all copillage will be pursued before the courts
00036468
Theologian of Family Christian
I allow myself, dear Director, to express you some impressions that you caused in me when I read your article in Family Christian n. 42/2002 pag 162., in which did you answer a reader of Brescia who had asked "Why the Path néocatéchuménal" has it approved summer if a lot of bishops in Italy, including mine, expressed themselves in a very critical manner to his/her/its consideration?".
1) in your article You recall that the Bishops who opposed the Path Néocatéchuménal in Italy are numerous; and you mention a list that we already knew, but that doesn't understand all Bishops who didn't accept in their diocese the Path Néocatéchuménal certainly, even in publishing no document in this regard. In the answer you given no sign however of it, and I believe that it would have been appropriate, for the thousands of vicars that refused in their parishes the Path in Italy. Also to give one example only: in Rome, in spite of the enormous pressures in favor of the Path Néocatéchuménal, only eighty parishes on a total of 350 (that means one quarter hardly) accepted it.
The opposition of these Bishops, that makes reference to the one of a lot of mentioned vicars, of which you don't speak could have been an incentive. But no one asked them for the reason, in order to verify if this opposition was motivated or no. You, dear Director, in Your answer affirm that the opposition of the Bishops was founded on their knowledge of the text of "Orientations to the teams of catechists for the phase of conversion" and on other mimeographs, that collected the catéchèses of Kiko and Carmen, texts that circulated during this period and that were used in the catéchèses of the Path Néocatéchuménal.
Of these texts, especially those of Orientations, you write to "say that they didn't cause a puzzlement, is an euphemism." With these words you recognize that he/it existed more that some incentive... But now, continuing, he/it arrived a really singular and extraordinary fact: Kiko presenting to the authority of the church the texts of his/her/its catéchèses, didn't present those in circulation in his/her/its communities but of other texts, modified and correct versions, " on doesn't know how and in what sense ", because in not being published yet, one cannot verify how and in what sense these changes arrived. He/it follows that, according to Your judgment, "the first texts of Orientations don't correspond to the thought of Kiko and Carmen that it is necessary, on the contrary, to search for only in the texts presented to the authority of the church.
In other words, you affirm, that the text of "Orientations" used since more of thirty years by the Community Néocatéchuménaleses as text of Kiko and then as official text of the Path, is not anymore the true thought of Kiko and Carmen!!!
The affirmation is terrible and it requires an answer, as it also provokes other questions.
How is he/it possible that for more of 30 years, didn't the hundreds of bishops and the thousands of priests have the "puzzlements", to which You make mention, opposite the catéchèses that they used and knew then? If they didn't know them, they could not certainly have these puzzlements. But if they used these catéchèses and knew them why didn't they have the least puzzlement while welcoming, while encouraging, and while spilling the texts causing a lot of doubts and of a lot of "puzzlements?"
How is he/it possible that of the Pastors of God's people, as the Bishops and their collaborators are in the pastoral ministry, as the priests are, during so many years didn't move a finger to correct some mistakes? As is he/it arrived that those that, by divine and ecclesiastical right, had to be the judges in a matter that touched the faith and the morals, didn't examine the whole necessary documentation to know the problem on which they had to pronounce a sentence (cfr C.J.C Cannon. 1608)?
To a Bishop who forbade the sword the Néocatéchumèneses, the undersigned, one day, asked him publicly if he/it had already read "a text" of the catéchèses of Kiko. To his/her/its negative answer I took the liberty to tell to him, with an extreme clarity, that he/it was not able to, while remaining in this situation, to pronounce some judgment on the Path Néocatéchuménal, that he/it is negative or positive, but he/it had to remain silent because a judge cannot emit a judgment without knowing matter to dispute; "ex actis and probatis", as the Code of Right Cannon said it.
Following my intervention the bishop, in this circumstance, didn't take the floor anymore. This Bishop's history is the history of a lot of other as, certainly of 99 percent, to that one prevented to institute a comparison or a discussion on the Path Néocatéchuménal, even though the seats on which have been made such a demand, were exactly those of pastors of the church that had the right-duty is to advance such a demand, either especially to have a commensurate answer. Analogous defense has been made to the Editor Catholics to whom are urgent it and the diffusion of texts contrary to the Path Néocatéchuménal has been forbidden. And he/it seems that this defense has been confirmed lately.
Why?
What arrived with the presentation on behalf of Kiko of the texts of his/her/its catéchèses of which You make allusion, we had foreseen it for a long time. We had guessed it while noting the absolute defense that the catechists had to make know the texts of the Path that contained words inspired of their founder. But if they are inspired, why prevent the diffusion of it? Or better, exactly because them he/it is, they would have deserved an ampler diffusion among God's people. On the contrary he/it was not permitted of the most absolute manner, that these catéchèses was recorded, written in shorthand, documented. We understood that the true motive was the one not to want to let no document that could show non ambiguous way what Kiko said in its catéchèses, in order to can always modify them or deny them according to the need. And this defense was stern and absolute. Even though the texts that the catéchèses of Kiko collected by the leaders of the Path contained and duplicated by the "Center Néocatéchuménal "Servant of Jahvè" of the Place San Salvadore Campo in 00186 Rome - Such 6541589"; could not be given to no one, not more to the Bishops or to the priests who entered in the Path or served presbytres, not more after having demonstrated to have become abundantly authentic néocatéchumène. If us, in spite of these defenses, in came in possession, it is due to the fact that these are some priests of the Path who gave them to us. We could give some names; but he/it seems just to us to respect the secret, so that they don't become topics of hate on behalf of the Communities néocatéchuménales that they contributed to found in some parishes.
In confirmation of everything that has been said, I remember that the same Card. Ugo Poletti, Priest of His/her/its Holiness for the Diocese of Rome and President of the Italian Episcopal Commission (C.E.I), in a meeting with the undersigned to the beginnings of 1990, never confessed to have seen read nor only a text of Kiko and Carmen; for this reason he/it took the liberty to give him a copy of "Orientations."
When then the undersigned, with the P., Zoffolis began to publish sentences deducted of the catéchèses of Kiko, he/it was revealed to our consideration a ferocious opposition on behalf of the néocatéchumènes that accused us in the beginning of forgery, because we mentioned. according to them. of the inexistent texts, continuing then to speak of extrapolations" arbitrary of the same texts, to manage finally from it to define us incapable to understand the texts of Kiko, because their understanding was reserved to those that had made the Path entirely. At the same time, our oppositions in Kiko were classified like "thieves, forgers, Pharaohs, incarnate demons, possessed people of Satan" etc.......
But no one of the objectors of this time only says these texts didn't return the thought of Kiko. The same thing was repeated there in the meeting between the undersigned and the P. Enrico Zoffoli, with the Vice Rector the Seminary Redemptoris Mater, Mons. Claudiano Strazzari and M. Giampiero Donini, in June 1992. While telling the two leaders of the Path Néocatéchuménal that we would have published the texts of Kiko, they answered that they would ever have granted the possibility to publish them, because one" doesn't touch to the texts of Kiko." The answer would not have been that one if one had not believed that the texts that wanted to publish and that circulated then in the Communities néocatéchuménales were authentic carriers of the thought of Kiko. "One doesn't touch to these texts"!. "These texts", that means those of this time and not those of today, because those contained the thought of Kiko that not only one could not touch, but either to make know! In this meeting we experimented the preoccupation and the care of the néocatéchumènes directly to hide the texts of Kiko, as also the engagement to prevent that can be documented what was said on the Path. Indeed, for this meeting, we had prepared a few small tape recorders to give to each of the participants the documentation of everything that would be declared of the two parts. But nor Mons. Strazzari, nor M. Doninis only wanted the registration is done, otherwise the meeting asked since months would not take place.
He/it seems legitimate to us to wonder to this point why the Council Pontifical for the Laymen or the other organs interested to the revision of the texts kikiens didn't worry to ask for these texts in a direct way the concerned persons, but rather to the numerous communities spilled in the world that possessed them and used them. What arrived would have been prevented, that means: the change of these original texts, while altering these that, in legal language, are said parol evidence.
As because the judgment asked the competent organs of the church would not only have had a value for the future of the Path, but it should even have touched everything that had arrived until this moment.
Kiko presenting, to the competent seat, his/her/its texts, in part reviewed and correct versions, succeeded in passing a big difficulty while reaching besides a double objective :
Not only the amateurs of the right, but also people of simple common sense believe unjust and refute a judgment in which the judge decides without having assiduously and examined the texts object of his/her/its judgment exhaustively. But this procedure seems have not been followed. He/it is more that legitimate to wonder the reason. But the answer is maybe in the Dante verses (Divine Comedy; Hell, III song, toward 94): "What one wants, don't ask more" of them.
2) with regard to the idea of parish, composed, according to different community Kikos, 10, 20 or more, each with his/her/its own celebration eucharistique Saturday evening, and that converge rarely in a communal celebration of Sunday"; "idea that Kiko achieves while also transforming the architecture of the Churches that as in Madrid, become a big building with a common room for the meetings and with in more about ten small rooms for the celebration of the eucharistie on behalf of every community", (of which You immediately make mention with words added on), I take the liberty to express my absolute disapproval for this scheduling and, achieved nevertheless one way or the other by Kiko.
Treating a matter not being bound by a dogmatic definition, but of a descended structure during the centuries, to satisfy the needs of the supporters and to help them to reach this fullness of life Christian to which the Christ Jésus calls all his/her/its disciples, is certainly free to propose new shapes, more corresponding to the necessities of our temples.
I believe, however, that Kiko is not the person most capable to this end. Not being a priest and not having lived the experience of a true vicar, he/it doesn't know maybe that has a lot of organisms through which the Parish achieves the duty that has been confided to him in every parish, and that the Code of Right cannon summarizes in the cannons 528, 529 and 530.
The list of these organisms is very long and varied: it is sufficient to recall the Catholic action with his/her/its numerous ramifications; the Catholic Scouts; the Conferences of S. Vincent of Paul; the Unitalsi (Italian National Union of the transportation of the Patients); the apostolate of the Prayer; the third Orders; the associations that are interested in the cult eucharistiques, of the devotion mariale, of the aid to the children,; of the catechists; of the parochial oratory; those of the volontariat; etc, etc.
These groups that gather people of all category, if there is succession, become a more valid means to return the Parish a center radiating an authentic Christian faith. But for Kiko all these organizations must not exist anymore because he/it will have there only that the communities néocatécuménales to work to the re - christianization of the Parish. And the néocatéchumènes is convinced so that he/it must be thus some, that if a Vicar the second steps in their intentions, nor doesn't dedicate itself completely to them, while disregarding all other organizations, they let it since in the evening until the morning, without some notice, to go in another parish where they find a Vicar that, without any opposition, adapt to their demands.
With the method of the Communities néocatéchuménales I don't believe that one can create a type of more corresponding parish to the necessities of the Christian of our time. One notes that in the parishes dominated by the néocatéchumènes, a lot of supporters move away disgusted by their behavior.
I make notice, besides, that the Statute cannot establish any rules contrary to what the Bishops emitted about the celebration of the Eucharist that permits the celebration for every community Saturday evening according to the Néocatéchumenale practice. The rules emitted by the Bishops remain therefore valides : "for Saturday evening is permitted only one celebration for all Communities existing néocatéchuménales in parish (Bishop of Foligno, of Vicenza); or only one Mass by limited parish to the first two years of the Path (Bishop of Trieste), or the one of a feast Mass only for the young communities until the the stage of the Redditio Symboli (Bishop of Foggia).
This same statute of the N.C says: "In consideration also "of requirements formatives and specific pastorales, while taking into account the good of each or groups, and especially of the fruits that can drift for the whole Christian community", the small community néocatéchuménale, with the authorization of the diocesan bishop, celebrates the eucharistie of Sunday, open also to other supporters, after the first vespers." (Art. 13, by. 3).
He/it will depend therefore, from now, of the explicit will of the Bishops the possibility to celebrate the Mass of eve for the communities néocatéchuménales. The Statute, even while believing it a practice of the Path, recall that without the bishop's explicit authorization, the Communities can use some like one their right. We clearly say that we don't regret at all if Kiko, in some points of his/her/its catéchèses, corrected the given in the past teachings. To the bottom, our opposition had for goal the elimination of these mistakes. But the respect of the truth as also the one of people to that during years the notions and affirmations not corresponding to the teaching of the church have been transmitted, require that the one that was mistaken not only recognizes his/her/its mistake, but that he/it repairs, as much as he can it, the consequences provoked by his/her/its teachings.
Kiko never disavowed not his/her/its catéchèses more that he doesn't have some intention to make it. "One doesn't touch to the texts of Kiko! ". It is the law of the Néocatéchumèneses. After everything that has first been said before that remained difficult to understand :
The Statute of the Path néocatéchuménal that has just been approved cannot erase these rights descended of the Bishops. Nor wants it, parce the Statute defines the nature of the Path néocatéchuménal while using the same words of the S. Father contents in the letter of August 30, 1990, and that cannot be separate of this content in the official note by an elementary legal element, addition to the text published in the A.A. of 3-I2 - 1990, pag. 1513, and that constitutes the authentic interpretation of the thought of the Holy Father. These words, even though he/it is not returned in the Statute, makes integral part of it because they are the expression of the Pope's authentic will; for this reason one cannot mention the first expressions without taking also into account the following.
And the Pope's words is thus: "The mind of the holy Father, while recognizing the Path Néocatéchuménal like valid itinerary of Catholic formation, is not to give coercive indications to the Plain of the place, but only to encourage them to consider with attention the Community Néocatéchuménaleses, while letting however to the judgment of the these same Plain to act according to the pastoral requirements of every diocese."
No obligation, on behalf of the Bishops, exists therefore even after the approval of the Statute, to resort to the Council Pontifical Council for the Laymen to submit him their possible reserves. The Statute doesn't impose this obligation, nor could not impose it, because it would be a disposition contrary to the divine right of the Bishops to govern the Churches that are confided to them.
If some Bishop, following the approval of the Statute néocatéchuménal felt linked in his/her/its exclusive power to accept or to refuse, in the diocese that is confided him, the Path néocatéchuménal, this would not depend of legal motives, but of others motive, private of authentic value.
You, dear director of Family Christian, seem to forget these rights of the Bishops, to accept other securities when you write that the Council Pontifical for the Laic " nes cannot not take account of the 16 thousand communities néocatéchuménales scattered in the world, nor of the more of 700 formed priests in the seminaries diocesan Redemptoris Mater, and of the more of 4 thousand religious vocations." If these data that you return were the only justifying motive the approval of the Statute of the Néocatéchumèneses, we would be before the answer of a problem that before being pastoral, would be dogmatic and moral.
Problem that cannot be solved while taking account of the number of people that accepts some principles, without taking into account the true value of these.
d) We don't succeed in understanding how one can manage to grant to a simple movement of supporters that doesn't have, nor don't want to consider themselves linked by a legal structure (that is denied in speech, but that exists fact), the exclusive right to use a practice pastoral vielle as the church, varied in the shapes during the centuries, while arranging so much that they will want to use it the same pastoral experience, cannot make it if they don't follow "the lines proposed by the initiators of the Path néocatéchuménal, who collect the oral tradition and the thirty-year practice of the Path; this Board of directors is constituted by the texts of the volumes: Néocatéchuménal path. Orientations to the teams of catechists" (Statute: art. 2,2).
The church, during his/her/its history barred the ascetic or pastoral methods never, introduced by a lot of founding saints of orders or institutes (to see by ex. : the spiritual exercises of S. Ignace; the features of the begging orders or caritatifs, the methods educational of the other, etc.), that were adopted also by other Institutes, Orders or religious Communities, with the necessary retained modifications. Exactly because it is his/her/its doctrine about the Charismas (cfr. C.C.C 799 and ss). But in what looks at the Path Néocatéchuménal one has the impression that the method that they propose is not considered like a Charisma (C.C.C n. 798), but a "patent." Now the "patents" that all legislations grant to some create the rights and the exclusive privileges like a just reward of the research and fatigues faced by their inventors. In the case of the néocatéchumènes the exclusivisme of which to the art. 2 of the Statute, made rise the doubt that it is founded on incentives that pass the pastoral order.
It is difficult in addition to understand how a Statute has been approved without before or has been approved at the same time, the text or the texts that found the doctrine and the practice of it! We are before a judgment that person of the supreme court of a state founded on the right would have emitted. While you affirm that in the approval of the Statute N.C one cannot take account of some positive realities gotten by the Path, one doesn't succeed in understanding how you didn't take into account the numerous negative realities: as the one of the families divided by the literal application of some princes of the Path; of numerous people to whom been imposed to abandon profession, study, works, goods... to be authentic disciples of the gospel; how much have been deceived by a predication presented like authentic, confirmed by the church, and that look for uselessly in her an answer to their difficulties and to their dramas, because, they make themselves answer that one doesn't touch in the Néocatéchumèneses and that they are not free to go himself of it of this Church.
But, fortunately, while the complaints and the remonstrances of several languish inécoutées in the archives of a lot of ecclesiastical Offices, others, noting the impossibility to be listened of those that owe it, took refuge in The one that said: " Venez to me, you that are anguished and oppressed, and I will comfort" you (Mt 11,28). Will happen maybe to us of it so to achieve the future parishes imagined by Kiko: groups of people that meet in some room, while listening them..... priest?
To this point we don't want to conclude while affirming that in the Path néocatéchuménal ALL to condemn. A thing is sure: that all is not to approve!
Our preoccupation is that, while one asks for forgiveness for the numerous negative facts of the past, non attributable to the doctrine of the church, even though they have been committed by some Christian and men of church, there is not the same preoccupation to correct some mistakes nowadays, that the church in an indirect manner (with the silence) or direct (with the approval) seems to approve even though it is "ad experimentum." We stop here, without requiring than You, dear Director gave an answer to our difficulty or to our dark points. On the contrary. that it doesn't displease you if we tell it to you - we are certain that you won't answer us!
Those that closed the mouth to a lot of Pastors who would have had to and can speak it to you will forbid, them that consequently became the mute dogs of which speak the Isaïe prophet, the sentries that don't shout or the guards whom not keeps the deposit that is confided to them. For it many are losing the faith in the church and in his/her/its Pastors.
We don't want that it arrives. For this reason we work and we pray so that the mind Saint flood his/her/its Church of light and love again, so that achieves itself the news Pentecost wished by Vatican II.
With the most cordial v.ux,
Don Gino Conti