Has anyone heard of the Neocatechumical Way?

[hedgehog]

The story in the Sidney Herald from the posting by Matilda implies that the Neocatechumical Way is yet another attempt to whip everybody back into line. The Web sites I've come across suggest that the Way is very open to the notion that we are all a priestly people - Communion given in small communities seated around a table, lay people commenting on the readings, etc.

[Matilda]

1. The "neocats" as they are usually referred to in Sydney

definitely have the support of Cardinal Pell, but it's very hard to find out just who is behind
them, and exactly what they are trying to achieve.

All that seems clear is that they are very traditionalist, and hold firmly to the supremacy of
priests in all church matters - the laity are strictly the followers, to the extent that they
oppose anyone but priests preaching, giving Communion, etc.

They appear to favour operating in small community groups, perhaps the better to keep a strict eye
on their followers, and they are very evangelical in their approach, and yet at the same time they
rigidly oppose anything other the strictly orthodox approach to religious worship.

If their record in Redfern amongst the Aboriginal population is any indicator, they're not very big
on Christian charity.

[hedgehog]

2. I never heard of them before this.

Clearly there is some variation amongst the groups or else their Web sites do not reflect reality. I couldn't even tell you off-hand if and where they operate in the US. Any group with "special ties" to the Vatican or to a Cardinal makes me nervous. Why do so many of these groups have a Spanish or Hispanic background? They've calmed down considerable since then, but my impression is that the Dominicans started out as a preaching order from Spain then descended for a while into holding heretic trials. Technically, the civil arm ran the executions, but the Dominicans ran the show. Of course, St. Martin de Porres was a Dominican, so it's a mixed bag.

[Matilda]

3. They're rather shadowy, not unlike Opus Dei IMO.

What you read by proponents is different to what you read by people who've had a run-in with them.
I'm not comfortable with people who aren't up-front about what they believe, whatever their
religious persuasion.

And I'm afraid I'm very wary of anyone who has the backing of Cardinal Pell (he is numbered among
the friends of Opus Dei for starters). He's very traditionalist, very hardline in his thinking,
and very much a believer in power being centred in the person of the Pope, rather than devolving
to local bishops.

[tjwmason]

4. I'm not sure that they're so rigid

Which is not necessarily to praise them.

Pope Benedict recently reigned in their liturgical practices. http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44140&eng=y

I think that the comparison with Opus Dei is a very good one though. Both are new communities which have strong supporters and detractors on all sides of the Church; and in both cases it's not entirely clear what the reality is. I confess that the criticisms which I had heard of the neo-cats were more from the traditionalist wing.

[Matilda]

5. Chiesa's a very interesting site.

I only discovered it a couple of weeks ago, and I didn't see that
article.

It goes some way to explaining why the priests in Redfern (referred to
on another thread) have locked the church doors against the congregation
and often say Mass in private homes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=275x4815

But in their case, the idea appears to be more about locking out the
Aboriginal people, not from any desire for closer communion with the
parish.

And they have also proved to be remarkably insensitive to Aboriginal
customs, and the particular way they had previously been able to
combine elements of their own traditions within the Catholic Mass. I
still don't quite know where they're coming from.