WHAT DID THE POPE'S LETTER TO CHINESE CATHOLICS REALLY SAY?
Unless it will involve the Pope directly, I will post all news/commentary about the China issue in this thread.
The Pope Writes,
but Beijing Authorities Don't Respond
Caution and reserve after Benedict XVI's letter to the Church of China.
Two political approaches collide. But there's also controversy among the Catholics.
Cardinal Zen accuses the sinologist Heyndrickx of distorting the pontiff's thought.
by Sandro Magister
ROMA, July 23, 2007 - Benedict XVI's letter to the Catholics of China was shown to the Beijing authorities ten days before its publication, at the end of June.
But "there have been no official reactions so far," Vatican secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone said on July 18. There was only a terse message from the Chinese foreign ministry a few hours after the publication of the letter, with the ritual re-proposal to the Vatican of the two constant pre-conditions: non-interference in China’s internal affairs, and the breaking of diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
The reservation of the Chinese authorities is judged in the Vatican as 'a positive reality'. It is supposed that there is a difference in viewpoints, in China, between the highest political authorities - who are aiming at greater 'harmony- with the Church - and the apparatus of the communist party, which is more hostile.
On June 28 and 29, on the eve of the publication of the papal letter, the United Front - an organism that works in the shadow of the communist party for the implementation of its religious politics - had gathered in Huairou, near Beijing, a good number of bishops officially recognized by the regime, in order to drum into them for the umpteenth time the doctrine that the Chinese Church must be national and independent from Rome.
This difference of viewpoints is shown especially in the appointment of bishops for the official Church, the one recognized by the government.
On July 5, the Hong Kong newspaper
Wen Wei Po, which is close to the communist party, wrote that new official bishops will be installed within the next few months, without and against the approval of Rome, in the dioceses of Guangzhou, Guizhou, Hubei, and Ningxia.
But in the meantime, the first new bishop elected in China according to official procedures, after the publication of the pope's letter, is that of Beijing. And the person pre-selected is such that in the Vatican the news of the appointment was taken not as an affront, but as a relief.
The new bishop-elect is Joseph Li Shan, 43, of Beijing, from a strongly Catholic family, a favorite of the faithful who had him as a pastor in the commercial neighborhood of Wangfujin: entirely the opposite of his predecessor, Michael Fu Tieshan, an adherent of the communist regime who has never reconciled with the pope.
Cardinal Bertone described the new bishop-elect as 'a very good and suitable person'. And he added: "The election took place according to the canons of the official Church, and now we are waiting for the bishop-elect to ask for the approval of the Holy See. We are optimists."
The official procedures established by the communist authorities, in China, prescribe that every new bishop be designated not by Rome, but by an official assembly of priests, sisters, and laymen from the area, and that he then be confirmed by the council of Chinese bishops recognized by the regime. Ordination takes place after this.
In the judgment of the Holy See such an ordination is sacramentally valid, but illicit. In order to rectify his illicit state and re-enter into communion with the Church, the new bishop must ask for and obtain the pope's approval. In fact, almost all the official bishops present in China today have obtained this, more or less explicitly.
The letter written by Benedict XVI to the Catholics of China dictates exactly the conditions for leading back to unity - in the fidelity of all to Rome and in accord with the state authorities - the Catholics of this country, healing the fracture between the official Church and the clandestine one.
The first reactions in the Catholic camp seem to be heading in this direction. For example, the clandestine bishop of Qiqihar, Joseph Wei Jingyi, had read at all the Masses a pastoral letter of his on the application of the pope’s guidelines. In it, he said he wanted to reconcile with some priests of the diocese who had refused obedience to him because they saw him as too accommodating toward the communist regime. And he invited all to participate in the sacraments administered by the official bishops and priests, provided that they were in communion with Rome.
But there is no lack of disagreement and controversy among the Catholics, not only over how to interpret the letter from Benedict XVI, but also over the accuracy of the Chinese translation released by the Vatican.
Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, bishop of Hong Kong, has pointed out what he judges as two serious discrepancies.
The first, at the end of chapter 7 of the letter, is where the pope writes that "in the process of recognition [on the part of the civil authorities] the intervention of certain bodies obliges the people involved to adopt attitudes, make gestures and undertake commitments that are contrary to the dictates of their conscience as Catholics.{
This happens – he writes – 'in not a few particular instances'. But the Chinese version omits the translation of these next words of the pope: 'indeed almost always'.
Cardinal Zen highlights a second discrepancy in the unsigned explanatory note that the Holy See released together with the pope’s letter.
While the papal letter, in chapter 8, limits itself to describing in a neutral way the behavior of some bishops who "under the pressure of particular circumstances, have consented to receive episcopal ordination without the pontifical mandate", the explanatory note goes farther: it adds that these bishops have done this "especially concerned with the good of the faithful and with an eye to the future".
Zen complains that the note, in bestowing this praise upon the bishops who accept illicit ordination, "puts the others, who refused to surrender to pressure, in a very bad light, as if they neglected the good of the faithful and were short sighted." And he adds: "I dare to protest in the name of the latter".
As the tribune for this denunciation, on July 3, cardinal Zen chose UCA News, the most important Catholic news agency in East Asia.
And he did the same on July 18, to reply to a comment on the papal letter written a few days earlier, again for UCA News, by one of the most renowned Catholic sinologists: Fr. Jeroom Heyndrickx, from Flanders, director of the Ferdinand Verbiest Institute at the Catholic University of Louvain.
Fr. Heyndrickx had maintained that the papal letter encourages the members of the clandestine Church to come out into the open, to ask for and obtain the recognition of the civil authorities and to share the sacraments with the bishops and priests of the official Church.
Cardinal Zen replies that nothing of this is found in the letter by Benedict XVI; that the sacraments can be shared only with the bishops and priests of the official Church on communion with the pope, and not with those in schism from Rome; that the clandestine Church will continue to have a reason to exist as long as the communist authorities presume to control and subjugate the Church; and that the clandestine bishops have no motive to ask for official recognition if this involves – as 'almost always' happens – taking on obligations 'contrary to the dictates of their conscience as Catholics'.
"It is astonishing," writes cardinal Zen, "that intelligent and learned as Fr. Heyndrickx is, he could possibly misread the pope's letter to the Catholics in China".
The cardinal advances a suspicion: that Fr. Heyndrickx's frequent study visits to China 'can become liabilities' and that "his every initiative needs the approval of Mr. Liu Bainian, head of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, and has to be carried out according to conditions imposed by him."
A deadly doubt. Because a great number of Chinese Catholics, including the members of the official Church, maintain that Mr. Liu Bainian is their worst enemy, the one who most embodies the politics of the Church’s submission to the regime.
From Louvain, Fr. Heyndrickx reacted to the cardinal Zen's accusations with a note published by UCA News on July 20.
He repeats that the principal aim of the letter from Benedict XVI is that of encouraging the two Chinese Catholic communities, official and clandestine, to pray and to celebrate the Eucharist together.
He maintains that his interpretation of the papal letter is shared by many representatives of the Chinese Church: and he brings in as an example the pastoral letter of bishop Wei Jingyi.
He insists that he obeys only the Church and the pope, and not the Chinese officials with whom he makes an effort to dialogue.
Because "dialogue is not equal to weakness, but is the spirit of the popes letter, which we all should follow. [...] An open dialogue between a united Chinese Church and a united Chinese government will solve more problems than confrontation between a divided Church and a divided government."
=====================================
I've gone to the UCAN site to pick up the two items referred to above - Cardinal Zen's July 20 reply to a July 18 article by Fr. Heyndrickx - plus Fr. Heyndrickx's original commentary on the Pope's letter from July 6 (which I had posted in NEWS ABOUT BENEDICT) and am posting them here for reference. I don't have time to read the two 'new' articles through just now. I'm posting them here in chronological order .
I
Pope's Letter Begins New Phase
in China Church History
LEUVEN, Belgium, July 6 (UCAN) -- An expert on the Catholic Church in China says the letter that Pope Benedict XVI recently issued to Chinese Catholics has opened a new page of Church history in the mainland.
Father Jeroom Heyndrickx, a member of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and director of Ferdinand Verbiest Institute at Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, applauds the letter for clearly answering important pastoral questions that have long perplexed mainland Catholics.
The priest, who often visits China, says in a UCA News commentary that China's Catholics and government have awaited the letter anxiously, and many Church people now find its pastoral guidelines even more concrete than they had anticipated.
The commentary Father Heyndrickx wrote for UCA News follows:
The Beginning of a New Phase
in the History of the Church in China:
Reflections on Letter of Pope Benedict XVI
to the Church in China
The pastoral letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholic Church in China, published on June 30, is remarkable and historic for its content and style.
The pope speaks like a father to the Chinese Catholics and with respect to Chinese authorities, and he puts forward clear principles to both of them.
In carefully chosen words, he expresses his understanding of the sufferings of the "underground community," which refuses to cooperate with the government, but also for the "official community" and for its decision to cooperate.
He expresses some fundamental theological principles asking both communities to reconcile, and he calls on civil authorities to enter into dialogue beyond the misunderstandings of the past.
The letter is remarkable for its content because it gives a clear answer to the burning pastoral questions that have divided the Chinese Church internally for 20 years. Only Rome can clarify the confusing discussions of the past.
I understand the meaning of the pope's letter as follows:
There is only one Chinese Catholic Church and it is faithful to the Holy See. Bishops and priests of both communities may concelebrate, but the pope encourages them first to express among themselves their unity by a profession of faith. For the Church to live underground is not a normal situation. There is at present no longer any reason to keep an underground Church community going in China. The pope, therefore, revokes all privileges that were conferred to China's underground community in the past. Chinese faithful may also take part in the Eucharist of priests of the official Church community.
The pope expresses these pastoral guidelines after he, in the first part of his 26-page text (English version), exposes at length some basic theological principles on the communion of particular Churches with the universal Church, reconciliation, and the need for dialogue and cooperation in charity and truth between Church and state, while giving to God and to Caesar respectively what belongs to each.
The pope promised in January that he would write a letter to the Catholic Church in China. Since then, they awaited this letter impatiently, and so did civil authorities. There was even some tension. All planned ordinations and other important Church activities were postponed "until after the letter of the pope," even if it was not said in just those words.
The causes of this uncertainty in China were calls expressed outside the mainland for confrontation with Chinese authorities, as well as last year's illicit episcopal ordinations in China at which Chinese bishops recognized by Rome had been forced to participate.
Everybody wondered: will the pope's letter threaten to apply canonical sanctions for illicit ordinations that may happen in the future? Or will the letter instead be a friendly though urgent call for unity and dialogue?
The large majority of Catholics in remote places in China's countryside had other concerns. The vital question for them has existed for decades: yes or no, may we participate in the Eucharistic celebration of the "open" (official) Church communities? Do we commit a mortal sin if we do, as we were taught?
So much confusion has been caused by what was said, preached and written about these questions that only the highest Church authority could give a clear answer. This is what happened in the pastoral letter. The pope says there: only one Catholic Church exists in China. Let Chinese Catholics peacefully celebrate the Eucharist together.
But there is more in the letter. The pope admonishes the official bishops appointed by the Holy See to make their appointment public. They apparently did not make that sufficiently clear in the past. The pope does not speak a warning language to bishops ordained without papal appointment, but he does ask them to clarify their relation to Successor of Peter now. Underground bishops are encouraged to apply for recognition by civil authorities.
An underground Church "is not a normal feature of the Church's life" for the Catholic Church, says the pope. All bishops should now unite so that Rome can finally recognize officially the already existing Chinese Bishops' Conference. This could not be done until now because the underground bishops are not members, while some other members of the conference are not appointed by Rome.
The pastoral letter touches here upon an extremely delicate point related to Church-state relations. It suggests that the present statutes of the Chinese Bishops' Conference still need to be amended.
In the present situation, one entity "desired by the State" -- apparently referring to the Patriotic Association -- stands above the bishops and makes important pastoral decisions, some even related to the appointment of bishops. Doing so, it in fact directs the Church. This situation takes the pastoral authority away from the bishops, which is against Catholic teaching: "Only a legitimate Episcopal Conference can formulate pastoral guidelines, valid for the entire Catholic community of the country concerned."
The pastoral letter contains more concrete pastoral guidelines than many of us may have anticipated. But they are all important, useful guidelines urgently needed in the Chinese local Church and they are included in Canon Law.
Priests are reminded that they should be incardinated in one clearly defined diocese. Dioceses that have a limited number of priests and experience difficulty in finding a suitable candidate-bishop are encouraged to ask neighboring bishops to help find alternative candidates. Bishops are reminded to set up structures required in their dioceses to promote cooperation and dialogue in pastoral work, such as: diocesan curia, presbyteral council, college of consultors, diocesan pastoral council and financial commission.
The letter even refers to the importance of registering Church properties in the name of the Church, not of individuals. It all shows how well the Holy See is informed about and concerned with the concrete needs of the Church in China.
The pope pleads for the principle of separation between Church and state, a relation in charity and truth to be realized through open dialogue. However, he introduces some points that, from the side of the Church, are not discussable.
The proposal to set up a Church independent from the Holy See is incompatible with Catholic doctrine. The principle that bishops must be appointed by the successor of Peter is crucial for the Church, since only appointments by the pope assure the unity of the Church and the apostolic succession of bishops. These appointments have no political character at all. The pope refers to internationally accepted documents that state the appointment of Catholic bishops by the pope is part of true freedom of religion.
For some readers, the letter may create the impression of being "too clear" and "too explicit," leaving nothing to be discussed and clarified in the dialogue with diplomats. This is the opinion of some friends in China who stress that in China one should leave some things to be cleared up by private bargaining. But here, too, the problem is that years of discussion have created confusion around matters of principle that are crucial for the Church.
Just as pastoral guidelines were urgently needed for the Chinese Church, so too is there need to make clear what is and is not discussable with regard to relations of the Church with the state.
Some people would have criticized the pope if he did not clarify these points. But he repeatedly expresses his hope and trust that, through dialogue, all these questions can be clarified and agreed upon.
As a concrete example, the pope cites the new division of dioceses that civil authorities introduced over the past 50 years but never previously agreed upon with Rome. The pope says this can be discussed whenever opportune and helpful.
This is the beginning of a new phase in the history of the Chinese Catholic Church. Together with the letter in which Pope John Paul II offered excuses for what happened in the 19th century, this pastoral letter is undoubtedly the most important and historical document ever written by Rome to the Chinese Church.
The key words are: reconciliation, unity and dialogue. Nowhere in this letter does the pope call for confrontation. Marked by reconciliation and unity inside the Church and dialogue with civil authorities on the basis of equality and mutual respect, it initiates a new phase in Chinese Catholic Church history.
II
'Don't Misread Letter Of The Pope,'
Says Cardinal Zen
HONG KONG, July 20(UCAN) -- Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong says he is pained that "some serious blind spots" appear in a recent UCAN commentary.
Father Jeroom Heyndrickx, a member of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and director of Ferdinand Verbiest Institute at Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, wrote the commentary, "Pope's Letter Begin New Phase in China Church History," and UCA News published it on July 6.
In it, Father Heyndrickx says the letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Chinese Catholics, released on June 30, will have positive long-term impact.
Cardinal Zen also applauds the pope's letter but laments that the commentary demonstrates Father Heyndrickx has been misled and no longer enjoys "a vast consensus and positive regard among China-watchers."
In a message to UCA News, the cardinal lists "mistakes" in the commentary, and says he is providing such feedback because "I cannot allow people to be misled in their understanding" of the papal letter.
Cardinal Zen's feedback on the commentary by Father Heyndrickx follows:
Don't misread the Pope's letter
Fr. Jeroom Heyndrickx is surely a most respected Sinophile and has done a lot of work to bridge the Chinese Catholic community with the universal Church. So it pains me to see some serious blind spots in his recent mindset. There used to be a vast consensus and positive regard among China-watchers for the many undertakings by Fr. Heyndrickx, who enjoys the benefit having the support of a well-established Verbiest Foundation and a Catholic Leuven as the venue for many initiatives.
Sometimes, however, achievements can become liabilities. The effects of our actions are not always immediately seen. Now, Fr. Heyndrickx's every initiative needs the approval of Mr. Liu Bainian, of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, and has to be carried out according to conditions imposed by him, Mr. Liu's prestige has thus been steadily built up.
The enormous power of Mr. Liu has allowed him to oppress and humiliate our bishops. Now, fearful that his position will be undermined by the normalization of ties between China and the Holy See, and with the support of the Religious Affairs Bureau, he masterminded the illegitimate Ordination of bishops last year using threats, deceit and even forceful abduction.
Fr. Heyndrickx did not see things that way, but blamed the confrontation on us (on me?). It is astonishing that intelligent and learned as he is, he could possibly misread the Pope's letter to the Catholics in China.
Out of respect for the Holy Father's letter, I cannot allow people to be misled in their understanding of it. Here I want to point out the mistakes in Fr. Heyndrickx's reading:
(Fr.H. = Father J. Heyndrickx, commentary in UCAN on July 6)
Fr.H. (1): Paragraph 1 (starting from "I understand the meaning of the Pope's letter as follows.") "Bishop and priests of both communities may concelebrate..."
Paragraph 7 "Let Chinese Catholics peacefully celebrate the Eucharist together."
Objection: It is not precise to state matters so simply. What is allowed is concelebration with Bishops in the "official" Church, who are now in communion with the Holy Father, but not with those who are still illegitimate and not reconciled.
Fr. Heyndrickx seems to attach too much importance to unity in celebrating the Eucharist, but such unity without real hierarchical communion would be a lie.
Fr.H. (2): Also in Paragraph 1 "There is at present no longer any reason to keep an underground Church Community going in China."
Paragraph 8 "underground bishops are encouraged to apply for recognition by civil authorities."
Objection: No. This is not in the letter. What the letter says is:
"The clandestine condition is not a natural feature of the Church's life" and those who "have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration" did so because they did not wish "to be subjected to undue control over the life of the Church." Now, if that control is still there in the official Church, then there is reason for people to remain in the underground.
The underground bishops are not encouraged to apply for registration; they are only given the faculty or, rather, the heavy responsibility to make a "very difficult decision" for their individual dioceses as to whether they should seek recognition.
Actually, what precedes in the letter seems rather to discourage them from seeking recognition because, as the letter says: "In not a few particular instances, indeed almost always, in the procedure of recognition, the intervention of agencies obliges the people involved to adopt attitudes (accept an independent Church), make gestures (concelebrate with illegitimate bishops) and undertake commitments (join the Patriotic Association) that are contrary to the dictates of their conscience as Catholics."
Fr.H. (3): Paragraph 5 Fr. Heyndrickx appears to oppose "canonical sanctions" to calling for unity and dialogue".
Objection: Of course the letter centers on unity and dialogue, but Article 1382 of Canon Law is still explicitly mentioned in the Pope's letter where it states: "The code of Canon Law (cf. c. 1382) lays down grave sanctions both for the Bishop who freely confers Episcopal ordination without an apostolic mandate and for the one who receives it: such an ordination in fact inflicts a painful wound upon ecclesial communion and constitutes a grave violation of canonical discipline." (Part 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1
Fr. Heyndrickx seems to be confused; he reads too many things into the letter of the Holy Father. This risks disturbing the wonderful balance achieved in the letter between truth and charity, and it is a serious matter.
Cardinal Joseph Zen, SDB
III
'In Obedience To The Pope,
Not To Any Partner In Dialogue'
LEUVEN, Belgium, July 20 (UCAN) -- Given the complex situation of the Church in China, it is not surprising that the pope's recent letter to Catholics there is understood differently by different people, says Father Jeroom Heyndrickx.
The veteran Church-in-China observer makes this point in responding to two critiques of his earlier commentary on the pope's letter, titled The Beginning of a New Phase in the History of the Church in China, which UCA News published on July 6.
In this response, Father Heyndrickx replies to points raised by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong in the cardinal's commentary, Don't Misread the Pope's Letter, which UCA News published on July 18. He also answers points he said were raised in a critique written by an unnamed "friend from China."
Father Heyndrickx is a member of the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and director of Ferdinand Verbiest Institute at Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium.
His article follows:
In obedience to the pope,
not to any partner in dialogue
I was asked to write comments on the pastoral letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Church in China and I have done so in my article "Pope's Letter Begins New Phase in China Church History."
As always before, I express therein only personal views, not representing any institute. Besides the critique expressed by Cardinal Zen and a friend from China, I have received many reactions from open as well as underground Church communities in China confirming that they fully agree with my understanding.
The pastoral letter of underground Bishop Wei Jingyi speaks exactly in the same line as I do. It makes me feel that I am in good company. We share our opinions as Christians and friends to help each other to read the letter of the pope correctly. My two friends have written their critique to my article with the same intention.
Given the dramatic and historic complexity of the situation of the Church in China, one should not be surprised that some of us understand the pope's letter differently. To search for the right way to understand the letter of the pope, and to do that in the media in charity and truth, is in itself healthy and will do no harm.
I am now very tempted, however, to correct the unjust interpretations of my article by both my friends and to answer the personal attacks against me by Cardinal Zen. But then I realize that we should discuss that further among us. To turn to the media to state how wrong somebody else is ends up in harming both charity and truth. It leads to confrontation and causes even more division. We should rather seek concrete ways towards dialogue and unity inside our communities. That is obviously what the pope wants us to do and this does not preclude expressing our different views among us.
But unity can only grow when we pass beyond existing different views and encourage each other and all our friends inside the two Catholic communities - open and underground -- to look for opportunities to pray and celebrate the Eucharist together. The pope encourages Chinese Catholics to do exactly that. This is undoubtedly the most crucial pastoral guideline in the pope's letter. Anyone who ignores this misreads the letter. Let us all learn from underground Bishop Wei Jingyi.
We should not put more conditions than the pope does for celebrating the Eucharist together; and if the pope says that "the clandestine condition is not a natural feature of the Church's life," why then search for reasons to justify keeping an underground Church community alive?
The pope's letter expresses the same priority concern of the Lord Jesus, namely: to create a united, internally reconciled Chinese Church. If we read the letter properly, we should take concrete steps into that direction. The Spirit will work more efficiently through such concrete steps than He works in any discussion or confrontation in the media.
The pope's letter demonstrates to all of us that it is possible to make one's own principles crystal clear in a language of dialogue and mutual respect without having to enter into open confrontation. In the course of the recent 25 years, during which I visited the Chinese Church and dialogued also with civil authorities in China, I have tried hard to walk that road of dialogue. I do not pretend that I always succeeded.
But I have learned that it does not take much courage to use the media to prove one's own views and criticize others while it takes a lot of guts to sit down with those who disagree with you and have long personal dialogues to overcome differences and seek the common ground.
Dialogue is not equal to weakness. Yet dialogue is the spirit of the pope's letter, which we all should follow. And of one thing I am sure: I have always remained true to my own self and to my identity as a Catholic missionary. To dialogue or to cooperate in any activity has never required me to deny any Church principle.
Being blacklisted in China, falsely accused, misunderstood, interrogated for hours, or even being declared "persona non grata" for three years, has never made me leave the road of dialogue. I remain today in obedience only to the Church and the pope, not to any partner in dialogue as was mistakenly and unjustly surmised in one of the two articles.
The pope's letter is for all Chinese Catholics a compass on the road towards one reconciled Chinese Church. A joint and frank open dialogue between a united Chinese Church and a united Chinese government will solve more problems than confrontation between a divided Church and a divided government.
Jeroom Heyndrickx CICM