all copillage will be pursued before the courts
00036468
News published on the bulletin n° 56 of July 15, 2002 of the international press agency
ADISTA, www.adista.it e-mail,: adista@mclink.it,
(Tel.: 06/686.86.92 - 06/688.019.24 - fax 06/686.58.98t)
---------------
RECOGNIZED, NOT RECOGNIZABLE: THE PATH NÉOCATÉCHUMÉNAL AND THE STATUTE.
Interview it of Don Giancarlo ROCCA
31461. ROME-ADISTA.
If the Path néocatéchuménal (v. Adista 9/02) is not an association, is not a Movement, but only an itinerary of faith, he/it had been worth better than, according to everything that the Right Cannon establishes (Cannon 788 #3), it is directly the Lecture Episcopal national that write the By-laws for the realization of this catéchuménat. It is what grant Giancarlo Rocca said, religious paulinien, director of the Dictionary of the Perfection Institutes, very expert of the Path this author of different publications on the legal statute of the opus dei, in the interview granted to Adista to few days of the papal approval of the Statute of the Path Néocatéchuménal on behalf of the dicastère of the vatican for the laymen. In the Statute he/it is not made reference so to no of the typologies foreseen by the Code of Right Cannon with regard to the laic aggregations, this same Council Pontifical, according to Rocca should not be either juridically competent to watch over the Path, as has it on the other hand several times sustained the card. James Francis Stafford (v. Adista n. 53/02), and like workbench by the very Statute (v. final Disposition).
But for the Path a Statute approved by Vatican didn't serve then, so logically, why then to wait for more than five years the papal approval. done lead to the term of a long arm of iron with Vatican - with one Board of directors catéchétique same sub judice? Evidently for Kiko and his it was useful to have an official recognition of the Holy Seat to put a term to the polemics in a pressing way that since more twenty years cross this discussed ecclesiastic experience, and that in the last years increased, even on behalf of the bishops (v. Adista 9/02). Now indeed that the néocatéchumènes has been approved officially, the bishops will succeed with difficulty. as underlines it precisely Rocca - to block the penetration of the Path in their dioceses.
This victory of the Path, determined largely by the large support whose movements benefitted during the last twenty years inside the church, watch obviously how one is making on a big scale a new conception of the function of the parish in the church.
The atomization and fragmentation in small communities, that door with oneself intrinsically the Path néocatéchuménal in the parishes where it gets settled means an option maybe to the advantage of small groups that is carriers of a strong mind of identity inside every community.
Of little importance, in any case, seem the "ties" that the Statute puts to the realization of the Path. It is on the other hand astonishing that one speaks of the votes of which the candidates to the different passages of the Path are submitted by the teams of the catechists, topic not really applicable to the nature of a Statute. In the art. 28, #2, to the point 4, one declares: "[the catechists] during the votes of passage that they drive must maintain the biggest moral respect for the aspects of the intimate life of the néocatéchumènes that go in the person's strong inside." Not only one endorses this manner, in fact, the practice of the cross-examinations led by the teams of catechists, but, with the only tie of the "respect" (concept, for the truth, of difficult legal definition), one gives to the catechists néocatéchumènes the possibility to probe and to judge the intimate life of the candidates really at will to the different passages.
We come back following the interview with grant Giancarlo Rocca.
Through the Statute hardly approved, what is the structure that emerges the itinerary formatif of the Path néocatéchuménal?
Under this aspect, the Statute doesn't present particular novelties taken into consideration what one knew, that means a Path divided in different stages. After the initial catéchèses, of a length of about two months, one arrives to the constitution of a community néocatéchuménale composed of about 40-50 people (the number made reference to this evangelical text, where he/it is said that Jesus made sit down people by groups of 50), retained as the number ideal to keep a certain unit and of the personal reports in the group. Next the true Path begins, divided in three big phases, of which the first, the one of the précatéchuménat lasts 4 years about.
Is it that the Statute, however, do let (voluntarily?) again in the uncertainty - presents in numerous other publications and that it would have been maybe useful to browse in this opportunity - the total length of the Path néocatéchuménal?
There are not publications that specify each of the stages of the Path again, but one knows that there are 7-8, each of a length that varies in years, of them and in his/her/its whole the Path could last 15-20 years, and maybe as more, because one never speaks of a possible dissolution of the Community Néocatéchuménal, once his/her/its exhausted duty. In other words, the Path is not a school with exams at the end of every year or of every cycle, but it would adapt the length of the initiation and every stages to the communities to which it addresses (of city, of country, the territories of mission etc.), communities that can have each a different evolution.
The truly novelty introduced by this Statute seems the fact that anyway, through it, the church recognizes the Path...
What is new is the explicit recognition of the Path like an itinerary of formation (art. 1 and 2). Or better, with this general formulation, the Statute takes the recognition granted by Jean Paul II in 1990. To understand this text, it is necessary to remember the long arm of iron - if one can say. between the Path Néocatéchuménal and the S. Seat, that wanted to make bring the Path one way or the other in one associative shapes recognized by the Code of Right Cannon.
Anything else that it. Seen the conclusion of this long debate, prolonged during quite a lot of years, one can say that the Path won its battle and that it got not to be framed by no of the institutional shapes until now recognized by the church.
Not an association, not a movement: then why so much fatigue to have the papal approval?
The Statute is, in practice, the approval of a path catéchuménal. In fact, the articles 24 and 25 of the Statute stop to show as the initial catéchèses and the first phase of the itinerary néocatéchuménal are valid processes for the catéchuménat in the parishes. The cannon 788 #3 of the right cannon Code, however, recite: "He/it belongs to the Episcopal Conference to emit some by-laws with which to order the catéchuménat, while determining what are the debt of the catèchumènes and what prerogatives they must recognize" them. Leaning on this cannon, then he/it would fail to every Episcopal Conference to approve some by-laws for guide of the catéchuménat. The value of this papal recognition of the Statute, therefore, considerable: offer to these Episcopal Conferences a project, guaranteed and approved, also in his/her/its content, while putting then of side the different critiques addressed to the catéchèses of Kiko and Carmen.
There is in this text several "problematic" aspects, that reflect some inherent contradictions in the Path....
I would say yes. I would focus two elements. In the first place the Statute often makes reference to the Board of directors catéchétique of the Path néocatéchuménal, that declares to be constituted of the catéchèses of Kiko and Carmen to the teams of catechists. Now, this complex of catéchèses is not more public domain. One knows that the Path has send to the authorities concerned of Vatican 13 volumes in which the catéchèses of Kiko and Carmen are collected, and one also knows that 11 of these 13 volumes have already been returned to the senders with a wave approval without observations of relief. Considering the interest to know the content of these catéchèses he/it would be certainly desirable that they were published, at least in part. It is evidently a problem of report. Everything that one knows some catéchèses currently, indeed, is only a registration of the speeches of Kiko and Carmen, with the related difficulties with the spoken speech. He/it would be interesting, tomorrow, to compare the official text with the "oral" texts of today while underlining that is what has been modified and in what sense.
And then it is the question of the Episcopal Conferences, and in particular of the Italian Episcopal Conference: as taking account of the critiques addressed to the Path of a lot of Italian bishops is necessary him to accept to recognize like appropriate this experience of catéchuménat? For the Council Pontifical for the laymen the Path néocatéchuménal is presented like a help in the Plain premises for their ministry, also while recognizing them the right to adopt or no the instrument of the Path néocatéchuménal in their diocese.
To send back the question of the legal face of the Path that stays irresolute...
And through her he/it is interesting to think on the expertise of the papal Dicastère to that is confided the load to come with the Path néocatéchuménal. Is it about a Catholic formation itinerary, because the Path been put under the Council Pontifical of the laymen?
The Path is not a movement, not an association, not an institute. Is it true that it is necessary to depend also on some papal Dicastère, but if it is only about an itinerary, his/her/its approval she/it of the expertise of the Episcopal Conferences is not? Or of the Community for the Clergy?
The keynote, however, didn't seem to find a competent dicastère but to arrive as early as possible - and the motive appears clear - to a papal approval. In this manner, the papal recognition permitted to pass, in only one stroke, the exams - and the difficulties. that the Path would certainly have met in each of the nations submitting to the sieve of each of the national Episcopal Conferences.
The Statute punishes that these will be the founders, during their life, to govern the Path, and, after their death, they will be able to choose the members of the College that will elect their successors. A system that recalls the election of the pontiffs. This is not little an exaggerated?
In effects, in case of death of the founders, the Statute foresees the election made by a special college. But this College is composed of about 80-120 chosen people directly. today. of the world persons responsible (that means Kiko, Carmen and the Father. Mario Pezzi), and tomorrow of those that will replace them. In other words the basis of the Path doesn't have any right of intervention in the choice of those that will be part of the College, and indirectly one says that the basis is not always illuminated in the choice of those that must guide it.
But this manner to proceed. who is not a novelty in the church, because adopted in some manner is Jesuits is the opus Of the. could only wake some puzzlements in those that prefer up, even in while recognizing the limits, the democratic ways.
According to you, in light of the ecclesiastic vision of which him is carrier, the Path néocatéchuménal can he arrive to a "harmonic insertion" (under the auspice of the Council Pontifical for the Laymen), in the pastorale of each of the dioceses and parishes?
To the basis of the whole Path néocatéchuménal is there another model of parish certainly (and maybe same of church? According to the Path, every parish could have an indefinite number (even 10, 20 or more again) of parochial communities, each of it according to his/her/its own path, of indefinite length - even 15-20 years and more, as mentioned - each of it participating in his/her/its own liturgy eucharistique Saturday evening (and therefore same 10 liturgies eucharistiques or more in a same parish, in relation to the number of the communities), that rarely confluent in a common celebration between the different communities (Easter, Pentecost and some others opportunity) and rarely with the whole parochial community. In this vision, sustained by the Statute, the parish appears like a set of numerous small communities. But one knows that this new vision of the parish is accepted by different bishops like an instrument to break the anonymity of the parishes, and one knows, on the other hand, that this model - that permits a big personal involvement. is at the bottom adopted by the numerous groups of youngsters, of the new communities, of the parties etc.
What is it that becomes a parish, if she/it adopts this structure? And the diocese?
It would be certainly interesting to be able to examine, on one period of at least 15-20
years, the effects of this atomization of the parochial structure with the advantages and the disadvantages that it brings.
According to you, what could be the instant effects of the approval of this Statute?
In this case, he/it seems that the effect indirect of the approval of the Statute - indirect effect, but considered certainly and wanted, and maybe same to the foreground - either to stop the bishops and their critiques of the Path Néocatéchumenal. The Path can brag about to have to his/her/its service of the thousands of communities, a few hundreds of formed priests in his/her/its seminaries, of the thousands of vocations converging toward the religious institutes, a whole having a considerable weight on the balance. It was not therefore more possible to continue with critiques, of the doubts, of the unfavorable decisions on behalf of ecclesiastical authorities.
A lot of bishops, these last years, expressed themselves toughly opposite the Path as far as barring the beginning of new catéchèses in the parishes. What will now follow that there is the Statute?
Until the interventions of the Plain premises, more or less critical opposite the Path, were numerous (in Italy at least about thirty cases): one can find them a little on all newspapers, and also on the official bulletins of some Italian dioceses. Existing for us until now no explicit approval of the Path néocatéchuménal, and even less a recognition of the validity of his/her/its practices for the catéchuménat in parish, the bishops could enjoy their right of speech and judgment freely. With this approval, no bishop will dare and won't be able to express itself against the Path néocatéchuménal.
Related to this problem, is to see if the Statute really undoes the objections directed of the Plain premises and if they are satisfied with the manner whose problems have been defined. An indication in this sense could come of the manner whose interested bishops will behave, that means if, while changing opinion, they will accept to introduce the Path in their diocese following this papal approval.