I. IS THE CHINESE CATHOLIC
PATRIOTIC ASSOCIATION A SCHISMATIC CHURCH?
II. WHY ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC
BISHOPS AND RELIGIOUS ORDERS EDUCATING SEMINARIANS OF THE SCHISMATIC CPA?
IV. IS IT TRUE THAT THE VATICAN
HAS RECOGNIZED SOME PATRIOTIC BISHOPS?
VI. CATHOLIC VISITORS IN CHINA
ATTENDING RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN OR BY THE CPA CHURCH
(For a follow-up to this letter, see our June 2000 Newsletter)
His Eminence Joseph Cardinal
Ratzinger
His Eminence Angelo Cardinal
Sodano
His Eminence Jozef Cardinal Tomko
His Excellency Most Rev.
Stanislaw Dswisz
His Excellency Most Rev.
Giovanni Battista Re
Vatican City
Your Eminences and
Excellencies:
We write this letter because we do not understand
many actions by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church towards the Chinese
Catholic Patriotic Association. These actions
appear to have been so one sided in favor of the Catholic Patriotic Association
(CPA) that
the underground Roman Catholic Church, which has gone through five decades of
severe persecutions in China in defense of the Magisterium, appears to have been
greatly neglected by the Vatican. Inasmuch as we and a vast number of
concerned Catholics in and out of China do not understand these actions, we
present to you the following issues in the hope that you will clarify and explain
to the world your position.
This
letter is written in the spirit of genuine concern for the Church and in the
interest of reconciliation between the Roman Catholic underground Church and
the CPA in China. On many occasions,
His Holiness Pope John Paul II called for reconciliation and for unification of
the Church in China so that it will return to the one fold and one
Shepherd. How can the Holy See expect
us to carry out this policy of the Holy Father while there is such confusion on
the issues cited below?
1.
Founding: The Chinese government
established its own “Catholic Patriotic Association” in 1957 as a substitute
for the Roman Catholic Church in order to sever Roman Catholics in China from fidelity
to the Successor of Peter and from any teaching of the Roman Catholic Church
that the Chinese government considers to be contrary to its own interests. Its basic principle is autonomy from the
Pope’s administrative, legislative and judicial authority.
2.
Pope Pius XII’s position –
No Longer Catholic: Approximately three years before the establishment of the CPA, Pope
Pius XII wrote with great foresight on the subject of autonomy in his
encyclical Ad Sinarum Gentem in October
1954:
“22. The promoters of such movements (Three Autonomies) with the
greatest cunning seek to deceive the simple or the timid, or to draw them away
from the right path. For this purpose
they falsely affirm that the only true patriots are those who adhere to the
church thought up by them, that is, to that which has the “Three
Autonomies.” But in reality they seek,
in a word, to establish finally among you a “national” church, which no longer
could be Catholic because it would be the negation of that universality or
rather “catholicity” by which the society truly founded by Jesus Christ is
above all nations and embraces them one and all.”
3.
Ordination of CPA Bishops
and Pope Pius XII’s declaration – Invalid and Illicit: The first CPA bishop was
ordained in 1958 without a mandate from the Holy See. On June 29, 1958, after condemning the CPA, Pope Pius XII
declared the election of CPA bishops invalid and their consecrations illicit,
that is, “criminal and sacrilegious,” in his Ad Apostolorum Principis:
“41. Acts requiring the power
of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind [“bishops who
have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See” cf. n. 39] , though
they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet
gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.
47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever,
save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical
appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests
or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can
lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of
the Apostolic See.
48. Consequently, if consecration
of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the
unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved
specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is
automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received
consecration irresponsibly conferred.”
4.
Pope John XXIII’s
Confirmation – Condemned Once Again: One year
later on June 29, 1959, in his encyclical Ad
Petram Cathedri, Pope John XXIII recalled and renewed his predecessor’s
condemnations:
“131. All, therefore, who wish to remain Christians
must be aware of their serious obligation to avoid those false principles,
which Our predecessors--especially Popes Pius XI and Pius XII--have condemned
in the past, and which We condemn once again.”
5.
Continuous Ordination of CPA Bishops Without Mandate: To this day, however, the
Chinese government continues to carry out its own independent appointment and
ordination of bishops for the CPA. In
fact, the CPA has ordained approximately 90 bishops in the past 42 years
without the mandate from the Holy See.
6.
What is Schism?: According to The Code of Canon Law of the Roman
Catholic Church, Canon 751 states that schism is “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the
members of the Church subject to him.”
7.
Is the CPA Catholic? In September 1988, the Holy
See, through the Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, issued
a China Advisory (Prot. 3314/88) to
the world’s bishops concerning contacts with the Catholic Church in China.
(Hereafter, the Holy See 1988 directive). The prologue of this document states:
“As the contacts among members of the Episcopate, priests and faithful, with exponents
of the Catholic Church in China are becoming ever more frequent, this
Dicastery, in accord with the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church,
considers it opportune to give the Episcopal Conferences the following
indications:
1. The contacts in question could be a good occasion to reaffirm with
clarity the Catholic Doctrine on the communion which must unite the Bishops
with the Successor of Peter and, through him, among themselves (Lumen Gentium,
14 and 18). In this regard, one could have recourse to the doctrinal principles
of the Vatican Councils I and II.”
Pope John Paul II repeated this position in a letter
to the Chinese faithful in September 1994:
“I am especially close to
those who have remained faithful to Jesus Christ and to His Church in the midst
of difficulties of all kinds, and continue to testify, even at the cost of deep
and prolonged suffering, that the principle of communion with the Successor of
Peter... cannot be renounced by a Catholic who desires to remain such and to be
recognized as such.”
In January 1995 Pope John Paul II had insisted that:
“A Catholic who wishes to remain such and to be recognized as such
cannot reject the principle of communion with the Successor of Peter.”
On December 3, 1996, during a Mass for China marking
the feast of St. Francis Xavier, the Pope called on Catholics in China
“All Chinese Catholics are called to remain loyal to the faith received
and passed on, and not to yield to models of a Church which do not correspond
to the will of the Lord Jesus, to the Catholic faith, or to the feelings and
convictions of the great majority of Chinese Catholics.”
Pope John Paul II was clearly referring the “models”
to the CPA.
In
essence, the Pontiff was saying that as long as the CPA
denied the supreme administrative, legislative, and judicial authority
of the Successor of Peter, it could not be considered as belonging to the Roman
Catholic Church. The CPA is not and cannot be Catholic because it
continues to deny the above-mentioned supreme authority of the Successor of
Peter. This is also in line with Pope Pius XII’s position as stated in the
second paragraph of this section above.
8.
Observations by Members of
the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy: Having been notified about the ordination of five
bishops by China’s CPA on January 6, 2000,
Cardinal Ignatius Kung, the exiled Bishop of Shanghai, reacted immediately in
the United States: “The Patriotic Association is a schismatic Church.”
On
Jan. 7, 2000, Cardinal Vincenzo Fagiolo, honorary president of the Pontifical
Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, at a conference in
Palermo, Italy, described China’s move to ordain the five bishops as a “de
facto schism.”
9.
Conclusion: In the light of the
overwhelming evidence reflected above, we believe that the CPA is not Catholic
and is indeed in schism.
10.
Holy See’s Position: The Holy See has never formally declared that the
CPA is in schism, albeit the CPA has refused for the last 42 years to submit to the
Roman Pontiff and has also refused for the last 42 years to be in communion
with the members of the Church subject to him.
11. We do not understand
your silence on this issue and need your
unequivocal answer: Why has the Holy See not
declared the CPA to be in schism? Recently, in response to questions about
Maryknoll’s support of the CPA, Maryknoll Father Leo B. Shea wrote: “Catholics
are united. There is no schismatic Church in China.” Why are so many Roman Catholic leaders advocating that the CPA and the underground Roman Catholic Church in China
are the same Church - and without any explanation
from the Holy See to attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction?
1. The Program: In recent years, there have been approximately fifty CPA seminarians and priests studying in Roman Catholic
seminaries each year across the United States. This program was organized by
the Maryknoll Fathers on behalf of the CPA. The CPA seminarians
and priests were given full scholarships covering tuition, room and board from
various dioceses. Upon completion of
their studies, the CPA seminarians return to
China to be ordained, not by the underground Roman Catholic bishops, but by their
schismatic CPA bishops. They will serve under these same
bishops who are not in communion with the Holy Father.
Apparently,
this practice has been going on for some time. In an article entitled “Quietly,
U.S. Seminaries Train Chinese Priests” which appeared May 29, 1994, in Our Sunday Visitor, Jesuit Father Denis
Como, at the time heading the Chinese Apostolate of the Archdiocese of Boston,
is quoted as saying: “The diocese wouldn’t be accepting these students if Rome
weren’t in favor of this. The Vatican recognizes that we need to be preparing
for that day when the situation opens up in China.”
2. The Participating Seminaries
in the United States According to Maryknoll (may not be all inclusive) are:
1) Catholic University of
America, Washington, D.C.
2) Holy Name College, W. T. U., Silver Springs, Maryland
3) Maryknoll Seminary, Maryknoll, New York
4) Mundelein Seminary, Chicago, Illinois
5) Pontifical College Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio
6) Pope John XXIII Seminary, Weston, Massachusetts
7) Sacred Heart Seminary,
Detroit, Michigan
8) Saint Charles Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
9) Saint John’s Seminary, Boston, Massachusetts
10) Saint John’s Seminary,
Collegeville, Minnesota
11) Saint John’s Seminary,
Los Angeles, California
12) Saint Joseph’s Seminary,
Dunwoodie, Yonkers, New York (apparently the program is temporarily suspended
there)
13) Saint Mary’s Seminary,
Baltimore, Maryland
14) Saint Vincent’s
Seminary, Latrobe, Pennsylvania
15) The Saint Paul Seminary,
Saint Thomas University, Saint Paul, Minnesota
3. Cooperating Sponsors in the United States of America According to
Maryknoll (may not be all inclusive):
1) His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Bernadine,
Archbishop of Chicago, IL (Deceased)
2) His
Eminence Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia, PA
3) His
Eminence James Cardinal Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, DC
4) His
Eminence William Cardinal Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, MD
5) His
Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston, MA
6) His Eminence
Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, CA
7) His
Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop of Detroit, MI
8) His
Eminence John Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop of New York, NY
9) His
Excellency Most Rev. Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Newark, NJ
10) His Excellency Most Rev. John Roach, Archbishop
of Minneapolis, MN
11) His Excellency Most Rev. Rembert Weakland,
Archbishop of Milwaukee, WI
12) Right Rev. Timothy Kelly, Archabbot of St.
Vincent’s Archabbey, PA
13) Right Rev. Matthew Leavy, Abbot of St. Anselm’s
Abbey, NH
14) Right Rev. Augustine Roberts, Abbot of St.
Joseph’s Abbey, MA
15) Right Rev. Douglas Nowicki, Archabbot of St. Vincent’s Archabbey, PA
16) Rev. Ray Finch, Superior General of Maryknoll,
NY
17) Msgr. John W. Flesey, Rector of Immaculate
Conception Seminary, NJ
18) Dr. Marc A. van der Heyden, President of St.
Michael’s College, VT
19) Rev. Howard Bleichner, Rector of Theological
College, DC
20) Rev. Thomas McCreesh, O.P., President of Dominican
House of Studies, DC
21) Rectors of all the above listed seminaries
22) Bishops of all the dioceses where the above
listed seminaries are located
4. Our Understanding: Through Maryknoll’s
correspondence to our supporters, we have been informed that Vatican
officials, in keeping with its policy of reconciliation, have encouraged
Maryknoll to get any seminarians out of China and into the United States
seminaries. Their purpose was (and is) to provide for them a proper Roman
Catholic education, and to expose them to the universal Church.
5. What We Do Not Know: We do not know - and Maryknoll has not
divulged the information - the names, occasions and
dates of these “Vatican officials” who have encouraged Maryknoll to sponsor
“any seminarians” out of China to the United States. We are led to believe that such an action is being undertaken
under the direction of certain unnamed Vatican
dicasteries. If these Vatican
dicasteries are proud of their actions, why the secrecy? If Maryknoll and others are relying on
so-called Vatican documents authorizing such actions, where may such documents
be found?
6. Accessibility of Underground
Seminarians in China: We all know that through careful planning, many underground seminarians
and priests are accessible to anyone (especially to religious communities such
as Maryknoll) who wishes to contact them. There is no reason for Maryknoll not
to include the underground seminarians and priests in its program because of
any inaccessibility.
There
are approximately 1000 underground seminarians in China. These dedicated young
men have chosen to follow the footsteps of the Chinese martyrs, their
underground bishops and His Holiness Pope John Paul II to serve the Church
during the most difficult years. Pope
John Paul II was also an underground seminarian, and is well aware of the
hardships to be endured in studying under a tyrannical regime.
7. Only for the CPA Seminarians: All the seminarians sponsored by Maryknoll are CPA seminarians.
There are no underground seminarians included in the Maryknoll
program. According to item 6 of the Holy See 1988 directive, “fraternal charity” should govern these
relations. Should not fraternal charity
extend also, if not first, to the Roman Catholic underground Church in
China? Should we not be more concerned
about bringing into contact with the universal Church those seminarians whose
bishops are in communion with, and not in schism from, the Holy Father? The fact that only the CPA seminarians are
being provided with these educational opportunities without at least the same
opportunities being extended to the underground Roman Catholic seminarians in
China is unjust, discriminatory and a violation of the rights of the faithful
in China.
8. Item 7 of the Holy See 1988 directive
states:
“Care must be taken that
those who are responsible for the organization of the visits [between Roman Catholic
hierarchy and members of the CPA] ….be
persons of sound doctrine, faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and
capable of acting with great prudence.”
We must ask
whether the Holy See has determined that:
Those who are organizing efforts to bring the CPA seminarians to Roman Catholic seminaries and to
educational institutions, and those actually responsible in Roman Catholic seminaries
for the education and formation of the CPA seminarians,
are presumably persons, “of sound doctrine, faithful to the
Magisterium of the Church, and capable of acting with great prudence.”
9. Underground Seminarians overseas: The Cardinal Kung Foundation, with extremely
limited resources, was able to bring out three underground priests a few years
ago. In the meantime, there are about
20 underground seminarians and priests scattered around the world with just a
bare subsistence. With no official program from the Vatican to
assist them, one underground priest is suffering from hepatitis
in Europe without proper medical care.
In fact, the Cardinal Kung Foundation is supporting these underground
religious overseas whenever they are in need and whenever the Foundation has
the resources to do so. In fact, it is
the Cardinal Kung Foundation who makes sure that
all the underground priests overseas have Mass stipends to provide them with
some support.
Sad
to say, the 20 or so underground seminarians and priests outside of China do
not even have a “home” to go to during such traditional holidays as Easter and
Christmas, while all the CPA seminarians can
always go to Maryknoll’s headquarters in Ossining, New York. When the Cardinal Kung Foundation took care
of three underground priests for several years, not even one offer came from
Catholic dioceses or religious institutions to take care of any of them. They
all had to share one small room in my house for a prolonged period to study
English before they started studying in a seminary.
10.
Misrepresentation: By sponsoring only the CPA seminarians in the United States, Maryknoll, which
claims to have encouragement from the Vatican,
has the appearance of abandoning the suffering underground Roman Catholic Church
in China. This could be easily and
conveniently interpreted by the Chinese government that Maryknoll supports the
Chinese government’s repressive religious policy and condones the government’s
50-year persecution of the Roman Catholic Church. Worse, it could also encourage the Chinese government to continue
its persecution of the underground Roman Catholic Church without fear of
reprisal from the outside world. It is
too convenient for the Chinese government to make an excuse for anything
detrimental to the underground Church by citing Maryknoll’s program. The negative impact and the damage which
could have already been done resulting from Maryknoll’s program is
incalculable.
11. Wounding the Sensibility: According to the fourth item of the Holy See
1998 directive:
“in the course of various encounters, care must be taken to avoid
attitudes which could wound the sensibility of the ‘silent’ majority of those
Catholics who have suffered and are suffering for their fidelity to the Holy
Father.”
A policy
or practice by any organization or community within the universal Church that
aims at educating only CPA seminarians
unquestionably wounds the suffering underground Roman Catholic Church in China - spiritually, psychologically, and
financially. Of course, this particular
directive is applicable to all the issues covered in this letter.
12.
Conclusion: In the light of the
overwhelming evidence shown above, we believe that this program is wrong and
should be immediately terminated.
Instead, the Vatican should have a comprehensive program to educate the
underground seminarians both overseas and inside China.
13.
Holy See’s Position: The Vatican has never
explained to the public the merits of this program and its own position.
14.
The “Run-Around”: We have a supporter who asked Cardinal O’Connor of New York few
years ago the rationale of this program.
That person was told to write to Cardinal Tomko for an answer. He wrote.
In his reply to this person, Cardinal Tomko wrote: “For information on
this matter, I suggest that you contact either Cardinal Law or Cardinal
O’Connor, both of whom may be able to give you information on this matter”!
15.
We do not understand and
need your unequivocal answer: We do not understand why the Vatican has so far declined
to comment in public on this issue and why is there no program for the
underground priests and seminarians to study overseas.
1.
Background: In the United States, such as in the New York and San Francisco
archdioceses, Ordinaries have granted priestly faculties to priests of the
schismatic CPA. These priests were allowed to offer Holy Mass publicly in Roman
Catholic Churches and to administer other sacraments openly in parishes. No specific mention was made in parish
bulletins that the priest in question belonged to the CPA and no explanation
was made about the schismatic nature of the CPA.
2.
Responses to our Inquiries: In response to our inquiry about this practice of granting
priestly faculties to CPA priests:
Archbishop
William Levada of San Francisco, wrote: “I would like to invite the Foundation
to be more accurate in its statements concerning the Church in China and in
particular concerning the priests from China who have been welcomed by the
dioceses of this country. The program
of their [CPA priests’] formation and of their
apostolic ministry is being carried out according to directives received from
the Holy See.” The archbishop does not
specify to which directives he refers.
Bishop
Patrick Sheridan of New York City wrote: “Your letter ….has saddened us to the
point of deep personal distress to assume that someone like Cardinal O’Connor or
any of his staff would act in relationship to priests of the so called
Patriotic Church …..without the necessary consultations and guidance from the
Holy See, is highly offensive and without any foundation in fact….Am I being
overly sensitive perhaps when I wonder what grounds or even what right you have
to offer such advice to the Cardinal Archbishop of New York that he step out
beyond his own jurisdiction and responsibility of call upon priests of Brooklyn
or other Chinese priests in the United States to serve a ministry at
Transfiguration in Chinatown which you consider to be flawed?” Bishop Sheridan never offered us a reason
for granting priestly faculties to CPA priests.
3.
All “Communicatio in Sacris”
Is To Be Avoided: According to item five of
the Holy See 1988 directive:
“The ‘Patriotic’ bishops and priests are not to be invited or
even allowed to celebrate religious functions in public, either in the churches
or in the oratories of the various religious institutes.”
We do
not understand that, given the above very clear guideline, how this program of
giving faculties to CPA priests and allowing
them to administer the sacraments in public could be approved by the Ordinaries
in the United States.
4.
Profession of Faith: We understand that the only
requirement for granting the aforementioned faculty to CPA priests in the
United States was that each priest had only to recite once and in private the
Profession of Faith as proof of his allegiance to the Pope. We have the following observations.
5.1) What is the Difference: In their
Masses in China, the CPA priests also profess
the same Profession of Faith while they publicly renounce the Holy Father’s
authority. On the feast of the
Epiphany, 2000, as it has been the Pope’s custom, the Holy Father consecrated
twelve new bishops in St. Peter’s Basilica.
It was not a mere coincidence that in China on the same day, the
government controlled CPA sponsored the consecration of five bishops who had
received no papal mandate as required by Canon 1013, in defiance of the Pope’s
authority. As a further mockery, these
five new bishops, together with the consecrating bishop, recited the same
Profession of Faith. Does the mere
recital of the Profession of faith mean anything when it is accompanied by a
spirit of defiance? This reminds us of
the words of Our Lord quoting the prophet Isaiah: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far
from me. And in vain do they worship
me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.” (Matt. 15:8-9)
5.2) Is It a True Profession of
Faith: For CPA priests’ being granted diocesan faculties after making a
“private” Profession of Faith, how do they make reparation for the scandal of
public schism? How then, do such
priests escape the condemnation of our Lord, when He said: “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him
shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. But he that shall deny me before men, shall
be denied before the angels of God.”
(Lk. 12:8-9) Considering where
they come from and to which they are destined to return to serve a schismatic
Church in China, is the mere recital of a private Profession of Faith is
sufficient to be a true Profession of Faith?
5.3) Supreme Authority of the Pope: By reciting the Profession of Faith, the CPA priests
regard the Holy Father as only the “spiritual leader” of the Church. They do
not necessarily recognize that the Pope has supreme legislative, executive, and
judicial authority to appoint and govern the Catholic bishops of the whole
world, which naturally includes China.
They also do not necessarily recognize the Pope as the supreme pastor of
the universal Church, possessing the immediate, full, supreme, universal and
ordinary power over all Catholic faithful. In this way, the CPA priests
reconcile their recitation of the Profession of Faith with their profession of
independence from the Holy Father. So,
Should not the Holy See revise the approach to reconciling CPA priests with the
Roman Catholic Church?
5.4) Pope’s Principle: Reciting the Profession of Faith once by the CPA priests in private
without explicitly acknowledging the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff and
in the meantime still reporting to the schismatic CPA bishops can hardly be
construed as the faith demanded by the Pope when he said: “unity (which)
springs from conversion of the heart and from sincere acceptance of the
unchanging principles laid down by Christ for His Church.” (Pope’s speech
in Manila to China on February 14, 1994.)
5.
If This Scenario were to
happen, would it cause a shock among the faithful in the United States?
5.1) Validly ordained priests
belonging to Churches that are in schism from the Roman Catholic Church are not
normally allowed priestly faculties in Roman Catholic dioceses. How, therefore,
can one justify granting priestly faculties to CPA priests?
5.2) How would the faithful react
should the priests from a schismatic Church such
as the Society of St. Pius X be given faculties to
function as priests in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States?
5.3) In the light of the national
and international significance of the Roman Catholic Church in the United
States, should not the granting of priestly
faculties to CPA priests be accompanied by an
explanatory statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? Instead we find an unwillingness to
disclose from which alleged Vatican dicasteries
this authorization emanates.
6.
Wrong Signal: CPA priests functioning in
the Roman Catholic Church in the United States at present cause much scandal in
the Universal Church and deep pain to the loyal underground Roman Catholic
Church in China. It also gives the
appearance and consequently the wrong message to the Chinese communist
government that the CPA has been accepted by the Universal Church in spite of
the government’s agenda (independence from the Pope), its policy (continuous
persecution of the underground Church) and its programs (“one child, one
family” and its forced abortion policy to achieve this program).
7.
Violation of Canon Law: Even if these priests have
made a truthful Profession of Faith, why is it that these priests have not been
required to sever their ties with the CPA in
China, and more specifically, with their government-approved bishops in China?
Is this not a violation of Canon 265 of the Church, according to which every
cleric must be incardinated into some particular church, prelature, institute
or society that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Is this not also a violation of the living communion of the Body of Christ with the
Successor of Peter?
8.
We Do Not Understand and
Need Your Unequivocal Answer: In the light of all the matters discussed above, we
do not understand why the Vatican should approve this program, because no
member of the Church hierarchy has offered any reasons for justifying such actions,
nor has the Vatican ever explained to the public the rationale and
justification of this program.
“It will be necessary,
therefore, to foresee how to assist the means of social communication,
utilizing the orientations mentioned above [the previous seven items of the directive as
referred to throughout this Open Letter], which clarify the position of the Church and may
foster the comprehension of the diverse and complex problems closely connected
with this position.”
In addition to cash, there are free services
given to the CPA . Scores of religious personnel
worked in China for the CPA as teachers and social workers. Moreover, as explained above, dozens of CPA seminarians and nuns are studying free with full
tuition, room and board scholarships in United States Catholic seminaries and
elsewhere in the West.
Many Church leaders in the free world appeared to
have been convinced that the kindness and
friendship expressed by donating millions to the Communist
government-sanctioned CPA would bring about
unity between the loyal Church and the CPA, and eventually the freedom of
worship in China. It has not and will
not work. Almost twenty years of active
and open support for the CPA bishops by the
universal Church has failed to achieve this “unity.” It could only misguidedly give the CPA bishops
and the Communist government an impression that if they wait long enough, the
universal Church leaders would accept them under any terms, with or without the
principle of Papal primacy.
In
the meantime, the recent ordination, on January 6, 2000, of five CPA bishops without the approval of the Pope speaks
eloquently that the Chinese government is in defiance of Pope John Paul II’s
assertion of authority over all Catholics worldwide.
With
all this evidence, one might come to the conclusion that the Vatican is playing
into the hands of the Chinese government.
On the one hand, the Communists’ CPA receives millions from the
West. On the other hand, the Chinese
government continues and intensifies the persecutions against the underground
Roman Catholic Church, and the CPA continues its schism and its total
independence from the Pope.
“...Many Catholic Church leaders in the Free world extended hospitality
and donated large sums of money to bishops of the Communist’s Patriotic
Association. The Chinese government regards these friendships and cooperation
with the Patriotic Association as an endorsement of its current policy on
religion. With this license, they continue their persecution of the loyal Roman
Catholic Church without any fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, these misguided
friendships and acts of charity on behalf of the Patriotic Association have
only prolonged the sufferings of the loyal Church...This is a disservice to the
Chinese. This is a ridicule to the continued sacrifices and sufferings of the
loyal “underground” Roman Catholic communities. It is a mockery to the blood of
the thousands of Chinese martyrs.”
4.
Our
Observations:
4.1)
Compromise of the Church’s
Magisterium: The
CPA and its clergy have publicly compromised and diluted the Roman Catholic
Church’s Magisterium and do not honor the supreme administrative, legislative
and judicial authority of the Successor of Peter. Therefore, they are not in communion with the Pope. Communion with the Pope is a basic Catholic
doctrine, not merely a discipline.
Therefore, the CPA is not Roman Catholic.
4.2)
The CPA is in Schism from
the Roman Catholic Church: Please read the section above,
“Is The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association a Schismatic Church?”
4.3)
Uncertainty about Validity
of Ordinations: According to the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church,
section 844, item 2 states:
“Whenever necessity requires or genuine
spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or
indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is
physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive
the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from
non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”
This
Canon does indeed apply consistently, for example, to the Greek Orthodox Church,
all of whose bishops and priests are validly ordained. However, this Canon
cannot consistently apply to the CPA.
The
vast majority of CPA bishops and priests are validly ordained. However, that even a small minority of them
are not makes it impossible for Catholics visiting China to be ALWAYS certain
about the validity either of the ordinations of individual CPA bishops or
priests, or of the Sacraments that these individual bishops or priests
administer. We have no written
official guarantee from the Holy See that ALL of the CPA’s bishops and priests
are validly ordained.
4.4)
Sunday Obligation is not
Binding in a Hostile Country: According to Canon 1248 of
the Roman Catholic Church, “the precept
of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at Mass which is
celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite….” and is obligatory unless it is
made impossible either by a “lack of a sacred minister” or some “other grave
cause.”
In the
light of the past five decades of severe persecution of Roman Catholics in
China and its recent intensification, it is clear that China is hostile to the
Roman Catholic Church and can be characterized as a “hostile country.”
Moreover,
it is almost impossible for a foreign visitor to attend the Sunday Mass
celebrated by an underground Roman Catholic priest. If they attend such an underground Mass, the visitors as well as
the Chinese underground Catholics are subject to arrest and detention.
Considering
the past and current persecutions of religious believers and considering the
aforementioned danger in attending the underground Mass, the atmosphere and the
environment in attending the underground Catholic religious service are
definitely hostile and it is tantamount to a “grave cause” as described in the
Canon. As confirmed by the Canon 1248,
a Roman Catholic visiting China is, therefore, not obliged to fulfill the
Sunday obligation unless he or she is able to do so without danger.
4.5)
Danger of “Wounding the
Sensibility” of Catholics Suffering in China: Item 4 of the Holy See 1988 directive states that “[i]n the course of various encounters, care must be taken to avoid
attitudes which could wound the sensibility of the ‘silent’ majority of those
Catholics who have suffered and are suffering for their fidelity to the Holy
Father.” This China Advisory has
not been rescinded.
By
attending the CPA’s religious services, as
stated in the next paragraph “Danger of Misrepresentation,” the underground
Church’s sensibility is certainly torturously wounded.
4.6)
Danger of Misrepresentation:
Even if
unwittingly, by their presence in the CPA church,
Roman Catholics would encourage the Chinese government to continue its
persecution of the Roman Catholic Church without fear of reprisal from the
outside world, and would give the false impression that they support the
Chinese government’s repressive religious policy and condone the government’s
50-year persecution of the Roman Catholic Church.
While
we are aware of the possibility that the above pastoral letter may have been
written under the pressure and instruction of the Chinese government to whom
the CPA bishops’ conference reports, we are also mindful of the following words
by the Pope in his message to China on December 3, 1996:
“The
Bishop must be the first witness of the faith which he professes and preaches,
to the point of ‘shedding his blood’ as the apostles did and as so many other
Pastors have done down the centuries, in many nations and also in China”.
We do
not understand how the Holy See can remain so silent about this obviously very
wrong “pastoral letter” without uttering a word in public in fidelity to the
Gospel of Life and for the sake of the dignity of human life in China.
A
most recent example is the opening of a new retreat center in Shanghai by the
CPA on April 15, 1999. This center has
three stories with 51 rooms accommodating 102 persons. It costs U.S. $ 1.2 million. In accordance with Canon 678, the Jesuits and
other foreign missionaries should seek permission to build this retreat house
from Cardinal Ignatius Kung, who is the only legitimate Bishop of Shanghai, but
they did not. Instead, they supported
the CPA’s Bishop of Shanghai, Bishop Jin Luxian, S.J. who opened this new
retreat center. This project must have
been viewed by the CPA as another sign of approval of the CPA from the free world.
This
misguided enthusiasm to work in a diocese without proper authorization, in
violation of Canon 678, cannot possibly be a form of ecumenism, because
ecumenism can never be done at the expense of Canon Law or at the expense of
the fundamental Catholic dogma of being “in communion with the Pope.”
In
view of the above, it is very sad to note that the Roman Catholic missionaries
of the free world ignore their own brother bishops. We cannot imagine a
religious order carrying out an unauthorized project in a diocese of the Free
World. If this unauthorized ministry
could not happen in the Free World, why should it occur in China? Why the double standards?
We do
not understand why the aforementioned irregularity happened without appropriate
public explanations and comments from the Vatican. We need your help to understand this matter.
These imprisoned faithful are the soldiers of the
Church. These imprisoned bishops are
the citizens of the Vatican. Any
country defends its citizens.
Therefore, we expect that whenever a bishop or any of the faithful is unjustifiably jailed and/or tortured by
another country, Vatican officials will come to their aid and negotiate with
the country to secure their release.
For
example, Bishop Su Zhimin, the underground
Bishop of Baoding in Hebei Province, and his auxiliary Bishop An Shuxin were
arrested by the Chinese government without trial or sentence about three years
ago. They were simply taken away by the
police. There were many other bishops
and priests arrested by the Chinese authorities in the recent years. We thought that the Vatican would “fight” on
behalf of these bishops and priests vigorously for their release from China’s
prisons.
However,
about Bishop Su Zhimin and Bishop An Shuxin, Holy See press office director
Joaquin Navarro-Valls made a startling and unbelievable declaration on March
22, 1999 that “The Secretariat of State up until now has taken no step concerning the
liberation of the two bishops of Baoding.”
Frankly,
we were shocked. We expected that the
Vatican would have taken steps to liberate these two heroic and good bishops
from the first day of their arrest. The
same would be true for any other bishops and priests. Has the Vatican now taken
steps to negotiate with the Chinese government for the release of these two
bishops? For this matter, has the
Vatican taken steps to liberate any other bishops, priests, and other faithful
currently in jail in China?
Another
example: The government of the Peoples Republic of China confiscated the
passport of His Eminence, Ignatius Cardinal Kung two years ago in March 1998,
effectively making him stateless. The
worldwide media reported the news of this confiscation. No one in the Holy See or in the local
Bishop’s office indicated any concern about the
Cardinal’s problem and no one offered any help to him!
4.
Why
is the Holy See’s 1988 Directive
Largely Ignored and Violated even by members of the hierarchy?
As noted in many of the
questions above, this directive has been ignored. Have other directives been issued by the Holy See that render
this particular directive obsolete? If
so, the faithful, especially those in China, have the right to know. If this
particular directive has not been rescinded, why has the Holy See not enforced it
among members of the hierarchy?
Of the eight directives
presented by The Holy See in 1988, the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,
and eighth are directly and concretely appealed to in the questions above (The
application of the second and third directives are complicated by the schismatic
nature of the CPA as well as by the Chinese
government’s continued persecution of the Roman Catholic underground Church.)
For
many years, the activities of most of the loyal bishops were truly
underground. To protect their identity,
Vatican had good reasons in the past not to disclose their names. Situations have now changed. Most underground bishops have willingly
taken the risk of coming out into the open.
The government knows their whereabouts better than anyone. The reasons for not giving them your
recognition in the Annuario Pontificio due
to identity protection no longer exist.
The fact that you do not publicly list the Chinese loyal bishops in the Annunario Pontificio is being
misinterpreted by people of all ranks as your reluctance to support your loyal
bishops. Moreover, the Chinese
government regards this situation, not as a friendly concession of the Holy
See, but rather as a lack of support for these loyal bishops from the universal
Church. It also causes great confusion
in many dioceses of China about the true identities of Vatican appointed
Ordinaries and bishops.
We
beg you to give your loyal bishops the mandate needed to guide your flock of
almost ten million. Please consider
publishing in the Annuario Pontificio the
names of those bishops who are known to have come out into the open. Those underground bishops, if any, who have
chosen to remain hidden should remain anonymous until the appropriate time.
As
expected, the government retaliated. On
the way back to their dioceses, all attendees of the Conference were arrested
by the Chinese authority. Eventually,
four bishops died in jail. Many were
injured and became sick.
The
Chinese National Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops was established according
to the regulations of the Church. They
drafted and passed the constitution of the Conference, elected officials, and
completed all the required formalities for the approval of the Conference by
the Holy See. We understand that all documents were submitted to the Holy See
in 1989.
The
underground bishops in China have lived under the Communist rules for almost
half a century, and have survived many turbulent periods. Regardless of this most difficult situation,
they have succeeded in increasing the Catholic population from three million to
almost ten million. They are also
experienced in Communist tactics and psychology. They are prepared to pay for their fidelity and faith with their
life and blood as they are taught by the history of the Church.
We
are convinced that in the long run, the recognition of the loyal Bishops
Conference by the Holy See can only further energize the steady growth of the
underground Church and will eventually force the Chinese Communist government
to give the Roman Catholic Church legal status.
Eleven
years have passed.
The conference has stood the test of time. The imprisonment and the death of a few
bishops did not result in the demise of the Conference. Now, what we urgently need is the Holy See’s
public approval and acceptance of the underground Bishops Conference.
We
beg the Holy See to consider granting official status to the Chinese National
Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops as soon as possible. Please do not base your decision on the fear
of the reprisal from the Chinese government.
These short term harassments and persecutions will be there for some
time to come, with or without any special action from Rome. These same persecutions always strengthen
the faith of the clergy and faithful.
History has proven that the Roman Catholic Church in China will never be
destroyed by persecutions, but will be severely weakened by the misconception
that the Holy See has abandoned the loyal Church.
1.
DE FACTO IRRELEVANCE OF THE HOLY SEE 1988 DIRECTVE: According to item 8 of the Holy See 1988
directive:
“….It will be necessary….to assist the means of social
communication….(to) clarify the position of the Church and may foster the
comprehension of the diverse and complex problems….”
This
item of the 1988 directive calls for
the utilization of the means of social communication for the clarification of
the position of the Roman Catholic Church on the question of the CPA of China.
However, this open letter to the Holy See, and each of the questions raised in
it, are testimony to the fact that Holy See’s position on the CPA of China is
far from being clear. This letter seeks to gain such clarity for the sake of
the universal Church on all of the issues discussed above.
2.
CONTINUED HOSTILITIES – SECRET DOCUMENTS: The Chinese government has
been and continues to be hostile to the loyal Roman Catholics in China who,
despite increased and intensified persecutions, remain faithful to the
Pope. Recent examples of these
hostilities include the November 1996 Chinese government’s secret plan “to
legally implement the eradication of illegal activities of the underground
Catholic Church;” and the August 17, 1999 secret document stating that the
underground Roman Catholic Church “must be eliminated.”
3.
ENCOURAGING THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT: Even if unwittingly, bishops and/or the
religious superiors in the United States or in any other free countries - who allow the education of CPA seminarians
in their own seminaries with full tuition, room and board scholarships, grant
priestly faculties to CPA priests, donate millions to the CPA, work with the
CPA on various projects without asking permission from the underground
Ordinaries - in fact are encouraging the
Chinese government to continue its persecution of the Roman Catholic Church
without fear of reprisal from the outside world. They thereby give the false
impression that they support the Chinese government's repressive religious
policy and condone that government's 50-year persecution of the Roman Catholic
Church .
4.
NO SUPPORT: Should not those Roman
Catholic bishops and religious superiors friendly to the CPA bishops show some
support and unity to the underground bishops by suspending these donations and
projects to the CPA until the persecutions to the underground Roman Catholic
Church stop? They have not done so.
5.
OCEAN OF AGONY: Like so many tributary rivers ultimately pouring themselves together,
each of the issues discussed above has been a source of tribulation for the
underground Roman Catholic Church in China; and together, they have formed a
veritable “ocean of agony” for faithful Catholics in China. This seems so
terribly wrong and so grossly unfair.
6.
PERSECUTIONS BY OUR OWN CHURCH: It is therefore no wonder that the 9-10 million
loyal Catholics in China are very heart-broken and confused. In their hearts, they know that Papal
primacy is one of the basics of being a Catholic. In their hearts, they know that Holy Father is firmly behind them. In their hearts, they know that Holy Father
will never abandon them. However,
facing all these confusing and contradictory events, the loyal Catholics are
experiencing, as one of the underground bishops has confided to us, neglect and
abandonment by our own Church. This
experience causes far more painful suffering than does incarceration in a
Chinese Communist prison.
7.
PAPAL AUTHORITY BECOMING
IRRELEVANT: The
Communist government did not succeed in eliminating the three million Catholics
by coercion and persecution in the 1950s.
Now the government is hoping to defeat the Roman Catholic Church from
within its own Church through misinformation, deceit, and confusion over and in
addition to the intensified persecutions!
The Chinese government is trying very hard to erode the respect, confidence,
obedience and loyalty of the “underground” Church to the Holy Father to the
extent that when the chips are down, the issue of the Papal authority in the
Catholic Church in China would become irrelevant.
8.
NOT SPEAKING OUT: Needless
to say, the CPA is in a state of schism.
Its bishops have publicly demonstrated their aberration from the
Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Chinese government has intensified its persecution of Roman
Catholics who remain faithful to the Pope.
How in conscience can bishops in the United States continue their
practices as outlined above, and how can the Holy See not speak out forcibly
and act on these matters in no uncertain terms?
9.
NEED OFFICIAL AND UNAMBIGUOUS RESPONSE: For many, it appears that the
Holy See itself struggles internally between the attraction to political
expediency and fidelity to the divinely established communion with the
Successor of Peter. This is why we think that it is both important and urgent
that our questions receive an official and unambiguous response.
Yours
sincerely in Christ,
Joseph
Kung
President
Cardinal
Kung Foundation