the correct link:
camminoneocatecumenale.it/public/file/DecretoDirettorio.PDF

 

[jaxster99]

Unfortunately your experience is not an isolated incident, that same story repeats itself time and again and everyone can find on the internet the same testimonies and complaints in different languages (English, Italian,Spanish, Croatian etc).

We can’t generalize, maybe there are communities who are faithful to what the Catholic Church really teaches and has approved but the reality is that those things are happening in lots of places and we can’t be silent we must denounce them. And often when we do it, we are called Pharisees or whited sepulchres by other neocatechumens and that is not an isolated fact either. **Those **neocatechumens think (or are told?) we are like the Pharisees because we are worried trying “to obey the Law” and we go to Sunday Mass or daily Mass but “we don’t really have faith” and we persecute the NCW.

Please we don’t persecute NCW we just tell experiences and denounce abuses.

Thank you so much for your response. While I am thrilled that the neocat’s are so successful bringing fallen away Catholics back into the church, I am very concerned about what I’ve observed and even more concerned by what I’ve read. I didn’t think my inquiry about whether the neocat teachings are consistent with the cathechism of the church would cause me to be called a Pharisee, and that defensive response actually makes me even MORE concerned. There seems to be some duplicity in what is written / reported about neocat liturgical practices and what is reality. I will continue to observe within my own parish, but so far it is frightening and consistent with the liturgical abuses I’ve read about.

 

[myfathersson]

Thanks for the info nagyszakall.

I would be very interested in reading the Catechetical Directory to which you refer.

Are you able to post a link to it please?

 

[nagyszakall]

Thanks for the info nagyszakall.

I would be very interested in reading the Catechetical Directory to which you refer.

Are you able to post a link to it please?

You are welcome. I have no knowledge of a website which published the directory.

 

[myfathersson]

Hi again nagyszakall,

Yes, it does seem strange that a document approved by the Church should be so difficult to find! I don’t know of any other official Church approved document that would be as hidden as it seems the Catechetical Directory is.

However, I must be lucky because I have managed to find a hard copy of the first volume of the “Catechetical Directory for Teams of Catechists - Phase of Conversion and Initial Catecheses”

I imagine that you have already read this book nagyszakall? Interesting, to say the least…

But I would be happy to scan it (will take a little bit of time - its about 400 pages) and post a link to the scanned document, if anyone would be interested in reading it?

 

[nagyszakall]

Hi again nagyszakall,

Yes, it does seem strange that a document approved by the Church should be so difficult to find! I don’t know of any other official Church approved document that would be as hidden as it seems the Catechetical Directory is.

However, I must be lucky because I have managed to find a hard copy of the first volume of the “Catechetical Directory for Teams of Catechists - Phase of Conversion and Initial Catecheses”

I imagine that you have already read this book nagyszakall? Interesting, to say the least…

But I would be happy to scan it (will take a little bit of time - its about 400 pages) and post a link to the scanned document, if anyone would be interested in reading it?

Hello. Yes, I read it.

 

[Itari]

Which is the interesting part might I ask? Also what version is it?

 

[myfathersson]

Hi Itari,

it appears to be the most recent publication, published March 2012.

I find it interesting that the book enjoys no Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat. I find it interesting that the text remains unchanged from the earlier (leaked) editions save for the inclusion of footnotes to the CCC. I find it interesting that Kiko often warns against the content being known more widely than the catechists themselves. I find it interesting that there appears to be a blend of orthodox and protestant theology. There is also a worrying little section where Kiko tales the catechists through the ‘questions’ that they would put to their propectives - where are you? In Egypt, crrossing the Red Sea, in the wilderness, in the promised land etc. And who is your ‘Moses’ etc. Of course the right answers are “In Egypt, in slavery to my sin” and “you are Kiko my saviour” or “The Way is my Moses”. Kiko quite skillfully bullies those in attendance to these answers. So by the fourth person questioned, it is quite clear what Kiko wants to hear, and the respondent graciously obliges.

There are many other concerns. I found myself saying “yes”, “yes” and then “NO” when reading through the theology. There is a twist on everything in the end, and this is how Kiko (and Carmen) end in a mainly Lutheran theology. It is quite Christian (although heavily Judaicised) but clearly not Catholic.

Kiko’s examples are ok, but there is a misappropriation of meaning, in my view, which ends up giving far to much importance to the Hebrew scriptures and far less importance to Jesus Christ himself as a person, and his saving action. For example, Kiko constantly treats the unbaptised and the baptised exactly the same. Grace does not enter in to it, except in the sense of the promise that if you continue in the ‘way’ you might become one of the elect. He teaches that we can;t call ourselves ‘Christian’ even if we’ve been baptised. The suggestion is quite clearly that only those that go through the ‘way’ can become Christian in his meaning of the term. Sort of a denial of the grace of baptism.

The treatment of sin and penance is also interesting. Once again, seems to be a protestant (lutheran) perspective.

I suppose the most general concern I have is the language itself. Kiko is a clever man, evidently, and makes some good observations about the human condition and the state of the world and man within it. But in my view his language is very oppressive and designed to restructure the framework of a person’s mind so as to induce an “existential crisis”. This is why you end up hearing all members of the movement saying things like “I was a drug dealer before the way saved me” or “it saved my parents marriage and now they have ten children” etc.

The overwhelming feeling is that Kiko knows that if he can lock people inside his idea of ‘community’, he’s got them for good. So the whole thing is designed toward that end. He is, in my view, less concerned about truth, theology or Jesus Christ himself, and more concerned with creating a community that will bear his stamp and be a sign of his own greatness.

I could go on, but won’t.

It is well worth reading this book, whether you are ‘walking’ or not (seriously ‘walking’?)

 

[Nadq]

Greetings to All,

I would be interested in your opinion (as a catholic community with diverse background) - what do you think about the obligatory donation of 10% of your income once you pass the second passage? I was a member of the way for 7 years and I was quite shocked by that requirement, especially given the fact, that it was not clearly stated before and is nowhere found in the approved statutes:

camminoneocatecumenale.it/public/file/en_Statute2008.pdf

Also the lay leader of the group (responsabilile) is responsible for distributing the money - it only goes for funding neocatechumenal seminaries and helping other brothers and sisters in the way, none of it reaches the parish priest and the leader is not accountable for the funds (you would not know how much is collected or where it goes).

I was also indirectly threatened by the catechist giving an example that a “very nice family left the way after a number of years and terrible things happened to them”, such propaganda is often used saying that even bishops, who have not welcomed travelling catechists and did not “convert” then became sick and then begged the catechists to visit them.

There are other things, which bother me a lot as well - like the disrespect of the internal forum of the conscience of the person during the passages - the catechists dig into most intimate details of your life and your past sins and personal problems are revealed to everyone in the group (having in mind that these are lay people, not bound by the vow of the confession). When there were disagreements between the parish priest and the catechist we were told, that we should listen to the catechist since he is the leader of the community.

I would not argue, that there certain people with good intentions in the way and certain good fruits - like many priest, missionaries, many children in the family etc., however at what cost? When I was part of the group I was almost made to believe that the way is in the only way, since other lay groups, let alone people, who do not belong to one, just do not put enough efforts into it (there is a constant comparison between “us” and the “others”, which I find very divisive and judgemental).

That is my experience with the way and I will be addressing my questions to the local bishop soon, but I would like to use this forum to ask you if I am the only one who thinks that something is fundamentaly wrong with this concept?

Thank you and God bless!

 

[nagyszakall]

Greetings to All,
… disrespect of the internal forum of the conscience of the person during the passages - the catechists dig into most intimate details of your life…
… I was almost made to believe that the way is in the only way…

Thank you and God bless!

Greetings.

Let me address just these two points above:
First, disrespect for internal forum means that you give out information from someone’s confession. What happens in the scrutinies is NOT CONFESSION! and when I was doing them, the catechists clearly asked everyone not to comment on anything being said there… I find it more like spiritual direction. No one is “obliged” to say anything they don’t want to reveal. Questions are being asked and you answer them as you wish. The catechists can “dig” only to the extent that you allow them. Sure, many people do allow them, because they find it helpful. Like I said, spiritual direction; if you don’t like it, look for something else, but don’t say that you internal forum was violated.

Second, what do you mean “almost made to believe”? Sounds like you barely escaped a brainwashing. From your comment one could conclude that some kind of hypnosis or chemical treatment was about to happen to you and you barely escaped it. Whereas in reality, if you were member of the same NCW that I am, nothing of the sort had happened. In 22 years I never once heard a catechist say that the NCW was the only anything. On the contrary, I have heard them say innumerable times that is was NOT the only -way to be saved, -reality in the Church through which you can get closer to Christ, etc. It is unthinkable that if someone would be convinced that the NCW is the only way to become a Christian, he would speak about the saints, for example; since no member of the NCW has ever been canonized, that would be quite difficult.
You do need to make a difference between things that are wrong and things that you simply don’t like. You don’t like it? Fine. But to accuse someone with “almost” brainwashing you… those are slippery words.

 

[nagyszakall]

there appears to be a blend of orthodox and protestant theology.
… There is a twist on everything in the end, and this is how Kiko (and Carmen) end in a mainly Lutheran theology. It is quite Christian (although heavily Judaicised) but clearly not Catholic.
…The treatment of sin and penance is also interesting. Once again, seems to be a protestant (lutheran) perspective.

I would be curious to see some concrete examples of what you call “Lutheran” theology (which is contrary to Catholic) in the catechesis.

…ends up giving far to much importance to the Hebrew scriptures and far less importance to Jesus Christ himself as a person, and his saving action.

I would definitely disagree with that.

…For example, Kiko constantly treats the unbaptised and the baptised exactly the same. Grace does not enter in to it, except in the sense of the promise that if you continue in the ‘way’ you might become one of the elect. He teaches that we can;t call ourselves ‘Christian’ even if we’ve been baptised. The suggestion is quite clearly that only those that go through the ‘way’ can become Christian in his meaning of the term. Sort of a denial of the grace of baptism.

The problem, you see, is that the baptized and the unbaptized ARE the same in practical terms if there is no cooperation with the grace of baptism whatsoever. The NCW is a tool to help people who haven’t been cooperating with the grace of their baptism (or have been doing it insufficiently). Indeed, it is not for those who make perfect use already of their baptismal graces. That is exactly why you see that kind of language: it is addressed to those who need this kind of Christian formation.
By the way, it is noteworthy that another fellow that got a hold of a copy of the “orientations” (an older version of the first volume of the directory you have, which, as you correctly stated, had hardly been changed in content), blogged arguing exactly the contrary of what you are saying: that Kiko teaches Jansenism. The CDF studied all 13 volumes of that text for six years, as it is stated in the decree of its approval, and found it neither Jansenist nor Pelagian. But of course it does make it sound like it is a material of shady origins if you so clearly state that it has no imprimatur (and you talk about twisting things).

I suppose the most general concern I have is the language itself. Kiko is a clever man, evidently, and makes some good observations about the human condition and the state of the world and man within it. But in my view his language is very oppressive and designed to restructure the framework of a person’s mind so as to induce an “existential crisis”. This is why you end up hearing all members of the movement saying things like “I was a drug dealer before the way saved me” or “it saved my parents marriage and now they have ten children” etc.

Again, the problem is not to “induce” a crisis in someone (I don’t even see how you could do that - don’t you think the drug dealer really sold drugs before and the other couple really did contracept?), but that this itinerary of Christian formation is for those who need it. Look at it as a “school”. People go there to learn something they didn’t know before. Those who knew it, quit after the first session because they realize that it isn’t for them. (and no, I am NOT saying that there is no salvation for them , actually the contrary — they are too good Catholics for the NCW, they don’t need it)

The language you use, (inducing crisis, restructuring the framework of the mind) gives away the typical “brainwashing” accusation against the NCW. Close to a million people are being brought back to the Church and strengthened in their faith, and people dismiss it, saying that "all say the same thing: I was a drug dealer. Kiko is very smart and he brainwashed them. He must be a Lutheran Jewish conspirator who wants to build communities to proclaim his own greatness" Look, personally, I don’t give a fig about Kiko, I don’t even know him. But I heard all too many people saying the exact same kind of stuff you wrote here, and I won’t be deceived by it. God does not allow people to have brainwashing powers. Nobody induced my crisis and nobody restructured the framework of my mind, but I seriously doubt I would be a practicing Catholic today if not for the help that I received from Holy Mother Church through the NCW.

 

[Nadq]

Hello,

I am glad, that you are so passionate about it, but please allow the others to have their doubts as well.

The scrutinies are not a confession and that’s the point. The lay people are not obliged to keep secret in the same way a confession demands from a priest. Nobody can force you to do anything, true, but if you oppose and speak generic you will be asked to provide “specific examples” and the catechists will dig into it until you burst in tears in front of the whole community, a very humiliating experience.

To the second point I would like to clarify that the group think of itself as “elite” and there certain speculations of what will happen to you if you reject the way (see my above post) and members need to convert the others, incl. bishops, practicing catholics, who presumably do not understand their faith.

You did not comment anything on the 10% obligatory donation, are you OK with this requirement and with keeping it secret from newcomers? I believe in taking an informed decision were it even to donate your whole income - hidding the truth on purpose is in fact a blatant lie.

If we take the concept of continous improvement - should not this new movement, which is still in process of formation and reformation be open to dialogue? Unfortunately the only responses I get are “wait and you will see”, criticism and doubt are strongly discouraged.

 

[Nadq]

Hello,

Please scan it and post it here and that is not for the sake of the argument, but for the sake of truth. Such a valuable resource should not be wasted.

Anyone, who walks in the light should not be afraid from the truth.

Thanks and God bless!

However, I must be lucky because I have managed to find a hard copy of the first volume of the “Catechetical Directory for Teams of Catechists - Phase of Conversion and Initial Catecheses”

But I would be happy to scan it (will take a little bit of time - its about 400 pages) and post a link to the scanned document, if anyone would be interested in reading it?

 

[nagyszakall]

Hello,

I am glad, that you are so passionate about it, but please allow the others to have their doubts as well.

The scrutinies are not a confession and that’s the point. The lay people are not obliged to keep secret in the same way a confession demands from a priest. Nobody can force you to do anything, true, but if you oppose and speak generic you will be asked to provide “specific examples” and the catechists will dig into it until you burst in tears in front of the whole community, a very humiliating experience.

To the second point I would like to clarify that the group think of itself as “elite” and there certain speculations of what will happen to you if you reject the way (see my above post) and members need to convert the others, incl. bishops, practicing catholics, who presumably do not understand their faith.

You did not comment anything on the 10% obligatory donation, are you OK with this requirement and with keeping it secret from newcomers? I believe in taking an informed decision were it even to donate your whole income - hidding the truth on purpose is in fact a blatant lie.

If we take the concept of continous improvement - should not this new movement, which is still in process of formation and reformation be open to dialogue? Unfortunately the only responses I get are “wait and you will see”, criticism and doubt are strongly discouraged.

My point was about internal forum, not your particular experience. You stated that the internal forum is disrespected in the NCW. I claim that it isn’t the case. I am sorry to hear that you felt so humiliated. Nevertheless, that is not my overall experience. Hundreds and hundreds of people I know have been greatly helped by the scrutinies. I myself felt loved (yes, also humiliated by the discovery of how much God loves me in spite of my sins). And yes, I also witnessed scrutinies where the person did not want to answer a question, stated so, and no one insisted more. But again, I don’t think it is useful to discuss your particular experience, as if we could change it and make you feel better about it (or make me feel worse about mine). As I said before, if you don’t like it, don’t do it. No one says you have to.
To your clarification of the second point I must answer that a group doesn’t think; individuals do. I’m afraid you are generalizing there. As for the speculations and converting stuff, I am really sorry, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. I never heard any of that stuff before.
I never heard of any obligatory donation in the NCW. Was I encouraged to give alms generously? Yes. Did they say anything about the ancient and laudable custom of tithing? Yes. But no one ever asked me to declare my income to see if I have given 10%. Every donation I ever made in cooperation with the community was done in freedom and anonymously. Was I informed on day one that they will eventually encourage me to give alms? No. Likewise no one told me in the beginning that we would eventually be encouraged to pray the rosary or do adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Would you call all these blatant lies?
As for the “concept of continuous improvement” (wherever you got that from), the NCW is an itinerary of Catholic formation approved by the Holy See and has been entrusted by blessed JPII to the care of the pontifical council for the laity. The Holy See can change the Statutes whenever they want. You and I can dialogue for sure (I thought that’s what we were doing), but can’t change the Statutes. As for improvements, I’d rather take that from the Holy See, not from some random ex-member, please.

 

[myfathersson]

Goodness nagyszakall, you’re beginning to sound like a catechist!

Lets look at a few of the problems shall we?

The tenth - Ok, so the NCW is supposed to be an itinerary, yes? A method of Catholic Christian formation - something akin to the RCIA? In fact this is what is most often quoted from the statutes, and as always (like you) drawn from that particular quote of Pope John Paul II. So let me ask you, do members of the RCIA tithe to the RCIA? I think not. With the RCIA there is no separate body to give a tithe to! Clearly if an RCIA member was to make a donation, or give alms, it would be given to the parish, or to some particular organisation.

But with the NCW, members give their tenth (or whatever amount) to the community. Hang on though, if the NCW is a method, not an organisation, it can’t have property can it? In fact, this is exactly what the Statutes say - the NCW has no property (other than “Spiritual” goods). So this is a real problem. The members of the NCW should be giving to the parish - and the parish then distribute it according to need. The NCW will say “this is given to help the ‘brothers’ in need”. But not the ‘brothers’ outside of the way? I thought that the NCW was meant to be part of the parish? No? That’s the first major problem.

The second is the lack of accounting. Everywhere in the Church, monies received and spent have to be accounted for and made public. That’s not to say that individual amounts received, and/or the identity of those donors is to be made public. BUt the amounts received and spent are published. Every parish, Diocese, Order or ecclesial institution is required by Canon law to do this.

But not the NCW! Why?

The NCW gets away with this because it identifies itself as a ‘method’ rather than a organisation or a movement (“well, it moves, doesn’t it?” said Pope John Paul II). It isn’t meant to have property, including money, because that would be absurd for a method (or itinerary) wouldn’t it?

So without accountability, how do you know where the money is used.? I know of certain “concrete” examples (to use NCW language) where money from convivence has been collected, and has exceeded the actual cost of the convivence - the excess was sent to unknown bank accounts overseas! There are plenty of other examples of ex-catechists and responsibles who have witnessed the same sort of thing.

When the NCW trumpets that x-number of cardinals and bishops have attended the Domus G., they don’t tell you that the cardinals and bishops attendance was paid for by the NCW. Now, again, let’s substitute RCIA for NCW: “The bishops’ visit to the Holy Land was funded by the RCIA” Huh?

 

[myfathersson]

Look, personally, I don’t give a fig about Kiko, I don’t even know him. But I heard all too many people saying the exact same kind of stuff you wrote here, and I won’t be deceived by it.

Ah, Kiko…

But its all about Kiko isn’t it? The NCW sing Kiko’s songs do they not? Its not just that the NCW use a particular style (spanish flamenco) of music, but they exclusively use Kiko’s music. No one would dare to write their own woudl they?

Not only do they use Kiko’s music, but the cantors try their best to sing it like Kiko. I know of one case where the cantor used a recording of Kiko to learn the Easter Proclamation. Unfortunately, Kiko was having a bad day, and at one point coughed and muttered (in spanish)
“i have a bit of a frog in my throat”. Well, the cantor, at the vigil, sang the exultet exactly like Kiko, to the point of stopping halfway through, clearing his throat and saying, in spanish, “sorry I have abit of a frog in my throat”!!

Not only the music though. Every image in the community comes from Kiko. How many icons of Kiko do you own? Every seminary bears this unmistakeable sign of Kiko. Every “upper room”. Every vigil. Are you familiar with Kiko’s version of Rublev’s famous icon? Well, have a good look, particularly at his “Sophia” character in his version. It is unmistakeably a Gnostic icon.

What about the items used in the Eucharist. Every thing bears the ‘signature’ of Kiko. So too the architecture of the seminaries, the Domus, the aesthetics, the layout of the NCW churches (where they have taken over parishes) and so on.

So too the catechesis itself, which is entirely of the minds of Kiko and Carmen.

I’ll leave aside the issue of the liturgy for now, although that too is the product of the layman Kiko (and Carmen, of course)

So, in all seriousness, please give me one example of another organisation, Order, movement, or dare I say it, Itinerary of the Catholic Church where the founder’s aesthetics are used in such an exclusive way.

The Franciscans? No, they are happy to use various music and art, etc Dominicans then? No. The Carmelites? No again. What about OPus Dei? No they have a rich heritage of variety.

One example will suffice. Can you do it?