Re Against Zen. Divided By a Wall of China

Dialogue between the two cardinals on the Sino-Vatican Agreement is urgently needed

It is with great pain that I write these words having watched two cardinals whom I have the honor of knowing, two witnesses of the faith and coworkers of the pontiff in the mission of the Church, have a very public discussion without perhaps ever having spoken directly to each other (see letters of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re and Cardinal Joseph Zen Zekiun). It leaves me with the impression that in the Vatican, as in the rest of the world, the affirmation of one’s own truth or rather one's point of view, without ever seeking to listen to the other, is what matters most, thus making it rather difficult to reach any synthesis.

Card. Zen has told me that in his visits to Rome he often found himself in front of a wall of silence.

Precisely during the pontificate of Francis, who so often stresses that "the whole is superior to the part" (E.G., nn. 234-237), two opposing and impermeable fronts have established themselves in the Church: traditional and liberal; pro-China and anti-China; pro-Agreement and anti-Agreement... It would seem that everything can be assimilated into two fundamental parties: pro-Francis and anti-Francis, so much so that the expression of a minimum perplexity on a fact or on the life of the Church is immediately judged a priori: is it pro or anti Bergoglio?

Even Card. Re’s letter risks falling into this pattern when he says that the "very serious claims" of Card. Zen "contest the same pastoral guidance of the Holy Father". Yet even Card. Re recognizes that in China "on a doctrinal level" and "on a practical one ... tensions and painful situations remain", which is what the emeritus bishop of Hong Kong highlights.

The necessity for dialogue is evidently clear, to find a synthesis between the position of the Card. Re, according to which the Sino-Vatican Agreement is positive and "at the present time, it seemed the only possible one", and that of Card. Zen, who is close to "all my desolate brothers and sisters" who are under pressure, violations, expulsion, suffocation and destruction every day. They include the faithful of underground communities, but also many priests and bishops of the official Church who see no improvement in religious freedom after the Agreement.

It is time for the two sides, pro-Agreement and anti-Agreement to talk and find a common position, also in view of the deadline of September 21, 2020, when this agreement expires. If it is necessary to renew it, it must be greatly improved, correcting some discrepancies in the one already signed in 2018.

1. As I have said before, the Agreement - which provides for the "last word" of the Pope on the appointment of new bishops - has a positive aspect because it somehow links the appointments of Chinese prelates to the pontiff. And this is a new fact that has not appeared since the days of Mao. But the doubt remains whether this bond is merely an external "blessing" because it is not clear whether the pope has a right of veto and whether this right is permanent or temporary. It should also be explained why there has been no episcopal ordination in China since the Agreement. The two ordinations that took place in 2019 had in fact already been decided long before and we cannot lie - as the so-called "pro-Francis" press did - saying that they "are the result of the agreement". From this point of view, it must be said that the Agreement, even if it has a positive aspect, has never been put into practice.

2. The requirement of belonging to an "independent Church", as suggested by the "Pastoral Guidelines" needs clarification. If, in fact, for the Vatican it is clear that only "political independence" is spoken of, ambiguity lies in the Party which continues to demand independence "tout court", without distinction. So much so that in joining the "independent Church" it is required that bishops and priests must not "contact foreign powers, welcome foreigners, accept any delegation from foreign religious communities or institutions". In addition, the "package" of the "independent Church" includes denying "religious education to minors" and not carrying out any religious activity outside the boundaries of the registered place (no extreme unctions in hospitals, nor prayers or blessings at home , ...). That bishops and priests accept these things with obviousness is worrying.

3. It is clear that the situation of the Church in China after the Agreement has worsened: churches closed or destroyed; crosses torn from the bell towers or from the walls of the churches; domes razed to the ground; ancient statues of sanctuaries seized; religious signs at home or outside erased; priests driven out of their ministry. Is it possible that the Catholic Church and the Vatican remain silent while many brothers and sisters suffer such violence? Reporting is often the only way to save these brothers and sisters of ours.

I once asked a member of the Chinese Communist Party why they used so many resources to control a small group of Catholics in China (less than 1% of the population). He replied: "We are afraid of your unity." To the extent that we keep silent, that we are divided and that we contest each other, we play the Party’s game of "divide and conquer".

Sad to be motivated by fear alone. Unity of 1%? Absurd and stupid.
O, that we could be free of Chinese cheap marketing. But that would require Americans to use common sense instead of $$ense.

In China, 1% is 14MM people. 3% comes out to 43MM people. In the 1700s, it took 3% of the colonists to overthrow British rule and establish these United States. What do you think 43MM people could do? Especially if they decided to turn violent? Those numbers certainly aren't nothing.

Well now, it all depends on what the OTHER side has as weapons.
1. The chopper gunfire took care of MANY of the enemy. THAT was the "bigger" gun...the MUCH, MUCH bigger gun. First encounter by the US Army with the Vietnamese. See Col. Hal Moore, 1965.

2. To the Japanese ATOMIC BOMB #1 didn't change the minds of those running the war. ATOMIC BOMB #2 DID change their minds.

3. Since the Chinese government ended ONE demonstration with the killing of ALL the protesters, they COULD do it again. Civilians are no match for tanks, flame throwers and machine guns. But, it's all moot since we won't ever, ever, ever hear the truth from the Chinese government anyway.
The Chinese have no "second amendmentm" thus they are NOT armed.

4. In 1968 there were student riots and demonstrations at the University of Mexico, in Mexico City and El Presidente sent the army and the soldiers SHOT DOWN ALL OF THE PROTESTERS...ALL OF THEM.
All demonstrations ended, for good.

Well now, it all depends on what the OTHER side has as weapons.

1. The chopper gunfire took care of MANY of the enemy. THAT was the "bigger" gun...the MUCH, MUCH bigger gun. First encounter by the US Army with the Vietnamese. See Col. Hal Moore, 1965.

2. To the Japanese ATOMIC BOMB #1 didn't change the minds of those running the war. ATOMIC BOMB #2 DID change their minds.

3. Since the Chinese government ended ONE demonstration with the killing of ALL the protesters, they COULD do it again. Civilians are no match for tanks, flame throwers and machine guns. But, it's all moot since we won't ever, ever, ever hear the truth from the Chinese government anyway. The Chinese have no "second amendmentm" thus they are NOT armed.

Sure, I don't disagree with that. But it is harder to oppress a certain subset when they're spread amongst your populace, and are united and thus likely proselytizing and adding more and more converts. If there's no major demonstrations, There's no easily defined group to put down. And it there starts being too much collateral damage on the rest of the population, eventually there will be too many pissed off people to simply kill off. And you start pissing off all the farmers who supply the cities? What happens when the cities start starving, are they going to simply sit and die while the politicians/soldiers are the only ones fed?
Sure, Chinese culture and society is not set up very well for a revolution to have a good chance, but at a certain tipping point, it very well could happen. And once the truth starts coming out about all the new coronavirus in China, I think there's gonna be a good bunch of unrest off of that. There's likely a lot of deaths that China has ignored / caused by their actions.

And, in today's world, every country is pretty nosy/involved in every other country's affairs. There's a reason China didn't just go in and shoot all the Hong Kong protestors right away. I'm sure they would do it, but there's a lot more restraint than there would have been 20, 30, 50 years ago.

But it is harder to oppress a certain subset when they're spread amongst your populace, and are united and thus likely proselytizing and adding more and more converts.

Well, you'd better be careful of those "certain subsets."
Any how do YOU know that they are united?
And WHY would they be more likely to proselytize than any other subset? No one knows what any "subset" will do, let alone predict that they WILL proselytize.
Finally, how do you know that they will even CARE about politics?

The numbers of our voting public in this country are ABYSSMALY low.

Election Voting Age Population (VAP) % Turnout of VAP
2004 219,553,000 55.7%
2008 229,945,000 58.2%
2012 235,248,000 54.9%
2016 250,056,000 55.7%

==================================
That is SO few.

The state and local VAPs and percentages are even worse.
Some local, non-presidential VAPs and percentages drop to less than 15%.

Some people are just sick to death of voting BECAUSE you just can’t seem to get these lifetime ASSHATS out of office!!!

Hey, that's the spirit. Blame everyone else...the "ASSHATS." There is a plethora of people who feel like you do and DON'T vote. But that sure as heck doesn't stop them from complaining and whining.

NO ONE is forced to vote. It's a PRIVILEGE! It should be taken as that.

I lived in foreign countries for some years but ALWAYS voted. Mind you, if you live out of country you can only vote in the national elections but you can still vote. I did!

Any how do YOU know that they are united?

I don't, and they aren't. But the initial scenario in this conversation was the beatdown on Catholics in particular, and the Church's lack of unity in China. As long as a group within your populace is infighting, they won't be looking outward recruiting or causing much other trouble.

And WHY would they be more likely to proselytize than any other subset? No one knows what any "subset" will do, let alone predict that they WILL proselytize.

They don't in particular, but in general, any group that manages to become more united will have the time and resources to look outward. But what religion do you know of that doesn't want to gain more followers? Some, like Buddhism, may not actively try to grow, but every single one of them wants to become the ultimate single religion of all people. They just have different methods for achieving that.

The numbers of our voting public in this country are ABYSSMALY low.

Um, are we still discussing China? because there's no way China only has 250MM of voting age, out of 1.4B people. If anything, their demographics are currently middle-top heavy due to their child policies. They should have a higher percentage of voting age adults, when compared to these US or other countries.

I don't, and they aren't. But the initial scenario in this conversation was the beatdown on Catholics in particular, and the Church's lack of unity in China. As long as a group within your populace is infighting, they won't be looking outward recruiting or causing much other trouble.

They don't in particular, but in general, any group that manages to become more united will have the time and resources to look outward. But what religion do you know of that doesn't want to gain more followers? Some, like Buddhism, may not actively try to grow, but every single one of them wants to become the ultimate single religion of all people. They just have different methods for achieving that.

Again you are assuming that a group of people will have more time to look outward. How do you know THAT? Why would you assume that the group WANTS to look outward?
Also the Chinese are the earth's most clannish people and they haven't, as a rule, wanted to "look outward."

As for Buddhism, there IS no god. Buddha was Sidhartha Gautama, a Hindu. The Chinese took him on and changed his appearance to look Chinese. What does that say about the Chinese? Not much good, I'm afraid.

How in the WORLD do you know that "every single one of them wants to become the ultimate single religion of all people. Lol. That is hubris...you KNOW what "every single one of them wants...."

And, by the way, how do YOU know that "they just have different methods for that"??? More mind reading?! Or are you using a crystal ball, Tarot cards, palm readings???

Svartalfiar, I am done with you. You are full of baloney...erudite-SOUNDING baloney, but baloney nonetheless.

PAX TIBI.

Therefore, you have relied on the Chinese press to tell you about their Catholics. Are you SURE that what the Chinese press is saying is true ?

Also, you are assuming that if there SHOULD be infighting "they won't be looking outward." How do YOU know what "they" will do? You must be a mind reader.

The Chinese press? There's all sorts of places with articles about the current state of affairs between the Vatican and the CCP, and the 'official' church and the underground Church. Epoch Times may have Chinese sources, but the ruling Chinese party hates them so much their website is blocked in China. Church Militant? Vatican News? Catholic News Agency? None of those are Chinese-owned, but they certainly report on the state of Chinese Catholic affairs. And then the website that started this thread? It's Italian - definitely not an official Chinese site.

As for the 'looking outward', it's a basic concept. Take the Dem debates for example - they spent most of them piling on Bloomberg. Sure, there was some anti-Trump talk, but not that much. Once they 'unite' and have a single nominee? It'll be all Trump, all the time. For any situation, if you're busy fighting internally, you have less time to do anything outside of your group. If the group is in step, much more attention can be focused on other matters. I don't know how I can break it down simpler for you.

Again you are assuming that a group of people will have more time to look outward. How do you know THAT? Why would you assume that the group WANTS to look outward?

Again, as in my reply to your other post, it's basic. less infighting = more time and resources to put to use elsewhere. And they're a Christian group, they try to help people find Jesus. Name one that doesn't try to grow their numbers. Go ahead. I've been waiting for a couple posts, and you still can't.

Also the Chinese are the earth's most clannish people and they haven't, as a rule, wanted to "look outward."

Then how did the Church grow there at all? Why isn't every single Chinese person the same? Despite all the clampdown coming from the Communist Party, the Church in China has been growing. And if you want to talk about Chinese in general, and not Chinese Catholics in particular, then please explain Chinese actions in the South China Sea, WITHOUT using the reasoning that they're trying to expand. Why do they have so many people and $$ moving into Africa? What are they doing with Japan and the Senkakus? What's the point of the Belt and Road Action Plan?

As for Buddhism, there IS no god. Buddha was Sidhartha Gautama, a Hindu. The Chinese took him on and changed his appearance to look Chinese. What does that say about the Chinese? Not much good, I'm afraid.

How in the WORLD do you know that "every single one of them wants to become the ultimate single religion of all people. Lol. That is hubris...you KNOW what "every single one of them wants...."

Buddha not being a god, or the Chinese appropriation, has NOTHING to do with the fact that it's adherents believe they are the one true religion, and therefore everyone should be following them.
That's not hubris at all - it's a simple fact based on what religions are. I ask again, can you name a single religion that is closed to new followers?

And, by the way, how do YOU know that "they just have different methods for that"??? More mind reading?! Or are you using a crystal ball, Tarot cards, palm readings???

Um, no. I just read the news and have at least a grade-school understanding of the world. How do Muslims expand? They generally do it by force and the sword. How do Christians expand? Mostly by proselytizing, but through history some force (Americas for example). Some go door-to-door, some stand on the street corner with signs, some simply offer scriptures at the soup kitchen. How do other religions expand? same thing - mostly by proselytizing and obtaining new converts. Some may not actively try to obtain new followers, but accept people who try to apply.

Knowing about these methods doesn't require a crystal ball or talking to the dead.

Again you are assuming that a group of people will have more time to look outward. How do you know THAT? Why would you assume that the group WANTS to look outward? Again, as in my reply to your other post, it's basic. less infighting = more time and resources to put to use elsewhere. And they're a Christian group, they try to help people find Jesus. Name one that doesn't try to grow their numbers. Go ahead. I've been waiting for a couple posts, and you still can't. Also the Chinese are the earth's most clannish people and they haven't, as a rule, wanted to "look outward." Then how did the Church grow there at all? Why isn't every single Chinese person the same? Despite all the clampdown coming from the Communist Party, the Church in China has been growing. And if you want to talk about Chinese in general, and not Chinese Catholics in particular, then please explain Chinese actions in the South China Sea, WITHOUT using the reasoning that they're trying to expand. Why do they have so many people and $$ moving into Africa? What are they doing with Japan and the Senkakus? What's the point of the Belt and Road Action Plan? As for Buddhism, there IS no god. Buddha was Sidhartha Gautama, a Hindu. The Chinese took him on and changed his appearance to look Chinese. What does that say about the Chinese? Not much good, I'm afraid. How in the WORLD do you know that "every single one of them wants to become the ultimate single religion of all people. Lol. That is hubris...you KNOW what "every single one of them wants...." Buddha not being a god, or the Chinese appropriation, has NOTHING to do with the fact that it's adherents believe they are the one true religion, and therefore everyone should be following them. That's not hubris at all - it's a simple fact based on what religions are. I ask again, can you name a single religion that is closed to new followers? And, by the way, how do YOU know that "they just have different methods for that"??? More mind reading?! Or are you using a crystal ball, Tarot cards, palm readings??? Um, no. I just read the news and have at least a grade-school understanding of the world. How do Muslims expand? They generally do it by force and the sword. How do Christians expand? Mostly by proselytizing, but through history some force (Americas for example). Some go door-to-door, some stand on the street corner with signs, some simply offer scriptures at the soup kitchen. How do other religions expand? same thing - mostly by proselytizing and obtaining new converts. Some may not actively try to obtain new followers, but accept people who try to apply. Knowing about these methods doesn't require a crystal ball or talking to the dead

PAX TIBI.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.