The controversy surrounding the renewal of the agreement between the Holy See and Beijing on the provisional appointment of bishops in China continues. In a speech on October 3, Cardinal Peitro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, said that “during his tenure, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI approved the draft agreement between China and the Holy See, which was finally signed by the current Pope Francis in 2018,” in response to questions and opposition. In response, Hong Kong’s Cardinal Emeritus Chan Yat-kwan said in an article published on September 9 that Parolin was “telling a series of lies with his eyes open.
Parolin gave a speech on Saturday commemorating the 150th anniversary of the arrival of Italian missionaries in China, and gave an authoritative response to criticism of the Sino-Vatican agreement. In his speech, he said that the Vatican’s strategy for dialogue with China is the same. He continued, “After the Communist Party came to power and expelled foreign missionaries, Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) tried to relaunch the course of dialogue with Beijing; during his term of office, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI approved the draft agreement on the appointment of bishops between China and the Vatican, which was finally signed by the current Pope Francis in 2018. “The agreement is only about the appointment of bishops and does not touch on any other aspect of Church life in China. The Sino-Vatican agreement is only about the appointment of bishops and does not touch at all on other aspects of Church life in China, not on political issues,” said Parolin. He suggested that the agreement was worth renewing because a two-year agreement is too short and it is difficult to assess its value.
Also on this topic, Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s minister for Relations with States, said in an interview with the Catholic media outlet “Crux” on 6 June, “I understand the criticism. But he stressed that the agreement with Beijing was signed as a last resort. Without Beijing’s participation in the appointment of bishops, the Vatican would also be excluded. He said, “(If Beijing is not given an important role in the selection of bishops) though not immediately, but in ten years’ time, we will find that there will be few (Chinese) bishops who will be in touch with the Pope.” He also confirmed that the Vatican has asked Beijing for a two-year contract extension. But Beijing has yet to respond. If Beijing has not made a statement by the end of the month, the agreement will automatically be null and void.
In response to Parolin’s statement, Chen Rijun posted a blog post on Friday titled “For Love of Truth, I Cannot Keep Silent”. He pointed out that Parolin’s speech on March 3 was “disgusting”. He said that Parolin was neither stupid nor ignorant, but “told a series of lies with his eyes open. In his view, the most disgusting part of Parolin’s speech that day was his claim that “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI approved the draft agreement on the appointment of bishops in China during his term of office. He added that Parolin knew that the loving and humble Benedict XVI would not speak out against Parolin, and that he had openly insulted the former Pope by spreading rumors.
Parolin knew that he was lying, and I knew that he was a liar and would tell the truth, but he still lied shamelessly and boldly,” Chen said. I’m afraid he’s not even afraid to violate his own conscience.” He added that he was concerned that Parolin “doesn’t even have faith. Chen Rijun mentioned that Parolin had said in a memorial to his predecessor, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, that “the choice of a bishop is not the choice of a gladiator in the Colosseum” and that he did not expect bishops to challenge government authority or enter the political arena. Agostino Casaroli is recognized for his success in establishing a Catholic system in the communist countries of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, culminating in the creation of the Holy See.
In response, Chen Rijun wrote to Parolin, asking whether he intended to disparage the late Polish Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński and Hungarian Archbishop József Mindszenty, who were known for their efforts to protect the faith and oppose centralization of power in the last century. Parolin, however, only wrote back to Chen, telling him that he apologized if he was dissatisfied.
In a subsequent article, Chen Rijun systematically refuted Parolin’s speech from a historical perspective, and accused Parolin of seriously distorting the recent history of Catholic development in China. Parolin claimed that the breakdown of relations between China and the Vatican in recent decades was due to the failure of former Pope Pius XII’s attempts at dialogue with China, which led to a loss of trust between the two sides, but made no mention of the Chinese Communist Party’s labeling of missionaries as “imperialist oppressors” and the expulsion of Vatican representatives from China, which led to the imprisonment of many priests. Chen Rijun said that, in retrospect, half of the Chinese Catholics were sent to labor camps by the authorities and the other half were imprisoned and tortured for ten years during the Cultural Revolution. He said, “Some people say that we must forget the past and look forward, but we can forgive, but we should not forget history, because history is the teacher of life.
According to Chen, some say that the result of the Sino-Vatican agreement was that the Pope became the head of the Catholic Church in China, and that the Pope has the final authority to appoint bishops in China, but why not publish it in black and white to convince people? He stressed that the agreement must be seen in black and white in order to be convincing. Even so, he wrote, “(Some say) with the agreement, there will be no more illegitimate bishops! Can the words of totalitarian regimes be trusted? Don’t you remember the treaty with Napoleon and the agreement with the Nazi government?” Finally, he also talks about the loss of freedom of speech in Hong Kong with the release of the National Security Law, and he hears that even the appointment of the Bishop of Hong Kong needs the blessing of Beijing, and that he can only pray to God and Our Lady to shou’wei their faithful in the face of enemies and dangers.
Recent Comments