Talk:Sodalitium Christianae Vitae

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Catholicism Mid‑importance Sodalitium Christianae Vitae is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

• Hi, I believe that the article is to be impartial and not constantly modified to suit one side. I've been reading the diffs in the history, and i believe, that, indeed there was some modifications that were simply insulting but i also think is annoying that every time i make a modification, including criticism, that i've read in the press, about the organization (and read it, i'm not taking a side, i'm just putting the information in its place) someone change it. For the hundred time, this religious organization, not only has a record of being against abortion, but also against all sexual planification methods (not taking side, the Roman Church more than once has said this, i'm just stating the facts), and the pursue by the liberal agenda of a legalization of abortion (although it can be argued that the mere concept of opposition to abortion and same sex marriage defines all, but i am filling the black spaces). About the "Teología de la Liberación", anyone in latinamerica knows that, even if it was disvouched by Vatican, it was a popular tendency, specially with the poorest and the marginal groups in the latinamerican society. (AGAIN, not taking side!) When i changed the homosexual marriage reference, it was because the use of homosexual has been historically linked with a negative meaning, so to be more modern in the use of language, used the new term "same sex marriage" (see this for a terminological debate,
  Same-Sex Marriage). Please, help me construct a good article about this subject, and do not delete information, because the article seems more and more to one-side story that an encyclopedic one... --Mariocossio 08:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Also, if you want to change articles in the encyclopedia, be polite, and use a wikipedia account, put a name behind the modifications. its also part of a true information policy.. --Mariocossio 08:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just quoting one of the Wikipedia Pillars (Neutral Point of View):

  we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

• I removed the bold text from the article (section: The Sodalit spiritual family):

"his particular Church reality is comprised of several branches which have come into being as a consequence of its development under the impulse of the Holy Spirit"

Because it affirms a religious aspect as a universal reality. Its problematic and breaks the neutral point of view. It could be fixed like this: "as a consequence of it development under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, as they state". I'll wait until someone talks about it.--Mariocossio 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was deemed vandalized recently from the last round of changes that were made. I think this page would benefit from more citations to original sources. Indeed, I often feel that much of the write-up has been taken from Sodalit websites and it would be appropriate to acknowledge where this information comes from. Wikipedia is neutral territory and thus introduced information should be properly referenced from its original source and not 'assumed' to be correct. --J M

• I have added new information to the Critics section and added 'Reported Scandals'. Part of the original criticism discussed scandalous incidences and I just added another incident to that list. I am fine with revisions based on organization or referenced information, but please be wary of vandalism, which is very common to this section. -- J M

• I am concerned with the fact that there is heavy vandalism of the Criticism section of this page. I am concerned that the discussion is not fruitful as references are disregarded as opposed to debated. I welcome those who disagree to engage in constructive criticism of the resources I have presented and the possible interpretations of them. I don't think we can ignore empirical data and it is counter-productive to do so, whether you are based in secular academics, lay knowledge or christian scholasticism. - J M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecatolica (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have accessed this page lately, and to my surprise, have found that the content has been changing abruptly. What is even worse, the editing lacks due references. This goes against the policy of Wikipedia and manifests a lack of respect to the people who work so hard to make of this public encyclopedia, a trustworthy source of knowledge. I don't want to take sides in this discussion, I only want to manifest my concern with the lack of objectivity and reliability of part of the content. Wikipedia shouldn't be the "arena" for parties in conflict. If one of the parties in a discussion offers solid research-based content, then the opponent should deal with it and discuss on the same level of objectivity and avoid being lead by passion.

Again, with no intention of taking sides whatsoever, I must say that in the "critics" area, I found some content that called my attention due to its "sensationalist" tone. If one is to criticize an institution, one has to target its principles, objectives, methods, performance. If a member of an organization falls into crime or misconduct, one has to be very careful to link it to the institution as a whole. One might demand accountability regarding the selection of the members, their formation, their suitability for the vocation. That is true, but what institution on earth is impermeable to members who scandalize society? Therefore, to include this as a critic to the institution, when it has been an isolated case, can be considered as non-fairplay. Cases like the ones cited hava happenend in many schools, organizations, so to attribute this event as a critic against the institution (its goals, principles, methods, which is the motive of the page)is not appropriate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toritomiura (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toritomiura, you are not clear on what you find sensationalist; everything or just the account of pedophilia? You generalize everything in the section as failing to meet criticism of principles, objectives, methods and performance. However, if the principles of the organization are to remove Liberation Theology from the landscape, is that not a legitimate area of criticism? If their principles are derived from fascist ideology, should this not be a criticism of their principles? If psychologically damaging practices are used to train members of the SCV, is that not a criticism of their methods and performance? If they are being accused of kidnapping as an organization, is that not a criticism of their methods, too?

Lastly, scandals of members as non-fairplay is a form of absolving responsibility completely from an organization that receives respect based on its performance and relationship to a community. There is danger in stating thatgroups such as the SCV should not be criticized as they are responsible for the relationships with a community, and most importantly the vulnerable members of that community, that they work with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecatolica (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was not clear on what I found sensationalist. Now, if you ask a question, it is good practice to wait for the answer. Right after your question, without my clarification, you go on and state that I generalize everything in the section, when I wrote that “some” content called my attention for its sensationalist tone. “Some” is not the same as “all”. And with the intellectual capacity that you possess- which can be perceived through your writing- and perhaps with a little more goodwill, you would have identified which part of the criticism I was referring to. You even mentioned it, so I can interpret that you got it. You can read what I wrote above, I didn’t say “all” the content was sensationalist.

Now, even though my “critic” to SOME of the content of the “Critics” had nothing to do with the SCV’s opposition to Liberation Theology, I want to comment on one of your statements contained in your response.

I must say that you lost objectivity by stating that the principles of the institution in question include the removal of Liberation Theology from the landscape. You go beyond the article, because the article states that the SCV “opposes” LT, not that it wants to eradicate it from the face of the earth. Opposition is not the same as destruction or eradication. In a free world, can’t the SCV or the LT followers oppose to what they believe is not the path theology should take? The followers of LT obviously are going to oppose the SCV’s position, and they have the right to do so. The SCV has the same right to oppose other views which they do not share. That is very different from “removing from the face of the earth”, just to cite your own words. On what basis do you state that the SCV has as a principle, the eradication of LT? At least, from what I read on the article, there is none.

Now, in the part you refer to accountability towards the community, I think you are confusing the levels of the discussion. To use a scandal to criticize the principles, methods of an institution is not fair play unless there is something in the institution that can somehow lead to that, promote it. Or at least if there is solid evidence that the institution remains indifferent to that scandal, acts with negligence towards it, etc. That has nothing to do with indulging or absolving. Here, we are not talking about the scandal, here we are discussing about the inappropriateness of criticizing the institution based on an isolated scandal: period. That stated, I want to emphasize that according to the article, the SCV reacted immediately with expulsion of that member for the very reason that behaviors of the kind go totally against their principles. What is then, the objective of the criticism, if at the end it states that the SCV did the right thing by expelling that member? Isn’t that enough evidence that behaviors like that are totally rejected by the institution? So then, why cite the scandal against the SCV if it has nothing to do with its essence, principles, methods? That is my point! The inclusion of the scandal makes sense only if it can be linked to the modus operandi or spirit of the organization. There is no evidence whatsoever-cited on the article- to accuse the SCV of negligence. There is no institution on earth invulnerable to those situations. Furthermore, I think that you missed the line of argument at the end too. In the aforementioned case, the person was not working with the community; from what is stated in the criticism he was doing everything except serving the community, and it wasn’t with persons belonging to some kind of service rendered by the institution. All of this, again, based on the information provided on the article in question.

Where or when did I say that the SCV could not be criticized? Of course it can be criticized, but it must be done appropriately, with goodwill, not with malice.

Then, at the end, you start asserting that the SCV uses harmful psychological methods to train their members, that their principles derive from fascist ideology; even more, that they kidnap. Well, regarding the alleged psychological manipulations, what I find strange is that if the article states that “there have been reports of deprivation and questionable practices, and psychological manipulation as methods used to test the faith of young members of the SCV, which have been published by two of Peru's media…” then why do you go beyond the criticism and assert those critics as facts. An article in the media doesn’t have the status of a proven fact, or even less of a juridical sentence. There article cites no sentence from any court confirming those claims. So it is better to refer to them as critics, claims and not make strong assertions as you did in your piece of writing. The tone of your assertions was that of a proven fact. The article doesn’t even mention legal processes in progress. So, there is not even the need to invoke the principle of “in dubio pro reo”, because there is no legal process in course, at the moment, for those critics. As I have stated above, I just want to remain objective, stick to the facts and avoid biased or insubstantial statements. I am not saying that these critics shouldn’t be made or placed on the article. No. I am just saying that when referred to them, one should state clearly that they are “critics”, “allegations”, and avoid asserting them in a way that can sound as if they were proven facts, misleading the reader. Whoever reads your response, can perceive a certain tone of strong assertion that could be misleading. Just that. Let’s remain as objective as possible.Toritomiura (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the principle that we should be critical of the news articles, we should also recognize that, without doubt SCV is a politically powerful group. Members include wealthy business people, family members of the political elite and, in some cases, the political elite themselves (such as the former Prime Minister of Peru). Wikipedia is not a judicial process and if it were then criticisms of some of today's notoriously critiqued individuals or groups should not appear until 'proven guilty'. Imagine no criticisms of George Bush or Hugo Chavez if all wikis were based on this principle. Even if individuals were to take on SCV in judicial processes their influence in the government institution pales to that of the SCV. The principle 'in dubio pro reo' is self-serving to the SCV and allows the organization's relative power to be removed from the discussion. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)J M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecatolica1 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as it stands, reads like a Sodalitium recruiting brochure. There has to be more material on how the Sodalitium's practices are seen by the rest of society. A link to Lifton's criteria on thought modification (described here in Wikipedia) might be helpful. Incidentally, the reference to Marka as being supposedly pro-Shining-Path is simply slanderous. Feketekave (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be fair, but I am sick and tired of SCV members and SCV apologists coming on here and destroying perfectly good links that substantiate claims and replacing them with SCV links. You (plural) don't have the right to destroy information that is substantiated with sources. The entire article reads, as Feketekave states, like a recruiting brochure, and yet *the only section* that gets vandalized - time and time again - is the critics section. Imagine if some so-called "rabid Marxist liberation theologists" and "terrorists" (favourite perjoratives of the SCV) came on here and destroyed your contributions - this talk section would be filled with indignation! The fact is that the critics section doesn't revert to slander of the SCV - while pro-SCV edits still attempt to use the words Marxist and liberal as though the are derogatory. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC) JM[reply]

I do not appreciate the attacks by other editors (Garrett and the recent editor); there is no respect for the pre-existing format and its sources (note: this is a separate issue than the content) and I am being accused of manipulation of content and "bad behaviour". This is outrageous! Is there someone who is well-versed in Wikipedia that knows the procedures to get a moderator on this page? I am following the rules about sourcing, and I know how to edit content within the wiki page without destroying sources, which I cannot say is the same for these recent posters. I think this would avoid the problem of having to revert edits and thus avoid these outrageous remarks by apologists to the SCV. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC) JM[reply]

I keep reflecting on this page. It reads the way it does because of the actors on here. Truth by numbers, not by facts. As for the events that have occurred it is a truth by authority, not fact. How can we ever talk about someone or something powerful when knowledge production is incredibly mediated by that group (the articles show the control SCV use to mediate information about them, and their use of legal threats when someone publishes something against them), and when they have integrated themselves into both economic and Political power structures. SCV members cite that their power is from God's blessing, but other historical and sociological analyses, which the church deems 'blasphemous' or 'dangerous', elucidate how this power is created. Sad and scary. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC) JM[reply]

After reviewing the different discussion posts, I have noted the persistent criticism on the part of “Jorgecatolica1”, who seems to be moved by a certain fanaticism against this group. This person is constantly relating them to things or organizations, which according to their members, are in clear opposition to their ideals, as is the case with the supposed relationship between the Sodalitium and the TFP. Further, whereas in the majority of organizations in Wikipedia the criticisms and polemic topics are posted under the heading “Public Image and Perception”, Jorgecatolica1 constantly changes the heading, moving on to making direct attacks against the group (see discussion history). In my opinion, these attitudes do not follow the spirit of goodwill and respect that must be at the core of every contribution to Wikipedia. Thomasanthon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasanthon (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Thomasanthon (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's happening here between the parties editing this page, but there are clear abuses occuring with JorgeCatholic1's edits.

First, I certainly don't see any neutrality in this "critics" section. JorgeCatholic1 for you to use the words "boosters", "apologists", etc. is certainly not in-line with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. In addition, to call something an "umbrella organization" makes them sound like the mob. Why can't the article state an "organization connected with..."?

You have written that the page sounds like a brochure, and how you want to add balance, but to quote "rumors of alleged deprivation and questionable ascetical discipline" is not balance, it's irresponsible. The idea of Wikipedia is to share the relevant facts about a specific topic and let the readers form their own thoughts.

Other abuses that are evident include citing a case of "abuction" that was thrown out. Anybody can accuse any organization of anything, but if it's proven false, then it has nothing to do with the organziation and certainly does not have any place on Wikipedia.

I also see a number of abuses of claiming certain things without any documentation. This claim about Luis Solari de la Fuente being a member of the SVC is not documented. It is also reckless, libel and a serious offense to claim that even if he was a member that he had some influence over the decision to throw the case out without any evidence.

This idea about the SVC not being involved with the poor. This also appears as a rumor without documentation.

Moreover, I find it disgusting the number of details that are given about this member that was involved in the sexual abuse of a minor. Nobody wants to know that the boy was lured by "Pokemon figures" and paid "$7" and it's not relevant to the topic of the SVC. If people want to read more about the case, they are free to click the links.

Finally, there is a clear difference between providing balance, perspective, and neutrality and attacking an organization. This "critics" section needs complete revision and supervision. I will be reporting the clear abuses that have occured and I hope that the editors, specifically JorgeCatholic1, of this page will review the Wikipedia guidelines and revise this page to be in-line with Wikipedia expectations.

Derek Ezekiel (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Derek. Read the history of edits, look at who is deleting sourced information and what they espouse. They're from Lima as well. I don't see neutrality in the rest of the article. Go after everything if you're not some SCV apologist. Also, I'd gladly recommend you report this article. Neutrality is an issue throughout the article. The article appears this way as some sort of ad-hoc compromise. Get your knickers in a knot about it, if you must.

Umbrella organization - okay, so what is Familia Sodalite? If it is not the linking of a bunch of connected organizations, then what is it? Don't like umbrella organization? Come up with another word to describe these different wings of the SCV.

The ascetic discipline edit was from Garrett. He's from Lima and he defends the SCV.

If the abduction case was thrown out, put forward the document. I've given a link or indications of how to access each and every article or document that I've put forward. Some police report shelved somewhere without reference to statements is as good as nothing.

Luis Solari de la Fuente is a member of the SCV. Let me add the link to the reference list.

The material is in Spanish. I will gladly put this under Sex abuses of the Catholic Church, linking to the SCV page, so that people can know about this. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the different discussion posts, I have noted the persistent criticism on the part of “Jorgecatolica1”, who seems to be moved by a certain fanaticism against this group. This person is constantly relating them to things or organizations, which according to their members, are in clear opposition to their ideals, as is the case with the supposed relationship between the Sodalitium and the TFP. Further, whereas in the majority of organizations in Wikipedia the criticisms and polemic topics are posted under the heading “Public Image and Perception”, Jorgecatolica1 constantly changes the heading, moving on to making direct attacks against the group (see discussion history). In my opinion, these attitudes do not follow the spirit of goodwill and respect that must be at the core of every contribution to Wikipedia. Thomasanthon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasanthon (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thomas, I appreciate that you can identify bias when you see it. So, writing a wiki page like a recruitment tool for a catholic sect is "good" while my criticism is "bad" and "fanaticism".

So I am to understand that recruiting people to the SCV is merely an objective and neutral project that involves no attempt to coopt open source resources for a SCV agenda? But what I do is somehow "wrong"?

Furthermore, my actions are not following the spirit of goodwill according to you. So why is it that I incorporate a variety of sources while those who criticize me only cite the SCV? If bad will is not promoting the SCV agenda then call me that. I think your representation of me is incongruent with my practices.

Lastly, it is not an image. Raping little boys has a materiality to it; it is a tangible thing with scarring physical and emotional effects. Being a health minister, thwarting the right to abortion for peruvian women, passing the "day of the unborn" as a day of recognition are not IMAGES nor PERCEPTIONS. They are real, factual things too. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been reading this discussion group and it’s a little bit disturbing to see so much bitterness and unfairness against a group that seems to me is just doing good things. I don’t mean to hurt or attack anyone, but I have to say that the whole bickering and attack, that apparently comes from only one side of this discussion, doesn’t seem right to me. As far as I can tell this group means well and does good things for others. I really don’t understand why there are people that want to attack them and it seems to me that the attack is systematically. The constant changing of the main article is rude, unfair and disrespectful, not only for the group itself but for all the readers. I know that everyone has the right to express themselves but what is happening here is not right and I feel deeply affected by that because wikipedia is meant to be a place where people can be informed about things but with people constantly attacking and changing information that goal cant be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon292 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use the word in the most factual way possible. I would gladly see a third party on here that evaluates this content, compares it to the website of the SVC or CLM, and see what their take is of the majority of this article. If disinterested parties claim that this is not a disinterested piece then maybe they are not disinterested parties after all. Shannon, your comments are timely and fall in line with the period of edits by sodalicio members. Can you honestly and truthfully verify yourself as a disinterested party unrelated to the SVC or the Familia Sodalite? Have any of the people who have come after me for my edits taken one swipe at the 5 or 6 individuals, including those without user names writing from Lima, Peru, the headquarters of the Familia Sodalite, for their contents?

Thank goodness the Agencia Peru and Caretas articles show how deeply concerned SVC members are with mediating information about themselves, and their use of threats via legal action (and we haven't even brought Arequipa into this discussion!). The fact that so-called 'neutrals' appear on this board and find critical comments of this organization that are substantiated with both news and academic sources unfair tells a lot about what those so-called 'neutrals' think. For one, it tells followers of this board that these individuals dislike substantiated claims and accounts of issues that demonstrate this organization in an unfavourable way much like the SVC members that work to mediate the organization's image.

Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy "jorgeCatolica1", you are really mad with everyone. Remember this elements from Wikipedia (Be polite, Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John D Cohen (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mad with anyone, but I find this entire discussion process, full of individuals who are seemingly disinterested, very disingenuous. I never used angry language, but I don't like what you are trying to do by claiming that I am, John. That grammar error is one of a pronunciation error common in Spanish (THIS pronounced THESE by Spanish Speaking People). Care to explain your positionality on this issue? Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting thought: as the criticisms section has grown on this page - in a very contested way - since my first attempt to edit there have been 13 new subsections added to this page using SCV (or SCV friendly) sources. I think there is a lack of acknowledgement of how this page has grown. It has not grown in the criticism section alone, which is constantly being softened in language and content, it has also experienced a major increase about the organization in a very positive light.

Here are some great examples of items that should be changed in the text that lack neutrality:

Thus, on December 8, 1971, the young group that had once dreamed of forming a new congregation saw the first fruits of their discernment as they committed themselves to seriously live the Christian Life during a ceremonial Mass in Lima, Peru.'

The section on Community Life, which can also be found verbatim on this page as of today: http://sodalitium.us/community.htm

Life in community is essential to the style and mission of Sodalitium. The love of Lord Jesus has gathered us so, like Him, we will be able, in the Holy Spirit, to respond to the Plan of Love of the Father ... Our communities are part of the organic communion of the whole Church, and its members are bound by a common calling from God to personal consecration to walk a path approved by the Church, sharing the experience of the Spirit.

The section on Spirituality, which can be found almost verbatim on this page as of today: http://sodalitium.us/spirituality.htm

The Sodalitium, within the full communion of the Church, has its own spirituality, discipline and style. These establish the appropriate means to help its members to strengthen and consolidate their conversion, increase their self-understanding, and give themselves fully to live the Plan of God. According to the calling of each one, each Sodalit participates intensely in the evangelizing mission of the Church, and strongly desires that the dynamics of the Good News reach and transform whatever is "in contrast with the Word of God and the design of Salvation".

Or the section on Basic Elements, which reads verbatim from page cached in February 2010 (since deleted): http://sodalitium.us/content.txt

So, why are editors copying and pasting content directly from sodalitium websites? Who are these contributors doing this? Why is language that is sentimental and sheds positive light on the SCV used to describe factual events?

And how did 13 new subsections appear, which by and large read as if they were from the SCV website (or are from the website!)? And how did they remain largely unquestioned over the past three years? Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John D Cohen's recent edit featuring the biography of Luis Fernando Figari, which should be moved to the page on Figari , is lifted from http://www.fraternasusa.org/colorado/ourfounder/

I'm removing it for its lack of neutrality and its inappropriate placement. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the time and effort put by Jorgecatolica1 in his last edit, I have seen it necessary to undo most of his revisions in the Criticisms section.

Although Wikipedia ask editors to presume good faith, given the edits and comments by Jorgecatolica1, he seems to have very strong feelings against SCV and has been trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for spreading allegations against it.

He has shown to be badly misinformed, as in the case of Marka's article, Pena's book, and the woman who alleged her daughter was kidnapped by SCV. He has also shown not to verify the sources, and to presume in all the facts against SCV, until proven to the contrary.

It seems to me that Wikipedia's policy on the need to substantiate with sources cannot be taken as a license to take as true anything which can be quoted.

I clarify some of the last changes:

About the reason why SCV is considered a conservative organization. As Marka article shows it has been so since the seventies, long before Cipriani had any significance. Also, there is no real connection, much less a close connection, with Opus Dei. It is due to the fact that both institutions pursue a similar 'conservative' agenda, closely following official Catholic policies and doctrine, that they appear to liberal eyes as closely related. In any case, SCV collaborates actively not only with Cardinal Cipriani, but with all of the bishops in whose jurisdictions it works.

A mistranslation: Pedro Salinas says in the report is that by that time 20 years had passed after he left SCV, not that he was a member for 20 years... He left SCV being 22-years old after a three year membership.

Luis Eduardo Cisneros never was an SCV member, much less lived ever in an SCV community.

That many details on the rumors about the questionable ascetical discipline are really not needed in a Wikipedia article.

Dr. Solari is not and has never been an SCV member. The referred sources are badly misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anibal06 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia functions on the basis of documented evidence, which includes the media. Your removal of the contents from these sources hides the experiences accounted to the media by ex-sodalicio members and family members of ex-sodalicios. It cannot be one-sided: accounts that show the SCV in a positive light, or demonstrate a negation of these claims are not the only ones that are allowed to appear.

I am left cold by comments such as this, Anibal06 "It seems to me that Wikipedia's policy on the need to substantiate with sources cannot be taken as a license to take as true anything which can be quoted." ..followed by unsubstantiated claims such as these: "Luis Eduardo Cisneros never was an SCV member, much less lived ever in an SCV community." and "That many details on the rumors about the questionable ascetical discipline are really not needed in a Wikipedia article."''

Some sources are not okay, but non-substantiated claims are? And someone who publicly identified as part of the SCV, like Cisneros, is incorrect? And people's accounts of their experiences are also "rumours" about practices that are "questionably ascetical"? Way to weaken someone saying "a SCV member put a knife to my throat" and "others forced me to not see my family" as "questionable". Can you show us where the ambiguity is? Is it a rumour or an allegation? Anibal06, according to you the only truths are your non-substantiated accounts. The rest is "wrong" or a "rumour" that is about something "grey".

There can be no compromise on the issue of posting complaints about psychological abuse. SCV members are gladly contesting the Guillen case (which they have yet to substantiate) and the Knowles case with the police report, but are not happy with the Salinas, Escardó, Alt and Cisnero stories. Substantiate why using a source; your opinion or "expert knowledge" doesn't mean a thing without proof. For starts, if you have a book of all the SCV members that you want to scan, go ahead. Just don't leave any pages out, please.

Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For 'disinterested' visitors to this page to consider. For SCV members to consider. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to report this person "jorgecatolica1" has shown a behavior that goes against wikipedia policy, because one hand does not allow me as a member of this institution can add related content, delete them and therefore is not possible to give details to users about this institution. This person does not bear that others disagree with his opinion and as is shown above. For my part I am very offended by this act of discrimination and mockery by which this person does to me, and it well knows that I write from South America and take advantage of my mistakes to despise me because I come from an underdeveloped country. I understand that this person is not going to stop and is out of control. I trust that Wikipedia will act justly according to his principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John D Cohen (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This person does not bear that others disagree with his opinion and as is shown above. For my part I am very offended by this act of discrimination and mockery by which this person does to me, and it well knows that I write from South America and take advantage of my mistakes to despise me because I come from an underdeveloped country."

Which part of this statement do I start? John D. Cohen, you copied content directly from a SCV website. And what part of an underdeveloped country do you come from John? Are you a pobrecito? Care to explain your position as a fervent supporter for the SCV? And a person who commands the language of English relatively well, something that is still largely unaccessible for the poor living where you do? Shall I cite documented accounts of SCV members and fervent supporters as typically white, rich, educated individuals? Shall I speak from my own experiences of "simple SCV members" who have economic and political power, education in top quality high schools and universities, (indigenous or urban poor) servants and other comodidades that are unheard of for the majority of anglo-speaking people?

Interesting, Anibal, you claim to have fixed sources and added information (and removed unsourced data, which I believe I took care of yesterday in my edits). I see you have removed the content that you personally disagree with: the citation of Luis Solari de la Fuente. So, until you come up with a better strategy than removing unsourced content (talk it over with your superiors, I'm sure you'll think of something), I suggest you stop.

I welcome you, John D. Cohen, to engage in Dispute Resolution here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution I toyed with the idea in the past, but I doubt anyone at Wikipedia will want to to wade through this mess when it is very obvious that the negotiations are highly antagonistic (I have no problem admitting my role in it, I doubt you will ever acknowledge yourselves as being such "bad guys"!) even if content is firming up with more sources (ironically, I think the products of these really aggressive edits is approximating what Wikipedia wants - that is, unless you start copying SCV website content or delete sourced content that isn't favourable to the SCV). Plus, the candid statements and ID/IP tags of the editors who have criticized me here, or erased my content, as being located in Lima, forming part of the SCV, having intricate knowledge of the SCV and its membership over the past 10 or so years, tell Wikipedia a lot about who is largely engaging in edits here. Apparently they are quite used to having one group of editors use the dispute procedure to gain the upper hand against another group of editors, and they won't respond to such opportunism kindly. So, you might want to reconsider pursuing this channel if it is for strategic purposes. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms and Controversies would be a better fit for the most contested section.

Criticism (defined) the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.

Controversies (defined) a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

Incredible that every little detail in this section is a battleground. If the editors were as meticulous with editing on the rest of the page it wouldn't read like as ready-made sodalicio propaganda. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert back to poorly edited, non-neutral statements that lack referencing. Add the citations where needed and remove loaded language that suggests an ontology of God and the greatness of the SCV (i.e., non-neutral language). With all the efforts these editors put into this page you would think this would have been done by now. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Cohen, you've done it again. When will you stop copying content directly from sodalitium.us/? Focus on doing Wiki standard edits of the content you add, and explain why you disagree with subheadings in the criticisms and controversies section instead of just erasing them. Do you have anything to say about the idea of Criticisms and Controversies as a topic heading? Maybe you should take the time to articulate your thoughts instead of constantly replacing the header. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again removed misinformation about Dr. Solari being a member of SCV. As can be seen below, I want to draw attention to the fact that Jorgecatolica1 is once again badly informed and willing to use this article to spread misinformation about SCV. Notice especially that not only is he putting false claims, but trying to use them as a way to present SCV as an institution which would openly give false public statements.

- It is documented that Solari was directly asked and he clearly denied being member of any religious group. See Caretas interview 'El Beato Impenetrable': http://www.caretas.com.pe/2001/1662/articulos/solari.phtml

- That, together with SCV Regional Superior statement at the time of Solari's service denying any participation of SCV member in public offices, should be enough to dispell this claim. Anyway, here is more evidence to it:

- As can be verified in his Wikipedia Article (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Solari) and in his youtube webreport about his life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXaevzGZabI) Solari had a Jesuit education at Colegio Inmaculada, and is currently Dean of the Faculty of Health Science in the Catholic University Sedes Sapientiae (under the patronage of the Diocese of Carabayllo, and not connected with SCV but with Communion and Liberation ecclesial movement. This is easily verifiable by googleing 'site:ucss.edu.pe sodalicio' and 'site:ucss.edu.pe comunión y liberación'). See http://www.ucss.edu.pe/universidad/auto.htm

- He is not a consecrated layman, but a married man with a daughter currently in her thirties and a teenager son. (Unfortunately this information, easily verifiable in Lima, is not publicly available on the Internet).

- To understand the origin of the claim, it should be noticed that as a Catholic doctor, Solari has been for decades very active on defending the right to life since its conception, which in Peru is a Constitutional right (article 2.1. See http://www.tc.gob.pe/legconperu/constitucion.html), against the lobby for abortion which since decades is being pushed by liberal NGOs in Peru as in many other countries.

- Publications who depict him as a member of SCV were initially those with that agenda, who invented this claim as a way to disqualify him. Liberal and feminist groups first started calling him "Solaritium" (taking advantage of the similarity between Solari's surname and Sodalitium), and then just plainly claimed that he was a SCV member. The source which has been referred to by previous editor of this wikipedia article falls clearly under the referred agenda: Elliott, Carolyn M. (2008). "Global Empowerment of Women Responses to Globalization and Politicized Religions" (in English). Routledge. pp. 341. Moreover, this publication is quoting directly the claim made by Susana Chávez in the book "Cuando el Fundamentalismo Se Apodera de las Políticas Públicas: Políticas de Salud Sexual y Reproductiva en el Perú en el Período Julio 2001-Junio 2003", published by Flora Tristán Institute, one of the main feminist groups lobbying for abortion and 'reproductive rights' in Peru.

- It should be noted that neither S. Chávez, nor any other publication who has repeated the claim, substantiate it.

- A different source demonstrates a lot more research about Solari: 'Cruces y sombras: perfiles del conservadurismo en América Latina', by Edgar González Ruiz, published in June 2005 (Full text available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22828755/Edgar-Gonzalez-Ruiz-Cruces-y-Sombras-Perfiles-del-Conservadurismo-en-America-Latina). The author describes clearly Solari's 'ultra conservador' reputation, in opposition to liberal and feminist NGOs, as well as his links with Peruvian Bishops Conference (See pages 76 and 77). This publication which demonstrates much more research, does not include any link between Solari and SCV. Notice that this source was brought up to the attention by Jorgecatolica1 and has 6 pages of research about SCV, members and friends, as well as reproduces different criticisms to SCV (pages 111 to 116).

- It can easily be verified that SCV is very open about who its members are, but that their members are received in public ceremonies. See for example: http://www.noticiasdelsodalicio.com/index.php?option=com_googlesearch&n=30&Itemid=&domains=noticiasdelsodalicio.com&sitesearch=noticiasdelsodalicio.com&q=profesion+perpetua&client=pub-noaccount&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A114199%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3Affff00%3BLC%3A186DB5%3BT%3A003366%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=es&cr=countryPE#930

- Also, SCV strictly forbids any participation of any of its members in any political group or to take any public political office. By the way, that is one promiment difference between SCV and Opus Dei. This is due to the fact, well attested in every SCV history summary, that, after having being active in politics when young, founder Luis Fernando Figari started SCV when he realized that politics are not what the world needs to be a more human place, but that the answer is Lord Jesus Christ, and so he radically abandoned any political participation.

Anibal06 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is rather pointless as a community is defined by its own constitutions. If there is any doubt about the veracity of the article, why don’t you confirm it with the Vatican’s Pontifical Yearbook. Please try to ensure you have a solid basis for your statements in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.23.132 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He denied belonging to the SCV but he also admitted that he had friends in lay movements. The degree of his vinculation to lay movements is vague.

He also ironically stated in response to the question if he could be Minister of Health:

"Ni hablar, no seré ministro de Salud y me negaré siempre. Al Ministerio de Salud debe ir un salubrista, un especialista en salud pública." "Don't even talk about it, I will never be minister of Health and they will forever deny me (that position)...." He became health minister some 100 days later.

In that same university Solari works at German Mckenzie, an SCV layperson and former Regional Superior of the SCV, is/was a professor. I don't see your point; it appears whether or not someone belongs to the SCV they can occupy a position in that university (ironically, pedagogy and knowledge production are political).

As for Ruiz's omission of that article, you may be right in your hypothesis that he did not accept it.

In regards to the list of members of the SCV, those words produced a total of 11 unique hits (not 33), which did not list more than a few names, contained few broad photos, and at times were overlaps of other articles. So, I don't know how you constitute that as openness.

The Vatican’s Pontifical Yearbook is written in Italian, and to my knowledge it contains the names of ecclesiastical movements but not the names of consecrated lay members.Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that this article has a request for mediation by the Mediation Cabal. I have taken up the request, and am currently gathering facts, any input is appreciated. Ronk01 (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm more a kind of fly-by user in regard to this article and not sure whether it is relevant for the current conflict, but I really can only wonder about the inclusion of the "2007 Pedophilia Case" into the SCV article. While the behaviour of Mr. Daniel Murguía seems to have been really bad and unlawful, nowhere is said that he was an official functionary of SCV and that there is any association of this case to SCV. Would it be even mentioned (not to say that prominently as in the SCV case) in the article about a political party when one of its members would have done the same as Mr. Murguía? Double-standards? --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you define an "official functionary" of the group. He was a member of the SCV and living in community with them while committing these atrocities on multiple occasions. I am certain this can be featured in another wiki about catholic sex abuse instead.

As I didn't make the request for the dispute, I will ask you the following: will you consider the content for the rest of the article and not just the criticisms section? There needs to be better citations for content, and in the past entire subsections (without sourcing) were copied from the website of the the SCV.

Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comments regarding the pedophillia case, I would tend to support the position of moving the information to another article. In response to your questions, yes, I will consider the entire article. Additionally, I have some serious concerns regarding POV in the "Criticisims" section, and if there can be no consensus to edit this material (which seems to be valid, but uses weasel words (

WP:WEASEL), I may have to refer this case to official mediation. Ronk01 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I have placed a section for opening statements on the metiation page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-11/Sodalitium Christianae Vitae all invloved parties interested are requested to enter opening statements here.Ronk01 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the case page for this article [1]. I am preparing to close. Ronk01 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the casefile, and posted my reccomendations there. Ronk01 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a politically influential and rather controversial organisation. Why is the "Controversies and Criticisms" section so meager (and at the very end)? Half of its content is the following paragraph: "Sodalitium Christianae Vitae is considered to be orthodox in its fidelity to the Catholic Church and its Magisterium, and it receives support from many bishops of the Catholic hierarchy. Some groups who are opposed to the Church have criticized the Sodalitium for this fidelity." This is clearly NPOV, not to say vaguely cultic in its language. (Why would the support of "many bishops" (or an avowed "fidelity") be a relevant criterion for the average Wikipedia reader?

The same problem recurs elsewhere. There is no sense in saying "Vicar of Christ" instead of simply "Pope" in a non-sectarian source. (We do not go around referring to royalty as "His Most Serene Majesty" in the middle of an article.)

On some matters, the article goes into far too much detail. Really, in more ways than one, this does read like a brochure put out by the organisation on which it is supposed to be an impartial report. This is a not terribly large organization, whose (relative and moderate) importance (which is still largely local) derives largely from the fact that it recruits youths from influential families, and allegedly attempts to play a political role thereby. Feketekave (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason the ordinary English word "Sodality" is not used in the English title of the group? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason. Probably just a lack of English language skills.

talk) 03:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. Sodalitium and Sodalits are not English words. Unless someone presents proof that these are the common words used in English with reference to this particular group, I will change Sodalitium to Sodality (except where it is in Latin) and Sodalits to "Sodality members" Any objections?Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold.

talk) 21:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Before seeing this today I added a footnote to the first sentence. I'd be quite happy for this change to be made (username "Richardson mcphillips", who proposed the change, is no longer registered). I didn't do it myself to maintain the wording used in the sodality's own Web site (which seems to have vanished, I'll make a note below). Sodalit isn't exactly "Sodality member" (it's often an adjective), so a global replace isn't quite right. Pol098 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i'm still here! I just didn't want to rush things. In the meantime I have seen that all reports in English, including from the Vatican, use the word "Sodalitium". So I'm not so sure to change it. Perhaps it is not a real sodality, but something more formal. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language Web site of the SCV, http://sodalitium.org, seems to have gone (it's been redirecting to the Spanish start page for a few days at least). Seeking a quoted phrase from the English text on the Spanish Web site finds nothing, and there's nothing useful from Google searches for <intitle:"sodalitium of christian life"> and <"sodality of christian life">. On the Spanish Web site changing the language from Español to Inglés is ignored, so it's probably not just been moved. As English is an option, it may be replaced, so it may be premature to go to the Wayback Machine, then have to change it all again. I'd already revived some links from the Wayback Machine, but more link checking is needed. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has just been a major rewrite of the page; here are the differences. This looks very like a sanitised "official version". It was made by an IP user, 190.40.215.213, based in Lima, Peru (like the sodality). Ptoject Honey Pot says about this address:

https://www.projecthoneypot.org/ip_190.40.215.213

190.40.215.213 Spam Server - Dictionary Attacker

The Project Honey Pot system has detected behavior from the IP address [190.40.215.213; Lima, Peru] consistent with that of a mail server and dictionary attacker. Below we've reported some other data associated with this IP. This interrelated data helps map spammers' networks and aids in law enforcement efforts.

The edit, which reduces the article size by about 15,000 characters, doesn't simply delete anything critical of the sodality, as is often done to the

As an example of a change (this is by no means the sole reason to suspect this edit), the text related to the book Mitad monjes, mitad soldados by Pedro Salinas has been reduced to:

Accusations appeared in the media in October of 2015, taken from a book published by Pedro Salinas (former member of the Sodalitium during the 1980's), entitled Mitad monjes, mitad soldados, in which he denounced through anonymous and non-verified testimonies alleged sexual abuses committed inside the Sodalitium.

This acknowledges the book, but uses the

The movement first published a response which was later considered insufficient, then said that it was "a cause for deep grief and shame if such acts could have been committed by Luis Fernando Figari ... We condemn the incidents that may have occurred, especially the sexual abuse". They said that the testimonies in the book were plausible and needed to be thoroughly clarified, and that former members of the Movement had reported abuse. Allegations submitted to ecclesial tribunals were withheld. (There is more, which includes source citations; I don't want to make this too long. See the article before this edit, and seach for "soldados".)

This has been moves to the section about Figari in particular, not the original "Controversies and criticisms" (about the sodality).

Consequently I've reverted the edit.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]