Vatican City, Sep 17, 2018 / 08:05 am (CNA).- Following reports that the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China could be about to sign an agreement on the appointment of bishops in the country, attention has turned to the role of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick in fostering Vatican-China relations over the last two decades.
Over 20 years, Archbishop McCarrick traveled to China on at least eight occasions, sometimes staying in a state-controlled Beijing seminary, often serving as an unofficial bridge between the Vatican and Chinese government-appointed bishops until 2016.
Prior to allegations of sexual abuse and harassment becoming public this summer, the former cardinal had been an outspoken proponent of a deal between Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Church under Pope Francis, according to Chinese reports.
“I see a lot of things happening that would really open many doors because President Xi and his government are concerned about things that Pope Francis is concerned about,” McCarrick told The Global Times, in an exclusive interview in Feb. 2016.
The interview quoted McCarrick as saying that the similarities between Pope Francis and Xi Jinping could be “a special gift for the world.”
The the state-approved Chinese newspaper also reported that McCarrick traveled to China in Feb. 2016 — “a trip in which the cardinal said he would visit some ‘old friends.’”
“His previous visits included meetings with Wang Zuo’an, head of the State Administration for Religious Affairs and late bishop Fu Tieshan, former president of Bishops’ Conference of the Catholic Church in China (BCCCC), an organization not recognized by the Holy See,” The Global Times reported.
In June 2014, David Gibson reported in the Washington Post that McCarrick had traveled to China “in the past year” for “sensitive talks on religious freedom.”
This detail aligns, in part, with the 11-page “testimony” of former apostolic nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Viganò recounted a meeting with McCarrick in June 2013, during which Vigano claims he was told by McCarrick, “The pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.”
McCarrick was hosted by the Beijing seminary during at least two trips to China, according to a 2006 State Department document made available via Wikileaks.
The vice-rector of a Communist-approved seminary, Fr. Shu-Jie Chen, described twice hosting McCarrick in an account found in a cable from Christopher Sandrolini, Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See.
Chen described himself as “king” of the seminary, saying that he “could do what he wanted within its walls.”
Sandrolini also noted that the vice rector “downplayed persecution of the underground Church,” calling the underground church “uneducated” and “elderly.” He said that Chen seemed “unconcerned” that “evangelization was not an option for official religious personnel.
A cable from U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Francis Rooney in March 2006 noted that Archbishop Claudio Celli, who was at that time the Holy See’s principal China negotiator, insisted that McCarrick was not in a position to negotiate with China and that his visits to China were “unofficial.”
There appears to be a gap between McCarrick’s trips to China between 2006 and 2013, though McCarrick’s influence was still active.
In 2009, the archbishop had a message relayed to a friend in China through Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House of Representatives. Pelosi conveyed McCarrick’s greetings to Bishop Aloysius Jin of Shanghai, formerly a leading Chinese Jesuit.
“She [Pelosi] relayed Cardinal McCarrick’s good wishes to Bishop Jin. Bishop Jin said he and Cardinal McCarrick had exchanged visits, beginning when the latter was Bishop of Newark,” the State Department cable reads.
During McCarrick’s time as Archbishop of Newark, Aloysius Jin Luxian was not recognized as a bishop by the Vatican. He was ordained a coadjutor bishop of Shanghai without papal approval in 1985, his position was not recognized by the Vatican until 2004. Bishop Jin died in 2013.
A 2007 article in The Atlantic described the close friendship between McCarrick and Jin, and how McCarrick claimed to have relayed messages from the Chinese government-appointed bishop to the pope in the 1990s.
Both the State Department and Chinese media recorded a 1998 visit to China by Archbishop McCarrick. On that trip he was one of three American clerics to visit China to discuss religious freedom, meeting with Bishop Michael Fu Tieshan, vice-chairman of the Chinese Communist Party’s Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress.
Fu was made a bishop by Beijing 1979 without approval of the pope.
Chinese media reported that McCarrick paid a visit to the National Seminary in Beijing in 1998.
In Aug. 2, 2003, the South China Morning Post reported that McCarrick “spent three days in Beijing earlier this week on what was ostensibly a private visit.”
McCarrick was “the first cardinal from a western country to visit the mainland since relations between China and the Vatican turned frosty after a dispute over canonisation in October 2000,” the article continued.
In a Dec. 2003 State Department cable, U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Jim Nicholson wrote that Vatican Office Director for China Monsignor Gianfranco Rota-Graziosi “did not expect concrete improvement stemming from the informal trip last summer of Washington Cardinal McCarrick to China.”
On Sept. 14, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Holy See could be about to enter a deal with China which would include the recognition of seven illicitly consecrated bishops serving in the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association – a state-sponsored form of Catholicism whose leaders are chosen by Communist authorities.
Reports of the Holy See and Chinese government working towards a formal agreement on the appointment of bishops have been circulating since January, 2018. At the same time, China has launched an increasing crackdown on religious practice in the country, demolishing churches and harassing worshippers.
[…]
Perhaps something should be said about entropy and institutional leveling. By departing La Civiltà Cattolica and joining the Dicastery for Culture and Education, does Fr. Spadaro improve the magisterium average IQ of the former while depressing the magisterium average IQ of the latter?
And, what will be the agreed dialect between this papal “mouthpiece” and Fernandez as the papal “ghostwriter”?
Perhaps we do have it backwards Beaulieu.
Fernández is the mouth💋 and Spadaro is the brain 🧠 of the one “head over all things for the church.”
https://www.ncregister.com/news/archbishop-fernandez-outlines-his-vision-as-the-vatican-s-new-doctrinal-chief
Porno-mysticism and Georgetown. Heart and head.
Fearless Reverend Antonio Spadaro is blessed with a creative and constructive mindset. His best is yet to come. The Dicastery for Culture and Education has the right man in the right place. Wishing the dynamic and forward looking Padre divine blessings.
His understanding of Christianity in the U.S. is certainly creative. Not accurate or constructive, but creative. Same with math.
About “mindset!” And, too, about the, yes, defensible merger of complementary “culture” and “education,” yours truly still recalls an academic panel discussion in 2008 between a Dominican from the Western Dominican Province, a Muslim interreligious studies member from Loyola-Marymount in Los Angeles, and an evangelical Christian, obviously “ecumenically” aligned with the latter.
The agreed topic was the fit between Faith and Reason…
But, the conspicuous Islamic diversion was to continually migrate the focus toward “culture” (and away from “education”?). Culture, as within assimilative Islam, e.g., the monotheistic and above-question Qur’an which is part Pentateuch, part New Testament, part Arabian warrior cult, and part trans-tribal folk hero. As part of the diversion, the panelist even interjected a tape of Muslim young musicians playing Western rock music.
The self-understanding of very sectarian Islam is as an egalitarian and “congregational theocracy.” We might say, like a fragmented “polyhedron” Church shaped more by an inscrutable Holy Spirit than centered on the incarnate Jesus Christ. Contrast egalitarian Islam, then, with the Church’s sacramental clergy, and “hierarchical communion”—the revealed self-understanding of the apostolic Church (Lumen Gentium), yet in no way excluding the People of God.
But, if “pluralism” of religions means historical “convergence” rather than Christian “conversion,” then how might we drift unwittingly and yet institutionally toward this outcome?
Well, the devolution first might involve ambivalent appointments to levelized dicasteries, as in demotion of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith and then merger of culture with education? Second, with “facilitator” bishops (imams?), perhaps an exercise in “inverted pyramid” consensus-building? In Islam this option is called Ijtihad. Third, when the potpourri of recommendations is received on high, then possibly strategic silences (as with the dubia)? And, fourth, synodality/ijtihad as part of an indeterminant “endless journey”? Islamic ijtihad is not binding on future generations, but can be “abrogated,” as under Western process theology now feeding on the plagiarized language of Thomas Kuhn’s natural sciences: “paradigm shifts.”
Who needs, yes, “not-a-parliament” Synodality when you can have Ijtihad? But, as we say, and in freedom from “mindsets,” only a thought experiment…