Unveiling the Light

Freedom is not just an American ideal. Our founders declared that is was a God given right. They did not create the idea of freedom. They recognized the ideal of freedom that exists for all of God’s creatures and then created a nation to reflect that ideal, or at least to the best they understood it in their time. With this in mind, I am concerned with the increased intolerance of freedom by many organized groups in this country.

Political Correctness has always been a suspect value. It declares that only a certain line of thinking is acceptable and that those who do not follow that line of thinking are “out of line” with society and should be isolated or condemned. The latest politically correct fad is aimed not at individuals but at organizations that do not “tow the line” to certain liberal ideals. Move-On and other left leaning groups are now targeting Fox News. They declare that this organization lacks merit because the network declares itself to be fair and balanced but leans right, and because it does not accept the crisis of global warning.

It is easy to point out the lack of consistency with this thinking. One has only to watch CBS News or one of the other three major networks to see that they are very much left leaning, and who can really argue that newspapers such as the New York Times do not lean heavily towards liberal thinking. Also, as much as many would like to declare that, “The debate is over,” there is, in fact, quite a bit of argument against the claim of global warming alarmists and the scientific community is far from united on this subject.

These would be censors also fail to make a distinction between the Fox network’s news division and its many opinion based shows, some of which balance out a liberal versus a conservative and some of which are very conservative in nature. There is nothing that says an opinion program cannot be left or right leaning. If it was a problem, then 60 Minutes and others would have been censored long ago. The Fox station has a mixture of news and opinion shows. What really bothers these groups is that the conservatives on these stations are given a pulpit they are denied elsewhere and more and more people are choosing to watch the station because of this. It long ago passed CNN in popularity.

The reality is that these groups are simply trying to silence those who oppose their political agenda. This is both dangerous to our freedom and is against the will of God for human kind. There is plenty of room on the airwaves for those of all opinions and the will of the public, expressed by their choice of channels, is a good measure as to their merit. Too many of the elite feel that Americans are incapable of recognizing bias or will follow those of similar political bent without thinking. As always, the elite are fearful of the will of the people and seek to replace it with their own will.

What is really worrisome is that these elite political groups and leaders find themselves in their positions of power without regards to merit. Very often they neither are the best educated nor the most level headed. An example is the media mocking the intelligence of Bush in favor of Gore. This was based mostly on Gore agreeing to the liberal media’s own bias and a measurement of style at speaking over substance of ideas. While neither were great scholars, academic records later revealed that Bush actually had both better grades than Gore and more education. None the less, the bias that Bush is “dumb” and Gore “brilliant” continues in that media today.

Political Correctness is often simply a means of shutting down the opposition by declaring them to be somehow inferior or dangerous. That it is most often used against conservatives rather than the left simply reflects the true reality that most media is liberally biased. Move-On and others are not concerned with liberal bias because it matches their own. They only want to shut down those who disagree with them. Political Correctness then becomes a camouflage for censorship. It seeks to control the message so that opposition will be shut down.

We should recognize that the most oppressive regimes in modern times have been those who claim to be for the people and who then impose their will on the people’s behalf. China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia and Korea are the most glaring examples of regimes where the opposition has been muted and eliminated so that the “will” of the people would be heard. What resulted, of course, is the imposition of the will of an elite few on the masses, and a reduction of freedom, “for their own good.”

We should be careful when political groups try organizing boycotts and actions against those who disagree with them. The Fox News boycott is but one example. There is also a move to bring back a version of the so called “fairness doctrine.” This so called attempt to impose fairness will only result in the muting of conservative voices on the radio, the one area of media where they dominate. It does nothing versus TV and newspapers, many of whom are just as biased. These are simply means of limiting the debate and shutting down the opposition so that only one viewpoint, that of the self anointed “elite,” would be heard.

I believe that freedom is not only a God given right but that God has given us the ability to treat that right with respect. We are not sheep being led to slaughter. We are humans created in the image of God and fully capable of serious discernment and critical thinking towards serious issues. We should beware of those who seek to limit our access to information so that we “are not misled.” Very often it is they who seek to mislead us, or at least it is they who think that they know better, often an opinion wholly without merit.

It does not matter if we disagree or agree with the right or the left. Ideas should be given the chance of being heard. Our competitive media markets do a good job of weeding out those who do not reflect America’s concerns from those who do. We should allow these markets to work. As always, the free market which reflects the many individual decisions of all, will be far more efficient and representative than a controlled market which reflects the decision of a few self selected elites who usually excuse themselves from the controls they seek to impose on others. After all, they seek to control us, not join us.

Posted by Fr Steven Foppiano at 02:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is not a purely religious blog. Instead it is supposed to be a religious reflection on social events. However, recently the Pope has made some statements that can have a significant impact on the religious world and which has gained widespread coverage in the secular press as well. My last entry was about his directive regarding the old 1964 Mass rite and its renewed use. This entry is about his statment concerning the Orthodox and Protestant religious communities.

In this age of ecumenism the Church has often kept silent about our differences with our fellow Christians as we searched for common ground. Now, however, Pope Benedict XVI wants to ensure that, as we look for ways to grow closer to other Christians in search of cooperative efforts and even the hope of long term reunion; that we do not loose our own identity.

Pope Benedict the XVI has stated that the Orthodox Churches are wounded because of their lack of guidance from the Pope. He then said that Protestant communities may best be called “Ecclesial communities.” To understand what he has said, one first has to know what the Catholic Church believes about itself and its definition of “Church.”

When Catholics define what a Church is, they look to the words and actions of Jesus Christ. Scripture tells us that Jesus gave the power to forgive sins specifically to the Apostles. He also sent them forth to preach the Gospel, to heal, and to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Scripture also tells us that he gave the leadership of the Church to Peter. He said that Peter was the rock on which He would build His Church and He gave Peter, “the keys to the Kingdom.” This is the structure the Catholic faith looks to when it defines what makes us a Church and we define ourselves as an apostolic Church.

We see the bishops of our Church as the modern day descendents of the Apostles. We read in scripture that the Apostles passed on their authority to others through the laying of hands. In Acts they created the office of what today we call Deacons through the laying of hands and in the New Testament letters we find the apostles using this method to pass on their own full authority to followers such as Timothy. Catholics believe that this Tradition has continued from that time to the present. As the Church grew, the number of apostles grew and came to be called bishops. Today, for those of us in this area, our Apostle is the Bishop of Sacrament, William Weigand.

We also believe that the power of Peter lies in Rome. Rome is where Peter last worked as an Apostle and it is there, at what was then the cultural and financial center of the world, that both Peter and Paul were martyred. As such, the power of Peter has been installed in the diocese of Rome. Whoever holds the authority over Rome inherits “The Chair of Peter,” which refers to the authority of the one who sits in this position of power. We do not really elect a Pope. The Cardinals elect a new Bishop of Rome and that bishop also takes on the Power of Peter and becomes the Pope. Thus today, we find the structure that Jesus set up, the Church being led by Apostles who themselves are led by Peter, to be found in our Church in our bishops and pope.

From this belief, the Pope says that the Orthodox community is indeed a Church but that it is wounded. It has the apostles in their own bishops and they have all the Sacraments we have, but they lack the leadership of Peter which is found only in Rome. It should be noted that when Constantinople fell, the Russian Orthodox claimed the title of “the third and final Rome,” at least tacitly acknowledging the primacy of Rome while denying its continued existence. One of the problems is that the Orthodox (Except those few which have reunited with Rome.) look to the government as part of their leadership while Rome considers itself independent of governments. Thus, after the Communist revolution the Orthodox pledged fidelity to the Communist party. Rome did not and thus the Catholic Churches were closed and given over to the Orthodox.

Regarding the Protestants, we believe that they have neither the Apostles nor Peter. Whereas Catholics and the Orthodox are “apostolic”, following the line of authority of the apostles, we consider Protestants (and many of them would agree) to be either scripturally based or led by the Spirit. Both scripture and the Holy Spirit are very important to the Catholics as well but we recognize that Jesus gave authority to the apostles and that they provided us with scripture. They Holy Spirit guides all who put their faith in Christ.

Some argument could be made that the Anglican, Episcopal, and Lutherans have maintained some line as they have bishops and priests but our opinion would be that over time the Anglicans have moved more towards being a scripturally based Church rather than apostolic and the Lutherans abandoned the line of succession when they first broke off without regard to the idea of authority being passed from one generation to the next. As such, the Pope says that they, along with the other Protestant communities, are best termed “Ecclesial Communities” or worshipping communities.

While I am sure that all of these Churches have arguments against this reasoning it is important to understand what the Pope has said. While we believe they are either wounded Churches or Ecclesial Communities, he has not said that they are not Christian, nor has he said that they are in any way condemned. We continue to accept the baptism of the Orthodox and many Protestant communities, only requiring that they use water and the formula of baptism, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

This may seem arrogant or insensitive but it is a reflection of what we believe and that which is our right to believe. After all, if I or others thought that another Church followed Jesus Christ more closely than the Catholic Church, we would move to that Church. We are Catholics because we believe that here we find the Church that Jesus founded, one that stays true to the idea of apostolic succession, and the Church which, while it may have further explained its beliefs over the past 2,000 years; still very closely reflects the Church established by Christ and which holds the same beliefs as those first apostles.

The Pope remains active in ecumenical activity, especially with the Orthodox. Our efforts with the Protestants has been hampered by incompatible recent changes such as the ordination of those with an openly and sexually active gay lifestyle and their acceptance of gay marriage. This has widened the gulf between us and reversed some remarkable progress that had been made. Pope Benedict remains an ecumenically inclined Pope but he will not turn away from the reality that the Catholic Church is the one which has stayed true to the Church established by the apostles. His statement is not meant to be hurtful but is meant to reiterate the truth that we are different and will not abandon our core beliefs.

A Little Perspective:

In light of these differences, I was happy to have the reading of the Good Samaritan for this past Sunday’s Gospel. This good Samaritan stopped to help the stranger on the road when the Jewish priest and faithful Levite ignored him. He is held up by Jesus as one who follows the perfect commandment, “to love God with all your heart, all your being, all your strength, and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” This is despite the fact that the Samaritan is not a Jew and is, in fact, looked down upon by Jews as one who has mixed their faith with paganism. None-the-less, he and not the chosen people is following the perfect commandment and he is the one who has found eternal life.

This is a good Gospel for Catholics to remember. God still works within the Orthodox and Protestant communities. Our status makes us their servants as God works through His Church to bring salvation to the world. Those that follow the perfect commandment of Jesus will find everlasting life, no matter which community they belong to. We simply believe that this is more possible in our Church and with the Sacraments it provides, but we do not deny the goodness that can exist in other Christians. We still seek cooperation and yearn for the time when all Christians will be united in our belief and lifes that are based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Fr. Steven Foppiano

Posted by Fr Steven Foppiano at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Widespread Interest and Speculation:

I am always amazed that whether they are antagonistic or supportive, a great many people follow the actions of the Catholic Church with great interest, and unfortunately, often interpret its actions wrongly. Today there has been an announcement from the Vatican that allows priests to celebrate the 1962 rite of the Latin Mass without special permission and that the desire of any stable group of parishioners for this Mass should be responded to positively. We should be careful not to exaggerate what this proclamation does. We should first realize that the 1962 Rite is to be an extraordinary form of liturgy. It is not to be the norm. The norm will remain the new rite, and will usually be done in the vernacular (the local or common language), not Latin.

What Really Happened?

One of the first charges against the Church was that we were going back to being anti- Semitic. It is being said that the Latin Mass prays for the conversion of the Jewish faithful. This is not true. The Second Vatican Council stated unequivocally that anti-Semitism had no place within Christian life. After the council, a revision of the 1962 rite came out in 1969 that eliminated any such language and which reflects our understanding of the Jewish people as being God’s chosen people. In line with that, it is not true that Vatican II has in any way been diminished. As stated above, its decisions hold, even regarding the old rite.

This proclamation does not mean that Catholics are all returning to Latin. At the same time we should refrain from calling this “the Latin rite.” It is best referred to as the 1962 Missal or 1962 Rite. Latin has always been encouraged as a liturgical language and we have always been able to use the Latin language during the new rite, instead of the vernacular. The difference is that the 1962 rite may only be done in Latin. Only the readings and homily may be in the common language.

It is also very different in the orientation of the priest and the form of participation by the congregation. In the 1962 Rite the priest stands with his back to the congregation, facing East in anticipation of the return of the Lord, with the altar against the wall. While the congregation is encouraged to participate in prayer and presence, unlike the modern rite where the priest faces the congregation, they do not respond to the priest in gesture or word.

While before, a priest needed the permission of his bishop to celebrate the 1962 rite, he now has the right to do so automatically. The Pope further states that when a stable population of the parish consistently requests this rite, the priest should seek to meet their needs and if not, the bishop should be requested to intervene. If no response is forthcoming from the bishop, the Vatican invites parishioners to appeal to the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

It should be noted that this rite is not to be used in Masses where the entire parish is to be included. This would exclude it, in most cases, from use during the most holy days of the year, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Easter Vigil where the services are singular and oriented towards the entire community. The new ruling also allows the celebration of the Sacraments using the 1962 Rite, again where the same conditions exist.

Caution to all who think this repudiates Vatican II or previous Popes:

This proclamation takes nothing away from Vatican II and previous popes. Those stubborn folks who refuse to recognize the authority of Vatican II or who hold previous popes in contempt because of the liturgical changes are still wrong and still place themselves outside of the Church community. Pope Benedict is saying that many bishops should not have refused to allow continued use of the 1962 rite. John Paul II said the same thing but John Paul II left the matter in the hands of the bishops while Pope Benedict IVI has now made use of this rite a normal ability for all priests. Neither has done anything to diminish the legitimate liturgical changes that have occurred and neither has or could reduce the authority of Vatican II.

Practical Considerations:

When considering how this will change the Catholic Church, consider the following:

• Changes are to be in response to a stable group of parishioners: I have had very few requests for a return to the old rite in my own parish. There are, however, some Catholics who have broken away from the Church to celebrate the 1962 liturgy. This will eliminate their spoken reason. If other reasons exist, they will now have to be dealt with openly.

• Priests must be qualified to celebrate the 1962 rite: I myself and many others have never been trained in the 1962 rite and are unqualified to celebrate it. The 1962 rite is heavy on exacting rubrics, such as how far apart your hands should be.

• The 1962 rite also requires not just the recitation of the Latin language but an understanding of it. Again, many priests, including myself, have had no training in this language. (We requested Latin in seminary but were told it was not a necessary study and the academic schedule was very full. This was true, although we were right in our recognizing the need, but none of this changes the reality of a lack of training.) A number of properly trained older priests are available, though most are at least semi-retired, but their number is limited and dwindling.

• As a pastor, I would expect those requesting such a rite to be able to help provide for its needs such as proper music, servers trained in the Latin language, and the ability to recite and understand certain prayers in Latin such as the Our Father. The clergy shortage will call for parishioner participation no matter which rite is used.

• The 1962 rite is not to be the normal rite. It is extraordinary in response to the needs of certain parishioners. The newer rite in the vernacular (the local language), is to remain the normal rite.

All of this means that for most parishes, there will be few changes immediately. Over time we will likely see more of the 1962 rite as priests become properly trained but, now that it is no longer forbidden, I suspect that its allure will soon diminish. It will no longer be a sign of protest against Vatican II and past popes and the fact is that most people who remember the 1962 rite are nostalgic for a past and simpler time but recognize that the new rite is much more participative and understandable. Properly done, the modern rite exceeds the old rite in beauty because instead of “sounding beautiful,” it is beautiful because it speaks to our hearts and to who we are.

Much of this controversy is due to past abuses in liturgy. After Vatican II many thought they could change the Church through the liturgy and abuses occurred regularly. We have been reducing these abuses steadily over the past decade and are now, in many parishes, very close to what Vatican II envisioned. Those who are not stubbornly holding on to past experiences or an unwillingness to change, find the modern post Vatican II rite to be both meaningful and beautiful. Those who see the liturgy as a tool for change should reflect that the liturgy belongs to all the people of the Church. It is our interaction as a people to God and should be handled with great respect and care. It should never be used for putting forth a personal agenda.

None-the-less, the Pope has decreed that the old rite has a place in the Church as well. It is a tie to our past and that past validates its use. It can exist side by side with the new rite but will never supersede it. People forget that the Church did not change the old rite so as to change the world. It was a world which ignored the old rite that caused the Church to make itself more relevant by returning to its roots, to the earliest Church, and following the example of the first faithful. Now we are recognizing that the old rite still has a place in the Church and is part of our tradition. It, as does much of our tradition, adds to the richness of our faith and our understanding of the divine.

I accept the inclusion of the 1962 rite in the Catholic Church not so much because I think it is needed as because I am a faithful servant of the Church and understand the Pope’s reasoning. As time allows, I will seek to find training in the liturgy of this rite and in the Latin language so that I may fully serve the needs of the people. Until I and many others do so, those wishing to use this older rite will have to be patient.

There are some opportunities now as some parishes, such as St. John the Baptist in Chico, now celebrates the old rite at least once every week. But to have it come to their own parish, parishioners will have to help their priests to find the time off to be trained, will have to do some studying themselves, and will have to have patient. God’s will is to be done but it has to be done right. This is a long term change that will take some years to be fully implemented. Meanwhile, the modern rite serves us well and will continue to be the mainstay of the Church. It deserves our fullest respect and honor.

Father Steven Foppiano

Posted by Fr Steven Foppiano at 07:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)