UCANEWS has a report on the funeral of Bishop James Lin Xili of Wenzhou which took place last Saturday. (See: Members of 'open' and 'underground' communities attend bishop's funeral) Bishop Lin was ordained clandestinely and therefore a member of the "underground Church". In China, as I understand, Catholics try hard to prevent the communist government from driving a wedge between the "official" and the "underground" Church. The funeral of Bishop Lin was an example of this determined co-operation with more than 20,000 people attending - from both communities (along with 1,000 police.)Although the funeral was held in relative freedom, there was still some petty state interference. As UCANEWS reports:
The sources also said local government officials forbade the use of the term zhujiao (bishop) on banners and wreaths, but a compromise was reached with the use of "Lin mu" (shepherd Lin). However, officials allowed the verbal use of "Lin zhujiao" during funeral Masses and other memorial services.I am currently reading Fr Adrian Fortescue's fascinating book on "The Orthodox Eastern Church" and the Chinese government's interference with the Church seems strikingly similar to the way in which the Emperors of "new Rome" and, later, the Turks, interfered with the Church at Constantinople.
Authorities did not allow Bishop Lin's body to be clothed in bishop's garb, but his family members placed the zucchetto or bishop's skullcap on his head just before the cremation, sources said.
Another thought which struck me was the fine example of tolerance and co-operation shown by the Chinese Catholics in such difficult and highly-charged circumstances. With our relatively easy civic freedom, perhaps we could see this as a model for co-operation with the Society of St Pius X? Please don't misunderstand me: I know that the comparison is not exact and I am certainly not suggesting that either side is the equivalent of a "patriotic Church" but if the Catholics in China can work together despite such important and emotive differences, should it be so hard for us to do so?
3 comments:
I think all state interference in religious affairs is dangerous and should be kept to an absolute minimum. That which is currently described as "secularism" is in fact nothing of the sort. Anti-clericalism or Christopher Hitchens honest term "anti-theism" are more appropriate descriptions for what are, in my view reactionary tendencies, which want to restrict the hard-won democratic rights of religious believers.
Governments, which should fear the people not the other way around, would do well to take Elizabeth I's wise words, "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls" to heart.
Apropos the SSPX, I'm afraid I find it very difficult to live with people who harbour a nest of vitriolic anti-semites in their ranks. As the great-granddaughter of a man who was murdered by nazis in Dachau it isn't just the spiteful lies by Williamson et al about a historical fact, ie the Holocaust to which I take exception; it's also the fact that the SSPX harboured the Vichy war-criminal, Paul Touvier, a man responsible for the murder of seven Jewish hostages at Rilleux la Pape in 1944, in its priory in Nice, helping him to evade justice for many years. In my view this act of gross criminality by the society should have been severely punished by the French authorities, though since some very high-ranking French politicians were themselves hand in glove with former Vichyites, it's not surprising that the Lefebrists got away with it. The SSPX should have had its assets confiscated by the state and redistributed to Catholic anti-racist organisations and criminal charges should have followed.
Small quibble: the government of China is not in any sense, shape or form Communist. Neither is it socialist. It is rather, State Capitalist, that is it combines the system of producing and appropriating surplus-value together with economic control by a state-apparatus. It should also not go without mention that the current Chinese government is a tyrannical regime headed by a ruling clique which routinely abuses basic human rights and interferes with its citizens' most intimate decisions.
Communism implies both the abolition of private property (which certainly hasn't happened in China) and the abolition of the state (cf "the state will wither away", Lenin, The State and Revolution).
Fr Tim
I started writing a comment, and then realised it would be too long for the comments box.
I have posted it here instead as a "Comment on Unity":
http://rccommentary2.blogspot.com/2009/10/comment-in-unity.html
Joe - many thanks. I've drawn attention to your post.
Post a Comment