In its game with the Vatican,
China calls all the shots
Sept. 30, 2018
Responding to the gesture of Pope Francis who on the same day as the signing of the provisional agreement with China on the appointment of bishops, lifted the excommunication of seven bishops forcibly installed in recent years by the Communist Party without the approval of the Holy See, the Chinese authorities promptly designated by themselves the two bishops they are sneding to take part in the imminent synodal assembly on 'the youth'.
It is the first time that this has happened, and the decision seems to be a taste of what is to come with future episcopal appointments, on the basis of the agreement stipulated with the two sides. An agreement whose contents have not been made known, but that, evidently, is not impartial.
While in the past, first in 1998 and then in 2005, the Chinese bishops invited to the synods of those years by John Paul II and Benedict XVl respectively, never received authorization to go to Rome, now the Beijing authorities have themselves designated the bishops to send to the synod, and Rome has not raised any objections. Wang Zuo’an, director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, made the announcement.
The two bishops are John Baptist Yang Xiaoting, bishop of Yan’an-Yulin, and Joseph Guo Jincai, bishop of Chengde. Both of them have long been very obedient executors of the commands of the Chinese authorities, and the latter - one of the seven who have been 'un-excommunicated' - also General Secretary of the pseudo episcopal conference of Chinese bishops, which still does not include the “clandestine” bishops who are in communion with Rome but not recognized by the regime.
Today the known “clandestine” bishops number 17, 7 of whom are well above the age of 75. And two of them now find themselves flanked, in their respective dioceses, by two government-appointed bishops pardoned in recent days by the pope.
In the diocese of Shantou, the “clandestine” bishop is 87 and could be replaced easily. But in that of Xiapu-Mindong,
the “clandestine” bishop Vincent Guo Xijin, 56, will have to step aside for his competitor Vincent Zhan Silu, bowing to the “sacrifice” asked of him by the Vatican last winter. Here too is confirmation of how the Chinese regime easily trumps the Vatican.
Of all the bishops currently present in China - on whose names the Annuario Pontificio is silent, except for those of Hong Kong and Macao -
Settimo Cielo furnished a detailed organizational chart last February, on the basis of the highly informative book by the vaticanista Gianni Cardinale that came out at the beginning of this year from the presses of Libreria Editrice Vaticana:
> Chinese Bishops Illegitimate, Official, Clandestine… Which Ones Francis Is Rewarding and Which He Is Not
But it must be added that in the diocese of Ningbo, where the last known bishop, named Hu Xiande, “clandestine,” died on September 25, 2017,
the Holy See limited itself to stating that “the successor has taken possession of the diocese”: a sign that there must be a new bishop there, also not recognized by the Chinese government, but whose identity has not been revealed.
A further observation concerns the strange case of the eighth bishop from whom last September 22 Pope Francis lifted the excommunication - who was already dead at the time.
In the papal act of lifting the excommunications, it is written that this bishop, Anthony Tu Shihua, a Franciscan, who passed away on January 4, 2017, “before dying had expressed the desire to be reconciled with the apostolic see.”
L’Osservatore Romano did not publish an obituary for this bishop, and has not done so for every illegitimate bishop who has passed away without being reconciled with the Church, either publicly or in the internal forum.
There are therefore two possible explanations for the “post mortem” absolution granted by Pope Francis in recent days: Either the Holy See found out only long after his death that he wanted to be reconciled. Or the Chinese government absolutely demanded from Rome his posthumous rehabilitation. And got it.
The Vatican's agreement with China:
A step backwards
Translated from
It’s not easy to express a judgment on the recent “Provisional Agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China on the Appointment of Bishops” for two reasons.
First of all, as a matter of principle: This is an extremely complex and deicate matter about which only those who are ‘in’ at the Vatican and who have firsthand knowledge of the agreement can say something. Anyone else might as well be making barroom chatter.
Then there is a practical reason.
We have not been told the terms of the agreement. How can one judge something one knows virtually nothing about?
But not being able to express a judgment does not keep one from making observations. As a simple observer who takes note of what is happening around him.
1. The first observation is precisely about the secrecy on the gareement. We are living in a communications era when we are informed of what is taking place around the world in real time.
So much talk about transparency. Yet when an agreement is finally reached between the Vatican and China after five years, both parties make the official announcement but fail to disclose the text of the agreement. It seems to me something is wrong somewhere.
But despite the secrecy of the text, all observers appear unanimous in concluding that the agreement gives the Chinese government the right to name bishops, leaving the Pope with nothing but a veto power which has not been defined.
2. Just over 50 years ago, the Church had an ecumenical council (Vatican II), of which Church authorities today are particularly proud and lose no occasion to sing its praises. Rightfully, in my opinion. But
what does Vatican II say about the apoointment of bishops?
20. Since the apostolic office of bishops was instituted by Christ the Lord and pursues a spiritual and supernatural purpose, this sacred ecumenical synod declares that the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs properly, peculiarly, and per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority.
Therefore, for the purpose of duly protecting the freedom of the Church and of promoting more conveniently and efficiently the welfare of the faithful, this holy council desires that in future no more rights or privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop be granted to civil authorities.
The civil authorities, on the other hand, whose favorable attitude toward the Church the sacred synod gratefully acknowledges and highly appreciates, are most kindly requested voluntarily to renounce the above-mentioned rights and privileges which they presently enjoy by reason of a treaty or custom, after discussing the matter with the Apostolic See.
- Christus Dominus,
DECREE CONCERNING THE PASTORAL OFFICE
OF BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH
October 28, 1965
Vatican-II affirmed a principle (“the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs properly, peculiarly, and per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority”) and expressed the hope that “in future no more rights or privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation for the office of bishop be granted to civil authorities”.
What was a wish by the Council became a precise directive in the subsequent revision of the Code of Canon Law.
Can. 377 §1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected…
[Sections 2-4 describe the procedure for naming bishops.]
§5. In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.
That one must often come to a compromise in order to reach an agreement is in the nature of things.
But in general, during negotiations, there are principles which the negotiators must bear in mind. And for the Church, this was her native and exclusive right to nominate bishops. A principle for which she has fought through the centuries. Yet now, just for the sake of signing an agreement, the Vatican has yielded on a point that ought to have been mandatory and unchallengeable.
3. We come to a third observation which is historical in nature. I will limit myself to an
excursus found in a jurdico-pastoral commentary to the Code of Canon Law edited by Luigi Chiapetta (Edizioni Dehoniane, Napoli, 1988, vol. I, pp. 465-466), though it is not clear if it is thee ditor’s text or a citation taken from another periodical. But what matters is what it says:
It is known that, in the early secnturies, the bishops were elected by the clergy and people, with the approval of viciniori bishops or the metropolitan who would consecrate the new bishop. Such a procedure – which starting from the fourth century, was often violated by the Byzantine emperors who directly appointed bishops, especially for patriarchal sees – lasted much longer in the Western Church.
The intervention of European sovereigns began with Charlemagne, and grew with the creation of ecclesiastical fiefdomes by Otto I the Great of Saxony (912-973). The situation became very serious in the following century which saw the ‘battle for investitures’ which was carried on with heroic firmness by Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085).
The Concordat of Worms, on Sept. 23,1122, between Pope Callistus II and Henry V, which took away the power of the Holy Roman Emperor to name bishops, officially ended the power struggle that had lasted half a century. In practice, though, it meant that canonical elections passed completely to the hands of Cathedral chapters with the exclusion of other ecclesiastics and the laity.
Subsequently, the Roman Pontiffs asserted their right as Head of the Church in the 13th century, reserving for the pope alone the right to name bishops. This became the general rule in the 14th century, but afterwards, under pressure from the European monarchs, the Holy See was forced to yield, and many kings and princes (for example, Francois I of France, with the Concordat of 1516), obtained the right to name bishops for their territories.
Today, except for some sees in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, in which the election of a bishop still rests with the Cathedral chapter, the Holy See nominates all the bishops in the Latin Church. The present Code of Canon Law does ntr suppress this privilege, therefore Canon 377, § 1 provides that “The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected”, a law that obviously applies to the Latin Church. (Communicationes, a. 1986, p. 119, can. 4, § 1; p. 121, n. 1).
Regardless of whatever political or pastoral judgment one may make of it, the agreement recently signed with China objectively constitutes, from the historical viewpoint, a step backwards. To 500 years or a century back, you decide.