Loading ...
I would call to our readers’ attention an article in the July/August issue of the Atlantic about Bishop Jin Luxian of Shanghai. The article is an extremely favorable portrait of Bishop Jin, who languished in prison for many years, like Cardinal Kung, but then after his release, began to cooperate with the Communist government and became a member of the Communist-approved episcopal hierarchy. The rationale for this collaboration with the Communists, which the author, Adam Minter, seems to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker, was that millions of Chinese Catholics were in need of the sacraments, a need which the underground Church could never hope to meet. Thus, even though it meant disobedience to Rome and, as far as I can see, latae sententiae excommunication, Bishop Jin agreed to the Communists’ terms and carried on his episcopal ministry.
Mr. Minter wasn’t entirely obliviously to the worry that some might have: did not Jin compromise himself morally by cooperating with the Communists? Minter makes the case that Jin didn’t cross any moral lines - excepting those of canon law (which Rome wasn’t too concerned about anyway) - and that Jin’s policy was only to go so far with the Communists and no farther. But what illustrations of this admirable philosophy does he provide? Not that Jin protested against China’s one child policy or against government provided on-demand abortion or against other gross human rights abuses or against the goverment’s crushing of political dissent. No, apparently, Jin was just fine with all of those things - or, at least, he felt that it was better to keep quiet and continue to provide the sacraments. What does Minter alledge in Jin’s favor, as an example of “not crossing the line”? Only this:
During one of our interviews, Jin contrasted himself with the outspoken Joseph Zen, who has become a well-known agitator against the CPA since taking over as archbishop of Hong Kong. “You cannot speak out as a bishop in a Communist country,” Jin says. “I can’t freely speak like Zen, because I must protect my diocese.” Withholding criticism of China’s religious authorities and their policies is perhaps the greatest compromise that the open-Church bishops choose to make.
At the same time, there are lines that Jin won’t cross. In the early 1990s, for instance, he was offered the chairmanship of the government-organized Chinese bishops’ conference, but declined the overture because he thought it would compromise his independence. The role was later assumed by Beijing’s Bishop Fu Tieshen, who, after his death in April 2007, was widely criticized for being little more than a mouthpiece for the Communist Party.
That’s the line he won’t cross? Taking an even more prominent position in the Chinese Catholic hierarchy, where he would be even more of a mouthpiece for the government? How he is not now a mouthpiece for the government, I cannot make out. He speaks for them by not being able to speak against them when their actions in contradiction of the Faith and the natural law should give him words for a thousand sermons.
Still, he has been a good bishop in the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council: to him Chinese Catholics owe a vernacular translation of the Mass and the opportunity to fulfill the Mass obligation on Saturday nights. All of these reforms Bishop Jin introduced into mainland China. He is also one of these folks who continues to feel the tension between eastern and western philosophy - like that Japanese cardinal who keeps agitating for Vatican III.
Thus far, I’ve spoken critically of Bishop Jin, but I should also say that this article did help me to consider the plight of Chinese Catholics and the choices their priests and bishops must make. One can’t be wholly unsympathetic to Bishop Jin and his ilk if one is sympathetic with the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre. I am certainly not saying that the two cases are exactly parallel, but they have some similarities. Both involve disobedience in the carrying out of ordinations, violations of the letter of the law in the hope of achieving an end which is putatively in the eternal interests of the law-giver (Rome).
Still, I can’t say that I’m impressed by Bishop Jin. Throughout the article, he says the West underestimated the staying power of the Chinese Communists. While the West and Rome were hoping that Chinese Communism would collapse, Jin and others were getting on with life as it had to be lived under a hostile regime. Yet I want to shake him and say: “But the Chinese Communists can’t be here to stay and we should be working for the collapse of that regime!”
Again, though the situations aren’t altogether similar, consider Poland and John Paul II. The Communists hoped that they would get someone in Karol Wojtyla who was submissive and silent; or maybe they read Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s assessment of Wojtyla’s work at the Angelicum: “Writes much, says little.” (Best line ever.) But in the end, he said more than enough against the Communists of Poland! He had the advantage of being able to work from outside Poland on a world stage, but if the Chinese Catholics had united their resources, they might have been able to do something similar (though different in degree). The Cardinal Kung Foundation is one example. Yet Bishop Jin and Cardinal Kung were of two different camps and so their energies were split. And what Cardinal Kung could accomplish was certainly limited by Jin’s cooperation with the Communists: how effective could Kung’s appeal to the world be when many Chinese Catholics acted as though everything were just dandy?
Finally, I want to make a couple points about the article itself. It seemed to me that the article was written by someone who had little knowledge of the Catholic Church. First of all, even though we are in the midst of a good bit of media attention on the old Mass in the build up to the motu proprio, Mr. Minter tells us nothing about which Mass Chinese Catholics had available to them and at what dates. Presumably, in China of all places, the “reforms” of Vatican II didn’t sweep in overnight! I’m curious to know when they received the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin - because they were using Latin for the Mass until Bishop Jin produced a vernacular translation in 1989 (officially authorized by the Communists in 1993). Second, Mr. Minter refers to the “Synod of the Eucharist.” It’s the Synod on the Eucharist. This is a minor point, but made me wonder how much understanding Mr. Minter had of Catholic issues in general.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
My wife who is from Shanghai says this guy isn’t an angel. He still willing worked with the Patriotic Church, and if he was jailed it was nothing compared to what Cardinal Kung went through (talking decades of miserable conditions), and it was probably an act by the Government. This guy is a collaborator and if he is still in authority it is because he turned over to the state many loyal lay and religious Catholics. Many went to prison camps or worse because Jin and disloyal Judases like him.
Yeah, I myself wouldn’t know one way or another - but it was this kinda stuff which I thought the article by Minter ignored. As I said, it was an extremely favorable portrait of the man and what he has done. I get the impression that Minter was taken in by this guy; at the very least, Minter wasn’t overly impressed by the struggles of the underground Church.
Unfortunately it isn’t just the press who does this…My wife and family are extremely critical of the Marynoll missionaries and other religious orders who don’t get it. The patriotic church exists solely to keep those who are religious under control, it is a show to them. They have done this with the Buddists and the Tibetian monks, where they have installed a government controlled “dali-lama.” Anyone who is in the hierarchy of the current Patriotic Church are all traitors who more than likely turned in their brethren religious.
The one true representation of the church in China is the Underground Church, who are larger and under constant threat of persecution.
This of course my Wife reminds me of whenever I complain about our parish here in Corning…”well at least the Eucharist is valid and there are no police breaking the door down…a very different perspective indeed. :-)
The Cardinal Kung society is one of the few information sources I trust about the Chinese Church. Most others (including parts of the Vatican) are looking through rose colored glasses.
Easy for us to sit at home, typing away at our computers, and encourage Chinese like Jin to defy their government. What harm does it do to us? We’re not the ones going to jail! Look at the comments on this post: they all seem to be saying that Jin is some kind of coward and collaborator for not doing what none of us have the guts to do. Anybody reading this post willing to buy a ticket to China, go to the cathedral, and read this post out loud?
I’ll check back later for volunteers, but I’m not holding my breath.
So then who are we to call for China’s Catholics to do it? The real cowards, it seems to me, are the ones who ask others to do what we would not.
CptTom wrote:
“Anyone who is in the hierarchy of the current Patriotic Church are all traitors who more than likely turned in their brethren religious.”
That’s a very strong statement that requires some evidence. After all, at least some of that hierarchy is affiliated with Rome (90% is reconciled, according to Minter and other sources online, including asianews.it). I know that won’t please the traditionalists, who obviously are the final arbiters on what makes a Catholic, Catholic (and not, as most Catholics believe, a role held by the Holy See). If Rome recognizes Jin and other members of the hierarchy, who is CptTom to call them collaborators?
AntonioG:
Easy to shoot people down. Grow up.I’d be happy to go to China and tell the Bishop to his face that he’s the puppet he is. I know and
AjaxCx..
You assume incorrectly. I am not a traditionalist. I am a Catholic, Loyal to the Holy Father and the Lord’s Church on Earth.
I base my opinion on having talked to actual survivors of the original crack down on the Church and reading Eyewitness accounts such as the book “Dawn breaks in the East” by Peter Bangjiu Zhou, the story of a Catholic Brother who survives 30 years in prison and torture.
You are incredibly naive if you think that the Communist government would allow Jin to even speak much less be a Bishop if he wasn’t 100 percent reliable from their perspectives. They would not even let the Patriotic Church exist if it wasn’t fully controlled.
The true heroes of the Catholic Church in China are the countless true believers in the Underground Church who brave arrest, persecution, and prison to worship and be loyal to the Holy See. They are supported by many people who risk their lives to support them directly with donations and bringing them materials and supplies they cannot get because they are the hunted. The Underground Church runs hidden Seminaries to keep the supply of priests up.
Stop being so cynical…why don’t you try looking at what is over at http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org which supports the underground Church.
On a more theoretical note… AntonioG, I agree that we should have compassion on people who fail to uphold the faith under pressure, since none of us knows our own strength until we have been tried. That should not, however, stop us from condemning the actions of those who fail, particularly if they are in a position of leadership within the Church. I have to agree that it’s the height of cynicism to assume that we would all betray Our Lord under pressure. Rather, we should hope and pray that we would not, and be supportive and encouraging of those who do keep the faith in difficult circumstances.
I make no specific statements about the authorities in China, this being a topic on which I am not knowledgeable. I was just disturbed by the general tenor of AntonioG’s post. Humility is one thing, but that sounds more like defeatism.
Clara,
I apologize for coming across harshly. Please forgive my bad manners. I am a bit passionate about this topic as my wife has family members in harm’s way in China and some who have been subject to the outrages of the Chinese government for their devotion who, Thank God, are now in safer places.
The Vatican is playing a very careful game of chess in China…so is the Communist government. So, as such to trust the Communist completely is dangerous and yes, naive. The Holy Father, is not naive, but, he is a gamer. Every indication is that he is approaching this carefully and cautiously. Obviously his years in the curia has made him wise. It will be interesting to see his end game. Hopefully his letter to China due out will give us more of idea what he is thinking.
Under the Mercy,
–CPT Tom
‘One can’t be wholly unsympathetic to Bishop Jin and his ilk if one is sympathetic with the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre.’ One certainly can. One of them is collaborating with an atheistic government, the other was objecting to compromises with unbelief and rejection of Catholic tradition. Only if you think that all disobedience to canon law and ecclesiastical authority is on the same foot can you say that they are the same. However, that is not the case; it is possible for some forms of disobedience to be justified - the Pope does not have the authority of Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984, as some ultramontanes would have it. One can argue about whether or not Abp. Lefebvre’s disobedience was justified. His case, which I am sure he sincerely believed, is that he was being loyal to the Church by keeping in being the only group committed to the survival of the traditional Roman liturgy, and that this form of obedience trumped obedience to canon law (on this question see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1124-5). Maybe he was wrong; but there is at least a case to discuss here. But that is not so with Bp. Jin, who is collaborating with an atheist government whose explicit object is the suppression of the Church and its replacement by a nationalist organisation obedient to them. As for ‘the Maryknoll missionaries and other religious orders who don’t get it’; they do get it - they are themselves in rebellion against the Church and against the Catholic faith, and that is why they support the likes of Bishop Jin.
‘Easy for us to sit at home, typing away at our computers, and encourage Chinese like Jin to defy their government. What harm does it do to us? We’re not the ones going to jail! Look at the comments on this post: they all seem to be saying that Jin is some kind of coward and collaborator for not doing what none of us have the guts to do.’ It’s not as if he was forced to be a ‘patriotic’ bishop - he needn’t have accepted ordination to the priesthood in the first place,let alone to the episcopacy; and if he did accept it, then he took commitments of loyalty to the Church that he has to keep. As for doing what none of us has the guts to do - speak for yourself. The grace provided us in baptism gives all of us the guts to be loyal to Christ and the obligation to do so. We might choose (God forbid) to not do what we have the guts to do - then we would be as bad as Bp. Jin; what would that prove about his merits?
Cpt Tom,
Don’t apologize to me! Nothing you said caused me any pain, and your passion for the subject is understandable. Of course we always encourage courtesy on this site. But, as my last post indicates, I am sympathetic to what you said, and to what John L has just said: it is contemptible to talk as though standing up for the faith were an impossible task. In baptism God gave us the graces necessary to keep the faith; in confirmation we were made soldiers of Christ. Catholics defending traitors to the faith with the argument, “Really, would any of us do better?” is similar to soldiers defending deserters with the justification, “Well, who wouldn’t go to pieces like that under fire?”
It might happen, but we hope and pray not.
I’m glad that your wife’s family members have managed to find safer places to live. Let’s hope that the Holy Father ultimately succeeds in making things better for Chinese Catholics. Of course, Catholics under such conditions have both a heavy burden and a great blessing — they have the opportunity to make sacrifices for the faith which few of us can match.
Cpt Tom - Antonio G didn’t suggest that you go “tell the Bishop to his face that he’s the puppet he is.”
But since you have volunteered to do so, and since you are a self-described “Catholic, Loyal to the Holy Father and the Lord’s Church on Earth,” I’m sure you’d be happy to explain why to the Pope and the Cardinals who recognize Jin as the de jure bishop of Shanghai. The very same Pope who blessed the consecration of Jin’s chosen successor, Joseph Xin Wenzhi. You know, the Pope who invited Jin, two additional open church bishops, and an underground bishop to the Synod of the Eucharist. Would you, dear Cpt Tom, please tell the Pope that he invited puppets to the Synod, men who are traitors to the faith? Do you and your Shanghainese wife really know better? Do you?
Tell me, does loyalty to the Holy Father mean that you pick and choose the issues on which you are loyal? That you reject his appointments and decisions when they don’t fit your political viewpoint? Because that’s what it sure sounds like.
You suggest to me and AntonioG that we learn the true situation with the Church in China. Actually, dear Cpt Tom, I suggest that you do the same. Start with understanding that the Holy See recognizes 90% of the Chinese bishops as loyal and reconciled. Clearly, you don’t - and that’s a matter of loyalty, if you ask me.
AjaxCX,
You obviously are trying to pick a fight and aren’t interested in facts. You aren’t interested in truth or the possibility of another side. Fine. Very sad that some one so obviously young is so cynical that they can not see that truth is not necessarily contained on the surface of a matter rather at its core.
And yes, I am in a position to know far better than you what is going on considering I have contact with actually people on the ground that you don’t and have talked to actual witnesses. And I’ve obviously done more reading and thinking about it than you have.
And by the way, as others have stated better here if someone is supposed to be loyal to one organization, and they join another organization that seeks the downfall of the other, even joins their leadership, then that person. is in fact a traitor. Jin made the choice to go into the Patriotic Church. He could have refused and therefore chosen either martyrdom or harshly imprisoned like so many were, or he could have refused leadership in Patriotic Church. Instead he did indeed collaborate, and he indeed accepted higher authority. This means he was well regarded by the atheistic Communist government and was a loyal servant to them. I judge his actions, not him, that’s the Lord’s to do.
My statements do not contradict the current situation. Rather, they add to the depth of it. Yes Rome has to recognize the bishops if Rome is going to have any leverage, that doesn’t mean they are 100 loyal to the Pope. They accept Jin, because if they don’t it will go badly for the Catholics in both the underground and Patriotic church. As far as 90 percent of the bishops being reconciled to the church, I doubt that, a man cannot serve two masters well.
Pope Benedict being a sophisticated and well educated person can deal with the contradiction of dealing with duplicitous Bishops, and still hope to gain control of the entire flock. He is the shepherd, he is going back into the storm to collect the flock that has fallen away. It is a delicate game he plays, but if anyone has a shot at it, he does. God bless him.
I will pray for you and your cynicism.
Dear Ajax,
By that line of thinking, Judas could not have been a traitor because Our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, picked him.
Simply because the Pope is being diplomatic, we do not have to assume that the Patriotic “church” is thus 100% Catholic.
God bless you,
JJ
Iosephus!L
Thank you very much for post the Atlantic article. I want you and other reader of this blog to know that the Jin has been movingg among Catholics in China for a few of weeks now.
Few people in China know Bishop Jin but they do know his Chinese translation of the Gospels, and those are studied in Catholic and protestant groups all over China. Even in the underground! Some tells me guess more than 1 million copies of that translation have been printed in Nanjing, so that’s really great.
It sounds like many people who post to this blog to it are very know with China’s Church. But I wonder if any of these are in China? Any? I hope so! In Taiyuan my city there are four masses in cathedral in Sunday and more than 5000 person!!! No hiding! It’s great. Catholic are growing here, and have foreign friends. Jesuits nd Marknoll and the priests of Belgium, too!
Anywa, glad you are care about China Catholics. We are part of ONE CHURCH! Minter Jin and others are just like you! REJOICE!
“We are part of ONE CHURCH! Minter Jin and others are just like you! REJOICE!” There you have it? Should we take Taiyuan888866’s word or that of the nephew of Cardinal Kung who keeps us updated on the open persecution of the bishops, priests and laity who remain loyal to the Papacy? Joseph Kung has been in China and he knows first hand how Communist propaganda works.
The True Church in China is suffering as all loyal Catholics suffer from the weak, compromising, and false ecumenism, which pervades. Efforts are being made to unite the Roman Catholic Church with the Chinese Patriotic Church at the price of the Papacy—and to the scandal of those who are loyal and suffer for It. Not event he Pope can allow his authority to take second place to the state, nor can he permit the Patriotic Church to give him first allegiance privately in their hearts but publicly to the state. Saint Peter denied Our Lord three times and was then asked to openly profess Him three times.
From the very beginning the Church has canonized priests and bishops who gave up their lives rather than drop a few grains of incense in the pot before a false god. When God asks you to give witness to Him, who are we to say, “I think it would be better if I stayed around awhile to translate the Bible?”
Hello from Beijing. I am a faithful American Catholic living here with my husband and two children. At our parish here, there are more than 1000 international Catholics like us, who celebrate mass weekly with a Chinese priest. Before and after our mass, there are Chinese language masses that pack our church. On Sundays, more than 3000 people come to mass and it is standing room only to glorify Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I found this blog because I was curious to know more about Jin Luxian. I was a little disappointed to see the negative comments about him, and the very disparaging remarks about China’s open Church. It seems to me that many of the comments here are from people who have not been to China and have not seen the thriving Catholicism here. I was particularly disturbed to read the comment from Diciplus:
“Should we take Taiyuan888866’s word or that of the nephew of Cardinal Kung who keeps us updated on the open persecution of the bishops, priests and laity who remain loyal to the Papacy? Joseph Kung has been in China and he knows first hand how Communist propaganda works.”
Actually, we should take Taiyuan’s word - if his post is truthful, he lives in Taiyuan in central China and knows the reality of day-to-day life in China’s Church. Joseph Kung, meanwhile, lives in Connecticut and encourages people to martyr themselves.
I guess, that’s what’s so disturbing about this discussion. I know of many Catholic missionaries who come to China and quietly work in both the open and underground Church. It’s not so hard to come here - sixty day visas are available just for asking. CptTom’s Chinese wife doesn’t even need a visa. Have any of you come? Are any of doing anything to help China’s Catholics? Clara writes:
“Of course, Catholics under such conditions have both a heavy burden and a great blessing — they have the opportunity to make sacrifices for the faith which few of us can match.”
But of course you CAN match it. You can come here. Lend support and try to understand instead of rendering judgment from a computer. The Catholics in my open parish support medical outreach programs that connect us to thousands of poor Chinese who need physical and spiritual support. It is a wonderful opportunity to glorify Jesus Christ through charitable works and evangelization, and it is ONLY possible because we work with the government and open priests and sisters. Condemn us, if you will, but then at least have the courage to come over here and give us a different witness. It’s not so hard, it really isn’t.
Finally, CptTom, you claim to be very knowledgeable about the Chinese Church. If so, you would know that there is no such thing as a Patriotic Church. The Catholic Patriotic Association is a government agency that licenses Church acxtivities. But no priest or bishop must belong, no laity or sister. And the CPA weakens with time. It is still an impediment and a source of persecution, but it isn’t what it used to be.
In 2003, Cardinal Roger Etchegeary, one of Pope John Paul II’s most important and trusted advisors, visited China for the umpteenth time and visited both underground and open Church members. Afterwards, he told Catholic news services:
“There is only one Church with two faces,” he said. “There is not one ‘patriotic’ Church and one ‘underground’ Church, one legal and the other protesting.”
I hope that the people who write on this board can open their hearts and minds to this message. China’s Church suffers, but it grows, and it thrives. IF you doubt it, or if you have a better way, then please come and give us your witness. It is needed; China’s Catholics are eager to have contact with more international Catholics. They want to learn from you. But please, as one who is here, keep your judgments until the day you truly understand the complext manner in which China’s open Catholics glorify Christ the Savior.
Alifie,
I’ve already said that I know very little about the state of the Church in China and hence I offer no opinion about the Bishop or any other facets of the Church there. But I found your challenge (come to China!) a little funny and thought I’d ask you to elaborate.
Of course, the great majority of people really can’t up and go to China. It would require a good amount of money that they might not have, and anyway, most people have various obligations that prevent them from taking spontaneous two-month trips. (Christ may command certain people to leave their families for His sake, but you don’t have that same authority.)
But even for those who could go, what good could they do in sixty days, if they don’t have any special skills (medical experience, for example) or speak any Chinese? Cross-cultural interaction can be very valuable at times, but it normally takes quite awhile to transform from a helpless, clumsy, disoriented foreigner into a well-adjusted, confident ex-patriot capable of having meaningful interaction with people. I don’t say this purely as an “armchair critic” trying to justify never leaving the comfort of home. I actually love international travel, and have worked as a volunteer in a number of different places, including Uzbekistan and the Gaza Strip. In my experience, you’re pretty useless when you show up in a foreign environment like that. It takes quite awhile to get adjusted to the point where you can actually do something productive.
I think it’s good for people to experience foreign travel, but at the same time I’ve always found those youth missionary trips (wherein a lot of enthusiastic teens or college students are dragged over to a non-Christian country for a few weeks in the summer to “witness the Gospel”) to be a bit of a joke. A few weeks is just enough time to make a fool of yourself and come home again.
So my question is: suppose I had a pile of money and some free time (not actually the case, unfortunately, and anyway my husband would never let me just up and fly off to China as a self-proclaimed missionary, but never mind that now): what would I do there? How would I spend my two months in a way that would be useful to others?
More to the point: I’m encouraged to hear from you and Taiyuan that Catholics in China (at least in some parts) are able to go to Mass and receive Sacraments without too much difficulty. That is very good. But if you want to defend the Bishop, it would also be nice to hear specific answers to the charge that he collaborated with the Communists and betrayed fellow Catholics and priests. But you may not know much about that, since it isn’t the sort of thing you can learn just by being in China.
Dear All:
Please be informed that upon reading this article “keeping faith” by Adam Minter on the internet approximately two weeks ago, I immediately wrote a 3-page single spaced rebuttal on June 12 and sent it by overnight express to the President, Editor, and the Managing Editor of the Atlantic monthly. I requested them to publish it. As of this date, I have not received any reply from the Atlantic. I encourage you all to write to the Atlantic to express your opinion on this article.
Regards and Ave Maria.
God Love you.
Joseph Kung
Cardinal Kung Foundation
June 24, 2007
No offense, but … is Joseph Kung off his meds? Three single spaced pages sent overnight to the President, Editor, and Managing Editor? Yeah, that’ll be taken real well. In the meantime, could we please find a spokesperson for the underground who is not nuts?
Mr. Kung, I have never been a member of the “We love Cardinal Mahoney” Fan Club nor am I nuts about a bishop who betrayed his Church, his flock, and collaborated with the Commies. It wouldn’t be any use of my going over to China but I’ll put my money where my mouth is. There will be a check in the mail to you tomorrow morning to help my loyal brothers and sisters in the One True Church.
Discipulus -
It’s your money, man. While you’re at it, why don’t you ask Joseph to disclose how and where he’s been disbursing all those contributions for the last 20 years. A DETAILED accounting. Because nobody - NOBODY - has ever seen a detailed accounting of the Kung Foundation’s finances. Just where has all that money gone? Does Joseph have the guts and honesty to account for it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ah yes, I forgot… the obligation to provide anonymous people with accountings.
The main difficulty with Bishop Jin and with the article in the Atlantic is that it doesn’t acknowledge that acceptance of Bishop X as a legitimate and Vatican endoresed Bishop doesn’t mean that everything they ever did is moral and right.
The man who wrote the article also didn’t seem to have talked to anyone involved with the Underground Church, there’s no opposing point of view.
CptTom’s wife doesn’t need a visa… and also doesn’t have any recourse if the Chinese government decides to lock her up for her being Catholic and not part of the Patriotic association, which they continue to do.
See: http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=5048
This also belies the claim that Bishops don’t have to belong to the patriotic association. They don’t, they just get to be arrested instead.
If “it’s not so hard” to be a missionary in China without the CPA, then how is the Kung foundation encouraging people to martyr themselves by encouraging the underground Church? Which is it?
The Novus Catholic reaction is so typical — Attack the loyal Catholics for being too rigid. The anger is similar to how they deal with Latin Mass Traditionalists. The heart breaking part in this case is that the underground Church is being persecuted for being 100% united with the pope. While some quarters within the traditionalist movement have questionable obedience to the Holy Father. This only demonstrates that in reality Novus Ordaniarianism has nothing to do with obedience to the Holy Father.
Novu Ordo Catholicism teaches that the Church must make itself attractive to modern society. And if need be the Church must also accommodate or conform to modern societal standards and norms. To some degree, everything can fit into the Novus Ordo religion - Liberalism, Feminism, Hollywood, etc….
What do the Novus Ordo Catholics spend their time and treasure doing? Do they support and defend their Novu Ordo brethren in the underground Church whose only crime for not compromising their faith and refusing to acknowledge any power in Church affairs higher than the Bishop of Rome? No. Instead they give their gushing words of sappy love and respect to the wonderful patriotic communist-accommodating bishops and priests and their wonderful masses. They attack or ridicule those who teach the truth – the same truth that has been taught for 2000 years – that the indeed it is society who must conform to the Church, and not the other way around.
It would be my guess that the pain from the actual imprisonment and torture at the hands of the communist Chinese religious authorities is in a way less painful than the attacks and ridicule from the Novus Ordo Church – to include those who have posted on this blog, along with the hierarchs like Mahoney and the legions of Maryknoll and Jesuit fathers who ignore the underground Church while they give robust support to the Patriotic Church.
It’s all diabolical.
For a while there were bishops who spent years in jail for the Faith but weren’t listed in the Vatican directory. I can see the prudence of not listing secretly ordained bishops and priests but once they’re known by the CPA they should be given some recognition.
Good point Samuel. Yes, JSP, it doesn’t matter what happens to those loyal to the Pope and the Traditional Mass as long as everyone else feels comfortable. The Novus Ordinarians can’t stand up for the Faith and are embarrassed by those who do. Truly diabolical.
I find it absolutely hilarious that the ones who live comfortable lives, the ones who have no idea what it means to live under a Communist regime as a Catholic and especially as a Bishop, are the ones who are criticizing those who do for not being heroic enough. Bishop Jin is in a very difficult situation. He tries to find common grounds with the government so that dialogue and comprises can happen. Without this common ground, nothing can happen.
I am tired of hearing people criticize the many good Catholics and Bishops in the registered Church in China, comparing them to the “martyrs” who would rather be imprisoned than join the registered Churches. “Registered” does not necessarily mean disloyal to Rome!!! Every Mass the priest and the people pray for the Holy Father. His documents are published and available at all the churches.
Please stop sitting in your comfortable homes and accusing people of being cowards, and accusing them of not accepting martyrdom. True martyrs are prudent people, who do not go out seeking martyrdom. I have great respect for the people in the underground Church, but I must say that many of them were seekers of heroic deaths, people who were unnecessarily martyred.
I think many people secretly desire that the Church in China continue to be divided so that their chance for martyrdom or opportunity for “saving” China might still be available. Selfishness!
Yours,
a temporary resident in China
” ‘Registered’ does not necessarily mean disloyal to Rome!!! Every Mass the priest and the people pray for the Holy Father. His documents are published and available at all the churches.”
So by extension you must be a sympathizer with the Levfebrists in the SSPX?
They too pray for the Holy Father at every mass and also publish his documents, making them available at all churches.
The matter of disobedience is quite similar - they both consecrate bishops without the approval of Rome.
Oh wait I forgot one thing - the SSPX adheres to all Catholic teachings on Faith and Morals 100%, while the bishops of the Patriotic rump Church support, in writing, the regime of Communist China - to include such lovely things as the One Child policy and forced abortions.
Yet another person who lives comfortably in his/her home and attacking people who are laboring to render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God. i tell you, 90% of the patriotic bishops have already been officially accepted by Rome. Did you know that the Holy Father has already recognized Bishop Jin as the Ordinary of Shang Hai? Also, did you know that Bishop Jin was invited to the Bishop conference by the Holy Father, but the underground bishop of ShangHai was not? Of course you don’t know! I tell you, Adam Minter has greater knowledge of the situation of the Church in China than all of us here, and that his understanding of the Catholic Church in general is not lacking at all.
Also, recognized or not recognized by Rome, they are still bishops, so without being 100% sure that they are disloyal to the Pope, please hold your judgement! These men are illicitly ordained, not invalidly! Check Canon Law.
I cannot believe that someone had to point out a grammatical mistake in the article and use this as evidence for Adam Minter’s lack of understanding of Catholicism.
Also, i cannot believe that there are people here talking about Novus Ordo this and Novus Ordo that. First of all, the Vatican implemented it, so why are there still doubts about it? Are we being more Catholic than the Pope himself?
Secondly, we are talking about a complex situation between the Vatican and a Communist regime, in a country with a civilization that precedes Catholicism and Judaism by far. Yet, there are still people yapping about Novus Ordo.
Excuse me, but your people’s mind are so very narrow. I tell you, after living in China and getting to know the people in the registered churches, I can conclude that you all here at the Cornell Society is more schismatic than the open Church in China. In fact, I am very wrong to even compare you to the Church in China because there is no schism in China! Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI and their predecessors always refer to the Church in China as One!
Look at all my grammatical errors. Does this mean that I have very little understanding of American Catholicism?
I really apologize to the good and charitiable Christians in this Society. I lose my temper when I hear people talk about things they don’t know about.
Also, did you know that there may people forced abortions in some places in China, but the government does not allow this. The law does not allow the doctors to tell the expecting parents the sex of the child because if they knew the child was a girl, there is a greater chance for an abortion. Please read up on reliable sources before you start talking about it!
Hey Anon,
no problem — unlike the government of your ancient civilization, we don’t seek you out and jail you if you disagree with us!
Incidentally, making many grammatical errors does tend to make your readers trust you less. And I do expect you have a very poor understanding of American Catholicism.
Anon,
Give us a break — if the government doesn’t allow forced abortions, who’s doing the forcing? Propaganda, my dear friend, is real. Ever since Mao created out of whole cloth his whole life’s story and imagined a joyous Cultural Revolution, I think it’s fairly safe to say that any official statement of the Chinese government should be viewed as a fabulous lie unless proven otherwise. SARS, anyone?
“Temporary Resident in China”–
If you want to make a case based on who really knows what it’s like to live under the Chinese regime we should go not with people like you who have the option of going elsewhere. (and perhaps a foreign passport and consular protection?)
The BBC reports that most Chinese Catholics apparently think the right thing to do is to follow the underground Catholic Church according to the reporting of the BBC.
“There are an estimated 13 million Catholics in China, of which about 5 million follow the officially tolerated Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, while the remainder support an underground church loyal to Rome.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4982530.stm
First of all, I purposely made grammatical mistakes so I can see which one of you will attack me first. Secondly, I am an American with a major in English literature. So, in your face! Thirdly, I still don’t see the connection between grammatical mistakes and reliability. The Pope himself doesn’t speak perfect English. Lastly, we have Bush as president…enough said…
Was “in your face” from As you like it or Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus? i can’t seem to remember, Anon! And when you are the head of the nation, or wear the Fisherman’s ring, I’ll think about reassessing my willingness to trust you; but since, in the present instance, you’re some dude writing under the name “Anon” in a comments box, clearly making things up as you go, I will exercise my preferential option for the articulate and write you off as the idiot you seem to be.
Samuel Howard,
I really don’t understand you little message, and I really don’t see the point of the BBC article. Is this your best source of info.? Yes, I have the option of going elsewhere, but I don’t want to. I’m leaving because my visa is about to expire. Also, at least I’m here seeing what’s happening for myself, right? Where are you?
Also my dear Samuel,
You probably missed the part when I said that the popes have always recognize the Church in China as One. The Popes have never declared that the people in the open Church as “disloyal”. You keep looking at BBC. I get my sources from Vatican documents!
Oh Ambrosius, with that kind of name, might as well call yourself Anon. Me, making things up? Check it yourself. And please check other sources besides ultraconservative/on-the-edge-of- heresy websites.
Sigh. I for one think it a real shame that all the supporters of Bishop Jin who have contributed here must be mindless-seeming enthusiasts who, for all anyone can tell, might be propagandists working for the Chinese government itself. I would actually find it quite interesting to read an argument from someone who was sympathetic to Jin but at the same time appreciative of the unhappy position in which he puts himself by being openly supportive of a government like China’s. Instead, his defenders seem to want to claim that all is well, or very nearly so, in a country in which does require some women to have abortions (those who try to have more than the requisite number of children, obviously, not those who are carrying girls) and which imprisons priests and faithful Catholics.
It is possible that an argument could be made on Jin’s behalf that would at least command my sympathy. But I am not charmed when we of the CSGT are implicitly labeled as cowards and would-be traitors to the faith, for no other reason than that we are materially comfortable (an unsupported assumption, by the way) and have never been to China.
and Ambrosius, if you call yourself “articulate” then you are setting a real low standard for everyone here.
It is so pointless to talk to you people. Jin has been recognized by the Vatican. PERIOD!!! Did you miss this part and everything else I said? If you don’t believe, then look it up!!! Write the Vatican! There’s no need to discuss this anymore. Start a new blog or something.
Holy Mother of God have pity on these blind sheeps!!!
Anon,
I’ll let the readers decide on the articulateness score. I won’t feel any compunction about simply removing any further comments from you, though, so please don’t spend much time on them — besides, it would be a shame for you to suddenly start wasting time thinking!
Ambrosius,
We are talking about the Church in China, but you are competing with me over who is more articulate. Maybe you should stop wasting time not thinking. I’m meeting one of the Holy Father’s assistance soon, so you can let the close minded people here decide while I wait for the Holy Father himself to reply!
“You probably missed the part when I said that the popes have always recognize the Church in China as One”
Right… because they don’t recognize the Chinese government as having any authority over the Catholic Church. Hence the Bishops are whomever the Vatican appoints underground or acknowledged by the Catholic government doesn’t matter.
An illictly ordained Bishop is validly ordained… but he has no jurisdiction.
You also confuse the fact that we’re not saying Jin isn’t validly ordianed or recognized by the Vatican. We’re disagreeing with what he’s done. And those ideas are perfectly compatible.
Samuel,
Please read my messages carefully before you respond to me. 90% of the Patriotic Bishops have already been recognized by the Vatican!
Also, if Jin has been recently accepted by Rome, why can’t we trust in his decisions?
OK, I’m done for now. Must go.
The Chinese bishops get their marching orders from the Commies on how to handle the Pope’s upcoming letter to China.
What on Earth has this blog descended into??? First, Anon comes charging in here making all kinds of reckless statements. And now good old Iosephus is talking about the “Commies.” Really, people, could we please discuss things with some civility around here? I know this is a touchy subject, but it’s also an important one that deserves more than blanket generalizations, insults, and recourse to terms like “Commies.”
And on that latter point, Iosephus, I must admit I am a little surprised and disappointed in you. Not only was it a childish comment, but not an entirely accurate one, either. Nobody knows yet what’s going on in that meeting. The story speculates, but that’s it. So really, could we at least try to be factual here instead of looking to be divisive and hateful of each other and those who disagree with us. This is a Catholic blog, folks, let’s treat it that way.
Diplomatice,
What’s wrong with calling Chinese Reds Commies? They’re the Communist party, right? They’ve killed millions and run an unaccountable communist regime, yes? Does that not give us permission to use derogatory language in describing them?
Diplomatice, they certainly are Commies - what else are you suggesting they are? - and I use the term to deride and make sport of them. Point of information: the Constitutions of this Society require us to belittle evil Communists whenever we happen to mention them. Also Freemasons, Chinese or otherwise. Just so you know.
Male Catholics under the Novus regime must talk like the eunuch reports on NPR. Women must talk like female NPR reporters - over-pronunciating and adding a slight British accent.
Anger and outrage are never permitted.
Unless of course you are talking to stubborn, schismatic Traditionalists. Then righeous anger and fury is totally justified.
Though I disagree that my comments are “reckless”, I must say that Diplomaticus seems to be the only true Catholic Christian in this Society. He asked you all to be charitable even to the “enemies”, yet you all continue to attack. The Communists killed millions, so did Catholics in the old days. Don’t forget, the Church executed Saints like Joan of Arc. This Society is made up of childish old men and young men who are like childish old men. Ambrosius, you are the whinniest person on this blog. Aw, if it makes little Ambrosius happy to call the communists “commies”, he can go ahead and do so. JSP, are we still whining about the Vatican-approved Novus Ordo? Whine, whine, whine! Grow up kids! i’m done with this backward, schismatic group.
I’m so honored! Anon thinks I’m a whiner!
If you happen back by, friend, could you perhaps enlighten me as to when the Church killed “millions”? That’s a slander, as it happens not to be true. It took about a century of the Spanish inquisition, for instance, to execute as many people as were killed in one day at Tiananmen square.
Ambrosius,
Did you do the communist thing and removed my last refute of your statement? First of all, the Inquisition killed 50 million people, and less than 300 people were killed at Tiananmen. Secondly, as I said in the last comment, killing one is enough to earn you an eternity in hell. So, even if, lets imagine, the Church did kill less than the Communist, is that still OK???
The immaturity of your arguments is appalling yet expected.
Anon,
your previous comment was so incoherent that I had to delete it.
I’ll leave this one up, though, because although coherent enough, it’s ridiculous. All scholars put the number of deaths due to the Inquisition at fewer than 5000 during its four hundred year duration, while numbers for Tiananmen range from your Communist gov’t figure of 300 up through Amnesty International’s figure of 1000 to other estimates in the range of 3-5 thousand.
Use your head, man! The population of all Europe during the 15th - 19th centuries probably never reached 50 million, so it would have been rather difficult for the Inquisition, even if it were as bloody minded as the Black Legends claimed, to have found so many victims.
I find it very gratifying that you continue to be drawn here, as a moth to the flame, to defend the indefensible. Perhaps it’s something in the polluted Chaobai river water?
Yes, Anon, your tenacity in commenting here is most interesting. I am very glad that you’re enjoying yourself so on our blog!
i’ll be back……..
//./a///a/////Sooner or later people would have already seen my messages. You are probably blocking them too Ambrosius, you are the Herod and the Pharisee and the “commie” of this present world. I speak the truth and you try to prevent others from hearing it. Jesus said “”Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” You are causing Jesus’ little ones to sin! //I have to change my account and add numbers and symbols because our own communist, Ambrosius, keeps blocking my refutes like 30 times already.//I am quite enjoying myself here because it’s so easy to refute Ambrosius. I feel it my duty to refute his heresy. /
Ambrosius, as i said, you probably have selective-reading disorder. I myself was not sure about the figures of the deaths, though I did look it up, so I added:”Secondly, as I said in the last comment, killing one is enough to earn you an eternity in hell. So, even if, lets imagine, the Church did kill less than the Communist, is that still OK???”Yet, he just chose to argue about the number of deaths. Ambrosius, Ambrosius, I really don’t know who’s the moth and who’s the flame. Not a single one of your arguments have addressed the issues. You just like to point out mistakes in numbers and grammar. Just for fun:
At Tiananmen: “Officially, about 300 Chinese died. Unofficial estimates claim the real figure to be more than 1,000.”/
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s799830.htm /Anything else Ambrosius, dear?//In regards to the Inquisition, I have no idea, which figures are true, which are exaggerated. EWTN said it’s exaggerated. None Catholic sources say it’s not exaggerated, but who cares???? The point is that our Church killed lots of people as well. So, stop judging!!! Communism in China today is not the same as it was in Mao’s and Deng Xiao Ping’s time!//The Church today, is not as it was during the time of the Inquisition, but i’m sure, Ambrosius, you wish the old days were back don’t you?//a./a/..////
Friends of Joseph Kung, the Kung Foundation, and its heretical view of China’s Catholics, Prepare to Defend Yourselves. Here, I give you a passage from the Kung Foundation’s website:
I don’t want to dwell too much on the letter’s consequences; there are people far more qualified to do that, and they will. For now, I’d just like to point out that - in a small way - the letter serves as a near total and complete repudiation of the rhetoric and methods of the Cardinal Kung Foundation. For those who aren’t familiar with it, the Kung Foundation is an American non-profit whose stated goal is support of China’s underground Catholics; in reality, the foundation and its leader Joseph Kung have spent the better part of the last two decades agitating for more division among China’s Catholics (a stance which the Pope’s letter implicitly recognizes as contrary to his and the late John Paul II’s intentions). I outline some of this in my recent profile of Jin Luxian in the July/August issue of the Atlantic.
The Pope’s letter has only been available for a few hours, and so it’s a bit unreasonable to expect the Foundation to have already pulled its references to the Eight Points as “China Guidelines from the Vatican.” Still, it will be interesting to see when and if it does. More important, however, is whether the Foundation will stop referring - incorrectly - to the Catholic Patriotic Association as China’s official “Patriotic Church.” Joseph Kung surely knows the difference, but in the past he has refused to use accurate language. For example, consider this passage, taken just a few moments ago from the Foundation’s website:
“China therefore has two Churches that call themselves Catholic. One Church is founded by Christ approximately 2005 years ago. The other Church is established by atheist communists 48 years ago. One Church has been under severe persecution for the last 56 years since 1949. The other one is under the protection of the Chinese communist government and has not been persecuted. One Church is in full communion with the Pope and with the universal Church. The other one is not in communion with the Pope. One Church, of course, is the underground Roman Catholic Church. The other one is the official Patriotic church. Regardless the differences that I listed above, there are many bishops, cardinals, and other church hierarchies claim that they are the same church. Do not let anyone mislead you, even if he is a bishop or a Cardinal, into thinking that these two churches are the same church. They are not the same Church.”
Now, dear friends of the Cornell Society, none other than the Holy Father himself declares, in his letter to China’s Catholics, that there is but one Church in China, that divisions are caused by government entities, and calls for reconciliation.
So, dear Cornell friends, declare yourselves. Are you with Kung, and his divisions, or with the beloved Holy Father.
“But in every particular Church, in order that she may be fully Church, there must be present the supreme authority of the Church, that is to say, the episcopal College together with its Head, the Roman Pontiff, and never apart from him.” (Section 5)
“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.” (Section 8)
“Communion and unity – let me repeat (cf. section 5 above) – are essential and integral elements of the Catholic Church: therefore the proposal for a Church that is ‘‘independent” of the Holy See, in the religious sphere, is incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” (Section 8)
Dear All:
This refers to the posting by Patrioticus on June 30th, 2007 at 10:11 am.
Patrioticus quoted the paragraph that I wrote on our website that “China has two Churches that call themselves Catholic…..They are not the same church.”
Patrioticus wrote that “the Holy Father himself declares, in his letter to China’s Catholics, that there is but one Church in China…..”
I have difficulty in locating any verbiage by the Holy Father saying clearly that “there is but one Church in China….” in his China letter as Patrioticus claimed. In this connection, I should appreciate if Patrioticus could tell us where this quotation is.
There are several places in the Holy Father’s China letter that he clearly describes a situation in what he called an “entity” which is “incompatible with Catholic doctrine”. This could easily and reasonably be construed that there are two churches.
1) In section 7, paragraph 1, the Holy Father said: “Still today, in fact, recognition from these entities is the criterion for declaring a community, a person or a religious place legal and therefore “official”.” When one talks about “official”, one is surely aware of the fact there is an opposite called “unofficial”. We all should know that the “official” church has not publicly declared its full communion with the Holy Father, because they are, as the Holy Father said, “incompatible with Catholic doctrine”. On the contrary, the “unofficial church” is in full communion with the Holy Father and the universal church. This situation is what I referred to as “two churches.
2) In the last paragraph of section 8, the Holy Father wrote “…..the present College of Catholic Bishops of China cannot be recognized as an Episcopal Conference by the Apostolic See: the “clandestine” Bishops, …..in communion with the Pope, are not part of it…..; it includes Bishop who are still illegitimate…..” The pope himself made a distinction between the “clandestine” bishops who belong to the “unofficial church” and “Bishops who are still illegitimate” who belong to the “official church”. They are obviously not the same church, Otherwise, the Pope would not make a distinction. This is why I referred to as “two churches”.
Patrioticus himself said that “divisions are caused by government entities.” I am therefore very puzzled when he asked, “Are you with Kung, and his divisions”. What do these divisions have to do with me when they are caused, as Patrioticus himself said, by government entities?
I wish you all a very happy, patriotic, and blessed July the 4th.
Joseph Kung
Cardinal Kung Foundation
Dear Mr. Kung,
I think the point is that there is only one Church:
“This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.”
Lumen Gentium, 8
I think we need new language for the situation in China that reflects this point, there is only one Church. We should speak of those in full communion and those in imperfect communion or some such. Or perhaps “those who set themselves up as a Church independent from Rome” something that they attempt, but isn’t actual, as we would say of Protestants.
It seems relatively few Catholics in China are setting themselves up as seperate from Rome these days… perhaps there are some who want to be with the Pope, but not under him.
(These are just some brief general and unpolished thoughts and should be taken in that spirit.)
Dear Mr. Howard:
I appreciate your observation. Thank you.
In the Pope’s letter, in section 8, the third paragraph from the end of this section, the Pope writes: “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……Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they ………”
Therefore, the Pope clearly pointed out that there is still a group of bishops in the official Church in China that are “not in communion with the Pope.”
In his speech in January 1995 during the World Youth Day celebrated in Manila in January 1995, our late Pope John Paul II stated very clearly: “A Catholic who wishes to remain such and to be recognized as such cannot reject the principle of communion with the successor of Peter.” He repeated the same quote again on other occasion. Therefore, communion with the Pope as requisite for being a Roman Catholic is a basic Catholic doctrine. It is not a mere discipline.
Inasmuch as that portion of bishops in the official Church in China are still not in communion with the Pope as I described in the first paragraph above, and inasmuch as the late Pope John Paul II stated very clearly that in order to be a Catholic one must be in communion with the Pope, it is clear that the part of the official Church controlled by those bishops who are not in communion with the pope is not Roman Catholic.
Therefore, when I referred to two Churches in China, one of these Churches is one described in the previous paragraph. The other Church is, of course, the Church that is in full communion with the Pope and with the universal Church. It goes without saying that there is only one “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” not only in China, but all over the world.
Thank you for your attention.
Joseph Kung
Cardinal Kung Foundation
I am not Roman Catholic, so I can’t speak to the issues of Catholic church government. I am, however, a Christian who has lived in China. What I saw and learned through my experiences with both government and underground churches was that there is a great deal of overlap between the two, and not the distinct separation that many Westerns believe there to be. I found committed, faithful followers of Christ in the government church, many of whom also participate in aspects of the underground church. While I read the Atlantic article with a measure of skepticism, I was impressed by what seemed to be Jin’s genuine desire to pastor the flock (fact is, the open churches are growing, and people coming to them can’t be ignored). I was also impressed by his comment that prayer and memorized scripture, especially John’s Gospel, sustained him through his prison terms. A mere communist puppet would not appeal to such things.
Joseph Kung seems to have clarified everything - at least insofar as the Atlantic article is concerned. By all accounts (McCarrick, the fact that there were Vatican representatives at Bishops Xing’s ordination by Jin), Bishop Jin is in full communion with the Pope and the Universal Church. Thus, Jin is as much of a Catholic as Joe Kung. And, as the Pope’s letter states, there are only “a very small number” of bishops ordained without the pontifical mandate and NOT in communion with Rome. In other words - the vast majority of “open” church bishops like Jin are Catholic, and they should be fully welcomed into the Universal Church instead of being marginalized as “commies” or whatever else by people unwilling to follow the Pope’s guidelines.
As for the underground - the letter revokes all special provisions dating back to 1978 that justified it via canon law. It’s over. There’s only one Church. End of story. The outlying bishops are a minor concern at this point. Let’s complete the reconciliation, quite the divisions, and move on to North Korea.
Nino
Dear All:
May I invite you to read my rebuttal to Adam Minter’s “Kepping Faith” published by the Atlantic Monthly July-August issue. The rebuttal has now been published by the Atlantic in its September issue, but was thoroughly edited by the Atlantic’s editorial staff. A number of important issues were deleted by Atlantic. You may read the unedited version of my rebuttal on my website http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/articles/AtlanticMonthly-Rebuttal.htm
Thank you.
Joseph Kung
President
Cardinal Kung Foundation
I immediately noted your letter to the Atlantic in this most recent issue. Thank you for giving us the link to your full response here!
May I again invite you to read my reflections on Mr. Minter’s reply on my rebuttal to his article “Keeping Faith”
http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/articles/AtlanticMonthly-Rebuttal2.htm
Joseph Kung
Cardinal Kung Foundation