Vatican City, Feb 3, 2018 / 01:25 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Several sources familiar with a proposed deal between the Chinese government and the Holy See have said the landmark agreement is not only a possibility, but an “imminent” certainty that could come to fruition as early as this spring.
While no specific timeline has been given for the agreement, “I’ve heard that it is imminent. And in China, in many areas and environments, it is already taken as a done deal,” Henry Cappello told CNA Feb. 2.
President of the “Caritas in Veritate International” organization, Cappello travels to China on a regular basis to offer training to the country’s bishops, and has strong ties with both those approved by the Holy See and those backed by the communist government’s Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.
Cappello was in China two weeks ago, where Joseph Ma Yinglin, the government-backed bishop of Kunming, explained the proposed deal to him.
Without the Vatican’s consent, Ma was tapped by the patriotic association to head the diocese in 2006. After his episcopal ordination, Ma’s excommunication was declared by the Vatican, because he was ordained a bishop without approval from Rome. In 2010 he was appointed president of the Chinese patriotic association’s bishops’ conference.
As part of the agreement, which has been widely reported in recent days, the Vatican is expected to officially recognize seven bishops who are out of communion with Rome, including 2-3 bishops, one of which is Ma, whose excommunications have been explicitly declared by the Vatican.
Cappello said the proposal has already been discussed in China, and he believes “this is the direction that things are going.”
In 1951 Beijing broke official diplomatic ties with the Vatican. Since the 1980s they have loosely cooperated in episcopal appointments, however, the government has also named bishops without Vatican approval.
The result has led to a complicated and tense relationship between the patriotic association and the “underground Church,” which includes priests and bishops who are not recognized by the government.
Many Catholics parishioners and priests who have rejected government control have been imprisoned, harassed and otherwise persecuted.
Currently every bishop recognized by Beijing must be a member of the patriotic association, and many bishops appointed by the Vatican who are not recognized or approved by the Chinese government have faced government persecution.
Many of the Vatican-approved bishops in China are drawing near to the age of 75, when they are required to submit their request for retirement, and many others have died, yet few successors have been named, raising questions as to whether or not a deal might be drawing near.
Regarding the seven bishops who will be recognized should a new agreement come to pass, Msgr. Anthony Figueiredo, who has worked with the seven bishops in question through the Caritas in Veritate for the past several years and was in China in July 2017, confirmed the news on the bishops’ proposed approval, saying “if the Vatican is going to accept them and an accord be reached, it’s going to be for all of them. ”
In addition to recognizing the seven bishops, the new deal would reportedly outline government and Vatican roles in future episcopal selection, with the Vatican proposing names and the Chinese government reportedly having the final say over Vatican-vetted candidates.
Figueiredo, who lives in Rome, travels to China several times a year with Caritas in Veritate, said he has worked closely with the seven bishops in question, and “they have desired this communion for years.”
He personally delivered a letter from the bishops to the Pope in 2016, which he says told the Pope they wanted communion with Rome.
“They didn’t propose the deal, certainly not in the letter they gave me, because that’s what’s come afterwards,” he said, noting that the Vatican has on several occasions sent a delegation to Beijing to discuss the details of a possible agreement.
Figueiredo said the deal could come within the next few months, saying “I think it could well come this spring, absolutely.”
For his part, Cappello said he could neither confirm nor deny any specific details of the agreement, but that as of two weeks ago during his visit to China, “we are talking in the right direction” in terms of what’s already been reported.
He said that in his view, to say China would have the final say in bishop appointments oversimplifies the matter, because the Church in China is complicated and nuanced due to its relations with a communist state.
“The Chinese bishops in China would have a big say, but knowing that the Church in China is in a communist nation, then the Church and the State, the line between them is very narrow,” he said.
“There’s really no black and white, there’s overlap there, so of course there would be an input from the government…it will be a collaboration,” Cappello said.
And as someone that has traveled back and forth to various provinces in China for the past 25 years, he said he has seen progress he calls remarkable, in terms of relations in the past decade, and during the past five years in particular.
With this deal, Pope Francis “is building bridges,” he said, adding that he believes the stronger and more vocal opponents of the accord “are on the wrong side of history.”
One of the most outspoken critics of a deal with the Chinese government has been Cardinal Joseph Zen, Archbishop Emeritus of Hong Kong.
Zen was ordained a priest in 1961 and became a bishop in 1996. He has spent a long missionary career in China, and has long been a vocal protester against human-rights abuses in China.
His concerns have grown so great that he recently traveled to Rome to meet with Pope Francis about the proposed deal, after the Vatican asked Bishop Peter Zhuang Jianjian of Shantou in southern Guangdong province and Bishop Joseph Guo Xijin from the Mindong Diocese of China’s eastern Fujian province to retire so that bishops from the patriotic association could take their place.
In a letter posted to his blog Jan. 29, Cardinal Zen said that while his meeting with the Pope last week was consoling, he believes “the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China…if they go in the direction which is obvious from all what they are doing in recent years and months.”
He implied that Francis was unfamiliar with the situation, and questioned whether there could be any mutual ground with “a totalitarian regime,” comparing this to a hypothetical agreement between St. Joseph and King Herod. He said that if the agreement that comes out is a poor one, “I would be more than happy to be the obstacle.”
The Vatican immediately responded, and in a Jan. 30 statement said Francis is well-informed of the dialogue with China, so “it is therefore surprising and regrettable that the contrary is affirmed by people in the Church, thus fostering confusion and controversy.”
In a Jan. 31 interview with Italian paper La Stampa , Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin spoke of the proposed deal, and, though he didn’t mention Zen’s comments specifically, said “no one should cling to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures.”
On the deal, he said that “if someone is asked to make a sacrifice, small or great, it must be clear to everyone that this is not the price of a political exchange, but falls within the evangelical perspective of a greater good, the good of the Church of Christ”
Figueriedo told CNA he believes the Vatican was quick to counter Zen in order to protect the deal, because “it really takes just one person on the Chinese side to say ‘you shouldn’t go ahead,’” which he says has happened in the past.
Should a deal come to fruition, Cappello said he hoped it would help normalize life for Catholic faithful and allow priests, bishops and seminarians to receive much needed formation.
China is extremely complex, he said, explaining that the Vatican has reached a point of understanding the nation which is both “encouraging and remarkable.”
However, he said there are real reasons for concern based on past events, and that any agreement is something that those on both sides will need to grow into.
CNA reached out to the Vatican for confirmation, however, they declined to comment on the situation.
[…]
Having addressed this specific report earlier at, “Pope Francis: Partisans have used Benedict XVI’s death ‘to serve their own interests’”, this comment addresses Pope Francis’ 2013 in flight comment repeated by him here that, “If a person with homosexual tendencies is a believer, seeks God, who am I to judge him? This is what I said on that trip”.
Accompaniment by priest, or God of the struggling homosexual is a good thing. Conditionally. That is if the priest emulates God, revealed to us in Christ drawing the penitent away from actions that Francis admits are gravely sinful and under no circumstances permissible.
It’s clear then that same sex attraction, homosexual tendencies are not [always] sinful. Nonetheless, it’s also true that homosexual tendency and acts can be voluntary, a willful perversion. That is why the Church must resist this administration’s intent to cultivate in our youth a homosexual oriented mentality. Bad sexual behavior can be learned and adopted especially by the young and vulnerable, addressed here by Susan Ciancio “The sexualization of children”. We’re not hearing much if anything from the Vatican on this far reaching moral dilemma. That said, the statement “Who am I to judge” has a context to which we have to make a prudent judgment.
Assignments to the Casa Marta, Synod on Synodality, Vatican communications of an active homosexual, advocates for normalizing homosexuality. Both the Synod on Synodality with Card Hollerich SJ relator, the Pontifical Academy for Life Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia president are assigned homosexual advocates [John Finnis recently assigned, member Card Willem Eijk both doctrinally orthodox to the Pontifical Academy may be simply window dressing when the entire direction of the Church is considered]. Add the Card Coccopalmerio Vatican residence homosexual scandal, Francis’ reinstatement of defrocked child rapist Fr Inzoli speak a different story to the Pope’s explanation of Who am I to judge.
Some of us want to love this pope are taken by his compassionate overtures. The visible moral sea change transforming the Church into an accommodation of the gravely sinful, of perverse behavior makes that a split of sorrowful compassion salted by strong rejection.
Never emphasizes the justice part of that same coin and only drudgingly and barely reiterates the Catechism.
How many active homosexuals have you brought back to Christ, Pope Francis?
God’s accompaniment is never for the legalization of anyone’s sins. Calling on God’s Holy Name for such things breaks all the Commandments starting with the 2nd; but as Pope, the 1st!
You can not uphold anyone’s dignity by “legalizing homosexual civil union”. It is the opposite, by doing such a thing you degrade and demean everyone altogether and offend God gravely.
“The pope reiterated what he said on his return flight from Brazil in 2013: “If a person with homosexual tendencies is a believer, seeks God, who am I to judge him? This is what I said on that trip.”
“EWTN is SATAN!” my priest screamed in his homily. My Priest was really going off on how EWTN was ‘Satan’, for their comments on Pope Francis’, “Who Am I To Judge”. So I started a page, with a poll, to discuss just who Pope Francis, can’t or can, judge. I invited my Priest to the page to help us discuss.
Priest Judges EWTN as Satan for Their Comments on Pope Francis’ “Who Am I To Judge”
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/catholics-only-priest-judges-ewtn-as-satan-for-their-co mments-on-pope-francis%E2%80%99-%E2%80%9Cwho-am-i-to-judge%E2%80%9D.250177/
I do not hear the enormous, horrible, Catholic issue of child molester priests being discussed in Pope Francis’ “Synod on Synodality”. Is Pope Francis and his Vatican Gay Lobby trying to slide in the decriminalization of man-boy-lover Priests molesting children, when he says ‘Who am I to Judge’? Yes, respect the human dignity of man-boy-lovers, but please Pope Francis make sure the world knows child molesting is a grave sin and heinous crime!
P.S. We have a new Awesome Priest now.
Well, the theological arguments are needed to understand the elements that make for the gravity of the dilemma. Although, the cat is now out of the gunnysack [an ordinary bag is too small for this cat]. What with His Holiness allegedly telling Spanish clergy no need to hold back absolution if the penitent refuses to repent, otherwise openly broadcasting that no one should be denied the Eucharist, that the only requisite is the garment of faith. Will Martin Luther be next up for canonization?
Would it be better for Papa to interpret scripture rather that presenting his own point of view? If we care for the eternal soul of one who is misguided, we are obliged to speak the truth in love. We all have our besetting sins, yet God finds the sin of homosexuality egregious.
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Unfounded response to ungodly behaviour helps no one.
We read: “The pope reiterated what he said on his return flight from Brazil in 2013: “If a person with homosexual tendencies is a believer, seeks God, who am I to judge him? This is what I said on that trip.”
Indeed, the pope simply repeats the original ambiguity–the off-the-cuff remark about a particular “him,” conflated with silence on universal moral truth; the failure to distinguish between accompaniment and accommodation.
Nine years of non-dialogue. With no apologies for another repetition, this again from Veritatis Splendor:
“A separation, or even an opposition [!], is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a ‘moral judgment’!] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions [!] contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not!]” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 56).
Who in the media is asking the Pope questions about the many Christians being persecuted and killed in Nigeria? Why does every press engagement devolve to the same topic?
I hate the way the press constantly distorts the Holy Father’s views. If they would ask him the right questions on the right topics his brilliance, orthodoxy and sanctity would shine forth. He has, for example, been very clear in condemning Islamic violence against Christians in Nigeria when given the opportunity. Or he has at least condemned some kind of violence against someone or something. Anyway, it’s all the media’s fault!
First, this pontificate is almost a decade in. If you are correct (and I don’t think you are), one would have to question the Pope’s/Vatican’s choice of media outlets. But, really, isn’t ten years enough time to find a way to consistently express matters with clarity and cohesion?
Secondly, a truly brilliant man would be able to take even distorted or leading questions and respond (again) with clarity and cohesion. So…there’s that.
Very painful load of sarcasm from Tony. Might be a Babylon Bee journalist.
If so, he got me! Heh.
This comment is intended to be sarcastic, right? Brilliance, orthodoxy, and sanctity are not qualities people associate with Francis, not even on his best days, which are sadly quite rare.
Perhaps I should give up sarcasm for Lent. No, my comment was not intended to be taken literally. Like someone else I can think of, I have been guilty of spreading confusion.
Pope Francis’in-flight pressers are not helpful, let’s say. Why does he keep playing the secular media’s games?
Like the word “inclusion,” the term “accompanies” should be dropped from the vocabulary of those who take their relationship with Christ seriously. God does not accompany us anywhere. He convicts us of sin and calls us to repent and believe. It’s that simple, and it’s perfectly clear. “Accompanying” people is leftist code for accommodating sin, a response that clearly violates biblical teaching and the catechism.
There’s nothing wrong, per se, with the word “accompanies”. The problem (or part of the problem) is that it is a such neutral word. Far, far better are the exact, clear words found in the first paragraph of the CCC:
Created…draws close….calls…sent his Son….invites. These are words that demand our response, just as Christ’s words—”Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand”—demand a response. But the language of faux synodality is banal, neutral, and far too conversational. It certainly isn’t biblical.
Good points, and a neutral word can be bent in all kinds of directions to suit people’s agendas. I’m thankful that God speaks clearly and directly to us. He doesn’t mince words, but He always tells us the truth.
God is all powerful. Accompanies the weak and the strong on their brief common journey forward.