Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Disguntled Ex-Neo Members.

Many of those who vehemently oppose the Neocatechumenal Way do not have first hand experience of walking in the Way; therefore, their criticisms are unfounded and unreliable.  Their sources are from other blogs and websites of the same perspective.  Other sources they rely on are disgruntled ex-neo members who were unable to face their reality of their sin during their walk.  They give the same testimony of ex-Catholics who left the Church and joined Protestant fundamentalists.  Here is an example of what an ex-Catholic said, and if you wish to read the entire article, the weblink is provided: 

It’s not hard to understand why people are so excited about Pope Francis. Since his sensational interview last week, many have said that with his personal warmth and determination to put doctrine in the background, Francis is just the man to bring a lot of fallen-away Catholics back into the church. 

Maybe. But I’m an ex-Catholic whose decision to leave the Catholic Church is not challenged by Francis’ words but rather confirmed.

We see from his statement above, that he left the Church and appears disgruntled by the Catholic Church. In the article, he goes on about everything wrong with the Catholic Church from the sex abuse scandal to the corruption.  But his real reason for leaving the Church has more to do with his inability to face his reality of sin.  An insight into his own testimony shows that: 

What needed changing? Lots. My own brokenness was plain to me, and I was ready to turn from my destructive sins and become a new person. The one thing I didn’t want to do was surrender my sexual liberty, which was my birthright as a young American male. I knew, though, that without fully giving over my will to God, any conversion would be precarious. By then, I was all too wary of my evasions. To convert provisionally — that is, provided that the Church didn’t hassle me about my sex life — would really be about seeking the psychological comforts of religion without making sacrifices.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/29/im-still-not-going-back-to-the-catholic-church/

His real problem is he would not give up his sexual liberty, which he feels is his birthright. 

It is the same with disgruntled ex-members of the Way. In the Neocatechumenal Way, members will face their reality of sin as this young man did in the article.  Let us say, for example, that a man was told by his catechists to give up his girlfriend and return to his wife to work out their problems in the marriage.  The person would then leave the Way and start telling everyone that the NCW is telling him how to run his life.  This person would go to people like Tim Rohr or Chuck White and relate their story of how manipulative the Way is.  He will go on and on about how the Way was trying to tell him what to do with his life. He will say that the catechists were trying to control him.  But what he will leave out is the part about the catechists telling him to leave the girlfriend and return to his wife and save his marriage.  

If this person were to go to a non-neo priest, he would be told the same thing.  But of course, he does not do that.  He simply spreads the rumor that the NCW brainwashes you into trying to control your life, and he leaves out the part where the catechists actually tells him to try and save his marriage. 

Many ex-Catholics who join the Protestant fundamentalists will always look down on the Catholic Church, and these ex-Catholics are being used by the fundamentalists as their evidence of proving how corrupted and evil the Church is.  Those who oppose the Way are very familiar with fundamentalist Protestant tactics.  They also use ex-neo members the same way as fundamentalist Protestants use ex-Catholics to try to bring down the Catholic Church. Therefore, they are not reliable sources. The best way to find out the truth of the Neocatechumenal Way is to experience the Way yourself, so you can judge it from the perspective of one walking in the Way.        




166 comments:

  1. Just more made up scenarios from you, Diana. How about all the legit ex-neos who have legitimate complaints about unethical practices from their catechists? Don't ask me to be specific, you can just pick one from a worldwide list; Google it. What about a catechist who says that taking care of a sick mother is not a valid reason to miss scheduled events, or that she is putting her mother before God? What about the catechist that says your money and land is evil, and that it should be handed over to ________? You fill in the blank. Or how about the catechist who tells a wife/mother that her husband and kids are no longer her primary family since the choose not to walk; the community is her family now?

    There are many similar stories out there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:40 p.m.,

      Show me an ex-Catholic who said something positive or good about the Catholic Church.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous 11:40, I'd hate to admit this man but you are so wrong in many levels. Amazing.

      Delete
    3. @ 11;51,

      How am I wrong when these are first hand accounts. Do you know what goes on in every community, with every person?

      Diana,

      I'm not talking about ex-Catholics, I'm talking about disgruntled ex-neos who are still part of the Catholic church.

      Delete

    4. I know that majority of the people in the NCW are sincerely good people, or have become good people, but don't act like every member/leader of the NCW is innocent of taking advantage of others. The hierarchy that exists in the NCW inadvertently foster's these types of situations.

      Delete
    5. It is true. Hand over_____________________? One must convince spouse not in neo to join. It is their responsibility to do so. So, So, many things happened that sooner or later it will be exposed. I for one, know this for a fact.

      Delete
    6. EX NEOS???
      It is Richard Untalan an other one that probably was on the payroll of Benavente.
      Am I wrong or he also was working at the Cathedral?
      His statements on PDN say a lot about him. Did he go public to show what?
      I would not be surprise if he is in this web of criminals.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 12:04 a.m.,

      The analogy I used of ex-Catholics is the same thing. There are no legit ex-Catholics just as there are no legit ex-neos. They left for a PERSONAL reason that never had anything to do with the Way. Chuck White was right about one thing. In the scrutinies, we face our sins. We tell our sins to others. And our reality of our sin is not an easy thing to accept. This is usually the reason why they left. The story is the same as the story in that article where a Catholic leaves and says bad things about the Church because he could not face the reality of his own sin....which is the love of sex. These are the ex-neos whom Tim Rohr and Chuck White rely on.

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 12:25 a.m.,

      There are five people in community that do not walk with their spouse. They were never told to force their spouse to join. They were told to always invite them. Whether they come or not was their decision. The catechists told them even though their spouse do not walk with them to always pray for their spouse. One person I know started doing that, and suddenly her spouse started asking her questions about the Way. So, God was working in his heart. Her spouse is still not walking today, but the fact that he started being curious about the Way was a good sign.

      Delete
    9. Anon 11:40am, I absolutely agree with you. Everything posted on this blog is entirely one-sided and biased. I know many who have been told that their families are no longer first in their lives, that their community takes precedence over their immediate family. The only time this is not the case is when the other members in their family decide to join as well.

      "Diana" you say that the accounts of ex-neos are unreliable because we are "disgruntled". Well I beg to differ. The people in my community were not unkind to me, nor did they give me any reason to be disgruntled. It was completely of my own free will and desire that I chose no longer to be affiliated with the NCW. In the beginning, I was mesmerized by the entirely different culture within the NCW and I marveled at the thought of sharing this with my other half. But even with the Word, Eucharist, and monthly convivance I could not put my finger on what was wrong. But a friend of mine was very well-versed in the doctrines of the Catholic church and recommended that I read the Catechism, books about the Saints, apologetics and eventually the NCWs very own Statute. Upon my realization that the leaders of the NCW on Guam do not even abide by the statutes, I could no longer in good conscience participate in the NCW. I chose my own path and I am much happier. I did face insults and the like, people telling me I was disobedient, I was denying the will of God, the devil had a hold on me, you name it. But that did not stop me from forging my own way. So I can openly and reliably give a personal account for the NCW without being "disgruntled" as you say. You are grossly mistaken in your belief of this. Just because there are those of us ex-neos who chose not to be led into the wrongs of the NCW but instead decided to stay true to the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church does not imply that we are disgruntled or that we have only bad experiences to share.
      And to be entirely fair, Tim Rohr also published all comments that speak in favor of the neo, as well as those that don't. In fact he even thanks those people who give witness to the neo doing good in their lives. He has openly shared that he knows there are those who have improved with the neo, he is not always as hostile and aggressive as you portray him. I do not think you've been paying much attention to the integrity he displays on his blog. So on his part at least, he offers that much.
      On the other hand, I have witnessed you insult the people who oppose the neo, as well as those of us who used to walk with communities and chose to separate ourselves. To label our accounts as "unreliable" and "disgruntled" is unfair and incredibly unkind of you. Please do not preach to be a Christian with the behavior that you display.

      Delete
    10. Dear Anonymous at 12:35 pm,

      I have often said in my blog that I do think it is the NCW that is bothering Tim. I often said that he has a personal vendetta against the Archbishop. Why? Because he criticize everything the Archbishop say and do including his homily. What does his Gospel homily have to do with anything; yet, Tim criticizes it.

      There are also ex- Catholics who say they left the Church because of doctrines, but there is always something much deeper than doctrines or liturgies otherwise they would not say something bad about what they left behind.

      Delete
    11. This is a misleading thought. What would make you believe that Tim Rohr has a personal vendetta against the Archbishop? For the record, I have heard this exact statement made by so many neo members but they can give no reason for this belief so I assume they are just repeating what they're told. I know Rohr to be a man of honesty and integrity and also on more than once occasion he was sought out by the Archbishop for help and agreed to do so. But if there is one thing Rohr does not approve of, it is deceit. Tim Rohr does not like lies and therefore makes it a point to expose the truth. Looking at all the evidence that has made its way to the surface against the Archbishop, it is quite obvious that he has not been honest with everyone. And as Catholics, it is not just Rohr's duty but ALL OF OURS to shine light on these lies and hold the Archbishop accountable for his actions. If we have lost this sense of righteousness, then there is little hope for us.

      Delete
    12. Dear Anonymous at 1:03 a.m.,

      Is it also Tim Rohr's duty to criticize the Archbishop's homily?? The Archbishop made a homily on the Gospel of the parable of the weeds and the wheat. Tim Rohr took the Archbishop's sermon of the Gospel and twisted it. How is that revealing truth???? It is only a Gospel homily. Below is the weblink where you will find Rohr just tearing at the Gospel homily.

      http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/07/we-should-be-content-to-let-evil-people.html

      Other things come to mind. When Father Pius came out to speak to the media, and he defended the Archbishop. What did Tim Rohr do after that? He called Father Pius a liar and then took out a petition to have Father Pius removed, giving vague reasons for his removal. So, where is the integrity in that?

      Delete
    13. "There are no legit ex-Catholics just as there are no legit ex-neos. They left for a PERSONAL reason that never had anything to do with the Way."

      So if a person leaves an organization like Edward Snowden did leave CIA he automatically becomes unreliable to talk about the CIA and he could not be trusted?
      This is your logic.

      1 The fact that there is a rule that prohibits telling younger members what NCW actually is about says that there is something wrong with it that they need to hide.

      2 It is perfectly plausible that people leave for the reasons you said they leave,but it is perfectly plausible they leave because they were lied to or truth was hidden from them due to the rule of silence, so when they actually realized what NCW is they left. Its perfectly plausible that sinful people of NCW abused other sinful people and those other left for that reason. The fact that you place all ex neocats in the same group of "bitter sinners" by generalizing them even though other possibilities exist, without actually exploring each individual case says something about you, not them.

      But no , in your mind , NCW that is composed of sinful people that can do no harm because sinful people do no harm... or at least don't do it enough to make someone leave...

      3 The fact is that abuse is happening all over the world, but only in organizations like NCW is this behavior justified by the assumption that its impossible that it can happen there to the point to drive someone out of NCW and drive him to be disgruntled about NCW.
      NCW is full of sinners but it cannot sin!
      So when this abuse actually happens, its not labeled as abuse , its impossible because NCW cannot do harm, so it must be your cross to bear or you must be in rebellion if you fight against it. You are the problem.

      The fact that you justify abuse by justifying NCW and implying that its infallible like the Church, shows that its not a question of does abuse happen, but a question of when will it happen...

      4 The fact that there is no other reason in your mind for people leaving NCW rather then their personal sin or personal problems even if there are other possibilities show that you are closed to the idea that there are other plausible possibilities for their leaving and closed to the idea that this institution can do no harm. This is a sign of indoctrination.

      When people try to discredit other people like you tried, they generally speak more about themselves then of others.

      So to conclude:

      You are the one who cannot be trusted because you show signs of a closed mind.
      Abuse happens everywhere , only in NCW is it justified as part of bearing your cross.

      Delete
    14. Diana at 3:01 PM, I attended the CCOG meeting and I heard what Tim Rohr said. You're half-right when you said "he has a personal vendetta against the Archbishop."

      The reason Tim Rohr is criticizing the archbishop is because of how the archbishop treated Fr. Paul and then Msgr. James. Tim said the archbishop acted like a bully instead of like a father with the two priests.

      Tim says the archbishop is supposed to be like a father to his priests. But when he called Fr Paul to the meeting in July 2013 he had the locks of Fr Paul's office changed during the meeting so that when Fr Paul went back to Sta Barbara he couldn't get in his office. Tim says that in the letter the archbishop gave Fr Paul he told Fr Paul to look for another bishop and that meant the archbishop was trying to get rid of Fr Paul. Tim said that if the archbishop did not like what Fr Paul was doing he should have called Fr Paul in to talk to him the way fathers are supposed to talk to their sons, not throw him out.

      Tim said that when he found out about how the archbishop was a bully instead of a father to Fr Paul he decided to let others know and that's why he started Junglewatch. He wanted people to know what really happened with Fr Paul.

      At first nobody said anything about Neos on Junglewatch even though a lot of people were talking and saying the archbishop got rid of Fr Paul because he wasn't willing to let the Neos start a community at Sta Barbara if they didn't want to have their mass in the lower church.

      I know you don't like Tim Rohr so I don't think you'll publish this. I just thought I'd let you know what Tim said.

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 11:02 am,

      We have been through this before. You have heard Tim Rohr's side. Did you hear the Archbishop's side?

      Father Paul made a promise to the Archbishop to be obedient like a son would be obedient to a father. So, when the father tells him to remove a convicted sex offender whose name appears on the sex offender list, the son is supposed to be obedient and not find ways to keep the sex offender working for the Church. Job termination not only means to remove the paycheck, but the DUTY and POSITION that comes with the paycheck.

      Where in my post did I ever say that I do not like Tim? I have always said on this blog that Tim Rohr is a fellow Catholic and brother in the Church. I do not even make fun of him. The first person to bring up the false rumor that Father Paul was removed because of the NCW was Patty Arroyo and Tim Rohr took off on that. Nowhere in the Archbishop's letter was the NCW mentioned. It was Patty Arroyo and the jungle who first brought up the NCW so he focus could be taken off Lastimosa until someone published his past crimes. Lastimosa was not only a sex offender. He was a murderer.

      Tim Rohr has a personal vendetta against the Archbishop, but it has nothing to do with Father Paul. He has been badmouthing the Archbishop even before the Father Paul incident.

      Delete
    16. Diana, we have heard Tim Rohr's side because he has made himself available to the public. It's hard to hear the archbishop's side because he does not make himself available to the public (other than doing his thing with the polynesian dancer at sandcastle). You have praised the archbishop for his silence, so how can we hear him? The only time we really heard from him was when he was putting out press releases about Msgr James but he didn't answer any questions. He just made all kinds of accusations on paper. And you can’t ask a sheet of paper questions and expect to get answers.

      Until the Fr Paul incident Tim Rohr was the archbishop's mouthpiece in the media. Until the Fr Paul incident the archbishop relied on Tim Rohr to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church on Guam. The only time we ever heard from the archbishop before the Fr Paul incident was when the archbishop came out against casino gambling. He showed up once a year in October for pro-life photo ops but that was it. If there was any controversy in the Church the archbishop sent Tim Rohr to the media UNTIL the Fr Paul incident.

      Even when the archbishop ran off his mouth during his 2006 KOLG Neo discussion which had to be pulled from the rebroadcast schedule Tim Rohr did not criticize his cowardice when the archbishop's team tried to pin the blame on Tim's son. Tim Rohr kept that recording out of people's ears until 8 years later.

      So you're wrong when you say Tim Rohr "has been badmouthing the Archbishop even before the Father Paul incident" because there are newspaper articles and videos and recordings of Tim Rohr speaking on behalf of the archbishop BEFORE the Fr Paul incident. The criticism only started AFTER the Fr Paul incident. Do your research!

      But then again you don't think that Tim Rohr has ever done anything good, do you?

      Delete
    17. Dear Anonymous at 5:13 pm,

      You have already heard his side. You want to know why he gave the seminary up? He told you that the seminary still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. You want to know why he removed Father Paul? He told you....it was because of disobedience. He did not remove the sex offender from his duties at the Dededo Church. You want to know why he removed Monsignor James. He told you. It was because of financial mismanagement. And to this day you still ask the same questions???? How many times do you want to hear the same story?????

      Tim Rohr has always been bad mouthing the Archbishop regardless of what he does. The Archbishop blesses a statue, and Tim Rohr makes fun of it in his blog. The Archbishop dances on the stage with a cultural dancer, and he makes fun of it as well. All he does is bad mouth and mock the Archbishop and the NCW and that is the truth. You say that he kept that recording out of the public for 8 years is proof that he did not criticize the Archbishop? The FACT that he KEPT that recording for 8 years shows that he was planning on using it in the future for payback.

      Delete
    18. Thank you Diana for pointing out the fact that Tim had this all planned out. I like especially that you noted about the hoarding of the KOLG recording.
      There are a few things that I also wanted to point out. First of all, the traditionalist community on Guam was very saddened when Pope Benedict stepped down. Pope Benedict was showing signs of turning the church back to pre-vatican II liturgy. Restoring the Latin Rite, actually giving back the permission for any Priest to celebrate a Latin Mass anytime was the first move and they were looking forward to more but with the change of Pope their hopes were diminished.
      We all have to remember too that Patti works for the media. Her job forces her to sell stories. All she has to do is speculate scandal and it sells.
      There are many truths that never make it to junglewatch and the reason is apparent, it will compromise the integrity of that blog.
      Last year, we had a vocational meeting with Kiko in Manila is it only coincidence that Msgr. James was in Manila at the same time. We were accused of staying and spending so much money at the expensive Shangri La Hotel. This wasnt true. I bet Msgr. James was the one who stayed at the Shangri La or better yet maybe he stayed at the InterCon Hotel. By the way, at our departure gate at Manila Msgr. James was in line also, along with his head altar boy. I guess the Cathedral can publish a detailed expense report on the credit card charges if people want to see the truth. Everyone knows about the perks of serving at the Cathedral, iPhones, iPads etc. and they have the audacity to criticize the Bishops spending.
      Lastly, it has and always will be about the money. These critics of the way dont have any problems making money off of us. Where do we send our brothers to buy their Jerusalem Bible and Biblical Dictionaries?

      Delete
    19. Hi Diana,
      I am confused. The archbishop was the one who gave permission for the sex offender who had served his prison time to do community service at Santa Barbara Church. After he completed the required years of community service, Fr. Paul hired him. When the archbishop asked Fr. Paul to fire him, the man was fired. He did continue to help the church as a volunteer. What I find confusing is that the archbishop approved the performance of community service. I saw the archbishop's signature on the document. This man was not a pedophile--he was not a threat to children.
      I would love to ask the archbishop his thought process concerning this matter, but that's not possible. His actions are confusing to me.
      Eleanor Aguon


      Delete
    20. Dear Eleanor Aguon,

      The Archbishop may not have been aware of the crime Joseph Lastimosa committed when he was given permission to do community service. Even his parole paper does not specify the type of crime he committed.

      Many years later, someone pointed out to the Archbishop that Lastimosa's name is on the sex offender's list. And even that list does not reveal the age of the victim. So, how does one know whether he raped an adult or sexually abused children?. The sex offender list exist for one reason only.......so that the public be made aware of the whereabouts of the convicted person and pre-cautions can be taken. Knowing the nature of the crime can make a difference and even change some people's mind about a person. After all, rape and murder is a far more serious crime than car theft.

      Delete
    21. "The Archbishop may not have been aware of the crime Joseph Lastimosa committed when he was given permission to do community service."

      If this were so, we would have to conclude that the Archbishop failed in his duty of care. Is that what you are suggesting Diana?

      Delete
    22. Hi Diana,
      The man served his time and his community service for a crime he committed over thirty years ago. I think Christ would have embraced him and encouraged him in his efforts to lead a God-centered life. Released felons have a hard time getting jobs after their release. I think churches on Guam should help released felons. When I lived in the states, some churches in my town had programs to help them. They had ministries in the prison and were there for the offender when he had served his time and was released. I think it's about forgiveness and understanding.
      Eleanor Aguon

      Delete
    23. Dear Anonymous at 12:32 am,

      Where is it written that the Archbishop must know the crimes of all those who have been incarcerated?

      Delete
    24. Dear Eleanor,

      I agree with what you say. Yet, at the same time, the Church also has a responsibility to protect their parishioners from being victimized........especially in light of what happened in the past when priests sexually abused young boys. That scandal hurt the Church. As a result of that scandal, organizations like SNAP were formed to keep a close eye on the Church. And SNAP has gone unchecked. They have brought priests and bishops to court for even allowing ALLEGED sex offenders working in the parish.

      Delete
    25. Dear Diana, when the Archbishop is the one giving permission for a convicted felon to serve his parole at a parish, then it is incumbent on him to know the nature of his crimes. Of course.

      If you disagree with that, you are way out of bounds.

      So, you seem to be accusing the Archbishop of a dereliction of duty, or incompetence?

      Delete
    26. Diana @6:13am: You seem to ask "where is it written..." pretty often. Does this indicate you also believe that something should be written to be valid? Just wondering, because I'm reading a lot of non-Neos here asking for some written documentation and are told that it is verbal.

      Delete
    27. Dear Anonymous at 10:37 am,

      Again, where is it written that the Archbishop MUST know the crimes of the person....especially when the Parole Board established the condition that Lastimosa shall perform 8 community service in the Dededo Parish. That was a "special" condition set by the board.

      I am not accusing the Archbishop of dereliction of duty. He did his duty the best way he can. He complied to the government's special condition that was established for Lastimosa.

      Delete
    28. Dear Anonymous at 10:38 am,

      I ask "where it is written...." because it is the junglefolks like you who need the written documents. In other words, I am simply throwing back to you what you have always been throwing to the NCW.

      Delete
    29. Mary Lou Garcia-PeredaJune 4, 2015 at 2:39 PM

      Diana (June 3, 2015 at 10:20 PM), in your response to Eleanor Aguon you stated "The Archbishop may not have been aware of the crime Joseph Lastimosa [sic] committed when he was given permission to do community service. Even his parole paper does not specify the type of crime he committed. … Many years later, someone pointed out to the Archbishop that Lastimosa's [sic] name is on the sex offender's list. And even that list does not reveal the age of the victim. So, how does one know whether he raped an adult or sexually abused children?"

      Actually on the Guam Sex Offender Registry the information on Mr. Joseph Babauta Lastimoza CLEARLY indicates the Age of the female Victim was 18. That information was available at the time when the Archbishop accused Fr. Paul Gofigan of having caused "grave harm to the parish … exposing him to your parishioners, especially the youth" in his 16 July 2013 letter to Fr. Paul.

      The same implication was made in the 22 July 2013 Archdiocese Statement Regarding Father Paul Gofigan in the section citing "SAFETY OF CHILDREN FOREMOST" which notes "A school full of children is in very close proximity to the parish. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) students, Confirmation students and other youth groups are part of the parish. … with the ultimate consideration being the safety of our children."

      Mr. Lastimoza's victim was an ADULT — as recorded on the Guam Sex Offender Registry for the public to see — but every effort was made by the Archbishop and the author of the Archdiocese Statement to create the illusion that Mr. Lastimoza was guilty of a sex offense against a child.

      It has been mentioned by other people — certainly not in this blog — that Mr. Lastimoza has been a model citizen since his release from prison and he maintains the required updates with the Guam Sex Offender Registry. Ray and Fina Fernandez — Mrs. Fernandez was even the officer who arrested Mr. Lastimoza! — have indicated that " … We judged that Joseph had made a concerted effort to change his life. … With Fr. Paul's help he had come back to his church … when Joseph and Tricia decided to marry, my wife and I became their Sponsor Couple …"

      The Archbishop should have been displaying Mr. Joseph Lastimoza as a Success Story of Rehabilitation and Reconciliation. Instead the Archbishop decided to imply that Mr. Lastimoza was guilty of a sex offense against a child (FALSE!) and later implied (to priests at a retreat) that Mr. Lastimoza and Fr. Paul Gofigan were engaging in homosexual activities after Mr. Lastimoza built a stairway to Fr. Gofigan's bedroom (FALSE AGAIN!!) — how very, very sad.

      Delete
    30. Dear Mary Lou,

      Thank your for your correction. I stand corrected. Yes, an 18 years old is considered an adult but also a youth. Eighteen and Nineteen years old are still in their teens. While it is true that he was not guilty of a sex offense against a child, he nevertheless was guilty of rape and murder of a young girl in her teens (Eighteen years old). No one brought up the part that he murdered the teenage victim until later on. Not even the jungle knew that until it was later exposed through the PDN.

      You stated: "every effort was made by the Archbishop and the author of the Archdiocese Statement to create the illusion that Mr. Lastimoza was guilty of a sex offense against a child."

      Would it make a difference if he was portrayed as a rapist and a murderer??? Is a child abuser a much more serious offense than a killer or are they equally the same in your eyes?

      As for the implication that Mr. Lastimoza and Father Paul was engaged in a homosexual act, I agree that was uncalled for. The Archbishop even recognized that and called Father Paul into his office to apologize to him personally. As a matter of fact, Father Paul admitted to PNC news that the Archbishop did offer him an apology. That story can be found in the following weblink in which Father Paul admitted that the Archbishop apologized in person.

      http://pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41253:video-father-paul-say-archbishop-apologized-but-not-in-writing-so-he-will-move-forward-with-defamation-suit&catid=45:guam-news&Itemid=156

      Therefore, the Archbishop is only human like everyone else. He made a mistake and has acknowledged that mistake through a personal apology to Father Paul.

      Delete
    31. "Would it make a difference if he was portrayed as a rapist and a murderer??? Is a child abuser a much more serious offense than a killer or are they equally the same in your eyes? "

      Apparently lies are acceptable to you

      Delete
    32. Dear Anonymous at 3:53 pm,

      Those are not lies. Those are human errors. It is the same when the jungle never mention the murder of the victim. Did they lie about the murder by keeping it out of the public or did they simply did not know that Lastimosa was also a murderer? Father Paul never mentioned that Lastimosa was a murderer. Between him and the Archbishop, Father Paul knew Lastimoza more because he worked with him almost on a daily basis, and nowhere on this blog did I ever accuse Father Paul of keeping that crime out of the public.

      Delete
    33. Mary Lou stated:

      "every effort was made by the Archbishop and the author of the Archdiocese Statement to create the illusion that Mr. Lastimoza was guilty of a sex offense against a child."

      And your response was to justify the creation of a false impression. That is not human error. You deliberately try to defend the mis-information by saying "Does it really make a difference"? Well, yes, the truth is important. You don't seem to think it is.

      Delete
    34. Dear Anonymous at 5:49 pm,

      And the truth DID come out, and it did not come out through Junglewatch. It came out through the opinion page of the PDN. We know the truth. Lastimoza was a convicted rapist and killer of a teen. Do you feel much better now that the truth came out? You now know that he was not an abuser of children, but a rapist and murderer of teens.

      Previously, Lastimoza was only known as a sex offender. When the murder charge was exposed, for the first time after two years of the controversy, Lastimoza came out in public to explain himself and everyone can see that he was a changed man. He came out in public after two years of controversy because he knew in his heart that the murder of a young teenager was far more serious and he did not want the public to fear him as a killer now that he has changed. Whether Father Paul knew about the murder charge is unknown.

      It is human error, my friend. A lie is when a person deliberately and knowingly hid the truth. Someone told the Archbishop that Lastimoza was on the sex offender's list, and anyone can assume the offense is child abuse especially if they did not look at the sex offender registry like I did. I was not aware that the age of the victim was on the list until Mary-Lou corrected me.

      Delete
  2. In JungleWatch We Do Not TrustAugust 14, 2014 at 12:25 AM

    Dear Anonymous at 11:40 PM,

    A catechist also advised a wife to be with her family in the mainland even if meant leaving her community on island. Thus, not everything you read and hear is bad about the Neocatechumenal Way. Your eyes and ears have been programmed to only see the bad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have seen a single parent walking w the Graces of God and the love of the community. Through the Way, this young family is surviving a tragic crisis of betrayal and infidelity, and the sanctified marriage. They have lifted up the absent parent in prayer. I see the strength of God in this young beautiful family. The absent parent abandoned them to a life of living in sin. It is tragic that the children of both sets are victims of the absent parent's stupidity, childish, and ungodly manners. Yet the older children pray for them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not programmed to see only the bad. Like I have commented several times before, I see good outcomes from relatives in the NCW, but that does not erase all the bad. Your leaders continue to attack the core members of the Church on Guam, by eliminating key persons keeping them from controlling assets. Deny all you want, this is not a debate, it is fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:44 a.m.,

      In the Way, there will always be both good and bad people just as there are good and bad people even inside the Latin Traditional Mass. People are not perfect. If our leaders are truly the bad ones as you say, then how do you explain the many good changes happening among the NCW members? Bad leaders do not produce good fruits.

      Delete
    2. In JungleWatch We Do Not TrustAugust 14, 2014 at 9:28 AM

      Dear Anonymous at 7:44 AM,

      Your initial post didn't mention of any good that came out of the way. What was I supposed to conclude from it? As with many posts that devalue the Way, they do nothing but give the next reader more negativity to pass around. You're all eating negativity! What comes out from the mouth says a lot about the condition of one's heart. You're failed attempt to give credit to a charism that has saved families, restored marriages and brought people back to the church is simply telling Christ that he has done wrong. Beneath a person's title is a soul. A soul that needs guidance. Why don't we see that maybe the Archbishop wanted to share what he felt was beneficial to him? Maybe the Way isn't for everyone but we can't come to that conclusion if we don't share the word. Please reconsider your thoughts.

      Delete
    3. " If our leaders are truly the bad ones as you say, then how do you explain the many good changes happening among the NCW members? Bad leaders do not produce good fruits. "

      This is a false statement, people are not either good or bad, there are only a few world leaders that had either good or bad fruit. People do good and bad things during their life.

      I could ask you if your leaders were good how do they produce bad fruit?

      It is a false assumption that people are either good or bad and based on this assumption you assume your leaders did no evil simply because they did good things.

      Secondly i find it offensive that our legitimate objections to behavior of catechists in NCW is discarded because you assumed "we all just wanted to sin" when you actually have no idea about any of us or what happened to us. You are making stuff up.

      Anyway it was not forbidden for us to sin on NCW, its practically said that we cant help but to sin without the mercy of God and that its moralist to force people not to sin.
      So even if somebody left NCW it was not so he could sin, because he could sin in NCW and admitting he was sinning was even encouraged.
      So saying that we left because we wanted to sin is a made up bull.... excuse.

      You say we cannot be trusted because we do not tell you everything?
      And you do?
      You have a rule which prohibits older members from saying younger members anything about what awaits them on NCW. Your statement is hypocritical and you are the ones who cannot be trusted because you have a rule that prohibits that....!!!!
      We do not need to tell everything about the NCW, we just need to say what is not said , the parts you are hiding because people have a right to know, you are free to say positive stuff , we do not deny it, you are the one denying anything bad is happening.

      People are not supposed to trust everything we say but if peoples stories from all over the world overlap their testimonies are credible.

      "There is a reason why they are disgruntled."
      Yes there is, because of hypocrisy and constant attempts of discreditation and character assassination of ex members.

      Delete
  5. Tim Rohr and Chuck White are unreliable critics of the Way because they have never walked in the Way. That is common sense. The disgruntled ex-neos are also unreliable because they do not tell you everything. There is a reason why they are disgruntled.

    The best way to find out the truth of the Neocatechumenal Way is to experience the Way yourself, so you can judge it from the perspective of one walking in the Way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Day 3 , not to boast 372 at this hour. Is popular petition but simply many were touch by Fr. Pijo. Can't deny that many know him. He is GODLY man despite he can be hard but for me he is a father figure.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In times of perilous confusion we should take a step back.
    Isn’t that perhaps what we do in life? Faced with a confusing situation, difficult to untangle, which makes us worried and perplexed, we pause and then take a step back, avoiding the advance into danger.
    It is what we have done with regard to the faith.
    Yes, we believe that illustration renders the idea of our choices. We love the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ and our Mother, we love the Pope and the Bishop, but faced all around us with the evident confusion in Christian life, we reject an advance into ambiguity and uncertainty and we ask for the grace to stay with true Christianity.
    Essentially our position is that. Consequently we believe, and we have always believed, that we are not in disobedience.



    ReplyDelete
  8. We would be in disobedience if we had invented “another [type of] Christianity”, if we had invented “our Mass”, “our pastoral work”, our catechism” "Our Way", "Our Catecumenate", if we had recognized “other superiors” outside the ones that the Church has given us in the Pope and Bishop.
    We do nothing of this sort. Judging the new pastoral, the new "neo" rite and the new catechesis to be filled with confusion, we have simply availed ourselves of the rights that the Church has always recognized to souls at times of crisis: we follow past praxis and doctrine of the Church i.e. the sure one, the one before the crisis exploded.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We are fully aware of expressing a harsh judgment about the changes made by the “modern neo-church”. On the other hand, a dispassionate look at the disastrous results of “walking in the way” in the Church over the last decade is undeniable. The neo reform of the Missal, and subsequently of all Catholic life, is killing Catholicism in our islands. To deny it is ideology.
    Let’s ask and live for the freedom of God’s children, who loving Holy Mother Church, say to Her legitimate Pastors: we continue with what you once taught us, and continuing in Tradition we are certain, despite our poverty, of our contribution to the edification of the Church Herself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We link then two positions that in conscience seem to us to be indistinguishable:

    1. A great love and respect for the Church

    2. A vigilance in never mixing the great Tradition of the Church with the ambiguities of the post-conciliar reforms like the Neo-Catecumenate and not only concerning the Rite of the Mass

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Si Tun Ano - I' m bewildered what your trying to say, call the Vatican and read the 20,000 pages of catechetical directory.

      Delete
  11. Love and rigorousness, together.
    Moreover, loving the Church concretely means preserving Her treasure which was constituted by Divine Revelation i.e. Tradition and Scripture together. Revelation has declared and transmitted what the Church has always believed in and practiced, starting with the Catholic Mass.
    We err then, having understood the terrible danger inside Catholicism today, by crying in private and not intervening out of respect for the Church. The one who truly loves the Church defends Her.
    What appears to be disobedience is not. On the contrary, it is the greatest service that a believer can give to Her Mother.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Those who talk of disobedience with regard to the “Traditionalists” (not a nice term but we use it to convey the idea) , are doing so out of ignorance: they think the Church has absolute authority over everything. No, the Church obeys Jesus Christ - it is His Body; She must guard what the Lord has consigned to Her – Truth and Grace. The Church doesn’t invent, She transmits.
    For this then, the decision to stay within the surest Tradition [of the Church] cannot be illegitimate.
    The one who stays with the past is not outside the Church. On the other hand, the one who invents a new Christianity is out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Si tun Ano- the part the one invents a new Christianity is out? Then you contradict yourself with Vatican II, because the Neocatechumenal Way is the fruit of Vatican II.

      Delete
  13. Hi Diana this is the true Elia, these true last posts I did not put them. they used my name.
    August 14, 2014 at 7:46 AM August 14, 2014 at 8:06 AM
    I know why. After I pointed out the name Richard Untalan, someone did not like it.
    He might be him.
    Anyway for the sake of the truth, Richard Untalan is on the payroll of Benavente. Or he was recently.
    The fact that they used my name confirms my statement.
    Diana I hope you understand when the true Elia speaks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Elia,

      Thank you for informing me. I deleted those comments who impersonated you. They also impersonated Bernie, and she corrected them to not use her name.

      Delete
    2. Ultimately they were on the Archbishop's payroll, but still there is nothing wrong with that. They did their jobs. But you still have not shown any evidence of what you say.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:02 p.m.,

      In my last post, Concerned Catholics want to know why Tim Rohr is on the Church's payroll. Perhaps, they are concerned about that because they perceive Tim as a successful businessman who is on the Church's payroll. They are also demanding to know who else is on the payroll. Perhaps, they can take out an ad in the newspaper and once again demand the Archbishop to show all the people on the payroll on the audit report. Who knows?

      Delete
    4. That post was not from the group Concerned Catholics of Guam, that was just a crazy individual claiming to be a concerned Catholic, but you already knew that.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 1:16 pm,

      No, I do not know that. I only publish or delete comments from posters. If you are the REAL Concerned Catholics, you would have told me. Someone impersonated Bernie and Elia on my blog, and they notified me.

      Delete
  14. Fresh flowers, beautiful red carpet crucifix shining as always. Readings was amazing!! GOD IS GOOD!

    ReplyDelete
  15. BUSTED!! Holly-Elisabeth Leon Guerrero!!!!! Suggestion- Next time you want to hide your identity, don't put it on Facebook!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:25 pm,

      I am not Holly. An anonymous poster told me about a Facebook website and that someone put my bog in that website. That anonymous poster made the comment under the thread of my last post. You can see that comment there and my reply to it. Someone told me that some of the sisters in the Way copied my avatar and put it in THEIR Facebook page. Holly is not the only one who copied my Avatar.

      Delete
    2. Then be courages and take responsibility for your words, don't let Holly take the blame. Holly, do you understand?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:04 pm,

      It was Holly and many other sisters who made the choice to copy my Avatar and place it on their Facebook. I guess they did it to protect me. In the Way, we are taught to sacrifice ourselves to save another. I admire their courage especially when they know that they would be persecuted for pretending to be me.

      Delete
    4. I was waiting for an "I am Sparticus" moment!!! Good on Holly!!!

      Delete
  16. In other words they create a false image the deceive others. We are a tight knit team.

    Bernie

    ReplyDelete
  17. See, there you go again: "In the Way, we are taught to sacrifice ourselves to save another"

    What are you meaning by this? That the Catholic Church does not teach this generally and broadly? Only those in the "Way" are taught to sacrifice themselves?

    This is one reason why we regard you suspiciously, and why the NCW creates discomfort in other Catholics. You could just as easily have said - "In the Catholic Church, we are taught to sacrifice ourselves to save another".

    But you didn't, did you? Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:50 p.m.,

      I am telling you wht we are learning in the Way, so you can see that what we are learning IS Catholic. I never said that the Catholic Church does not teach you this. I said, in the Way, we are taught to sacrifice ourselves to save another." This is the same teaching the Catholic Church teaches. It is only Tim Rohr and his followers who have been spreading the rumors that we are not Catholic and then go on to distort what the Way actually teaches.

      Delete
    2. Anon 3:50 Discomfort? This is what the Catholic Church teaches. If you don't like the bold truth and then you disregard your baptism.

      Delete
  18. Interesting that Holly's facebook page appeared at about the same time as your blog started. When did Holly decide to copy your avatar, by the way? Was it about the same time this blog began too? hmmm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:52 p.m.,

      Holly and the other girls most likely copied my avatar after Tim Rohr put a $500 bounty reward on my head.

      Delete
    2. Wow, fast work! Sisters in the true sense.

      Delete
  19. "We can't attend the convivence because we can't find baby sitters for our kids" Me
    "We have babysitters, you can leave them at so and so brother/sister's house for the weekend" Responsible
    "Mmm. Nope don't know them really" Me
    "They'll be fine trust me" Responsible
    "No, we're going to attend this time because we don't feel comfortable leaving our kids with strangers"Me
    "You're making your children idols" Responsible

    F That~

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 4:54 p.m.,

      I do not know you, but all of us in the communities including myself have families. I do not need to use the community to babysit my kids. This goes for some of the brothers in the Way. Some of them leave their kids over the weekend with their relatives who are not walking in the Way.

      Delete
    2. My inlaws, for the most part, watch our kids during these times. The kids love going with them because as with most grandparents, they are spoiled with them. My inlaws see how our marriage has been strengthened and are amazed at how much the children incorporate God and prayer throughout the day.

      Delete
    3. YUP that's a BIG neo thing, calling children idols! What the heck is that? We have enough problems with the fact that children are being murdered in abortuaries every single day! Don't further dehumanize children by telling their parents that they are idols. This is my biggest issue with the neo, that they have the nerve to tell parents crap like this. Children are a blessing from God! It is a parents duty to see to the well being of their child and to display the love to them that our Heavenly Father asks of us. Where did Jesus ever say that children were idols? When has the Catholic church ever taught that children are idols? Ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 12:52 a.m.,

      The Catholic Church teaches that anything you put first before God is an idol. If you put your children first before God, then you make your children into an idol. In other words, if you love your children more than God, then you worship idols and are not worthy of Him.

      Mathew 10:37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

      Delete
    5. DianaAugust 16, 2014 at 6:36 AM

      "The Catholic Church teaches that anything you put first before God is an idol. "

      and of course this "God" is equated with the Neo Community. Has it occured to you that NCW is an idol? And that serving God is not only sitting in the Church?

      Delete
    6. The problem is not with calling children idols, the problem is putting the NCW in front of everything in your life like it is God.
      The problem is with the inability to say no to them without them branding you or pressuring you in some way.
      Calling children idols is only one way of doing that.
      They will eventually call every activity that they don't like an Idol...

      Delete
    7. Dear Niinja2,

      There is a way the Catechists can find out if one worships the community. If a person is placed in another community and makes a fuss about it and even disobeys, then it is possible that person was only there for his/her community rather than for God.

      You are correct that serving God is not only sitting in the Church. There are many NCW members who volunteer their efforts in cleaning and maintaining the Church grounds. Others NCW members serve by becoming alter servers, Eucharistic ministers, ministers of the word, and sing in the church choir. Other volunteer to become CCD instructors or work as parish council members. Others volunteer to help out in the seminary doing laundry, cleaning, cooking, etc.

      Delete
    8. Dear Niinja2 at 1:41 am,

      The NCW is an itinerary of Christian formation. It prepares one to become a Christian. This is not to say that the NCW is the only way that you can become a Christian. The beauty about the Catholic Church is that it has many organizations for someone to choose from in order to form them into becoming true Christians so they walk like Jesus Christ. The NCW is only one of these ways and is not for everyone.

      Itinerants and mission families are able to give up everything for God because they now know that material things should not be put first before God. Family, friends, and children should also not be placed before God. God told Abraham to sacrifice His beloved son to test Abraham. Abraham passed the test.

      Jesus said that anyone who leaves mother father, children for him will be his disciple. If Jesus calls you to be His disciple, what will you say? Will you tell Him that you cannot because you have a job or that you cannot find a babysitter? Many of us are attached to money more than God without even realizing it. It is the same with children, family, and friends. God gives us many gifts, but we are never to worship those gifts.

      Delete
    9. The people walking in the NCW has made the community its idol, the golden calf. NCW worships the itinerant catechists for they cannot say No to them, they cannot question them. They have to be obedient all the time if you don't you are labelled disobedient to God. Because God speaks through your catechist. If you obey your catechist, you obey the Church and you obey God.
      They worship the Golden Calf.

      Delete
    10. "If Jesus calls you to be His disciple, what will you say"

      Once again, this is to say "If the NCW demands something of you". In other words, it is exactly as niinja said. The community is identified with God, or with Jesus in this case. And any demand of the community - remember, it is made up of sinful fallible human beings - is treated as though it comes from the mouth of God.

      What about the "word from Rome" for example. The NCW is such a joke. You all should be ashamed

      Delete
    11. Dear Anonymous at 10:01 am,

      I am walking in the NCW, and I assure you that I do not worship the community as an idol. I do not bow down to the community. As a matter of fact, the catechist put me in a different community, and I did not complain. So, I am not in the same community as I was before. I can also tell you that I have asked questions from my catechists. I can also tell you that we have free will. We can leave the community if we choose to. The fact that some have chosen to leave and some have chosen to stay while others chose to join is evidence of that.

      Delete
    12. DianaMay 27, 2015 at 10:45 AM
      "I am walking in the NCW, and I assure you that I do not worship the community as an idol. "

      We do not mean you put specific community in the place of God, but you place entire NCW in the place of it.

      "We can leave the community if we choose to."

      Yeah and before that things like these are told:
      "you can do free will and God will let you do it and take his hand off of you"
      "You will never be happy"
      "bad things will happen to you"
      The point is that you will never chose a choice that is demonized so much.
      Leaving NCW was the hardest and the best decision i made in my life. When i left ithought i am missing MY CHANCE FOR HAPPINES IN THIS LIFE. This are the ideas that are put in someones head in NCW. Its a psychological mechanism to make people stay inside NCW.
      Our will is not free, it is conditioned by everything we feel, see and hear. We do not have "free" decisions, our decisions are made based on available information. And since the Catechists are the prime authority on deciding what is true and and that every other source of information that says something against NCW is demonized they are the ones who ultimately form our will by forming the "truth" on which we base our decisions.

      How can there be free will in NCW when OBEDIENCE is a moral value. It is moral to obey your catechists , which means it is not moral not to obey them, it is not moral to do what you want when they tell you something, and if you disobey them and actually do what you want people put social pressure on you and you become "that guy". That is NOT FREE CHOICE , that is INFLUENCED CHOICE because every time you are disobey you are basically threatened with social exclusion.

      "The fact that some have chosen to leave and some have chosen to stay while others chose to join is evidence of that. "

      The fact that in NCW there are people who did not get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except humiliation and they still stay there is the evidence of manipulation and slavery.

      Delete
    13. "DianaMay 27, 2015 at 6:27 AM"

      Look at your comment , is there any other other way for you to serve God except having any kind of activity that does not involve serving the Church and consequently serving the NCW?

      Can serving God be being a scientist?
      Can serving God be protecting the weak?
      Can serving God be a decent human being that rather cares for his children then goes to sit to NCW to listen to stuff he has heard 10 times before?

      And i wonder , i just wonder what would the catechists say to a guy that says he is cleaning or cooking for the church so he cannot come to the Eucharist.

      Delete
    14. DianaMay 27, 2015 at 6:38 AM
      "Jesus said that anyone who leaves mother father, children for him will be his disciple. Will you tell Him that you cannot because you have a job... "

      I'm sorry , tell who? Who is this Him?
      I know that catechists ask you this. Is this Him you are talking about a catechist?

      Yes it is.
      I heard it from the mouth of a Catechist , "we are speaking in the name of God". The arrogance. I heard them say to a specific person that he leaves his saturday evening activities (listening to music in concert hall) so he can go to Eucharist on NCW, because once a week is not enough. Then he said "Jesus is telling you this"...

      Jesus died 2000 years ago , we are not talking with Jesus we are talking with people who pretend to know His will. How arrogant can someone be to think he knows the will of Jesus to the last detail?

      Someone who tells you that you leave your family for God , and this "God" turns out to be an institution that does not really care for you after you leave them, is worshiping an idol and is a fool in general, he is not Jesus , he is a false prophet.

      Its manipulation, people are told that eventually every activity that separates them form NCW activities is an idol until this institution ultimately absorbs all your free time. When they need to manipulate you to leave a certain activity they just say its your idol.
      What do you think how many people would have joined if they knew that eventually everything will come second to NCW?
      Not saying what your true practices are at the beginning is a sign of a cult.

      People were told that money is their God just out of the blue. I was there while they were saying that to 3-4 people. These people did not say nothing remotely connected to money nor do they make a lot of money. The Catechist just thrown it out for no apparent reason. Why?
      Because the next time they would have asked that we pay 10% tithe (through which the NCW actually finances itself) and get rid of our idol . Why?

      BECAUSE "GOD" NEEDS MONEY!

      The definition of an idol is that it is general something good but taken to extreme it becomes bad. Maybe one person in my community had money as an idol. The only thing NCW members are extreme about is not making money, its devoting their time to NCW...

      Delete
    15. Dear niinja2,

      The fact that you left shows that you had free will. Everyday, you make a choice since the moment you wake up. Some of those choices have become so routine that we do not even think about them. You complain about humiliation? Saints have been humiliated and it made them stronger. Christ was humiliated and gained victory. The only weapon to defeat Satan is humility. This is probably something you do not understand. History shows that when one does not retaliate against the enemy, the enemy is defeated. Christ did not retaliate against those who persecuted and killed Him. As a result, Christianity was born and thrived. Martin Luther King Jr. taught non-violence to African Americans. He said, "Darkness cannot conquer darkness. Only the light can conquer darkness." He preached non-violence even in the face of humilitarion. As a result the enemy is defeated. Segregation is gone. There are many examples of this in history. Ghandi also practiced this same method and was able to defeat the enemy. The British ended its occupation of India.

      Delete
    16. Dear niinja2,

      Are you saying that Jesus would prefer that the young adult go to a concert rather than to a Eucharist where he would receive His Body and Blood and be one with Him??

      You stated: "Jesus died 2000 years ago , we are not talking with Jesus we are talking with people who pretend to know His will."

      God spoke through His prophets, His Apostles and through His Church. It was men who wrote the Bible with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And it was men who gathered together the books and formed the Holy Bible through the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, they were able to discern which books to keep out of the Bible and which books were inspired by God. Are you saying that God no longer speaks to people as He did during biblical times?

      Delete
    17. Dear niinja2,

      You stated: "And i wonder , i just wonder what would the catechists say to a guy that says he is cleaning or cooking for the church so he cannot come to the Eucharist."

      Why not read the story of Martha and her sister Mary. What did Jesus say? The answer lies in that story.

      Delete
    18. So there you go Niinja, you should be grateful to the NCW for humiliating you and taking away your freedom. Its holy, apparently, like the saints.

      Once more everything you have spoken in truth has been proven right by Diana's responses.

      I really feel for you Niinja. I know that everything you say is true. The NCW is a cult and is evil in its extreme and fanatical behavior. I pray that you keep faith in the true Church and don't let them drive you out completely - which is unfortunately the fate of the majority of the few that, through providence manage to extract themselves.

      And that comment about "that guy"! Wow, that is so spot on

      Delete
    19. "DianaMay 27, 2015 at 11:08 PM"

      So at this comment you are basically saying that people who got nothing except humiliation but are still in NCW are suffering this humiliation because its supposed to make them better?

      Now tell me , did people entering at the cathecesis knew about this? Did they knew they would "suffer for Jesus".
      Or was the initial story a bit different? Almost every community spends the first year or at least one month in an euphoria because they think based on the stories their catechists told them that bald people will grow hair.
      And after years and years of waiting for great things you convince people that the suffering they get is the thing that was promised to them...
      All of a sudden the meaning of their existence in the Way is to suffer so they could defeat the devil?
      Isn't God supposed to defeat the devil? Isn't God already defeated the devil? Did Jesus suffer so we do not have to or he suffered so he would give us an example?

      And if all of this suffering and humiliation is the key, why don't the catechists suffer in the same way? They do not suffer humiliation, they enjoy reputation of being a gods messenger.
      While i was in NCW a cathecist was a person of great authority that no one could touch but he could cast people out of communities they were in for a decade in 2 sentences.
      And after that person left not one of the catechists even bothered to humbly call that person...
      I have yet to see a catechist humble himself and become vulnerable in front of his flock.
      Catechists are not about humility, they are about power and control.

      This story you just told me is the same story that is told to the people who was promised everything and did not get nothing and because of this story and fear mongering they are still in NCW.
      You just proved my point.

      People got in to get something or to know God, not to suffer. Its a story you tell them after you fail to deliver your promises.

      Delete
    20. "The fact that you left shows that you had free will."

      No, it shows that the chains finally broke...

      If heavy influence of authority figure and social pressure means you have free will, then answer me what does it mean not to have free will, what does it mean to be a slave?
      If you suffer mobbing at work , do you have free will?

      Delete
    21. DianaMay 27, 2015 at 11:15 PM
      "Are you saying that Jesus would prefer..."

      Jesus would prefer that people would not be bullied and would respect her choice.

      That person knew what she traded, and it was her choice to go to concerts, she still goes on eucharist sometimes, her cathecists did not simply tell her "well this is what we think Jesus would say but you chose what you want", they told her that she should stop with her concerts and then said "Jesus is saying that"or something bad is going to happen if she does not.
      That person was the most manipulative person i have met, she would manipulate without even realizing it, but even she at that moment said that she believes in free will and that we should make our own free choices. Why would she said that? Because it was obvious to everyone they were manipulating her.
      If this is not manipulation what is , and i want you to answer, what is manipulation in your mind?

      Delete
    22. Dear Niinja2,

      Have you ever read the Holy Bible? Do you not know that Christ predicted that we would suffer just as He suffered? What makes you think the catechists do not suffer? They are human like all of us and face the same kind of problems like all of us. All you see is someone in authority, but do you know their personal lives?

      Jesus said that we would suffer just as He did. He said that just as they rejected Him, they will also reject us. Do you believe that Jesus was telling a lie when He said this? The reality is that suffering exists in this world. What is it that makes us suffer? It is our sins that makes us suffer. Yes, Christ conquered death and sin. This is why Christians no longer need to fear death because we have been redeemed and can have eternal life on earth. The choice is up to us......in other words.....free will. And when we sin, Christ is there to pick us up. When we have Christ in us, all the sufferings that comes our way will not be stressful for us. Why? Because Christ is our peace even in the midst of suffering. Do you not believe this? The Apostles went to their deaths singing for joy. They did not fear death because they had the Holy Spirit in them that consoled them, and they knew that their deaths means that they would see Jesus Christ, which is what they look forward to.

      Delete
    23. " Are you saying that God no longer speaks to people as He did during biblical times? "

      So cathecists are God, or at least closest thing to him? How humble.
      How do you know they are not false prophets?

      I don't know really if God speaks to anyone because i have no way of testing that.

      But i do know God is not talking to the catechists because they are contradictory and i would expect God to be consistent.

      One example is saying we cannot do anything with our own power , God is the one who initiates things and does things and then later on blaming us for not doing enough this or that like God was unable to do anything before we acted first. Its a contradictory claim.
      Its contradictory to say God is in control and that He has a plan and later on say that Devil deceived us like God was never in control. What is the point of heaving a plan and being God if Devil can ruin it just like that? It makes no sense.

      How come did it turn out that God cannot speak to me directly?
      How come God speaks almost only through my catechists and that His will always coincides what is best for growth of the Way?
      How come i wonder?

      How come am i trying to be God when i want to make my own decisions in my life, but when catechists wants to make decisions for my life or he speaks in the name of God then he is a "prophet"?

      Who in the hell placed them as prophets?
      How arrogant does someone have to be to think God speaks directly through him?

      And finally if catechists were really prophets or shepherds they would actually take 1 or 2 minutes of their time to call people who left NCW whom they preached love and see how they are doing.
      When i faced them with this they said "when a shepard has no time he sends his dogs"
      I swear they said that. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE "TIME" FOR 1 MINUTE PHONE CALL TO EX MEMBERS.
      AND THESE ARE THE SELF PROCLAIMED PROPHETS TO WHOM I SHOULD BE OBEDIENT?
      ARE YOU EFIN SERIOUS?

      Jesus said that people who are not real shepherds do not care for their flock, they do not know their flock nor the flock knows them.
      I was there for 6 years and i knew nothing of my catechists and after that time most of them knew only my name.

      Do you think it would be fair to say to people who are entering the NCW that NCW leaders think they are prophets and that God speaks through them?

      Delete
    24. "You stated: "And i wonder , i just wonder what would the catechists say to a guy that says he is cleaning or cooking for the church so he cannot come to the Eucharist."

      Why not read the story of Martha and her sister Mary. What did Jesus say? The answer lies in
      that story. "

      So catechists would say its better to come to Eucharist then to serve. And i agree that is what Cathecists would say and with this you just proved my previous point.
      So it appears that serving God ultimately reduces to sitting in the Church.

      Delete
    25. "The fact that you left shows that you had free will."

      Does a man which has a gun to his head have free will?

      I must say, you have been so kind so far, so yes or no please.

      Delete
    26. Dear Niinja2,

      You stated "If you suffer mobbing at work , do you have free will?"

      We suffer because sin exists. Sin causes suffering, but you still have a choice. Every victim has a choice. The victim can choose to wallow in his/her suffering or they can overcome their struggles so they can move one in life. With God, all things are possible.

      Delete
    27. Dear Niinja2,

      Yes, even a man who has a gun to his head has a choice. He can choose to accept his death with dignity or choose to wail and plead with the guy not to shoot him. I think you are confusing free will with suffering.

      Delete
    28. Dear Niinja2,

      First of all, do not twist my questions around. I asked if you believe if God still speaks to people today as He did in biblical times. I did not ask you if you believe the catechists is God.

      You stated: "I don't know really if God speaks to anyone because i have no way of testing that."

      I take it then that you never read the Holy Bible because if you did, you would have known that God did speak to Adam, Abraham, and even Moses. I highly recommend that you start reading the Bible so you can come to know who Christ is. All those questions you ask can be found in Sacred Scripture.

      Delete
    29. Dear Niinja2 at 12:23 am,

      i only hear your side. You have a lot of negative things to say about the catechists. I would like to hear the catechists side of the story. For every story, there are two sides, and it is only right and reasonable to hear all sides.

      Delete
    30. "You stated "If you suffer mobbing at work , do you have free will?"

      We suffer because sin exists. Sin causes suffering, but you still have a choice. Every victim has a choice. The victim can choose to wallow in his/her suffering or they can overcome their struggles so they can move one in life."

      How exactly is a victim of mobbing supposed to overcome their struggles? Quit their job?


      " He can choose to accept his death with dignity or choose to wail and plead with the guy not to shoot him. I think you are confusing free will with suffering. "

      Yeah , i think you should explain to the people who enter NCW what do you mean by "free" choice.
      "free choice" which is by DEFINITION "FREE" means not influenced:
      From wikipedia:"Freedom of choice describes an individual's opportunity and autonomy to perform an action selected from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties"

      UNCONSTRAINED BY EXTERNAL PARTIES!
      Please do not tell be that a guy has a choice even if a gun is placed to his head all up until his hands are tied up.
      You are confusing free choice with just "choice" like dying because by a robber, which is not really a choice it is, especially if you want to live or you have a family to take care of.
      That is manipulation.

      I ask you, if we always have a choice and are then always free , then what is this slavery NCW is supposed to bring us out like God brought out his people from Egypt?


      " I asked if you believe if God still speaks to people today as He did in biblical times. I did not ask you if you believe the catechists is God."

      Actually yes you did, we were debating where do the Catechists get their authority and then you asked me do i believe there are prophets in general. You implied the catechists are the prophets.... which in absence of God makes them equivalents to God.

      And i ask you how do you know they are not false prophets?

      Delete
    31. "DianaMay 28, 2015 at 12:01 PM"

      "For every story, there are two sides, and it is only right and reasonable to hear all sides. "

      What context do you need to justify this:
      I told them they were manipulative and that i was unhappy, i was talking for maybe 10 minutes. All my cathecist said was:
      "you are a seed that has fallen into the bushes, go to cathecesis"

      We did have a conversation before that , but he only asked questions and did not say anything relevant other then "if i do not see Jesus on them then all of this has no purpose", like the only purpose of me being there was so i can see they are Jesus...
      After 6 in NCW years this is what he told me, to go to the start like i was never there. After listening to " do not ask questions", " circumsize your brain", "obey your cathecists", "God has a plan", " God does things", "trust us" and listening about incredible love i would feel on NCW, after the fact that i went to the other side of the world at my own expense, after all this all i deserved was 2 sentences and nothing else? Once of those sentences does not mean anything, "you are a seed that fell into the bushes".
      What does that mean? What was wrong with what i have said? Where did i make a mistake? Who threw me there? Who plotted my trajectory? Who is responsible for that and for the fact that they WASTED 6 YEARS OF MY LIFE so i could get this bullshit excuse. Was that Gods plan for me?
      And even if i was profoundly wrong in something how in the hell could i spend 6 years there without them noticing i am actually wasting my time?
      And even if there was something wrong with me, how in the hell should going on the beginning and listening the elementary parts of the teachings i already listened for 6 years should fix my problem when it did not work in the first place?
      There were 15 cathecesis. Which one should i listen to?
      He expected me to sit down for 30 hours and listen what i listened for 6 years already and some magic was supposed to happen and i would " see the light" this time around?
      If this is the was people see "truth" in NCW then this "truth" does not depend on the actual factual truth but it depends on some emotional effect.
      How much more time should i waste there before i get the actual answer to my question and objections?

      The next time he saw me the first thing he asked me " have you been on cathecesis?"
      I HAVE BEEN TO "CATHECESIS" FOR 6 YEARS! What a wanker!

      Delete
    32. Continued:
      t is possible that i was wrong in something,i don't know what exactly because he did not tell me but:
      The fact that he gave me a 2 sentence reply as he did after 6 years of walking NCW shows that it is possible that NCW wastes years and years of certain peoples time while all that time it promises happiness.

      On a second occasion i told them that i do not think God intervenes in NCW, he told me that i was deceived by the devil (because what other explanation for fixed marriages can be possible other then "God did it", and if you think differently you are deceived by the devil, no other explanation).
      I asked him why did God allow this to happen. He just turned his head , ignored my question and suddenly asked me if i want to go to pilgrimage? How in the hell did the discussion suddenly turn to did i want to go to pilgrimage? How in the hell when i ask questions they always try to SEND ME AWAY TO SOME PLACE INSTEAD OF ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT??? I answered no, i dont want to go to pilgrimage, why the hell do we even talk about this now? He said "see you are not interested in Gods will". Because we all know God is where Kiko is! That wanker!
      Every time i remember this i get upset. How in the hell is my interest in Gods will suddenly important?
      What does this answer have to do with my question?
      And how in the hell he can say that when year before that i spend so much money to go to a pilgrimage on the other side of the world? Maybe i should have made 2 circles around the earth?
      Why did he ask me did i wanted to go to pilgrimage? Why? I tell you why:
      So i can say no and so he can blame me for "NOT BEING ENOUGH ____________" , fill the blank yourself.
      WANKER!

      What can they say to their defense that would justify this behavior?
      Please tell me?

      On a second occasion a sister from NCW told me that i did not receive Gods help, even though i did what the catechists told me to do, because "my heart was not in the right place". How in the hell is important for omnipotent God that i do what they tell me (otherwise He cannot act), but also that my "heart should be in the right place" while i am doing it otherwise it will fail... How incompetent is this "God".
      And how in the hell does she know where was my heart was???
      THEY MAKE STUFF UP!

      When i said them what they don't want to hear, they either say my judgment is impaired ,but never explain how because they made that up, or they either try to send me somewhere away or the try to shut me up.

      How is that not a cult?

      Delete
    33. Dear Niinja2,

      I think I can see a little bit of the problem here. It is like what we are discussing on this board. I say that we have free will. You say that we do not have free will despite what I say. I gave you examples of situations in which free will still exists despite that a person is a victim of a crime. Yet, you still argue that we do not have free will.

      Perhaps, the reason you think the NCW is a cult is because you find that in the NCW, you are not given what you want nor were you able to convince anyone to follow YOUR way. I believe in free will. You do not. I already gave my reasons why free will exists and you still persist in the argument. You are unable to see because your mind and heart is closed, and you simply want others to acknowledge that you are always correct.

      You believe that God does not intervene in the NCW. Yet, right before your eyes, broken marriages are fixed, mission families are leaving everything behind to evangelize, sisters are being called to convent, and brothers are being called to the priesthood. Right before your eyes, people are coming out in the NCW giving their testimonies about how their life was changed as they were walking in the Way. Right before your eyes, Catholics who have stopped going to church have returned and Catholics who have never been involved in their church are now participating in helping their church. Right before your eyes are youths who spend two hours in a Eucharist and four hours studying the Bible every month....and they do not find that boring. And you still believe that God does not work or intervene in the NCW. I have published many good things the Way has done on this blog, and you still believe that God does not intervene in the NCW. Rather, you would think that the Devil was the one doing all these GOOD things.

      Delete
    34. I already commented once but my comment was not posted. So here i go again.

      "I think I can see a little bit of the problem here. It is like what we are discussing on this board. I say that we have free will. You say that we do not have free will despite what I say. I gave you examples of situations in which free will still exists despite that a person is a victim of a crime. Yet, you still argue that we do not have free will. "

      The example you gave me says that a guy who is threatened with a gun has free will.
      This is not true, but it does not matter really.
      What matters is that i disagree and i argued why with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS. You disagree with me but you did not argue, you ASSERTED.
      I posted a link from Wikipedia that showed that to be free is to be unconstrained which a person with a gun to his head is certainly not. You DID NOT RESPOND.

      I asked you how is a victim of mobbing supposed to overcome its problem and how does that person have free will. You DID NOT REPLY.

      I asked you what would be an example of slavery the bible is talking about so we can see in which case a person really is enslaved and compare that with "gun to the head case" and see if you have a consistent judgment about what it means to have free will. You DID NOT REPLY.

      I also asked you how to you know catechists are not false prophets. You DID NOT REPLY.

      I asked many other questions and made comments , you DID NOT REPLY.

      I think i can see a little bit of the problem here.You ASSERT that a guy with a gun to his head has free will. I argue with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS WHICH REFUTE THIS CLAIM TO WHICH YOU DO NOT REPLY. You still continue to ASSERT that its an example where free will exists but you do not back that claim with NOTHING despite the fact that a little kid sees that he does not have free will and despite all of the arguments to the contrary. You fail to present an example of slavery so we can really see the difference between an example where a person has and has not free will.
      And you still say ( you do not argue because you ignore arguments), you still say that you are right.

      I explained in my previous comment why its a cult through other examples and actual events that happened to me which you did not comment , but rather you discarded them saying there is something wrong with me based on something else i said so we can all disregard my other experiences as well.

      One of the reasons i said its a cult is:"they either say my judgment is impaired ,but never explain how" other then saying "i am right you are wrong" which YOU DID RIGHT NOW.
      People there think just like you. Claim ridiculous claims (that a guy with a gun to his head is free) , do not realize how ridiculous their claims are, ignore arguments that show them they are wrong , fail to answer questions that would show them they are wrong and continue to claim there is something wrong with you while completely ignoring disregarding everything else they say because there is something "wrong" with that person...

      "You are unable to see because your mind and heart is closed, and you simply want others to acknowledge that you are always correct. "

      I do not have to be always correct, i can actually be proven to be wrong with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS NOT FALSE ASSERTIONS.
      I was always amazed in how people can make assertions and have no need to actually back them up with some kind of argument or evidence but expecting others should believe it and if others don't then say there is something wrong with them. There is something definitely wrong with this kind of thinking.

      It appears to me that you are the ones who have a closed mind and who are always correct despite of what arguments, observations or questions you are presented with.
      You are the one who think people should accept your view despite the lack of any kind of argumentation, evidence or backing to your claim.

      And you just proved it to everybody here....

      And i must say the level on which you project this onto me is staggering.

      Delete
    35. Dear Niinja2,

      Everyone has free will. In your case, your definition of free will is to be unconstrained of everything and anything. You want a free will that is not determine by any physical or divine forces. Free will is the ability to choose regardless of what physical environment one is placed in.

      Some people say that we have no free will because we are influenced by our environment. Yet, man has shown to either adapt to different environments or even change his environment. Others say that we have no free will because God has already predestined certain people to Hell and Heaven. They misunderstood what predestination means. God respects man's free will. Bad and sinful things happen in our world and God allows it because He respects man's free will.

      In your case, you say that you have no free will because you feel you are not free to do whatever you want. People like your parents, your boss, and the catechists tell you what to do......so you feel there is no free will. Yet, you find nothing wrong with telling your children what to do. Free will has nothing to do with an absence of law or being obedient to others. When there is an absence of law, you have an anarchy or a state of nature, in which people's rights are violated.

      We all have free will including the person who holds a gun to the victim's head. That person can either choose to shoot the victim or forgive him. The victim, on the other hand, can choose to accept that he will die and die with dignity or he can choose to plead for his life, hoping that the person holding the gun will listen.

      A slave also has choices. They can choose to obey their master, rebel against their master, commit suicide, or choose to run away to Canada. Christ never guaranteed that our life on earth would be easy or fair. That is life and reality. But we all have free will. That was shown at the very beginning in the Book of Genesis. Adam blamed his wife for persuading him to eat the forbidden fruit, and Eve blamed the serpent for tricking her. But when God said, "What have YOU done"? ......this showed that He put the blame on themselves for making the choice of eating the forbidden fruit.

      Freedom and free will are two different things. If we continue to sin, then we become slaves to sin and lose our freedom. However, we have the free will to choose to be with Christ if this is truly what we want, and Christ can liberate us from our slavery through forgiveness of sins.

      Delete
    36. "A slave also has choices. They can choose to obey their master, rebel against their master, commit suicide, or choose to run away to Canada."

      I'm trying to wrap my mind around your definition of freedom and free will.
      According to you you always have free will because you can always chose even though available choices are not favorable or enjoyable.
      But a person can or can not be a slave. Depending on what?

      1 Is having one choice still having free will?

      2 What exactly makes you a slave if you always have freedom to chose because you have free will. What exactly means that you lose your freedom?

      3 What is the difference between a slave that has 4 choices from your example and a guy that has a gun to his head?

      4 Would you say that loosing freedom is reducing the number of choices we can choose?

      Delete
    37. Dear Niinja2,

      Slavery is when you have no access to Heaven. It is when you are in prison. Christ freed us, so you are now free. And if you fall because of sin, Christ will be there to pick you up if you allow him.

      1. There is always two choices. You either do it or do not do it.

      2. Your sin makes you a slave if you persist in it. Sin is like an addiction.

      3. The guy holding the gun can have more than 2 choices. What I gave you is only to show that we always have choices. The guy with the gun can shoot you to end your life, forgive you and walk away, shoot himself to end his suffering, or shoot your child to make you suffer rather than to end your life.

      4. In Christianity, God already set us free from death so whatever suffering you encounter in your life, we have hope for eternal life because we have access to Heaven. We are the sons and daughters of God, and the sons and daughters of God are free , and our free will is conformed to Christ's free will who did the will of the Father.

      Delete
    38. Just so we do not get confused , lets say that the name of a guy that has a gun to his head is Bob and a guy holding the gun is Johnny.

      1. i will take that as a yes. Free will exists always.

      2. So slavery is addiction. An addict is a slave. Correct?
      And please explain slavery in secular or earthly terms because we are talking about earthly situations.

      3. You did not understand my question or you are dodging the question. I was not talking about the gun men (Johnny) , i was talking about a victim (Bob). Both he and a slave you mentioned earlier have free will. Slave does not have freedom because he is a slave and has 4 choices. Victim is "free" i suppose and has 2 choices. What is the difference?

      4. Is that a no? Does reducing the number of choices means a person is loosing freedom?

      Delete
    39. If somebody is influenced by threats of death he is free because he has free will.
      If somebody is influenced by sin he is not free even though he has free will.
      If somebody is influenced by addiction he is not free even though he has free will.

      This does not make sense.
      It appears that some influences make you a slave and other don't. What is the difference.

      Delete
    40. Dear Niinja2,

      This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

      CCC 1711 Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in "seeking and loving what is true and good" (GS 15 § 2).

      As you can see, the Catholic Church teaches that man is endowed with a spiritual soul, intellect, and free will. So, you have a choice. Do you want to believe that world that tells you that you have no free will or do you want to believe the Catholic Church Church who tells that you that man has free will. It is YOUR choice.

      Delete
    41. And your choice was to answer my questions and you did not answer.

      I agreed for the sake of the argument that we do have free will.
      But the rest of the questions or comments you did not respond.
      So i will respond instead of you.

      You talk about freedom , slavery and free will. In your mind some people are slaves , some people are free but all of them have free will. Ok.

      We started this debate to determine whether people in NCW are manipulated. You argued that despite all of influence they still have free will and implied that they are free. By this definition there are no slaves because people can always chose no matter what influence is on them. But you said some people are slaves. Where exactly slave becomes free and what makes a free person a slave ... you did not say.

      Which means you probably do not understand what is the relation between slavery and freedom and your definition of free will is in question.

      You said.
      " You want a free will that is not determine by any physical or divine forces."
      Well... yeah because otherwise it would be a determined will.
      The more somebody is influenced with fear and social pressure the less he is free and the more he is a slave even though he still have the ability to chose , which by your definition is free will.

      Its not the problem with the ability to chose , the problem is with that if some choices have bad consequences (like people talking about you if you disobey catechists) they do not come into consideration as a choice. The number of possible choices in this way is reduced by outside influence (fear, social pressure) and ultimately your freedom is reduced. This is what NCW does.

      If a choice is influenced by fear for example it is no longer a free choice and your free will is impaired... It is still a choice but we can no longer talk about freedom of choosing.
      You do not understand the difference between FREE CHOICE and JUST CHOICE.

      You said to me " Free will is the ability to choose regardless of what physical environment one is placed in. ". That fact that someone CAN chose to kill himself does not mean he is FREE to chose especially if he wants to live or has a family to take care of. If you stand by this definition of free will you MUST EXPLAIN the DIFFERENCE between SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. Because according TO YOUR DEFINITION OF FREE WILL NOBODY IS EVER A SLAVE because they can always freely chose.
      This is best seen in your comment posted on May 31, 2015 at 7:35 AM in the example where a slave you talked about has 4 choices but a "free" man with a gun to his head has only 2. When i asked you to explain this you ignored the choices of a person with a gun to his head and you started to talk about choices of a person holding the gun. Which means you evaded the question...

      To conclude:
      The choices we make are not "free", they are GUIDED by the NEED to chose what we think it BEST for us and this process of choosing is based (among other things) on the available information about a certain choice.
      A person like a catechist who controls information with the rule of silence, who does not say everything about NCW at the beginning (like practicing the rule of obedience), who disregards testimonies he does not like and experiences of some people with "the devil deceived you" , who puts social pressure on people if they chose some choices and paint heaven like picture if you chose others is MANIPULATING AND COLTROLING you.

      When somebody is robbing me he steals my money. The NCW not only robs you , but they also insult your intelligence that they do not rob you and that you have a free choice not to give them money while pointing a gun to your head.

      You will probably respond. You will probably ignore everything i have said and repeat some thing we already agreed on.
      But if you do not answer to ALL of the 4 questions posted on May 31, 2015 at 12:18 PM and a comment after that you basically concede i am right. I await your response.

      Delete
    42. My response to niinja2 - part 1

      Dear niinja2, you have presented the most forthcoming and honest views about the Neocatechumenal Way for years I have read on blogs. Thank you for this. Your views are greatly supported by your own experiences and insider's view of the Way. You exposed some serious issues that everyone in the Way with a honest mind would have to face one day. Diana tried to address your issues with great efforts and a true intention for clarification. However, you found this insufficient to convince yourself. So let me try to provide some further thoughts arranged around the person of our Redeemer Jesus who is the very center of every pious Catholic life. I have been walking in the Way for a number of years and my point of view may help you to see different angles of the same thing. The most important aspect of true piety is looking for Jesus in everything and every circumstances and trying to understand the whole world as if through His mind!

      In your example of Bob and Johnny, Bob is a victim of violence and Johnny is the perpetrator. Existentialism tells us as Diana explained that both have a freedom of choice, also called elective freedom, is electing among a few alternatives. Bob may die without complain or beg for his life, he may also resist violence and try to wrestle the gun out of Johnny's hand. Johnny can elect to shoot or not to shoot. This is

      1. elective freedom which is not the same as
      2. free will and not the same as
      3. living in freedom.

      You see three different kind of things here that should not be confused with each other. The devil may give you elective freedom, even a sense of free will, thus deceiving you into feeling free. But this sense of freedom is corrupt because it is rooted in evil nature that is sin. You have to resist that influence on you. It is only Jesus who can really free you and set your whole life free so that you may live in the true freedom provided by God.

      What makes you a slave is a corruption of your free will when you lose your living in freedom. You may still have elective freedom to choose among a few options but that would not restore your free will. An addict is a slave because (s)he is unable to give up material or spiritual dependency on harmful things. (S)he still has elective freedom in everyday choices, but her/his free will is corrupted by the dependency and (s)he is not living in freedom anymore. We are given our freedom by Jesus who freed us for eternity. This is the reason we have to trust Him and Him alone.

      end of part 1

      Delete
    43. my response to niinja2 - part 2

      Losing freedom means you lose control of your decisions about what to do in your life. It is not about elective freedom but about free will and living in freedom. It is not only about reducing your number of choices, it is more importantly about allowing something or someone else to make harmful decisions for you. In effect, your free will becomes a caricature of itself, a practical joke, because it is not you anymore who act in your life, but some malevolent authority that takes over your will. You have to fight this kind of intrusion and resist its harmful impact on you. Eminently, you have to protect your free will by placing it in the hand of Jesus if you mean Him to be your Lord and Savior. The best example is sin that entraps you, captures your whole being not allowing you to escape and be yourself anymore. Jesus is the only one who can release you from this bondage.

      A cult is very well able to steal your free will and make decisions for you thus enslaving you and subjugate you as a human being. If you don't resist, you'll be deconstructed as you, your being will be snatched and you will be replaced by some lifeless puppet who only have some physical remembrance of you. Do you want that to happen to you? Obviously, not! None of us would. So the key thing is vigilance and resistance to harmful influence. Now, the Way is not a cult. It is not making decisions for you. But the catechists make some recommendations that you may not thought of before. They give you a different, hopefully pious point of view. Would you listen to them? Well, it is you choice. You have elective freedom all the time. You are to judge if an advice is best for you to follow or not. You pray, you place the decision in the hand of Jesus and then you act. Nobody can take away that from you.

      If you idolize your catechists, you make a mistake. They are human beings as you are. Their authority is a lay authority, they are not consecrated people. You as another lay person of the same church are not a subject of this authority. It is your own decision if you accept what they say or not. The Catholic church would never subjugate any lay person to another lay person. But opening up your heart and mind to your sister or brother in faith might be beneficial for you. Just always remember, Jesus is the only true authority who can set you free and His teaching is the only true Word that could enlighten your heart and mind.

      end of part 2

      Delete
    44. Dear Niinja2,

      OH........Los suddenly you agree with me that we have free will. So, what is the whole purpose of your argument???? Why are you arguing that we do not have free will.........only to find out that to believe otherwise. That would be like an atheist making an argument that God exists.

      You say that we idolize the Catechists??? How do you know what is in our hearts. Are you God???????? ONLY God can see in our hearts whether we idolize the Catechists or not. You say that they are not a consecrated people. This only goes to show that you have not read the Bible. The Holy Bible says that all Christians are consecrated people and a holy nation.

      The only reason you change your argument about free will is because I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The NCW never taught that man has no free will; therefore, you learned it from the secular world. This is why your Catechists told you to go back and start over. You did not learn a simple catechesis such as free will, and that was taught at the beginning of the catechesis.

      Delete
    45. DianaJune 1, 2015 at 11:53 PM

      "suddenly you agree with me that we have free will. So, what is the whole purpose of your argument???? Why are you arguing that we do not have free will.........only to find out that to believe otherwise"

      I agreed for the sake of the argument that we do have free will. And i think my position is well argued in the text i wrote but let me summarize:
      My argument was that people lose their freedom despite having free will. You did not explain how and under what conditions free people become slaves and your notion of a slave and a free man was unclear. So it turned out that for you its impossible to be a slave, or your definition of free will is in dispute. You did not explain this.

      "You say that we idolize the Catechists??? How do you know what is in our hearts. "

      Its what i saw, i have eyes.

      "You say that they are not a consecrated people. This only goes to show that you have not read the Bible. The Holy Bible says that all Christians are consecrated people and a holy nation."

      Zoltan said that.

      "The only reason you change your argument about free will is because I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

      Now who is being God...
      I did not change anything. I assumed free will as you defined it exists for the sake of the argument as i did wrote in one of my comments.

      "This is why your Catechists told you to go back and start over."

      No they did not, you just made this up.

      " You did not learn a simple catechesis such as free will, and that was taught at the beginning of the catechesis. "

      And you are again making stuff up and trying to make me a fool instead of actually answering questions 1,2,3 and 4.
      Let me first answer this accusation. We did not have a cathecesis about free will, and even if we did we never had a chance to discuss the philosophical problems with it i raised in my earlier questions, everything our leaders say we are supposed to take for granted.

      Secondly , its not about free will, its about freedom and manipulation.
      The point is: Even if free will exists as you define it , and even if i agree with this definition you still have to explain what is the point in which a free person becomes a slave, which you did not do.
      What you did do was to attack my character instead of explaining my legitimate question or refuting my position that NCW manipulates people. Because you really have nothing to respond , do you?

      And by doing this and failing to explain what is the difference between slavery and freedom (not free will) you failed to defend your claim that people are still free even though they are influenced by fear.

      They are not free.
      They are manipulated.
      Thank you for proving that.

      Delete
    46. Dear Niinja2,

      You did not agree for the sake of argument. You agreed only AFTER I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church. BEFORE that, al you did was argue that we do not have free will.

      You stated: You did not explain how and under what conditions free people become slaves and your notion of a slave and a free man was unclear.

      Yes, I did. I told you that you are a slave to sin if you continue and persist in your sin. Being a slave is when you are held in bondage and have no access to Heaven. That is what I said, but you did not listen. All you cared is FORCING other people to accept your views and only your views. Now that is what it means to be a cult.

      Delete
    47. " Being a slave is when you are held in bondage and have no access to Heaven. "

      So is a man with a gun to the head free or not according to this definition?Does a slave that can run off to Canada have access to heaven? If he does then he is not a slave. Or is he? Your answer does not clarify nothing.
      I am not talking about slavery caused by influence of sin , i am talking about slavery CAUSED BY INFLUENCE OF OTHER PEOPLE. Those are 2 different things, you pretend the second thing does not exist. You pretend that you answered to this by talking about sin, while in fact you did not.
      I specifically asked a response in secular and specific terms because we are talking about a specific earthly case. Your answer is to general and cannot be applied to a "gun to the head" case or a specific "slave owner" case.
      If it can then answer please. Which one of those is a slave and which one is free and why?

      I also asked you how is it possible that we become slaves under the influence of sin but not under the influence of fear of death. You ignored that to.


      "All you cared is FORCING other people to accept your views and only your views."

      No i'm forcing you to answer. Which you pretend you did because you answered about the slavery from sin not from other people, and this was my question, not the one you answered.

      "You did not agree for the sake of argument. You agreed only AFTER I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

      I said this on May 31, 2015 at 12:18 PM
      "1. i will take that as a yes. Free will exists always."

      I believe we do not have free will. And i agreed for the sake of the argument, i should have said that there, and it is totally IRRELEVANT if i believe free will exists or not, its irrelevant if i changed my mind about free will or not, i explained this 2 times already because the question was about FREEDOM and even you said freedom and free will are not the same thing.
      And by FORCING the debate on IRRELEVANT issues you are still dodging the questions.
      The main issue is freedom, not free will. You are being dishonnest.

      Delete
    48. Dear Niinja2,

      None of those are slaves because Christ died for our sins and conquered death. We have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. The choice is now up to us whether we want this free gift of salvation.

      You stated:" I also asked you how is it possible that we become slaves under the influence of sin but not under the influence of fear of death."

      It is because of Original Sin that we have a weakened nature, which makes us tend to sin. (See CCC 418).However, we have Christ who lifts us up whenever we fall into sin. Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that we can repent and be reconciled back to Him and His Church.

      You also stated: " No i'm forcing you to answer. Which you pretend you did because you answered about the slavery from sin not from other people, and this was my question, not the one you answered."

      This is why your catechists told you to go back and start all over again. People do not enslave us. It has always been the Devil who is the enemy and who enslave us. The Devil tricked you into thinking that it is people who are evil. It is the devil who is evil (See CCC 2851).

      Delete
    49. "Being a slave is when you are held in bondage and have no access to Heaven. " "I am not talking about slavery caused by influence of sin , i am talking about slavery CAUSED BY INFLUENCE OF OTHER PEOPLE."

      This is right. Someone may be enslaved in the social sense. This happened to millions of black Americans in history. These people were enslaved by other men, who used them as tools and material possessions to make profit out of their lives. How inhuman. You have to refuse any form of social slavery and fight for the liberation of those who are enslaved by other men. As Martin Luther King the great Christian preacher and freedom fighter of the 20th century did.

      "I told you that you are a slave to sin if you continue and persist in your sin." "I also asked you how is it possible that we become slaves under the influence of sin but not under the influence of fear of death."

      Any kind of fear can prevent you from living in freedom. Living in freedom is on the top of the hierarchy of freedom, it is always above elective freedom and free will. Why? Because living in freedom is much more than elective freedom and free will. Living in freedom is the ultimate embodiment of God's will for us in both social and religious sense. When fear is imposed on you, then you are deprived from experiencing freedom.

      What kind of fear? Well this is an important question. It could be fear from
      - death
      - isolation
      - mobbing
      - being singled out
      - chastisement
      - penalty
      - discomfort
      - losing material possession
      - losing love
      - losing a loved one
      - losing salvation
      - etc.
      You see there could be a lot of fears in our lives. People can manipulate you by imposing those kind of fears on you that you are most sensitive of. Manipulation through fear can take the form of blackmailing, as well. The only way to overcome fear is to overcome those who impose fear on you. You have to turn to Jesus with your whole being, because He had never given up to fear. He is the One by whom you can overcome fear. You have to accept Him as the only authority in your life, so the harmful impact that imposes fear on you can be demolished.

      Think of a faithful on mission. He might experience discomfort and hunger, may be captured and might face fear of death and execution. He is a slave of the Lord in spreading the Word. Still (s)he is free, because Jesus is the embodiment of true freedom. I am talking about freedom in religious sense here. When your catechist tells you to go on mission, you have to discern what kinds of fear you have in you. Do you fear the catechist or the hardship of mission? They do not impose those fears on you. They only test you if you are ready to go. Mission produces an overflow of grace that is sufficient for fulfillment of everything you desire. But only those who are in the top of the pyramid go to mission, the rest of us are providing support. That is why selection for mission has extremely high responsibility. This is the essence of the whole hierarchical organization of the Way.

      "You say that we idolize the Catechists??? How do you know what is in our hearts. " "Its what i saw, i have eyes."

      When you desperately wait for a phone call from your catechist, then you may be too much dependent on her/him. You may idolize that person by setting idealistic expectations for her/him. This could mislead you. They are not consecrated to the holy order of priesthood which is a sacrament of the Catholic church. They are lay people as you are, still they may provide great support for spiritual growth. So why do you fear of becoming your own man? Overcoming fear through Jesus will set you free.

      Delete
    50. "You say that they are not a consecrated people. This only goes to show that you have not read the Bible. The Holy Bible says that all Christians are consecrated people and a holy nation."

      Actually, Zoltan said that Diana. Oops

      Delete
    51. "This is why your catechists told you to go back and start all over again"

      This is the problem. What does it mean to "start all over again"? What are you saying? That Christianity is some sort of exam? That if you don't give the same answers that you give, you are damned for all eternity?

      This is Gnosis Diana. He doesn't need to "go back and start all over again" any more that you do, or anyone else does. Each moment we are called to convert - to "go back again". This attitude, neatly displayed in that simple sentence of yours, is exactly what poor Niinja is arguing against.

      Neither you, nor the catechists, have the right to say this to him, as though you can judge his spiritual development. But you do - and in doing so, you surpass your authority and make a mockery of the Freedom of Christ.

      Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, we can be enlightened and guided so that the weakest and smallest, can become the surest sign of His presence.

      And what do you say? Just what the catechists say...

      "go back and start all over again"

      Pathetic.

      Delete
    52. Dear Anonymous at 11:06 am,

      I have every right to tell Niinja2 that he had free will even when he was walking in the NCW. The fact that he chose to leave showed that he had free will all along. Niinja2 has been arguing that members of the NCW do not have the free will to leave, but are slaves. Really? And this was coming from someone who made the choice to leave.

      I told him to go back and start all over because apparently, he prefers to argue. As a matter of fact, Niinja2 stated on May 31st at 3:40 am: " What matters is that i disagree and i argued why with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS. You disagree with me but you did not argue, you ASSERTED."

      Arguing is NOT Christian-like.

      Delete
    53. "Niinja2 has been arguing that members of the NCW do not have the free will to leave, but are slaves"

      In February 2014, Pope Francis made the following comments to the assembled (horrified) Neocats:

      "The freedom of each person must not be forced, and even the eventual choice of someone who decides to seek, outside of the Way, other forms of Christian life that help him to grow in the response to the call of the Lord must be respected."

      Why would he say this, if there wasn't a valid concern that the "freedom of the person" was being forced? Do you think he just said this for no reason, or because he couldn't think of something else to say?

      Niinja is right about this Diana, however difficult it may be for you to believe.

      Delete
    54. Dear Anonymous at 12:41 pm,

      There may be a few NCW members who are so zealous that they can even be labeled as "arrogant." A few people do not represent the entire NCW just as a few priests who committed sex abuse with young boys do not represent the entire Catholic Church. To label the entire members of NCW as slaves is not true.

      Delete
    55. "To label the entire members of NCW as slaves is not true"

      Correct. However, the system developed by Kiko, now called the Neocatechumenal Way, deliberately encourages that type of behaviour. It encourages zealotry; it has a focus on the community at the cost of the individual; it demonises the use of the intellect, and "argument"; it associates questions with the work of the devil; it encourages an extreme and fundamentalist reading of scripture; and it delights in the evil of setting family members against one another.

      There is a purpose to Kiko's design of the NCW. IT is not a method that has "come down from heaven". In fact, it is proof of the zealotry of the ordinary member of the NCW that they actually believe it does emerge directly from the mouth of God, and is therefore without the possibility of error.

      Now, it is quite obvious to anyone who reads this blog, that you, Diana, are a zealot, who might be labelled as "arrogant". Everything I have listed above you have displayed in surplus.

      There may be a few NCW who are not arrogant - who are kind and gentle and retain the horror of liturgical abuse; maltreatment of the members; the awful and total control exercised by catechists over the members, especially the young.

      But, unfortunately, "A few people do not represent the entire NCW just as a few priests who committed sex abuse with young boys do not represent the entire Catholic Church"

      Delete
    56. Dear Anonymous at 1:06 pm, '

      The focus is on Christ, not on the community because Christian life is supposed to put God first above anything else. So, when Niinja2 argued that the catechists is wrong to encourage the person to attend the Eucharist instead of the music concert. If God calls a person to evangelize, He would prepare the person for it. So, when the person chooses the music concert over the Eucharist, that person is not yet ready to evangelize. That person would prefer to go to the concert and the Eucharist the next day. So, the person gets both. This is not putting God first, but the person is putting their needs first before God. This is Catholic teaching......that God should always be first.

      You say that I am a zealot and arrogant. You are right. You are right in all the bad things you say about me. I know that I am a sinner. I never claimed to be perfect.

      Delete
    57. I just realized something.
      " All you cared is FORCING other people to accept your views and only your views. Now that is what it means to be a cult. "

      What i am doing is saying that you answer the question or concede that you are wrong. And you feel forced, you feel pressured. You feel.... not free?
      So when people on NCW are pressured with the same type of "do this or...." type of statements they still have free will and freedom, but when you are asked with the same type of statements to answer a question you feel forced and you say it means to be in a cult because its to hard to actually use your brain and think.
      That is called hypocrisy.

      People do not enslave us. It has always been the Devil who is the enemy and who enslave us. The Devil tricked you into thinking that it is people who are evil.
      Well then....
      i am not "forcing" you to do anything.
      You have "free will".
      HA HA

      "People do not enslave us. "
      Then why do you feel forced?
      So slaves never existed, tell that to african american when you see one.

      "It has always been the Devil who is the enemy and who enslave us. The Devil tricked you into thinking that it is people who are evil."

      If that is the case you are deceived by the devil that i am forcing you.

      Really? People are good? Are people not sinful? Don't people do sinful acts?
      So when catechists told me the same "do this or..." statements it was the devil talking through them and trying to enslave me?

      I rest my case.

      Delete
    58. "go back and start all over again"

      Even if i did say something wrong, how is it possible that a person spends 6 years giving his time and money for that place that is draining him psychologically and emotionally and that no one in those 6 years told him he was wrong about something crucial that makes it fruitless to continue going on. No matter was i right or wrong catechists wasted my time.

      "Arguing is NOT Christian-like. "

      Yes we are there to listen not argue, we are there to agree with them or get out because its a cult...

      " So, when the person chooses the music concert over the Eucharist,that person is not yet ready to evangelize."

      Yes , she is not useful for the community , she is not there for herself but for "Jesus".

      " That person would prefer to go to the concert and the Eucharist the next day. So, the person gets both. This is not putting God first,"

      Putting "God" first and as only thing you can have in your life, its "either or" choice. You can't have other things in your life except "God" because it takes away from "God".

      "but the person is putting their needs first before God."

      Yes because you did not enter NCW for yourselfs, you entered it to satisfy "God".

      Do you think people should be told this? Instead of telling them that they will have something they want like Abraham when he went on God's "WAY"...

      Delete
    59. Dear Zoltan at 10.04.

      "But only those who are in the top of the pyramid go to mission" and

      "the essence of the whole hierarchical organization of the Way"

      Quite remarkable for you to speak in this manner about an "itinerary of Catholic Christian formation", as is claimed.

      Your comments clearly show us that it is not what it claims.

      Delete
    60. "ZoltanJune 2, 2015 at 10:04 AM"

      I commented yesterday but my comments were not posted.
      All of the things you say about slavery and cults applied for NCW in the town where i was. I'm sorry its was just like that. You put an example of what community should be.
      "It is not making decisions for you. But the catechists make some recommendations that you may not thought of before. "
      Unfortunately its not that simple.

      Let me give you a few examples:
      "You can leave and you might feel less pressure but one day in maybe 15 years something might happen..."
      "God gives you freedom of choice and when you choose freely God will remove his hand from you to let you pick that choice"
      "When catechist spoke to you, God spoke to you"
      "Why do you ask so many questions? If you do not see Jesus on us, there is no point to nothing of this"
      I will comment on the last statement: It appears that if someone is Jesus like it means i should not ask him any questions, i should uncritically accept everything he says. It appears that they are Jesus while the rest of us are just sinners. It appears that there is no point in me being there if i do not see them as Jesus whom i should obey like a soldier.
      This statement is not about humility, its about power and control.
      Obedience is emphasized. Why? How can freedom of choice exist in a place where to obey others will is morally right and therefore doing your own will is morally wrong. You can do what you want but it comes with a price. The longer you walk the way the more there are choices that come with a penalty, and the ones that don't are always somehow beneficial to be NCW.

      Let me tell you just this. 2 years after i left i still had a feeling inside me that if i met my catechist on the street and he tries to guilt trip me, i thought that i will brake emotionally in front of him. I was there for 6 years. Catechists simply have some kind of influence which make people submissive in their prescience.

      It is my idea that what happens on NCW is a psychological effect that CAN but it DOES NOT HAVE TO happen within hierarchies when a person removes itself of all responsibility because he is receiving instructions from infallible authority (God or catechist or Pope). The neocathecumens are obsessed with authority and every argument ends up with "authority sad so"
      The communities lead themselves and after 10 years catechists only know the names of most of us because they are not involved in our lives. Neither are we in theirs.
      This behavior is supported by the idea that God is intervening constantly and the He is the one taking care of the communities.
      Abuse is supported by the idea that the pressure a person is receiving from others comes from God through which God changes your heart.
      People engage into your personal space to "help" you because they think they are doing the work of the Lord. They are said that God will work through communities. But they fail to help you when you really ask them (some of the time). Its an excuse for people who like to meddle in other peoples lives. And an ego boost. And since God rectifies our mistakes and leads things we do not really have to pay attention or take responsibility if our "treatment" does not work, its probably that persons fault that it did not work, its always his fault, there is no shortcoming of excuses to support accusations.
      What ultimately happens is that strong put pressure on the weak, the weak become strong , or they leave or they turn into people of broken will. What is left are the selected that will continue to spread the word of NCW. Its not love, its natural selection.

      Delete
    61. Continued
      I had a friend who suffered the same treatment while she was going to psychologist. The same kind of treatment "we know you better then you know yourself" just by looking at her chart without even asking her questions about her condition. She spent some time there taking medication that did not help her. She finally found someone private psychologist who actually took the time and tested her and found that her problems were of a dietary nature.

      So i would argue that not all NCW communities are bad but the structure and the ideas, the design of NCW itself enables or supports this kind of behavior. Not to mention the statements from leaders themselves like if you try to run your own life you are told " are you God?" because only God can run our lives, because they are not really ours, God owns them it appears. And who is this God what do you think?

      Delete
    62. Dear Niinja2,

      I never said that I FELT forced. I said that YOU are trying to FORCE people to accept your views and only your views. No one can control what I feel. Only I can control it. Have you not noticed that it is you who feel frustration because you feel that I am not answering your questions.

      You asked: "Really? People are good? Are people not sinful? Don't people do sinful acts?"

      The Catholic Church tells us that we are to love the sinner but hate the sin like Christ. Christ always love the sinner. There is a very big difference between the person (sinner) and the behavior (sinful act). Do you understand this?????? God loves you, but he does not love your behavior of forcing people to accept your views and only your views.

      I already answered your questions. You simply do not understand my answer or do not like them, which is the reason you persist in argument. It appears that there are many things you do not understand. For example, your statement about people being evil. Yes, people commit sins. We all do, but God and His Church told us to separate the people from sin. All people are sinners, but Christ told us to love them.....not because they are sinners, but because they were created good in God's image and likeness. It is through our free will that we become sinners. And Christ never told us to love sin......just the sinners. It is because you do not understand this simple basic concept in Catholicism that perhaps your Catechists was correct in telling you to start over.

      Delete
    63. Part two to Zoltan
      I had a friend who suffered the same treatment while she was going to psychologist. The same kind of treatment "we know you better then you know yourself" just by looking at her chart without even asking her questions about her condition. She spent some time there taking medication that did not help her. She finally found someone private psychologist who actually took the time and tested her and found that her problems were of a dietary nature.

      So i would argue that not all NCW communities are bad but the structure and the ideas, the design of NCW itself enables or supports this kind of behavior. Not to mention the statements from leaders themselves like if you try to run your own life you are told " are you God?" because only God can run our lives, because they are not really ours, God owns them it appears. And who is this God what do you think?

      Delete
    64. You stated:
      "You stated:" I also asked you how is it possible that we become slaves under the influence of sin but not under the influence of fear of death."

      It is because of Original Sin that we have a weakened nature, which makes us tend to sin. (See CCC 418).However, we have Christ who lifts us up whenever we fall into sin. Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that we can repent and be reconciled back to Him and His Church. "

      So it appears that people have weakened nature and are susceptible to influence of sin but don't have weakened nature when threatened with fear of death and are free from this influence to do anything...because fear of death does not really influence us. This is because we are creatures of pure spirit not flesh, that cannot die and feel pain and we can walk through walls to.


      "I never said that I FELT forced. I said that YOU are trying to FORCE people to accept your views and only your views."

      It does not matter if you felt forced or not, you recognized my arguments as forcing something but when catechists threaten someone with fear or loss then that someone is not forced he is suddenly free...
      And since i am not talking to "some people" i am talking to you, you said this because YOU are these "people" and YOU FELT FORCED and now you play this word games to evade the fact that influence of others can put pressure on people just to DENY THAT MANIPULATION HAPPENS ON NCW.
      I mean you are trying to deny that the sky is blue.

      You are also trying to deny the simple historical fact that people enslaved one another and that slaves existed. Or could you explain what exactly enslaved black people?
      "People do not enslave us. It has always been the Devil who is the enemy and who enslave us"
      The devil that worked through white slave owners?
      Oh it was not the people that enslaved others, no no people are always free to do what they want no matter the pressure from outside or chains on their hands because Jesus set us free...

      "None of those are slaves because Christ died for our sins and conquered death."

      You just denied the history of slavery on earth! Tell me what color is the color of sky, no really? You not sure its green? I think its blue, oh i'm sorry i am forcing my beliefs onto you.

      "It appears that there are many things you do not understand."

      Yeah it must be me...

      " You simply do not understand my answer or do not like them, which is the reason you persist in argument"
      I persist in an argument that is factually and historically correct.

      " It is because you do not understand this simple basic concept in Catholicism that perhaps your Catechists was correct in telling you to start over. "

      Oh my ,i have seen the light, you have convinced me. Now just tell me how is something that did not helped me in 6 years supposed to help me now? How much time should i waste listening to the same things and why exactly?
      What will happen if i don't?

      Delete
    65. Part two Diana
      "God loves you, but he does not love your behavior of forcing people to accept your views and only your views. "

      That's why i do not push my beliefs onto you, i force you to answer a question since you already agreed to enter a debate and made a blog where you spread your beliefs in public space and btw make stuff up about ex neocats. Which you actually did answer thank you. According to you slavery except the one imposed by sin never existed.
      And if God does not like that you push your belief onto others maybe you should explain to new members what are you all about instead of indoctrinate them for years until they are ready to accept the same nonsense you believe.

      "that perhaps your Catechists was correct in telling you to start over. "

      And perhaps the people who pretend to be Jesus Christ that is ready to die for me but know only my name after so many years , should have used more then 2 sentences to actually explain where i was supposedly wrong because after 6 years i think i earned the right to be treated as a human being.
      But he did not. Why?

      Because a man who is wrong does not have anything else to say other then that.
      Because its a cult that bases its belief on nonsense and questions may expose nonsense.
      Because its a cult that uses people who submit to them, and expels those who ask questions.
      Because they are not about love and humility but about power and control.
      Because they are not Jesus, they are Pharaoh and NCW is Egypt.

      Delete
    66. Dear Anonymous at 4:32 PM, Christians evangelize as Diana said. Following Jesus we spread His Gospel. He is the only true authority and His teaching is the only truth. The Bible makes sense insofar as it reveals the true meaning of the words of Jesus. Whatever you read not about Jesus but about someone or something else is ultimately invalid, because He is the only one to validate whatever you discern from the Bible.

      A Christian is always on mission in spreading the Word. You cannot separate itinerary, formation and mission from each other. The Way is designed by its heavy organizational structure to develop, educate, train, maintain and manage missionary lifestyle for the whole time line of the future of the church. That is why so many kids in the Way open up their hearts for consecrated life. It is true that only a few select can actually go on mission, but the overflow of grace coming from their sacrifice for Jesus is flowing abundantly on the whole community supporting them.

      Think of the arrow shooting straight into the air. The arrowhead is hard and heavy made of steel, but it cannot hit the target without the wood made body of the arrow supporting its flight. This is the same how we in the Way support our sisters and brothers on mission. This is perhaps the greatest charism of the Neocatechumenal Way that earned the unconditional support from all the Popes who recognized this wonderful potential for growing faith around the globe.

      Delete
    67. Dear niinja2, "I commented yesterday but my comments were not posted." Diana as the owner of this blog is entitled to temporarily or altogether withhold comments that do not support her intention of clarification of critical issues arising in relation to the neocatechumenal communities of Guam.

      "You can leave and you might feel less pressure but one day in maybe 15 years something might happen..." This is about the fear from future. Perhaps it is the most immaterial of all, because anything could happen in the future that would build or destroy your planning. Instilling fear of future is an unfair tactics in relation to trust and love of Jesus. You should always test if Jesus would say the same thing to you. You can accept it only if you are firmly convinced that Jesus himself would say the same! That is why you need to read His Gospels and have a personal relation to Him that you keep away from harmful influence.

      "God gives you freedom of choice and when you choose freely God will remove his hand from you to let you pick that choice." This is about the fear of isolation from God and from His love. This is quite serious as no Christian would ever want to be separated from Jesus who is the source of our confidence. People who think that God simply equals to the Father cannot understand this. Because God is not only the Father, but also the Son who is Jesus and the Holy Spirit Jesus promised and sent to us at Pentecost!

      "When catechist spoke to you, God spoke to you." This part I cannot truly understand. God speaks to us through the Gospels validated by Jesus and only Him. But God is not talking directly to people. You cannot see or hear God and live. Why? Because the impact would be to intense on you burning up your earthly body in a single instant! But God has access to your mind, therefore He freely chooses to talk to you through your own or through some other person's mind! This we also read in the stories of Abraham, Moses or King David. Eminently, in the words of the anointed prophets.

      "Why do you ask so many questions? If you do not see Jesus on us, there is no point to nothing of this." We see Jesus in the Gospels and in his words. We see Him in the sacraments and during adoration of the Holy Host. We see Him in the Eucharist. It is a blessing if you see Jesus in the needy, in the downtrodden, in the ill and in the poor. Then you will help them and thus you help Jesus to build His kingdom. Now, the catechists see Jesus in you in the same way, trying to help you. It is up to you if you listen to them. I don't know if their words have the authority of Jesus or not. But you may always test it by asking if Jesus would tell you the same or not. Ultimately, everything is about Jesus as you know Him, as He taught and revealed Himself to you. All you need to do is trusting Him and only Him.

      "Catechists simply have some kind of influence which make people submissive in their prescience." Now this is something you have to come completely clean about: is this influence man made or God made? Is the impact on you bringing you apart from or closer to Jesus? Is this authority you experience in the presence of the catechists harmful or beneficial on you? Is the feeling of submission that overwhelms you, is this feeling forced on you or is it coming naturally by some internal approval of righteousness? Would it let you down or lift you up? Would Jesus want to have the same impact on you? If you can discern the answers to these questions then you would know immediately how to respond.

      Delete
    68. Dear Niinja2 at 8:02 pm,

      I will put your comment as an entry post.

      Delete
  20. These self proclaimed Catholic on Tim blog are blind and can't are there to see that they ignore the Holy Spirit so they are Judas. No help to complain about our walk when they don't have a walk for them. Pray for their lost souls

    ReplyDelete
  21. How can I see the latest on the petition?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Did you see the Holy Fathers visit to Korea? Did he ask for an Equus? He ask for the cheapest car so they gave him a KIA. (Korean made as well). The Koreans are all shocked and humbled. Apuron could learn a thing or two. Sell the "gift" and give the money to the poor. (The real poor). Check Salvation Army they know who the poor people are. God bless Pope Francis for his example and leadership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:44 p.m.,

      The Salvation Army supports abortion. See the weblink below:

      http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/378413/

      Delete
    2. See how you didn't even answer about the EQUUS? That was my point but you chose to ignore it cause you know it is wrong for AAA to even have one- gift or not! As for the Salvation Army they have sins and blood on their hands but they do drug rehab, help the poor, etc. The Catholic Church does that too help and all - in addition to sex abuse crimes, ignoring the Jewish slaughter in WW2, the inquisition, etc. so each faith has its crimes. The Catholics are not all innocent here since the beginning of time. Sad to say the Salvation Army knows who the poor are versus our own church on Guam.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 6:39 a.m.,

      See how you only look at the EQUUS and judge a man by what he drives? Greed is not found in cars, houses, or wealth, but in the human heart. The Popes before Francis did not follow the footsteps of Francis. We see Pope Francis wearing a silver cross while Pope Benedict who came before him wore a gold cross. Does this mean that Pope Benedict is not humble or evil?? Greed is not found in objects, but in the human heart. After all, God rewarded Job with ten times more wealth than he had before and God turned David from a poor shepherd boy into powerful and wealthy king.

      Yes, each faith has its crimes, and the Catholic Church has already apologized for the crimes that her members have committed. Pope John Paul apologized for the sex scandal, the Crusades Wars, the Inquisition, and the rest of the crimes committed by her members. So, why keep bringing up these things?

      Are you saying that the Catholic Church does not know the poor at all? You are saying that only the Salvation army knows the poor? This is a false belief. Have you even looked at how many counseling centers, orphanages, hospices, hospitals, soup kitchens, and many other shelters that assist the poor, sick, and dying that the Catholic Church have established all over the world???

      Delete
    4. Where are the results of the petition?

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 1:11 p.m.,

      The results are found on this weblink below:

      http://guamway.com/

      There are 472 so far.

      Delete
  23. If the Way is a group that is supposed to bring catholics back to the church, why do the people continue going to the mass of the Way after they finish their formation? I thought it's aim was to reinsert the catholics inside the universal catholic church. If the teachings are truly Catholic what is stopping you from choosing to go to mass on Sunday together with all the other Catholics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Keith,

      That is a misconception. The Way has brought people back into the Mass. There are four of us in my community who attend Mass everyday at the Parish in addition to the Eucharist in the Way. These four attend Mass everyday because they have fallen in love with the Mass. Others have gotten involved in the Parish by becoming alter servers, lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, Parish Council members, and CCD instructors. So, these people attend Mass more than once a month that the Pope required us to attend.

      Delete
    2. Which Pope requires only to attend Mass once a month? I am confused, Diana.

      Delete
    3. It was Pope Benedict XVI. It was in Cardinal Arinze's letter. It is found in this weblink below:

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2014/07/sunday-mass-once-month.html

      Delete
    4. 1) but do they also attend the Sunday mass? Wouldn't it be nice that the communities help as a community in the bigger community? For example the NCWs animate the mass with their readings and the singers and musicians help in animating the mass with nice music, not necessarily always from the one Kiko gives, there are more songs which are very good for mass also. 2) well done truly if that is the truth, however in Malta for example and im sure many other neocats around the world, don't even go to mass every once a month or everyday, so they go just to the saturday one and hence i hope we agree that in this way they are not recognising that the church is much bigger than just their community mass. 3) a community is more than four people so the others just go to the mass on saturday and furthermore the catechists do not encourage people to go to other masses, at least i never heard anyone say that in my previous community.

      Delete
    5. Dear Keith,

      Pope Benedict XVI told the NCW to attend the parish Mass once a month. Those who have gotten more involved with the parish attend Sunday Mass more than once a month. However, most people do not know who are NCW members in the Sunday Mass. We do not advertise ourselves. Those who volunteered as alter servers, Lectors, Eucharistic ministers, parish council members, or CCD instructors do not advertise that they are members of the Way. When a person wants to become an alter server for the parish or even join the choir for the parish, they just volunteer their names.

      I cannot say anything about Malta as I am not from there. I am from Guam. Father Pius, however is from Malta. He would know more about the Way there than I do.

      Delete
  24. Diana wrote: "Many of those who vehemently oppose the Neocatechumenal Way do not have first hand experience of walking in the Way; therefore, their criticisms are unfounded and unreliable."

    I have never committed suicide. Suicide causes so much hurt and we're not doing enough to prevent it.

    According to your logic, my criticism of suicide is unfounded and unreliable because since I never committed suicide, I am unqualified to comment on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:14 a.m.,

      You can comment all you want, but because you have never attempted suicide, you know nothing about the anguish and despair they go through. This is why it is best to have youths listen more to those who have attempted suicide rather than someone who have never attempted it at all. Those who have attempted suicide and lived to regret it are the only ones who is capable of relating the kind of anguish and despair they experienced.

      Delete

  25. You're *assuming* that I've never experienced what someone who has committed suicide (already dead) had experienced.

    You're claiming that someone who has committed suicide can be the only one who possesses credibility and wisdom from having walked that path (committed suicide and is already dead).

    So since I didn't commit suicide, I am not credible or reliable. Although you backtracked in your previous post, this is your logic. This is your base defense of the NCW. This is the heart of your line of reasoning:

    1. Only a NCW member can be experienced and knowledgeable enough to credibly and reliably criticize the NCW.
    2. A true NCW member will never criticize their brethren.
    3. An NCW member who does criticize their brethren (especially their superiors) is disgruntled and is not a true NCW member therefore is not credible or reliable.
    4. Furthermore, no one can criticize the NCW.

    There are several fallacies at play in your logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous 8:14 am,

      Read my comment above. I said "attempted suicide." Those who attempted suicide are NOT dead.

      Delete
  26. Like I said there are several fallacies at play in your brand of logic. I did read your previous comment and I did notice that you amended your stance. Let's explore that logic.

    You claim: Those who attempted suicide (but failed) are the most credible and reliable to criticize suicide.

    Let's use your brand of logic to conclude the following then:

    Those who attempted to become lifelong NCW - but failed - are the most credible and reliable to criticize the NCW.

    How will you backtrack next? After all, I'm using your brand of logic. These words came from you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:58 a.m.,

      First of all, I did not amend my stance. Just look at the times. It was on 7:23 a.m. that I said, "attempted suicide." Your response to me was on 8:14 a.m.. You thought that I used the words "committed suicide." If I had changed my stance, the post would have been after 8:14 a.m. , but it remains at 7:23 a.m, with the words "attempted suicide" which you did not read. How do I know you did not read it properly. Because you kept saying "already dead" in your response. Now, you singing a different song. I do not appreciate dishonesty.

      Look at the topic of this post. It says "Disgruntled ex-neos." The word "disgruntled" should have given you a clue. Anyone who leaves the Way without any complaints or grudge are usually those who relocated to the US or found that the Way is not for them. Those who left the Way but gumbled and grumbed and even tells fantasy stories about it left not because of the Way, but because of something much deeper in themselves that they could not face. It was much easier for them to blame the Way rather than themselves.

      Tim Rohr and Chuck White have never walked in the Way and therefore have no first hand experience of what it is like. They are unreliable critics whose only source of information are hate websites and disgruntled ex-neos who do not tell the whole story.

      Now as for your analogy of those who attempted suicide. Their testimonies is much more reliable than anyone who has never attempted suicide. Why? Because they have EXPERIENCED it. As I said, Tim Rohr and Chuck White never walked in the Way and therefore had no first hand EXPERIENCE.

      Those who have walked in the Way and left disgruntled and continue to say bad things about the Way have much more to tell which they have kept hidden......just like the ex-Catholic in the article I provided.

      Delete
    2. "Those who left the Way but gumbled and grumbed and even tells fantasy stories about it left not because of the Way, but because of something much deeper in themselves that they could not face. It was much easier for them to blame the Way rather than themselves. "

      Is it possible in your mind that people left not because of their fault but because of abuse from their members or leaders?
      Yes or no?

      Second question
      Who is qualified to criticize the NCW?

      Delete
  27. Diana wrote: "First of all, I did not amend my stance."

    You wrote the article, correct? You stated one has to go through an experience to be credible. If someone commits suicide, they're intentionally killed themself. Correct? I mean that's the exact definition of suicide.

    You said only someone experienced in something can be a reliable critic of that thing, that only someone experienced in The Way can critique it.

    So I pointed another extreme - suicide - in order to demonstrate that taking an extreme stance (using your logic) does not work. If you're experienced in suicide, you're actually dead. Your logic dictates that this dead person is the most reliable source of information. You amended your stance to state "attempting suicide".

    So I used your logic of using someone who attempts something - but fails at it - to being someone who is the most reliable critic of that thing.

    Someone who attempted to be a member of the NCW - but failed at it - is the best critic of the NCW.

    Again, this is using your logic.

    How am I being dishonest? You wrote the article, I responded, you responded, we went back and forth.

    I really don't mean to hurt your feelings or rile you up. I just sincerely want to point out that someone outside of the NCW can come up with valid arguments against it. I have friends and family who are in the NCW and I loved them dearly. They're wonderful people. I have no reason to doubt you are a good person. However, I take issue with certain aspects of the NCW that I have experienced.

    ---

    Diana wrote: "Now as for your analogy of those who attempted suicide. Their testimonies is much more reliable than anyone who has never attempted suicide. Why? Because they have EXPERIENCED it."

    Murder is wrong. I've never experienced murdering anyone, so don't take my word for it as I'm not a reliable critic of murder.

    Stealing from the church is wrong. I've never experienced stealing from the church, so you can't rely on my statement.

    This line of reasoning - that someone has to experience something by doing it to have a valid view of it - is completely ridiculous. I'm confused that we're even discussing this. You could be intentionally shifting the discussion away from specific points and it works from time to time. However, it just makes your overall ability to reason seem more and more deficient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:24 pm,

      The problem is that I never brought up the analogy of "committed suicide". That was you. You brought up an analogy that never made any common sense in the first place. I am the one who said "attempted suicide", NOT because I changed my stance. I said "attempted suicide" simply because I do not deal in something that every intelligent person knows is already nonsense and irrational.

      Delete
    2. Anon 3:24 PM in all due respect , what are you talking about?

      Delete
    3. Anon 3:24'

      You're wasting your time. Your logic is too intelligent for Diana and her pack.

      Delete
  28. Diana, in your great wisdom, can you please say how Mr. roar has refuted all that Mari Flor Herrero wrote in the PDN? Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:47 am,

      You can find my response on the following weblink:

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/06/responding-to-anonymous-comment.html

      Delete