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.
[…]
The Catechism of the Council of Trent remained unchanged for centuries.
This one? Ha.
The late Cardinal Avery Dulles warned that if the Church changed it’s 2000 year old teaching on the moral permissibility of the death penalty, it would open the door to changing other doctrines previously considered unchangeable as well (abortion, euthanasia, contraception, the inviolability of marriage, a male only clergy, Papal Infallibility). This change is dangerous, poorly thought out and could potentially spell disaster for the Church.
On a possible shortened path to personal conversion, Samuel Johnson offered this earlier prudential judgment: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully” (The Life of Samuel Johnson). One might be reminded, here, of St. Therese of Lisieux who discovered her vocation in the Church by praying for a sentenced convict who then converted seconds before his execution by the guillotine.
And then there’s John Goeghan, notorious child-rapist priest, who was not executed by the court but still was hanged—in his cell by another convict during the first year of his 10-year sentence. In an imperfect world even a merciful prison term can turn into a de facto death sentence.
So, do conundrums remain?—How do we now protect the dignity of, say, a prison guard’s life against fatal assault be convicts who are already serving life sentences, now with no further deterrent penalties?
Asked about the restrictive wording regarding capital punishment in the earlier Catechism (1994), the then Cardinal Ratzinger responded: “Clearly the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles…but has simply deepened (their) application…in the context of present-day historical circumstances” (National Review, July 10, 1995, p. 14; First Things, Oct. 1995, 83). And, in a July 2004 letter to (former!) Cardinal McCarrick, he wrote: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia….There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” As an aside, my memory is that the larger correspondence was widely circulated among bishops in America, but with this cover letter detached.
Concurring with the recent announcement by the Vatican, the late Jesuit Cardinal Avery Dulles clearly opposed the death penalty, but he also concluded that traditional teachings on “retributive justice” and “vindication of the moral order” (not to be conflated with vengeance, and mentioned elsewhere in the Catechism) were not reversed by (now St.) Pope John Paul II’s strong “prudential judgment” regarding the actual use of capital punishment. He noted that the pope simply remained silent on these other teachings. (“Seven Reasons America Shouldn’t Execute”, National Catholic Register, 3-24-02). As commentaries proliferate on the solidified Vatican position from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Dulles’ essay would be a good read. (The problem of false convictions would seem less an issue, given the extensive use now of nearly infallible DNA evidence.)
We knew this was coming.
“Inadmissible”
Pope Francis’s yet another end-run around doctrine?
Twenty centuries where the Church did not have the truth about the “inviolability and dignity” of the person but She is enlightened now???
But not “intrinsically evil”…
Yeah, I don’t think a new teaching can be snuck into the Catechism like that, with no reference to any authoritative document, especially since it contradicts all prior magisterial teaching. This is pretty clear evidence that Bergoglio is an antipope and that Benedict XVI is still the reigning Pontiff.
The Charles Manson’s of our age are fed and housed for $70,000 per annum. Could those funds be better utilized? Not being keen on the chair, the noose or the firing squad myself, I nevertheless characterize this last “word of wisdom” from the Domus Sanctae Marthae as ninety-nine percent of the rest of the noise from there – merely more left-wing knee jerk Jesuit balderdash. Yes the broken clock is right twice a day but this isn’t one of those times.
Credence squandered is not easily regained, and rest assured squandered it be. Start cleaning house – beginning at the very tippy-top so we can get on with business. No other topic is so pressing as that right now. It’s called proper prioritization.
Get it? Get with it. Putting it off to the next millennium (or the next pontificate — whatever comes first) won’t due.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. Either way I can live with it. What is of deep concern is change to dogma. “Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (John Paul II Evangelium vitae 56.69 Cf Gen 4:10). The issue with John Paul II and the death penalty is that he was against it. John Paul II made it virtually impossible to exercise the death penalty in Evangelium by contrasting “absolute necessity” with “practically nonexistent”. Either something exists or it doesn’t. “Practical nonexistence is measured v Nonexistent which is an oxymoron. If we can’t practice it then what is it? However this apparent contradiction is conditional by saying “if not”, which leaves the slimmest of possibles open. So the Pontiff virtually changed the doctrine without changing it. The difference with Pope Francis’ revision of the Catechism is that it changes a dogma. My concern then is this highly contested doctrine is a testing ground for change of other more essential doctrine if the Pope’s argument that “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.” This is a rationale that differs from “absolutely necessary” effectively saying the traditional doctrine was wrong placing dogma within the purview of cultural change.
“The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”
The wilful killing of a human being which attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person is called a murder. So, if Pope Francis is correct, the Church for the past 2,000 years, and the tradition of revelation from the time of Noah through Moses and beyond, has condoned a sin which cries to heaven for vengeance.
You’re as sick as Francis. Read the book of Numbers.
Perhaps some of the cardinals could submit a dubia, pointing out that this new statement is contradicting all of Church history. I’m sure the Pope would answer that, right?
If I sound bitter, it is because I am. It would certainly be nice to be living in a time when one could feel confident that the Pope was not actually trying to destroy the Church.
The Holy Spirit is strong in the Holy Father. God bless our leader and his flock.
Would the Holy Spirit deliberately confuse and muddle the faithful; going so far as to refuse to clarify Church teachings?!?
I think you made a typo in your name. It’s spelled “gullible,” not “gibbon.”
The Pontiff is doing yeoman’s work in dispelling the old myth that all Jesuits are intellectuals. That’s a fact lost on his sycophants.
I see this as within the realm of “development” rather than “change”. The Church always strives to go deeper into the mind of Christ and to bring Christ forth in time until time will be no more. If we ask if Christ would give the death sentence or if He would inject the poison, pull the trigger, turn on the electricity what would our answer *have to be* if we put ourselves in the place of Christ??? The question of the death penalty is not addressing the immediate defense of the life of the “innocent” (ie you shoot at one who is shooting at you, etc) but looking at the simple fact that the one who did do the crime is no danger to anyone once they are incarcerated correctly/securely (though we understand some do manage—always have/always will—to find ways to do more harm). Many will repent and finish out their sentences and even be in Heaven before some of us who think we’re not so bad? The Church exists to teach Christ and I do believe She’s doing that. We align ourselves with Christ and His holy Church; Christ does not align with our opinions. It will take prayer and striving to do His holy will perhaps for us to fully understand and embrace this.
“I see this as within the realm of “development” rather than “change”. The Church always strives to go deeper into the mind of Christ and to bring Christ forth in time until time will be no more. If we ask if Christ would give the death sentence or if He would inject the poison, pull the trigger, turn on the electricity what would our answer *have to be* if we put ourselves in the place of Christ???”
Developments do not flatly contradict what came before; change does.
We don’t have to ask whether Christ would give the death sentence. Have you never read the Bible? Like the story of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5? Not to mention, for example, the deaths of the firstborn sons of Egypt at the time of the Passover. Or do you think God the Father cruelly did something that was wrong, while Jesus said, “Oh, gosh, Dad, I really don’t think we should do that, because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person?”
But what about infallibility in Faith and Morals?
If this ‘teaching’ is only being fulfilled, where was the Church up to this time in not knowing the truth about the full dignity of the person?
While I am generally against the death penalty, my initial reaction is that this pronouncement of the pope is not only wacko and non-official, but also so very dangerously confusing to all the people of the world.
It’s not the place of bishops to decide about the particular conditions for using the death penalty, and they should limit their statements to general principles regarding just punishment and fairness to all.
In general, it seems that so much damage has been done by bishops inserting their personal opinions as settled doctrine. This confusion has caused people to generally take the teachings of the Catholic Church as a matter of individual preference, with the result of so many lives devastated by promiscuity and perversion and birth control and abortion — and ultimately the tragic breakdown of the family and the aching loneliness of western society.
Our bishops and priests in America — perhaps the majority — seem to have lost their nerve in defending the moral teachings of Jesus as truly helpful for us in this life, as well as preparing us for eternal happiness in the next life. The ways of Jesus are the ways of true love. The ways of the secular world are selfishness and lies disguised as love.
So it is that some bishops defend the lives of guilty murderers to a fault with loud and showy proclamations, while neglecting the lives of innocent victims unto death by the faintness of their protests. These bishops seem so eager to be trendy and popular in the ways of the world, and so ashamed of Jesus as found in the Catholic Church which is his gift to us.
Yes, it is true that the most vile criminal retains his dignity as a human always. He may have acted as an animal, or worse, but no person ever should be considered an animal. Let us hope and pray for all persons to be saved no matter how horrible their sins, in the spirit of the divine mercy of Jesus.
This doesn’t mean that the death penalty is never to be allowed. I’d sincerely prefer it to not be applied again, but wonder if it may be valid for those criminals who persist in preying on other prisoners with physical and sexual assaults, or who continue to commit serious crimes in society through lackeys.
Also, the governments of different countries should have discretion to assess their own national situations in reference to the application of the death penalty.
If our bishops really want a voice in the wider society, they will know their God-given place in presenting transcendent principles and not personal opinions. Instead of telling politicians how to do their jobs, our bishops should be considering how well they are fulfilling their own roles as representatives of the Good Shepherd — for so very many are being ravaged by wolves for lack of strong teaching and stout encouragement.
The resulting casualties are breathtaking in their statistical numbers, and heartbreaking to behold in each particular personal sadness. The secular world is darkness and death and despair; it is Jesus alone who is light and life and love.