RANTING ON BOTH EXTREMES OF THE PENDULUM: NEOCATECHUMENALS AND TRADITIONALISTS

I wasn't much interested in the developments concerning the petition made by members (and leaders) of the Neocatechumenal Way for their definitive approval, and the approval of some of their rites, particularly those of Christian initiation. But the news of Pope Benedict XVI's approval of the Way and the its rites of Christian initiation have caused a lot of joy naturally among the same members of the Way, and consternation and strong reactions among traditionalists. News of this approval on the part of the Pope had kept this latter group on their toes, for very obvious reasons. Much has been said about their liturgies, especially about their particular celebration of the Mass, more commonly termed by followers of the Way as the Eucharist, since it presents a rather striking departure from the liturgical laws and norms stipulated both in the common practice and legislation of the Latin Rite. I could sympathize with those who are lobbying for more decorum and solemnity in the Mass, who I guess would wince in seeing how the gifts would be prepared beforehand by lay people; I could imagine these same people (I refer to the traditionalists) rending their garments at the sight of people receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in their seats, drinking from the huge chalice passed around by the "lay ministers", which they have previously received from the presbyter. I myself couldn't stop thinking (and dreading) about the real and proximate danger of the Eucharistic particles falling into the floor.

Let this post of mine be a frank confession about how I feel about the Neocatechumenal Way. I've had close encounters with them. People would contact me, inviting me to preside or assist in their liturgical celebrations, mainly the Penitential celebrations. I've also been invited to preside in the Eucharist various times, even celebrating the Easter Vigil with them last year. I'm a stickler for the rubrics and things liturgical (I've said a lot of times that were I not studying history, another one of my passions, I would've been studying liturgy), and with a lot of people I avidly looked forward to the reform that the Holy Father had been effecting all throughout these years (somebody commenting on this article would find it opportune to place the proverbial parenthesis and bold comments in red after this lines, I surmise). I don't agree with a lot of the liturgical elements in the Neocatechumenal celebrations, especially with respect to the Mass, and there had been times that I really felt uncomfortable celebrating the Mass in a way that hasn't been laid down in the liturgical books. This was precisely the reason why I was at times hesitant to accept these invitations. I would confess that there were a lot of things that I didn't understand about them. 

And yet one would wonder at why the Pope, and this Pope in particular, one with the keen eye for liturgy and had done quite a job in bringing back the Tridentine Mass, and who had been stereotype as the stern inquisitor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. This was the same Pontiff who had at one point, in addressing the crisis of faith in this secularist society, which in turn is undergoing its own crisis in many fronts, had mentioned that the testimony of Faith was to be given by small faith communities. Perhaps this was what the Holy Father had seen in this movement. From what I've seen from my own experience among the Neocatechumenals, I've seen a lot of conversions, of people trying hard to live the universal call to holiness, each in their own way of life, according to their particular situation and condition. Ordinary people, trying to avail of the same life from the same means available to anybody who forms part of the Church of Christ, with their own struggles and stories to tell. Perhaps they are lacking in formation, and that is precisely why they are in the Way. A lot of people have come to know, practice and live their Catholic Faith through the Neocatechumenal Way; for them this was the instrument through which the Lord had called. 

The scene that I saw unfolding before my eyes, that of the Holy Father meeting the leaders and the followers of the Way and giving them the news of the pertinent approbations--specifically of the rite of Christian Initiation, and not automatically of the Eucharist (though I myself hope that the Holy Father would ask them to be more faithful to the common tradition shown in the liturgical books)--showed me the confidence that Pope Benedict XVI had placed in them as new missionaries who would work for the new evangelization. I would daresay that the Holy Father was very bold in saying that the Way was a special gift of the Holy Spirit in our times. From what I've seen, I guess he's right.

A further thought on the liturgical topic. There has been talk of an organic development, of a certain dynamism found in the liturgical tradition of the Church. If this is the work of the Spirit, then perhaps we have to have to have more confidence in the Holy Spirit to guide this new charism within the Church. The things that I have seen and read in traditionalist blogs (I keep asking myself why I persist in wasting my time looking at things that would merely serve to irritate me) have shown me how ossified people could turn out to be when deadly set in their opinions (place another parenthetical comment in red here please), even to the point of attacking the Holy Father and saying other things besides that place in doubt their true orthodoxy. Their attitude reminds me well of the lessons I've had about fourth-century Donatists and the seventeenth-century nuns of the convent of Port-Royal, who were "pure as angels but proud as demons". One's fidelity to the Successor of Peter is one clear sign of orthodoxy, and I guess for me this particular case functions as a litmus test to see where one's loyalty lies.

The history of the liturgy has shown us that the liturgy has developed throughout the ages: the only Mass of the Ages that we ever had was Jesus Christ himself in the Eucharist, I believe that anybody who makes a specific rite the center of his faith is grievously mistaken. The Mass had undergone an organic development throughout the centuries, from the simple fractio panis of the earliest Christians to the various rites in the different ecclesial traditions, to the splendor of the gregorian liturgy, of which the Tridentine Rite, merely one of the various rites within the Church, is heir. I could say that the liturgy that we have would still change and admit development. As what I've argued with a companion  last night at table, the liturgy that we have on earth, no matter how we have it, is imperfect; that perfect liturgy we would have seeing God face to face. With respect to the Neocahatechumenal way, I believe this is also the case. I could only personally wish that as time moves on, the Way could come up with the means of being faithful both to the liturgical tradition of the Church and and to their own charism.

The Philippine President and a lost moment of valor

I’m not a fan of Pnoy, as the occupant of the country’s highest political office is fond of styling himself. I haven’t been since the beginning, when he was a nobody in the Senate, who was suddenly thrust into the limelight because his mother died. Suddenly, overnight, under the steady rain of yellow confetti, Benigno Simeon Aquino, Jr. becomes almost something akin to a Messiah come to save his people, a role that he believes is his by divine right of the people, and which gives him the power and the audacity to work for reforms, hurling thunderbolts here and there.

Don’t mistake me, I’m not a fan of the previous administration either. Ganun ba yun—quipped a friend in that modern Aeropagus we more commonly call Facebook—Basta hindi ka sang-ayon kay PNoy, Pro-CGMA ka ka? (is this how things are right now, that just because you don’t agree with Pnoy, you’re for CGMA (Congresswoman Gloria Macapagal Arroyo)?). These words were no more than an observation of the ambiance of current opinion. You could see that where the action really is: in the comment boxes of news articles in the webpages of the more prestigious Philippine dailies. These com-boxes could be as dirty as the hidden alleys of Barcelona and as busy as a hive. Here you would see people who differed from Pnoy’s view of things being attacked by his lackeys for being CGMA cronies. Is reality that merely two sided? Are we going the way of another dictatorship? I’m inclined to see it that way, a rather silent one, a dictatorship of public opinion, I might say. Pnoy won’t be so audacious as to do a Marcos; he would rather be caught dead than do a Gloria, though I won’t be surprised if, after four years, the same charges be leveled against him, irrespective of whether they be truthful or not, Philippine traditional politics being as it is. But yes he is being tyrannical in a way, vindictively tyrannical. I am digressing.

As of the moment one thing that had people buzzing much like bees in a hive is his delay in visiting typhoon stricken northern Mindanao, first explained by his staff as due to careful planning and work in assessing the situation and how to best respond to it. Later on it came out that he was in a party with the PSG, laughing and having good time with his people, as a comedienne would later tweet. I don’t have much against him spending time having good time with people who work for him, but then for a lot of people this appeared to be exactly the opposite of the image that people would like him to have at the moment. His sisters and the rest of his office have come to his rescue (what would one expect? Were I to trip at least I would expect my own to do the same for me right?) but it seemed to boomerang instead. People would always have their reasons; I’m sure Pnoy would be having his (and I won’t be surprised if it were a really lame one).

Everybody has the right to party, especially during this season, but one thing that Pnoy might have grasped is that, if he were seeking to have that burnished image of a president that really cares for greater things that incidentally fall beyond his political agenda, he could have grabbed this opportunity that literally fell from the angry skies. A lightning visit would’ve given the image of a president who wanted to handle things firsthand, and to be one with the people. When the skies poured water in lethal abundance, and when tears of disconsolate grief rose up in return, the whole country was in Cagayan de Oro; the president was somewhere in the capital. He could have went there immediately. Just being there could have been enough. I could imagine that at certain moments words are superfluous; there are times when being there is more than enough. Disaster plans come minutes later. Just as his immediate presence could have said something, his delayed presence in those ravaged areas had aroused much comment and consternation.

It made me think of something a leader once did in a time like this. It was wartime, and the clouds of war loomed darkly above, even over a place as eternal as Rome. The morning of July 14, 1943 was promising to be just like any other, where it not for the arrival of 521 Allied planes who suddenly flew over Rome and dropped their lethal load of bombs over the district surrounding the basilica of San Lorenzo outside the walls. The walls shook, and the shock waves reached the windows of the papal study. Once it was established that everything was clear, it didn’t take an hour for Pius XII to be out in the papal automobile speeding towards the devastated area, unaccompanied by the usual escort, but with an aide, Msgr. Montini (the future Pope Paul VI) and the chauffeur. He went to the shattered basilica and stayed for two and a half hours. Peter Hebblethewaite, a distinguished expert on Vatican affairs, wrote about the scene in his biography of Paul VI:

“It was the first time the Pope had been outside the Vatican since the mobs had hooted him in 1940. He knelt among the ruins and recited the psalm De Profundis (Out of the depths O Lord). The crowd gathered to pray with him. He comforted the wounded and tried to console the bereaved. His white soutane was soon flecked with blood. The Pope failed to save Rome from the bombs but he was closer to the people of Rome than Mussolini had ever been”. (Peter Hebblethwaite, Paul VI, Paulist Press, New York 1993, p. 184)

By the time Rome was completely occupied by the Germans, the King, his ministers, and Mussolini with his, had all but abandoned Rome to her fate. Pius XII was the only figure of authority that the city had during those hard times, and the people never considered the figure of the Pope a distant one. He was immersed in trying to do the best in every situation, in trying to provide safety and shelter to everyone—either Jews or Christians—within the walls of churches and ecclesiastical domain, safe within the limits of Vatican neutrality. The daw the armistice was announced, the city filled the square of St. Peter’s to pay homage to Pius XII, Defensor civitatis (defender of the city of Rome).

What was the point of this flash back? Well, certainly Pnoy is no cleric, much less a saint, nor did Pius XII do it in order to earn pogi points among the Romans. But both offices hold within their bounds the obligation to be with their people most especially in times of adversity, in which the presence in its initial moments is enough balm to strengthen the ailing soul.

Perhaps Pnoy should’ve considered this, that in being at the scene in its first moments he wouldn’t only be fulfilling something that falls within his office, but he would also further his image which is important in any political career, and which is also helpful in allaying any further criticism from those who do not take kindly to him. But more importantly, he should’ve properly considered the fact that being with these people was of far more urgent importance, than being in a party. Well, he can have his party in the evening if he wants to, but would that keep him from going to the depressed areas the next day?

What is certain is that he hadn’t considered them, and that he had botched this opportunity, this moment of glory, unlike many other leaders whom history had enshrined in its memory because they had known to take charge of a situation that called for valor. How he would get out of this episode, and what pathetic reasons and excuses and even possibly —and dare I say it, lies—that he may have to concoct to save face is another story, one that does not capture my fancy at the moment to elaborate.

ON SO-CALLED CATHOLIC TALIBANS and my rants….

How Catholic Talibans stormed the CCP

AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR By William M. Esposo

The Philippine Star 2011-08-16

The Catholic Church in our country is so messed up that it cannot even stop its own followers from spewing fire and brimstone.

The internationally respected human rights and communications luminary Florangel Braid said that she was surprised at the language used by the Catholic group protesting the art work “Politeismo.” The Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) conducted a forum last August 5 for the artists and the public to discuss the art exhibit. Flor, who is my good friend, is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the CCP, the venue for the exhibit “Kulo” which featured the controversial art work of Mideo Cruz.

“Malaswa! Hindi gawa ng Pilipino, Gawa ng demonyo, (Vulgar! Not the work of a Filipino. It’s the work of the devil)” raved one of them. “If you are a Catholic you can no longer think independently!” asserted another woman identified as a theologian with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). The same woman was quoted by media for ridiculously claiming that the exhibit was intentionally timed to occur at the height of discussions on the RH Bill. In a rally, the Church group and its followers branded artists and members of the CCP as “anti-Christ.” We thought this had ended with the Inquisition.

On August 4, the art work was vandalized and there was an attempt to set fire to the exhibit. A Manny Andrada, identified as an author/businessman, smugly boasted on TV News 5 that he was the culprit and that if he chanced to see the artist, Mideo Cruz, he would maul him and break the wooden phallus that Cruz had attached to the image of Jesus Christ on the artist’s mouth. How very Christian.

What gave him the confidence that he would go unpunished? Like the Overlords of the Inquisition, he probably thinks that it’s okay to vandalize in the name of Christ, that he will be cheered for it and that he knows he has the support of the same rabid group that mounted protests against the RH Bill and now the art work.

Instead of cooling down tempers, foreign and Filipino priests who were present during the forum reportedly stoked further animosity by interjecting comments and interrupting speakers from the artists’ side. How very Christian indeed. Last Friday, a group of priests performed a rare ritual of asking God to “forgive the sinners” — referring to those behind the exhibit. They invited media so it was obviously meant for show.

What’s happening to the leaders of the Catholic faith? We would expect the Catholic clergy to exude an aura of holiness, calm and peace. We’d expect them to vibrate a certain loving kindness, the kind of spiritual energy that does not judge but seeks to understand and establish harmony. We can see these virtues and traits in the Catholic Focolare Movement that lives the gospel of love and interfaith harmony but we rarely see this in the CBCP and its rabid right-wing followers.

Our Church hierarchy and its followers claim to represent the nation’s 80 percent Catholics — presumably based on baptism numbers, which does not mean practice. Naturally, they lure grandstanding politicos to support them and when the issue happens to resonate in media, it becomes a formula for lynching.

However, the myth of the Catholic influence stops there. Surveys have shown that the Catholic followers do not necessarily toe the Church line. The latest SWS survey on people’s opinion about the RH Bill and family planning reveals a whopping 82 percent favoring freedom of choice in selecting method of birth control.

No wonder the credibility of the Catholic Church hierarchy among its own flock had plummeted. There are Catholics today who nurture their faith by independently using their own spiritual discernment or have totally shifted to another faith and belief system.

While other Catholic countries, including Italy, have adapted to the times, the Philippines remains the only predominantly Catholic country in the world that does not allow divorce. When asked for a reaction, retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz beamed with pride, insinuating that the Philippines is the only country that stood on moral ground. That demonstrates the “I can’t be wrong” attitude of the Overlords of the Inquisition and that this Philippine Catholic Church doesn’t intend to change or adapt to the times.

There is no divorce in our country but the rich can always get a marriage annulment. It is not only hypocrisy; it is also anti-poor and oppressive. Sometimes, it’s hard not to wonder if all the duplicity and hypocrisy in our system is a result of the friar — conquistador tradition, reminiscent of Rizal’s novel Noli Me Tangere.

While our nation cries for justice for victims of crimes and abuses and while we all need to address the gnawing gaps in wealth and education, these “holy and venerable champion and defenders of our morals” have opted to harass the CCP board for allegedly betraying public trust and the artists for being what they consider anti-Christ.

We’re witnessing the terrifying emergence of a Catholic Taliban who threatens to destroy the very foundations of our Christian morality. Read about the Inquisition and ask yourself if our lives will improve with a revival of that dark chapter of Catholic Church history.

The other day I was scrounging for news in one major daily when I stumbled upon this article by one of the columnists in its opinion section. What grabbed my attention was the word “Catholic” that figured prominently in the headline. You know nowadays I can’t seem to see the word without a diatribe attached to it. I’m generalizing of course, but nowadays (as always though) it’s not rare to come across a diatribe against the Catholic Church (funny, but when I looked up the meaning of the word “diatribe” in the dictionary application of my Mac the example was exactly this: a diatribe against the Roman Catholic Church). No, I don’t wish to address the person who wrote it I believe he is in his rights but the opinion article was really acerbic as to be ticklish. I was aching to supply an apology that would run counter to it. It’s really helpful to keep the debate to the issues and not to the persons themselves (though this is evidently very difficult, basing on my own experience). I always like to believe that ad hominem arguments are always the refuge of the cowardly and those who are far from grasping the essential truth of the argument, but then I digress…

The opening salvo afforded by the author gives the reader and inkling of the inquisition that would soon come. But anyway, that’s typical of all writers who come up with write-ups unsympathetic with the Church, so I’m not surprised with it. First you destroy the credibility of the Church and then you usher your points of contention. Give the image and the idea of an institution that is so messed up, so rotten so as to leave it as helpless carrion for the vultures, and it is form this point that the vultures swoop down to take their prey.

But is the Church so messed up? Perhaps it would really help to look elsewhere as well to see the whole picture. What “outsiders” tend to see are merely the ugly marks left by the sins of her individual children. I remember reading one novel of Andrew Greeley when I was in college and I was struck by the remark of one of the novel’s protagonists, an agnostic who later converted to the Catholic faith in the story who exclaimed to another protagonist, Bishop Ryan Murphy, saying “I love your Church, its as pure as a virgin and as slutty as a whore at the same time”. Not very edifying words, I know and I beg to be excused to saying something offensive to pious ears, but it presents the reality of a Church who is ever pure and holy but whose vesture is stained and torn by the many failings and sins of her children at the same time. Despite of the scandals and imperfections that surely abound within her, especially among the clergy and the hierarchy, people continue to choose to be reborn into the Church. It still remains vital and vibrant and young. As I write, thousands of youth from all over the world eagerly await the arrival of the Holy Father in Madrid for the World Youth Day (which I repeat is NOT a Catholic Woodstock, nor shall it ever be). The Church is young, as Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed in his homily upon inaugurating his ministry more than six years ago. It may be messed up, but it’s not going down. Far from it.

I’ve already given my opinion and thoughts concerning the offensive CCP exhibit in the earlier post, that’s why I would just reiterate that I consider it understandable that Catholics would swoop down upon CCP spewing fire and brimstone. Were the artist and the officials of CCP naïve in believing that nobody would be offended in putting up such a lurid show, or were they purposely provoking people with that while planning to put on a martyr’s mask later on with which to face the hordes that would descend upon them? Is it so unnatural to be so effusive in one’s outrage when somebody tramples upon something which one holds to be sacred. Funny nobody seems to react when Muslims explode when the Koran is desecrated.

Yes everybody expects priests to exude an aura of peace, calm and holiness. If priests where to take on the “I” of Jesus Christ then they should be taking after Christ, whose identity they take on by grace of ordination. But does anybody care to remember that when the Son of God saw what people were doing to the Temple what did he do? Smile benignly and pat children’s heads? “15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 16And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17And he was teaching them and saying to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers…" (Mark, chap. 11). As the resource described it, this is the only episode in the Gospels that we see Jesus using physical force, he who described himself as meek and humble of heart. Yet for all of that meekness, his sacred Heart burned in anger at the desecration done to things that are holy and that evoked the holiness of the God of Israel. What are priests and pastors of the Church to do? Smile placidly and sing Kumbaya? This guy must have been born yesterday. People may have this calm and peaceful perception of the figure of the priest, but many forget—or choose conveniently to not remember—the fact that the priest MUST also be a prophet, and it is part of a prophet’s job description to proclaim the holiness of God and denounce evil. And I would like to add that that piece of whateveryoumaycallit at CCP is not only ugly but positively evil. And pleeeaase don’ use the Focolare as an example of false irenecism because I know they’re better than that. At least they have a good grasp of what’s right and what’s wrong.

That which follows head-on is the inevitable harangue of the row about the RH bill, about how the Catholic Church is loosing influence over its members and how the majority of Catholics don’t agree with Church teachings on contraception and how others are turning to other ‘sources’ to ‘nourish’ their “Catholic” faith yiddy yadda yiddy yadda… this is basically another jab at the credibility of the Church and her place and significance in forming the moral conscience of society. But then again, the Church isn’t a democracy (and thank God); many secular minds somehow tend to see reality and all of it through the bifocals of democracy. Is heaven a democracy? Is hell? I’m not sure of the former, but perhaps for the latter I could say something. The Church’s credibility, its teaching authority, its power to govern, to loose and to bind does not come from the voices of the people below, rather, it comes from the Word above…it’s really hard for many people to get that, most of the time, especially in issues like this.

Here’s another thing. Another log floating in the wave of anti-Catholic bias is how anti-catholics always place progress with being Catholic. It always this equation: Catholic ≠ progress, change. Notwithstanding the fact that change doesn’t always lead to progress, that other so-called Catholic nations have favored divorce or abortion and the Philippines has not is another rock of choice which unsympathetic crowds would like to break Church windows with. Italy, Spain, Malta weren’t working on their Catholic faith when they said “yes” to these things. Rather they were denying it. Italy certainly wasn’t Catholic when she said yes to the pill and the bill. Fidelity to tradition, fidelity to something that was entrusted to her by the Lord is another “something” which her detractors can understand.

And finally we come to the pièce de resistance. The author depreciatively labels the people who wished to stand up for their faith “Talibans”, after a fundamentalist Muslim movement whose militia took control of much of Afghanistan from early 1995, and from 1996 took Kabul and set up a radical Islamic state. What these people were doing was basically facing up to a subtle tyranny that is creeping up in society these days, the tyranny of secularism. Now that’s the Taliban for you: a society where no one can speak of the rights of God and of the morality of virtue. Again, it’s funny that activists wouldn’t dare flash Damaso signs in mosques or use Korans in exhibits, but don’t hesitate for a second to come barraging into churches or use iconography that’s sacred and mutilate it. Is it perhaps because many people think that it’s easy and okay to bully Catholics and their faith? I’m wondering out aloud if whether the cry “Catholic Taliban!” is a whimper in front of the fact that Catholics don’t choose to be bullied anymore. In the Gospel the Lord told his disciples to turn the other cheek. It’s a good thing that He gave us only two. Perhaps this is the time that Catholics should really start acting like Catholics. The Church’s detractors—whether in the government, in the media, in intellectual circles—count on one thing to make themselves heard: those which I would fancily like to call ensaymada Catholics; you know those soft, white , sweet and fluffy rolls lavishly topped with cheese and everything else that would likely give rise to your stored fats in the beltline area. They’re full of air, sugar and nothing else. For as long as society is populated by Catholics who are okay with everything, even though it goes against their Catholic conscience and morality; Catholics who don’t even know much about their faith than just going to Mass on Sundays and not even making a good thing out of it, these voices will always be taunting us. It’s a good thing that there are a people who are standing up for what they believe in, people who would like to wreck this Catholic chair over people’s heads and wake them up, so to speak. 

By the way, in the final paragraph of the article above, what morality is the author blabbering about?