I still can’t understand understand what they
are dialoguing with China over
by Cardinal Joseph Zen
Response to “Why we are in dialogue with
China,” the interview His Eminence Cardinal Parolin granted to Gianni Valente
(that is, the interview they cooked up together).
I have read the interview several times, and
now I am reading it again (even though doing so disgusts me).
I am grateful to His Eminence for having
acknowledged that “it is legitimate to have differing opinions.”
(1)
First of all, one notes the insistence with which
His Eminence says that his point of view and the purpose of his activities are
pastoral, spiritual, evangelical and faith-based nature, while our thinking and
acting are only politically driven.
What we see instead is that he adores the
Ostpolitik diplomacy of his teacher, [Agostino] Casaroli, and despises the
genuine faith of those who firmly defend the Church, founded by Jesus on the
Apostles, from any interference of secular power.
I cannot forget my astonishment in reading one
of his addresses a few years ago in the Osservatore Romano, where he described
the heroes of the faith in Central-European countries under the communist
regime (Cardinal Wyszynsky, Cardinal Mindszenty and Cardinal Beran, though
without naming them) ) as “gladiators,” and “people systematically opposed to
the government and eager to appear on the political stage.”
(2)
One also notes the repeated mention of his
compassion for the suffering of our brothers in China. Crocodile tears! What
suffering is he talking about? He knows very well that they are not afraid of
poverty, nor the limitation or deprivation of liberty, nor even the loss of
life. But he doesn’t respect this at all (they are “gladiators”!)
He also speaks of wounds that are still open,
and his intention to heal them with “the balm of mercy.” But what wounds is he
talking about?
Towards the end of the interview, at a certain
point he says: “With frankness, ... I will say: I am also convinced that some
of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is due not so much to the
will of individuals, as it is to the objective complexity of the situation.”
Therefore, he knows very well that, in the
Church in China, it’s not (or rarely) a matter of personal offenses or
resentments, but that they are all victims of persecution by an atheistic
totalitarian power. Use the balm of mercy? But there are no personal offenses
to forgive. It is a slavery from which they need to be liberated.
Mercy for the persecutors? For their
accomplices? Reward traitors? Castigate the faithful? Force a legitimate bishop
to surrender his post to an excommunicated one? Is this not rather rubbing salt
in the wounds.
Let’s go back to the “objective situation.” The
painful state wasn’t created by us, but by the regime. The communists want to
enslave the Church. There are those who refuse this slavery, there are those
who submit to it. Unfortunately, there are also those who embrace it.
Faced with this reality how is it possible not
to speak of “power, resistance, clash, compromise, failure, surrender, and
betrayal”?
Parolin wants us to talk about communion and
collaboration. But are there conditions? Where do we unite? How do we
collaborate? Let us analyze two fundamental matters that need to be clarified.
(3)
What is the nature of the unity we want to
achieve?
a)
His Eminence praises Chinese Catholics and says that “there are not two
Catholic Churches in China.” If I am not mistaken, I was the first one to say
this at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, given that, in both communities, the
faithful are loyal to the Pope in their hearts (today with the increase of
opportunists in the community run by the Government I no longer dare to apply
the statement to the whole Church in China).
But Parolin cannot deny that, for the moment,
there are two communities with two structures based on two different, opposing
principles. One structure is founded on the principle of the Primacy of Peter,
on which Jesus established his Church, while the other structure is imposed by
an atheistic government intent on creating a schismatic Church that is subject
to its power.
b)
Eliminating this division and reestablishing unity must be the desire of every
Catholic, but not with a clean slate, let alone by manipulating the Pope
Benedict’s Letter [to Chinese Catholics].
In the Pope Emeritus’s letter there is this
paragraph (8.10): “Some [bishops], not wishing to be subjected to undue control
exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to
the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves
constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is
not a normal feature of the Church’s life, and history shows that Pastors and
faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the
integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in
matters pertaining intimately to the Church’s life.” Father Jeroom Heyndricks,
quoting out of context the phrase “the clandestine condition is not a normal
feature of the Church’s life,” took as his mission to spread the word
throughout China (where he enjoyed great freedom of movement): “There is no
longer any need for clandestine communities. Everyone must come out into the
open, i.e. become part of the community subject to the Government.
In the Commission for the Church in China we
noted this great error, but both the Secretariat of State and the Congregation
for the Evangelization of Peoples have ignored this warning, obviously
supporting the idea of Father Heyndricks.
Only after two years, when this error had
already done immense damage, did we manage insert into the “Compendium” booklet
several notes that aim to distinguish a reconciliation of hearts from unity in
the structures.
c)
Parolin says that one should not “maintain a perennial conflict between
opposing principles and structures.” But obviously this does not depend on us
alone, because one of the two structures is under the power of the Government,
which certainly already controls it and gives no sign of giving it up.
Pope Benedict says that the journey toward
unity “is not easy and cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.5, 6.6).
But our diplomats want to perform a miracle
immediately and accuse others of “clinging to the spirit of opposition in order
to condemn their brother,” of “using the past as a pretext to forge new
resentments and closures,” and of “not being ready to forgive, which means that
there are other interests to defend.”
How cruel are these reproaches addressed to
faithful members of the Church, who for many long years have suffered every
kind of deprivation and oppression for their fidelity to the true Church!
When the other party has no intention of
respecting the essential nature of the Catholic Church and, on our side, they
want to achieve unification at all costs, there is only one possible choice,
that of forcing everyone to enter the “cage.”
d)
With the solution of the “enlarged cage” will we walk together? Will it be a
new path? With serenity? With confidence?
They say it will be a gradual process, but
suppose the planners already have in mind what the next step after the
legitimizing of the illegitimate will be.
What will become of the legitimate Bishops
according to the law of the Church but not recognized by the Government? Will
they be “accepted”? That is, also admitted to the cage? Will there finally be
“one” legitimate episcopal conference? (With the Government holding the key to
the cage?)
Parolin and company recognize that this
solution is not perfect, it is a lesser evil. Once can endure and suffer an
evil (harm), but you can never do wrong (sin), however great or small it might
be.
Suffering as others create a schismatic Church
may be inevitable, but we cannot help in its creation.
Furthermore, there is no reason to fear a
schismatic church created by the party. It will fade with the collapse of the
regime. But a schismatic church with the Pope’s blessing will be horrible!
(4)
Having clarified the nature of the unity to be
reached, it is easy to consider the following problem: How do we achieve this
unity?
Through reconciliation (ad intra) and dialogue
(with the Government).
a)
Reconciliation is not without difficulty but it is possible, because it depends
only on our goodwill. Dialogue with the Government is more difficult.
b)
Pope Francis had said in Seoul: “The first condition of a dialogue is
consistency with one’s own identity.”
It is a matter of honesty, of justice. We need
to know and make known where we want to arrive, that is, according to our
conscience what a good outcome of the dialogue will be. In our case, it is
obviously: “a true religious freedom which not only does not harm but fosters
the true good of the nation.”
Will we succeed in this dialogue? Is there a
hope of success? Is there even a minimum foundation in the present situation,
when the Chinese Communist Party is more powerful and dominating than ever?
When both his actions and pronouncements are directed toward a more rigorous
control over every religion, but in a special way of the so-called “foreign”
religions.
The Communists no longer even feel the need to
keep up appearances. Photographs show that it is the State that manages the
Catholic Church in China, which is no longer Catholic but Chinese, schismatic.
(It is a government official who presides over the [always] joint meeting of
the Patriotic Association and the so-called “episcopal conference”). The Popes
refrain from using the word “schism” out of compassion for those who find
themselves there not of their own volition but under severe pressure.
From what we see, the Holy See is accepting
this unacceptable reality. (Is it sure it is doing good to the Church?)
For dialogue to be true, it must start with a
position of equality. There is no real dialogue between the jailer and the
prisoners, between the victor and the vanquished. But our side seems to begin
from a position of weakness. Reliable sources say that the Vatican Delegation
could not discuss the case of Bishop Giacomo Su Zhi Min, who has been in the
hands of the government for more than twenty years, because they refused to
discuss it. It seems to me that our side should have left the negotiating table
and come home. Accepting their refusal is like kneeling from the start.
After all, we are not the vanquished. Do our
diplomats not know that the faithful of the clandestine community constituted,
and perhaps still constitute, the majority? That in various places they have
churches and cathedrals? That in the city, where obviously they cannot have
churches, they have Masses said in private houses and are undisturbed by the
public security authorities who are also aware of everything. Unfortunately, as
of February 2018, we can expect a much stricter control by the Government on
the activities of our brothers and sisters, also because the Government knows
that it now has the Holy See’s consent.
(c) While supporting the need for external
dialogue with the government, the Vatican has stifled dialogue within the
Church. With a supremely ill-mannered gesture, and without a word, it
liquidated the Pontifical Commission for the Church in China established Pope
Benedict. They got rid of the only competent Chinese voice in the Vatican,
Archbishop Savio, by sending him as nuncio to Greece. “Finding syntheses of
truth” indeed!“Discovering God’s plan together” indeed! They are sure they
“have considered everything adequately.”
(5)
The most repugnant thing I find in the whole
interview is the dishonest exploitation of phrases in the Letter of Pope
Benedict, making it appear that he was a faithful supporter of the Pope
Emeritus, whereas in reality he and the then Prefect of the Congregation for
the Evangelization of the Peoples thwarted all of Pope Ratzinger’s efforts to
bring the Church in China back to the right path.
At the beginning and end of the interview he
cites two quotations, respectively.
a) In
Chapter 4, paragraph 7 Pope Benedict says: “The solution to existing problems
cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil
authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not
acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and
discipline of the Church.”
b) In
Paragraph 6, he had said: (Citing Deus caritas est) “The Church cannot and must
not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society
possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she
cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.”
In both quotes, Parolin took advantage of the
first half, leaving out the other half, thus losing the balance of Pope
Benedict’s thought.
(6)
Given the recent controversies, I cannot fail
to clarify my relationship with Pope Francis who, whenever I meet him, fills me
with tenderness.
It is true that my revelations of private
conversations may have caused him embarrassment. I am sorry for this. But I am
still convinced that there is a divide between His Holiness’ way of thinking
and the way of thinking of his collaborators, who have a field day taking
advantage of the Pope’s optimism to pursue their goals. Until proven otherwise,
I am convinced that I have defended the good name of the Pope from
responsibility for the erroneous things coming from his collaborators, and of
having communicated his encouragement to my brothers and sisters in China who
are, as we say in China, “in the burning fire and in deep waters.”
If one day it should happen that a bad
agreement is signed with China, obviously with the approval of the Pope, I will
withdraw in silence to a “monastic life.” Certainly as a son, even though
unworthy, of Don Bosco, I will not make myself the head of a rebellion against
the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Let us pray for Pope Francis “that the Lord may
preserve him, give him strength, make him happy, and save him from the hands of
his enemies.”
Translation by Diane Montagna
