D.E.P. Gianni Criveller *
Second and last part of the comment by Fr. Gianni Criveller, PIME missionary and sinologist, on the second renewal of the agreement on the appointment of bishops. “The Agreement is being used as a tool to put pressure on priests. The wonders of what is happening in China’s Catholic communities are happening not because of religious politics, but in spite of it.” In this link, you can access the first part.
Rome () – Within the framework of the second renewal of the Agreement between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China on the appointment of bishops, there is a particularly painful issue: the civil registration of members of the official Church and of priests and priests. bishops belonging to unregistered communities (also called ‘underground’ in Chinese) who wish to come out of the “underground”. Without this registration, pastoral activities are impossible in the church, in an open way. After the signing of the agreement, the Chinese government decided to require such registration of people (and not only places of worship, as was the case before). The text of the declaration to be signed includes the affirmation of the independence of the Catholic Church in China. Bishops and priests are pressured by the authorities with the absolutely false statement that the Secret Agreement with the Holy See encourages such registration. The fact that the text remains secret also has a negative implication for Chinese Catholics: they cannot question the version of the agreement provided by unscrupulous officials.
The Holy See intervened in the matter with a statement on June 28, 2019. In the document, the Holy See says that “independence” should be understood as “autonomy.” But he admits that, for reasons of conscience, priests and bishops can refuse to sign. However, those who have not signed have faced reprisals from the authorities, which complicate the daily lives of those who do not submit in many ways. For example, the mobile phone application that allows shopping and many other tasks of daily life becomes unfeasible: in China, today, almost all monetary transactions are carried out electronically.
Among those who did register, some are criticized by relatives and members of the community who oppose the registration, considering it unacceptable that a sincere Catholic could sign a declaration affirming the independence of the Church. Among those who agreed to enroll, many regretted it. Perhaps, like Saint Paul, they felt freer when they were chained for being consistent with their faith.
Among Chinese observers and friends I spoke with, this thought emerged: If the Holy See rejects the deal, it exposes Chinese Catholics to even greater hardship and retaliation. So the deal is a lesser evil, designed to prevent greater evils. Unfortunately, I’m afraid this is the case. However, if this were true, it would show that this is not a good faith agreement between two different parties, distant, even adversaries, but eager to find common ground. It would be an understanding in which one party prevails and the other suffers. If so, the agreement would have a paradoxical result, namely, making the Church not more, but less free.
However, there are too benevolent portrayals of the Catholic situation in China in recent years and the claim that, in general, the Agreement works. It seems to us that things are more complex. Certainly, wonderful things are not lacking among Chinese Catholics: not because of religious politics, but in spite of it; not because of the success of the Agreement, but because of the admirable resilience of Chinese Catholics.
And the dialogue with China, as with any interlocutor, should not mean giving up the words of truth about numerous unacceptable facts: the lack of religious freedom and human and political rights; the repression of rights to which the peoples of Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia are subjected; the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong; the dangers for Taiwan.
We have often wondered why China renews the Agreement with the Holy See, but then makes its application extremely difficult, or applies it just enough to induce the Vatican not to reject it. The question is why China reaches an agreement with the Vatican, but makes life more difficult for Catholics than in the last 30 years. The fear is that the nation’s leaders are not sincere in this dialogue, and that they have a different political agenda, other than honoring their commitments to the Holy See.
There is no doubt that this agreement represents a significant gain for Beijing in terms of image. Pope Francis is critical of the powers of the West and open to the reasons of the emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, hitherto penalized in the international context. An agreement with this pontiff can only be a strength in the community of nations. This is a legitimate objective on the part of the Chinese government, but unfortunately it does not imply granting better living conditions to Catholics.
Another point of concern is that the Chinese authorities see the agreement with the Vatican as an instrument for further isolation of Taiwan. The Holy See is the only world authority of some prestige that maintains a formal diplomatic relationship with Taipei (although specifically, quite relegated, judging by the behavior of Vatican diplomacy). Reunification with the island is a priority in Xi Jinping’s nationalist policy, which is why China would like the Holy See to eliminate all recognition of Taiwan, so that the island flies to “the motherland” sooner or later, by good or bad. by bad
It is true that the agreement between the Holy See and China came about without the Vatican having to break its relations with Taiwan. This is a positive fact. It is a pastoral and not a diplomatic agreement, but it still has a political character. We hope that a way can be found so that the Holy See does not abandon Taiwan even though it establishes closer relations with China.
Pope Francis affirmed that, even when there is a risk of being deceived and despite everything, there is no other way than dialogue. We can only agree with this. There is no other way than dialogue. And the dialogue with obstinate interlocutors is an even more worthy challenge. And it is admirable that the pontiff wants to overcome his interlocutors with generosity and sincerity and the difficulties they pose.
When we point out the difficulties of this dialogue, it is not because we want to interrupt it. It is out of consistency with the information we receive from our brothers in China, and out of respect for the difficult situation they find themselves in, and that they tell us with apprehension and pain. For our part, we pray wholeheartedly, and we commit ourselves to the best of our ability, so that the Pope’s wishes for China and the Catholic community of that great and beloved country may be fulfilled. We and all Catholics who love the Pope and China want the same.
* Missionary and sinologist of the PIME
(The first part of this article was published on Saturday, October 22, 2022. Click here to read)
