The Vatican and China: a new ostpolitik?

I haven't been able to follow the details of the reported rapprochement between the Holy See and the authorities in China. Reuters reporting, from 21st October, appears comprehensive - but a phrase like "... China is preparing to ordain at least two new bishops before the end of the year..." does not inspire confidence in the precision of its content. Pope Francis is reported to be the driving force behind the negotiations, and so is taking the negative coverage for it.

Cardinal Zen has criticised the reported progress towards an agreement, most particularly in an interview published in the Wall Street Journal (but behind a subscription/registration firewall). Reports of his criticism can be found here and here.

As I write I do not know whether an agreement has been reached; and nor do I know the subtleties of its contents, particularly as regards the appointment and ordination of bishops. What I have wondered, though, is whether or not Pope Francis' moves in this area are in continuity with Pope Benedict XVI's letter to Chinese Catholics of May 2007. That letter, as I recall it from the time, had an underlying anxiety to achieve some degree of reconciliation between the faithful of the "underground Church" and those of the "patriotic Church", whilst at the same time being very clear in its affirmation of the requirements of authentic ecclesial communion. It also includes a call for dialogue between the Holy See and the authorities in China. I do find it difficult to believe that any agreement will conflict with the provisions of Pope Benedict's letter (events might prove me wrong?), from which I quote a passage that may well provide some background to the reports with regard to the recognition of "state appointed" bishops (or, in the language of Pope Benedict's letter, the "legitimisation" of bishops appointed without an Apostolic mandate):

Currently, all the Bishops of the Catholic Church in China are sons of the Chinese People. Notwithstanding many grave difficulties, the Catholic Church in China, by a particular grace of the Holy Spirit, has never been deprived of the ministry of legitimate Pastors who have preserved the apostolic succession intact. We must thank the Lord for this constant presence, not without suffering, of Bishops who have received episcopal ordination in conformity with Catholic tradition, that is to say, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter, and at the hands of validly and legitimately ordained Bishops in observance of the rite of the Catholic Church.

Some of them, 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. For this reason the Holy See hopes that these legitimate Pastors may be recognized as such by governmental authorities for civil effects too – insofar as these are necessary – and that all the faithful may be able to express their faith freely in the social context in which they live.

Other Pastors, however, under the pressure of particular circumstances, have consented to receive episcopal ordination without the pontifical mandate, but have subsequently asked to be received into communion with the Successor of Peter and with their other brothers in the episcopate. The Pope, considering the sincerity of their sentiments and the complexity of the situation, and taking into account the opinion of neighbouring Bishops, by virtue of his proper responsibility as universal Pastor of the Church, has granted them the full and legitimate exercise of episcopal jurisdiction. This initiative of the Pope resulted from knowledge of the particular circumstances of their ordination and from his profound pastoral concern to favour the reestablishment of full communion. Unfortunately, in most cases, priests and the faithful have not been adequately informed that their Bishop has been legitimized, and this has given rise to a number of grave problems of conscience. What is more, some legitimized Bishops have failed to provide any clear signs to prove that they have been legitimized. For this reason it is indispensable, for the spiritual good of the diocesan communities concerned, that legitimation, once it has occurred, is brought into the public domain at the earliest opportunity, and that the legitimized Bishops provide unequivocal and increasing signs of full communion with the Successor of Peter.

Finally, there are certain Bishops – a very small number of them – who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected. Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they exercise their ministry validly in the administration of the sacraments, even if they do so illegitimately. What great spiritual enrichment would ensue for the Church in China if, the necessary conditions having been established, these Pastors too were to enter into communion with the Successor of Peter and with the entire Catholic episcopate! Not only would their episcopal ministry be legitimized, there would also be an enrichment of their communion with the priests and the faithful who consider the Church in China part of the Catholic Church, united with the Bishop of Rome and with all the other particular Churches spread throughout the world.

In individual nations, all the legitimate Bishops constitute an Episcopal Conference, governed according to its own statutes, which by the norms of canon law must be approved by the Apostolic See. Such an Episcopal Conference expresses the fraternal communion of all the Bishops of a nation and treats the doctrinal and pastoral questions that are significant for the entire Catholic community of the country without, however, interfering in the exercise of the ordinary and immediate power of each Bishop in his own diocese. Moreover, every Episcopal Conference maintains opportune and useful contacts with the civil authorities of the place, partly in order to favour cooperation between the Church and the State, but it is obvious that an Episcopal Conference cannot be subjected to any civil authority in questions of faith and of living according to the faith (fides et mores, sacramental life), which are exclusively the competence of the Church.

In the light of the principles expounded above, the present College of Catholic Bishops of China cannot be recognized as an Episcopal Conference by the Apostolic See: the "clandestine" Bishops, those not recognized by the Government but in communion with the Pope, are not part of it; it includes Bishops who are still illegitimate, and it is governed by statutes that contain elements incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

Vatican-Chinese relations

On the feast of Pentecost in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI wrote a letter to the members of the Catholic Church in the Peoples Republic of China. It seemed to me - and I posted on it here  - that a key concern of this letter was to encourage unity between those Catholics who had remained loyal to the Holy See (the "underground Church") and those who had joined the Patriotic Association. After the publication of the letter, there seemed to be a growing rapprochement between the Catholics of the "underground Church" and those of the Patriotic Association, one evidence of this being the funeral of  Bishop James Lin Xili of Wenzhou. Another evidence of this rapprochement was the ordination of some bishops who met with both the approval of the Holy See and of the Chinese state authorities. This report from AsiaNews is indicative of a series of Episcopal ordinations that have taken place during 2010, the new bishops being approved by the Holy See and recognised by the Chinese authorities.

However, this rapprochement, hopeful as it is, does not represent the full picture of events in China. In other respects, the persecution and harrasment of Catholics in China continued. As I cite, in commenting on Tony Blair's speech at Rimini in August 2009, a range of harrassing actions against Christians have and are taking place in China. Catholics in particular were the target of the suppression of the pilgrimage to Sheshan. In the context of the Beijing Olympic Games, there is a real sense that the Chinese authorities were saying one thing in public about religious freedom but, on the ground, doing the opposite.

In November 2010 we saw the visit to China by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. His visit was dominated by the negotiation of trade agreements. Once again, this gave the impression of a "normality" about life in China, and about the relations that other countries have with China.
However, shortly after this visit, the Chinese authorities, through a coercion of the Patriotic Association, have insisted on the illicit ordination of a bishop. This was reported here at ZENIT. Father Jincai is the vice secretary-general of the Catholic Patriotic Association, and the Holy See repeatedly made clear to the Chinese authorities that his ordination did not have the approval of the Holy See. An assembly of the Chinese Patriotic Association also took place at the beginning of December, after the Holy See had urged Bishops and priests not to take part. Once again, coercion on the part of the Chinese authorities played a part in their participation. The sense that the Chinese authorities are presenting one face in public, and another on the ground can be felt again.

The response of the Vatican to these developments is expressed most formally in a statement in response to the illicit ordination and  a note issued on 17th December, both posted in full by ZENIT. These two statements give an indication of the events leading up to the illicit ordination and the assembly, and states with clarity the position of the Holy See with regard to Church/State relations in China. They represent a robust response to the actions of the Chinese authorities, which have undermined a previously growing understanding between them and the Holy See during a series of Episcopal ordinations.

This is the context of Pope Benedict's mention of the Church in China towards the end of his "Urbi et Orbe" message on Christmas Day. It follows earlier appeals for prayer on behalf of the Church in China.

May the birth of the Saviour strengthen the spirit of faith, patience and courage of the faithful of the Church in mainland China, that they may not lose heart through the limitations imposed on their freedom of religion and conscience but, persevering in fidelity to Christ and his Church, may keep alive the flame of hope. May the love of “God-with-us” grant perseverance to all those Christian communities enduring discrimination and persecution ...

A Comment on Unity

Fr Tim has an interesting post about the funeral of Bishop James Lin Xili of Wenzhou in China, with a link to the news agency report on which his post is based. The last paragraph of Fr Tim's post is the following:

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?

I originally wrote the following as a comment to Fr Tim's post, and then realised it was a bit long for a comment, so am posting it as a new post and expanding it. Read Fr Tim's full post first

Fr Tim:

The suggestion of a certain parallel between the conversation with the Society of St Pius X and the situation of the Catholic Church in China ("underground" and "patriotic") is, I think, closer than you suggest if we look at it as an exercise of the "ministry of unity" of the Successor Peter.

I came rather late to reading Pope Benedict's Letter to Chinese Catholics, but there seemed to me to be a striking similarity between the principle underlying that initiative and the principle underlying the initiative towards the Society of St Pius X (and, therefore indirectly, the initiative of Summorum Pontificum - and, in my view, this consideration of unity is at least as important as Liturgical ones, if not more so, to understanding Summorum Pontificum).

As I read the Letter to Chinese Catholics (and an associated Q+A released, I think, to counter distortion of the original Letter by the Chinese authorities), I was struck by its concern with regard to the unity of the Church and the vital necessity of the communion of the Bishop with the Successor of Peter to assure that unity, so much so that I read that concern as being the most important theological principle underlying the Letter.

In both the Chinese and St Pius X contexts, I think we can see Pope Benedict doing everything that he can to try and restore that unity based on the communion of the Bishop with the Holy See where it has suffered injury - fundamentally the same enterprise undertaken in two very different historical/political contexts. In the one context, the Letter to Chinese Catholics encourages communion between the "underground" and "patriotic" churches, in exactly the way described in Fr Tim's post and achieved in such a profound way at the funeral liturgy of a Bishop, so that communion between their Bishops can grow; and in the other the Liturgical intitative of Summorum Pontificum is about encouraging increasing communion between those attached to "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms to help bring about communion of the Bishops (and religious superiors/communities) concerned. This is why I consider the agenda of "mutual enrichment" of Pope Benedict's letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum to be so important, as it represents the aspect of building of ecclesial communion. Sadly, it is the aspect of the initiative of Summorum Pontificum that has been almost totally neglected.

I think the example of communion between underground and patriotic Catholics at the funeral of Bishop James Lin Xili is a very striking and profound witness to the unity of the Church that Pope Benedict seeks to encourage, and Fr Tim is quite right to point it out as a model for the dialogue with the Society of St Pius X.

PS: The tangible concern for the unity of the Church that I am suggesting here has, I think, a distinctly Patristic feel to it; we in the West have perhaps lost sight of it since the Reformation in a concern for the truth of the content of the faith (not that the two are contradictory, but rather go together). It also prompts a rather interesting reflection on the nature and definition of ecumenical activity - I recall there being comment at the time of the lifting of the excommunications of the Bishops of the Society of St Pius X that it was fortuitious that that action coincided with the octave of prayer for Christian unity.

Update on China

Adam has added a series of comments to my post Tony Blair in Rimini: religion in China. These provide some useful additional information. He has also suggested that the Holy Spirit Study Centre, located in Hong Kong, is a useful source of information about Christianity in China.

China - the torch of faith

As the Olympic Games in Beijing get under way, it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that Christians, along with other religious believers, are subjected to persecution in China. Whilst commentators from the developed nations of the West might find it fashionable to call on China to respect the human rights of its own citizens, I suspect that few of them will be willing to articulate this in a call for religious freedom in the country. Such a call would require a certain echo in Western societies that are increasingly anti-religious themselves, though this is not expressed in juridical persecution in the way that it is in a country like China.


Aid to the Church in Need feature their work to support Chinese Catholics on their website, under a campaign entitled "Torch of Faith: China 2008". This includes stories, prayer resources and the possibility of providing financial support for ACN's work in China.


Christian Solidarity Worldwide have a similar campaign called "One Dream: Freedom. It's time to go the distance". What Catholics will be familiar with in the language of "underground Church" and "Patriotic Church" is mirrored for other Christian communities as "unregistered" and "registered" Churches.

A suggestion of Christian Solidarity Worldwide's campaign is that Church communities should spend time tomorrow (Friday) in prayer for Christians in China. This is timed to coincide with the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. Instead of watching the opening ceremony, we could switch off the television and pray a family Rosary for the persecuted Church.

And this is before any consideration is given to the "one child" policy and its practice of co-erced abortions.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's death is reported in today's news media. The juxtaposition of this event with the opening of the Olympic Games in China on Friday invites comment. As with the memory of Solzhenitsyn, there seems to be a deliberately selective memory as far as China is concerned.

In my view, Sozhenitsyn is first of all a witness and a witness of towering stature. I do not think that any of his literature should be understood except alongside The Gulag Archipelago, a carefully documented and systematic history of the Soviet prison camp system. This book documents particular instances, all of them supplied to Solzhenitisyn by witnesses or participants - hundreds of them - who risked their lives to preserve the story of this terror. It also documents the experience of the camps - arrest, first cell, interrogation, transport from one camp to another, and so on. The book was written in secret, its manuscript pages hidden from the Soviet authorities, in times when samizdat was a word whose meaning was recognised in every day life in the Western world. How many of our young people now would know the meaning of this word? The brutality is in places quite raw, so much so that you have to remind yourself as you read it that it is the unadorned testimony of a witness or participant, provided to the author. And in other places - I have just re-read an account of the meeting of "The Scientific and Technical Society of Cell 75" - there is a witness to the survival of the human spirit in the most crushing of circumstances.

In this context, I recall reading One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich, which describes the experience of a day in the life of a prisoner in the Gulag, and consciously inserting into it the rawness of brutality with which I was familiar from The Gulag Archipelago but which is most meticulously but discretely described in the novel.

Those in our day who criticse religion for being the cause of wars would do well to be less selective in their memories - the work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a witness to the horror created by a regime that rejected and persecuted religious belief, and it is a horror on a quite unimaginable scale.

And as we turn towards China to follow the Olympic Games in the coming weeks, we might also try to be less selective in our memories.