Vatican preparing a betrayal of the Church in China?

Vox Cantoris has a couple of posts on the renewal of the idol “dialogue” between the Vatican and the Chicom government.  The second of the two contains commentary from Cardinal Emeritus Zen of Hong Kong, seemingly the last of the old lions of the free, true Chinese Church.  Cardinal Zen is having nothing of the dialogue being pursued by arch-liberal Cardinal Parolin and the Vatican bureaucracy.  It seems our new progressive overlords have in mind a replay of the Ostpolitik that helped maintain the communists in power for years in Eastern Europe while throwing faithful, saintly souls like Cardinal Mindzenty under the bus.

I take excerpts from Cardinal Zen below.  Emphasis from Vox, my comments:

I remember that at the beginning of last year the newspaper Wen Wei Po announced jubilantly that “relations between China and the Vatican will soon have a good development.” Soon after, the Vatican Secretary of State said that “the prospects are promising, there is a desire for dialogue on both sides.” I had my doubts about this unexpected wave of optimism, I saw no basis for this optimism. More than a thousand crosses were removed from the top of the churches (in some cases the churches themselves have been destroyed). After so long, we can no longer delude ourselves that this was anything beyond an episode of some local official’s exaggerated zeal. Several seminaries have been closed. Students of the National Seminary in Beijing were forced to sign a declaration of loyalty to the Independent Church, promising also to concelebrate with illegitimate bishops (otherwise they would not receive a diploma at the end of their studies). The Government is continuously strengthening a church that now objectively is already separated from the universal Catholic Church; with enticements and threats they induce the clergy to perform acts contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the Church, denying their conscience and their dignity. [I agree the Chinese Patriotic church is already schismatic. It always has been.  As for whether prelates and priests who cooperate with the state-owned church are violating their conscience, that is known only to God]

………. Pressed by some journalists as to whether there was real progress, Cardinal Parolin responded: “The fact that we speak is already positive.” It seems that there is no agreement in sight as of yet……..[The holy grail of dialogue has been found!  God be praised!]

…….So what is the formula now under discussion for the appointment of bishops? As an old Cardinal out on the peripheries, I have no way of knowing, let alone guessing.

A recent article “A winter of darkness for religions in China” by Bernardo Cervellera on AsiaNews, says: “From information that has arrived from China it would seem that Beijing’s proposal is limited to complete recognition by the Holy See for all official bishops (even illegitimate and excommunicated bishops), without any mention of the unofficial bishops and those in prison; Vatican approval of the government recognized Council of Bishops, which excludes underground bishops; approval of the competency of this Council (and not the Pope) in the appointment of new candidates to the episcopacy who will be “democratically” elected (in short according to the suggestions of the Patriotic Association). The Holy See must approve the Council’s appointment and has a weak veto only in “severe” cases, which must be justified if used. If the Holy See’s justifications are considered “insufficient”, the Council of Bishops may decide to proceed anyway”. [Long story short, negotiating with communists, without a few hundred B-52s in your back pocket, is a complete waste of time unless one is prepared to completely, utterly capitulate.  That certainly appears to be the case with the Church’s “dialogue” with the evil, Christ-hating Chinese Communist junta]

If this information is accurate, can the Holy See accept the claims of the Chinese counterpart? [Nope]  Does this approach still respect the true authority of the Pope to appoint bishops? [Nope]  Can the Pope can sign such an agreement? [Sure, he can sign, but it would be a total betrayal of the faithful in China and around the world and the largest scandal of this papacy to date]   (Pope Benedict said: “The authority of the Pope to appoint bishops is given to the church by its founder Jesus Christ, it is not the property of the Pope, neither can the Pope give it to others”).

Do our officials in Rome know what an election is in China? Do they know that the so-called Episcopal Conference is not only illegitimate, but simply does not exist? What exists is an organism that is called “One Association and One Conference”, namely the Patriotic Association and the Bishops’ Conference always work together as one body, which is alwayschaired by government officials (there are pictures to prove it, the Government does not even try more to keep up appearances, it starkly flaunts the fact that they now manage religion!). Signing such an agreement means the authority to appoint bishops delivering the Church into the hands of an atheist government. [That’s the whole point!  Why do you think the Chicoms are so eager to have this dialogue?!?  This is their first clear opportunity in 60 years to get the Church clearly and totally under their blood-stained thumbs!  They recognize a fellow-traveler when they see one]

This scheme is often compared to a (poorly defined) Model Vietnamese, but it is much worse. The Vietnamese model is based on an initiative that began with the Church in Vietnam, the true Catholic Church in Vietnam. In China on the other hand, the so-called Association and Conference hide the reality that it is the Government calling the shots. [And the Vietnamese situation is far from ideal]

Even in Eastern Europe of the past, such as in Poland and Czechoslovakia, it was the Church that took the initiative and then gave the Government veto power. In doing so, even if the government vetos a proposal for the hundredth time, it is still the Church that presents a candidate and makes the appointment. If the Government insists on a veto, it will only prolong the impasse, and it will still allow the Church time to look for a suitable candidate. But it is unthinkable to leave the initial proposal in the hands of an atheist Government who cannot possible judge the suitability of a candidate to be a bishop. Obviously, if the Church gives in to pressure from the government, the only result – despite proclamations to the contrary – is that it will have sold out the pontifical right to appoint bishops. Can this happen? According to an article written by a certain András Fejerdy: “For pastoral reasons – that is, because the full administration of the sacraments requires completely consecrated bishops – the Holy See believed that the completion of the Hungarian Bishops’ Conference was so urgent that it accepted a solution that formally did not upset the canonical principle of free appointment, but that in practice gave the regime a decisive influence in choosing the candidates”. [Meaning, under the disastrous “Ostpolitik” of the former record-holder for most progressive Pope in modern history, Paul VI, the Church surrendered her liberty and her sacred rights in order to appease a murderous leftist authoritarian regime]

UCAN News reports recent news from Chengdu (Sichuan): “Shortly after the visit of the Vatican delegation to Beijing, the Holy See approved the episcopal candidate elected in May 2014”. Is this also a case of “not upsetting the canonical principle of free appointment, but …in practice giving the regime a decisive influence in choosing the candidates “? [Chicoms choose a figurehead bishop, likely more beholden to Beijing than to God, and the Church goes along.  Very not good, especially given the thousands of bishops, priests, and faithful killed or indefinitely imprisoned by this communist cabal for defending the True Faith!]

The aforementioned AsiaNews article stated, again based on information received from China: “Beijing (demands) the Holy See’s recognition of all the official bishops, even the illegitimate and excommunicated ones.” I wonder: is it only the government that makes these demands, without repentance of those concerned? Will the excommunicated only be released from excommunication or even recognized as bishops? Even without any act of repentance? Has the mercy of God come to this? Will the faithful be obliged to obey these bishops? [Great questions]

So much remains to be resolved.

Illegitimate bishops who have been excommunicated have abused the sacramental power (including ordination of deacons and priests) and judicial (assigning offices) and the Holy See seems to be without rebuke for them. [There hasn’t been much rebuke for decades, going back to JPII.  Pope Benedict was somewhat better, but only somewhat.  Fear of men, and all that. Church leaders tie themselves in not worrying over the “pastoral implications” of doctrinal matters that should be crystal clear.  It’s the worst of both worlds.] 

…….Shortly after the Vatican delegation’s journey to Beijing began, the government organized a large gathering of Church leaders, forcing on that occasion a celebration of all the bishops, legitimate, illegitimate and excommunicated. These are all objectively schismatic acts. [Think about that] The government now can string along a large number of bishops, resulting in an irrecoverable loss of dignity. If the Holy See signed some agreement with the Government without clarifying all these things, it will cause a severe wound to the conscience of the faithful……. [And given the overall poor health of the Church in China, and the enormous inroads protestants have made there, a potentially fatal one]

……….Obviously our underground communities are non-existent for the Government. But now is even the Vatican ignoring them in negotiations, to appease their Chinese counterparts?  [I have long sensed – going back to before Pope Francis  – that the underground Church is something of an embarrassment to many in the Curia.  The progressives there would really like them to go away, so they can have the “victory” of normalizing relations with a schismatic group of government-controlled dupes] To “save the day” will we abandon our brothers and sisters? But they are the healthy limbs of the Church! (Of course, they too have their problems, especially when dioceses remain without bishops, which can only lead to disorder). Is silencing the underground community to please the government not a form of suicide?

In the recent negotiations there has been no mention of the case of Msgr. James Su Zhimin in prison for 20 years. Nor of Msgr. Thaddeus Ma Daqin of Shanghai under house arrest for more than three years because these issues have been deemed “too sensitive”!?

……..Beijing has no intention of negotiating, only making demands.

…….What makes me restless is the sight of our Eminent Secretary of State still intoxicated by themiracles of Ostpolitik. In a speech last year, at a Memorial for Card. Casaroli, he praised the success of its predecessor in having secured the existence of the Church hierarchy in the communist countries of Eastern Europe. He says: “In choosing candidates for the episcopate, we choose shepherds and not people who systematically oppose the regime, people who behave like gladiators, people who love to grandstand on the political stage.” I wonder: Who had he in mind while making this description? I fear that he was thinking of a Cardinal Wyszynski, a Cardinal Mindszenty, a Cardinal Beran. But these are the heroes who bravely defended the faith of their people! It terrifies me to think this way and I sincerely hope that I am wrong. [Ostpolitik was possibly the greatest diplomatic disaster of the Church in the past 200 years.  It was also a pastoral disaster.  Ostpolitik played a substantial role in helping the communist states of Eastern Europe survive a further 20 years.  It resulted in many great, holy, faithful men being thrown under the bus.  I wonder if their well-deserved reputations as opponents of leftism, within the Church and without, played a role in that process under the pontificate of Paul VI and the many progressives he appointed to the Curia?  I know one thing for certain – Paul VI, Cardinal Casaroli, and the other architects of Ostpolitik have blood on their hands.]

The innocent children were killed, the angel told Joseph to take Mary and the Child and flee to safety. But today would our diplomats advise Joseph to go and humbly beg for dialogue with Herod!?

Is that even a question at this point?  Is there anything more exalted, more precious, more holy to most of the institutional Church today than Saint Dialogue the Endless?

I don’t have any clear answers to Cardinal Zen’s many trenchant questions (and note, he also said he his many important concerns have been totally ignored by the Vatican), but I do know this: I get very nervous whenever a left-leaning (or falling) Vatican negotiates with an authoritarian, left-wing government.  The lure of a deal, any deal, regardless of the price, may simply be too great to resist, and progressives tend to be manifestly blind to the evils of governments they see as being on the side of goodness and light.

Long enough post. I actually worked on this on Monday but thought it was too long, then I see Life Site News ran it yesterday!  So I figured what the heck.