• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • HOME
  • ABOUT CHINA
    • NEWS
    • TESTIMONIES
    • OP-EDS
    • FEATURED
    • GLOSSARY
    • CHINA PERSECUTION MAP
  • FROM THE WORLD
    • NEWS
    • OP-EDS
    • FEATURED
    • TESTIMONIES
  • INTERVIEWS
  • DOCUMENTS AND TRANSLATIONS
    • DOCUMENTS
    • THE TAI JI MEN CASE
    • TRANSLATIONS
  • EVENTS
  • ABOUT
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • TOPICS

Bitter Winter

A magazine on religious liberty and human rights

three friends of winter
Home / China / Op-eds China

Benedict XVI’s “Non-Negotiable Principles” for a Dialogue with China

01/05/2023Massimo Introvigne |

Did Pope Francis radically change his predecessor’s position on how to deal with the Chinese Communist Party?

by Massimo Introvigne*

*An Italian version of this article was published in the daily newspaper “il Foglio”

Benedict XVI and Cardinal Zen. From Twitter.
Benedict XVI and Cardinal Zen. From Twitter.

When the Holy See and China were getting ready to sign the Vatican-China deal of 2018, later renewed twice in 2020 and 2022, Cardinal Joseph Zen, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, published on his blog a very harsh attack against Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin. He accused him of manipulating Benedict XVI’s “Letter to the Bishops, priests, consecrated men and women, and lay faithful of the Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China” of May 27, 2007, and even falsifying its text.

In essence, Zen accused the Holy See of inventing a nonexistent continuity between Benedict XVI’s and Pope Francis’ attitude toward China. According to Zen, Pope Francis and the Secretariat of State were instead betraying the text and spirit of Benedict XVI’s famous “Letter.”

Who was right? Was there continuity or discontinuity in the policy on China of Benedict XVI and Francis? The 2007 “Letter” was a long-drafted document and the result of lengthy discussions between the Pope and the Secretariat of State, so much so that it was published together with a “Declaration,” an “Explanatory Note,” and a “Compendium.” We know today that the text was also the result of discrete discussions between Vatican diplomacy and China.

Certainly, the “Letter” humored the Chinese Communist Party on three points of no small importance. It revoked pastoral directives, both public and discreet, that authorized forms of civil disobedience to the state. It expressed willingness to negotiate with the regime on the ecclesiastical provinces, which perhaps signaled between the lines a certain readiness for dialogue even on the issue of Taiwan. And it did not rule out an agreement with the government on the future choices of bishops, on the understanding that any appointment would always and only rest with the Pope.

Unofficially, an openness to the solution in force in Vietnam, and which had illustrious historical precedents in Europe, was filtering through, according to which the Church would submit to the state a shortlist of candidates, among whom the Chinese government would express its preference.

Certainly, there was a more conciliatory attitude here than in the pontificate of John Paul II, who from personal experience in Poland was much more distrustful of Communist governments. On the ground, this was accompanied by the appointment, in dioceses where this was possible (thus not in all of them), of the same person as bishop of the Patriotic Catholic Church founded in 1957, controlled by the regime and considered schismatic by the Holy See, and of the “underground” Church loyal to Rome. In practice, the difference between the two Churches remained but in some dioceses the two organizations were united by having the same bishop.

Benedict XVI in May 2007, when he announced the publication of the letter to Chinese Catholics. Credits.
Benedict XVI in May 2007, when he announced the publication of the letter to Chinese Catholics. Credits.

However, Benedict XVI, the Pope of “non-negotiable values” added a reminder that the structure of the Church should remain “Petrine” and “apostolic” in China as everywhere else. The 2007 letter noted the presence in China of three types of bishops: those of the “underground” church, who were faithful to Rome; those of the Patriotic Catholic Church who had, however, been secretly received into communion with Rome (although they had not always disclosed this publicly, and now Benedict XVI urged them to do so); and the “Patriotic” bishops who had never been reconciled with Rome.

The Chinese faithful, according to the “Letter,” could lawfully attend the Masses of the bishops in the first and second categories, and of the priests ordained by them. Those of the bishops and priests in the third category were valid but illicit, and the faithful could attend them only when they could not “without grave inconvenience” find a Mass celebrated in communion with the Pope. As for the “College of Catholic Bishops of China,” which was recognized by the regime and brought together the “Patriotic” bishops, for Benedict XVI it was not a true Bishops’ Conference and indeed was an entity that presented “elements incompatible with Catholic doctrine.”

Was a reconciliation possible that would also bring the third type of bishops, i.e. the “Patriotic” not reconciled with the Holy See, back within the legitimate Catholic fold? Yes, Benedict XVI answered, but he urged caution against both the extremism of those who would exclude any negotiations a priori and the irenicism of those who would conceive of dialogue as simply the Vatican’s yielding to the “Patriotic” model.

In a crucial passage of the “Letter,” the German Pope wrote that “the solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.”

A view of the National Seminary of the Patriotic Catholic Church in Beijing. Screenshot.
A view of the National Seminary of the Patriotic Catholic Church in Beijing. Screenshot.

In fact, as long as Benedict XVI was the Pope, an agreement was never reached because the Chinese authorities demanded that they choose the bishops, whom the Pope would only have to consecrate, and that all Catholics should join the Patriotic Catholic Church, preserving its structures and principles, including those elements that Pope Ratzinger had declared “incompatible with Catholic doctrine.” Francis accepted these conditions, believing that the end of the schism and of the decade-long separation between the Patriotic Church and the underground church loyal to the Vatican was an achievement important enough to authorize those compromises that his predecessor had rejected.

There is also another element of discontinuity between Benedict XVI and Francis that is often overlooked. In his 2007 “Letter,” Pope Ratzinger recalled that the Church cannot give up anywhere in the world to proclaim “God’s plan for marriage and the family.” There would be no religious freedom, Benedict XVI wrote, if in China the Church were left free to preach about purely religious matters but could not denounce in a “keener and more urgent” way the “forces that influence the family negatively.” This demand for freedom of speech on life and family, which Benedict XVI regarded as “non-negotiable,” also seems to have been dropped by his successor.

Tagged With: Catholic Church, Vatican-China agreement

Massimo Introvigne
Massimo Introvigne

Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio.  From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.

www.cesnur.org/

Related articles

  • James Su Zhimin: Celebrating the Birthday of a Catholic Bishop Who May Be Dead

    James Su Zhimin: Celebrating the Birthday of a Catholic Bishop Who May Be Dead

  • Bishop Cui Tai Still Detained: Will the Vatican Insist on His Release?

    Bishop Cui Tai Still Detained: Will the Vatican Insist on His Release?

  • The Vatican-China Agreement and Pope Francis: To Renew or Not To Renew?

    The Vatican-China Agreement and Pope Francis: To Renew or Not To Renew?

  • California and Confession. 2. A Landmark Case, Reutkemeier v. Nolte

    California and Confession. 2. A Landmark Case, Reutkemeier v. Nolte

Keep Reading

  • Nicaragua: Catholic Bishop “Kidnapped,” USCIRF Denounces Widespread “Persecution”
    Nicaragua: Catholic Bishop “Kidnapped,” USCIRF Denounces Widespread “Persecution”

    The crackdown particularly continues to target the Catholic Church, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom says in a comprehensive report.

  • The Rediscovery of the Kakure Kirishitan of Japan
    The Rediscovery of the Kakure Kirishitan of Japan

    Hidden for two centuries and a half, Kakure Kirishitan, the persecuted Catholics, re-emerged in 1865. Bitter Winter offers the first English translation of Pope Francis’ document celebrating them in 2015.

  • Benedict XVI and Religious Liberty. 1. Ratzinger and Lefebvre
    Benedict XVI and Religious Liberty. 1. Ratzinger and Lefebvre

    It was in dealing with Archbishop Lefebvre’s refusal of the Second Vatican Council that Cardinal Ratzinger started reflecting in depth on the foundation of religious liberty.

  • Benedict XVI and Religious Liberty. 3. The French vs. the American Model of Freedom of Religion
    Benedict XVI and Religious Liberty. 3. The French vs. the American Model of Freedom of Religion

    The German Pope recognized that there were two different notions of freedom of religion, and only the “American” one was compatible with Catholicism.

Primary Sidebar

Support Bitter Winter

Learn More

Follow us

Newsletter

Most Read

  • Pro-Chinese Propaganda by The World Muslim Communities Council: Uyghurs Strike Back by Gulfiye Y
  • Zhanargul Zhumatai: “Help Me, I Just Want to Leave China” by Ruth Ingram
  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 1. The Aesthetic Mind by Massimo Introvigne
  • Stricter Rules on Private Tutoring Protect Ideology Rather than Parents by Wang Zhipeng
  • Japan Religious Donations Law. 4. The Return of Brainwashing by Massimo Introvigne
  • Hong Kong: Christian Scholar Peng Manyuan Released but Not Rehabilitated by Gladys Kwok
  • The Weaponization of the CCP’s “Zero COVID” Against Tibet by Marco Respinti
  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 3. Art as Communication by Massimo Introvigne
  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 4. Art and Illustration by Massimo Introvigne
  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 5. Professionals vs. Amateurs by Massimo Introvigne

CHINA PERSECUTION MAP -SEARCH NEWS BY REGION

clickable geographical map of china, with regions

Footer

Instant Exclusive News
Instant Exclusive News

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief

MASSIMO INTROVIGNE

Director-in-Charge

MARCO RESPINTI

ADDRESS

CESNUR

Via Confienza 19,

10121 Turin, Italy,

Phone: 39-011-541950

E-MAIL

We welcome submission of unpublished contributions, news, and photographs. Each submission implies the authorization for us to edit and publish texts and photographs. We reserve the right to decide which submissions are suitable for publication. Please, write to INFO@BITTERWINTER.ORG Thank you.

Newsletter

Follow us

LINKS

orlir-logo hrwf-logo cesnur-logo

Copyright © 2023 · Bitter Winter · PRIVACY POLICY· COOKIE POLICY