[Question:]{.underline} What are we to think of Benedict XVI`s letter to Catholics in China?
[Answer:]{.underline} This letter to the Bishops, Priests and faithful of the Catholic Church in China was published on Pentecost Sunday 2007. Leaving aside for now the very worrisome ecclesiological aspects of this letter, allow me a simple comment on its attitude towards the Communist regime, which has constantly persecuted the Catholic Church from 1949 until this very day, which has imprisoned innumerable bishops and priests of the underground church, and which continues to do so even since the publication of this letter, distribution of which has been forbidden in China, even electronically. Furthermore, the government continues to approve the consecration of bishops without Papal mandate in the schismatic Patriotic church under Communist party control, and continues to enforce, by force of law, immoral and perverse practices such as the one-child-per-family policy and obligatory abortion.
We certainly cannot blame the Pope for expressing his desire for “the normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China” or for *“concrete forms of communication and cooperation” (*4), nor his desire to avoid “conflict with the legitimate civil authorities”, and we applaud his demand for “the State to guarantee to those same Catholic citizens the full exercise of their faith”(Ib.). However, it seems that his naïve efforts for dialogue are fruitless and unrecognized by the communist government, but to the contrary productive of great confusion among the faithful, and this on account of the increasingly obvious overlap between the Patriotic (=schismatic, excommunicated and communist-controlled) and Catholic (=underground) churches. For many bishops and priests, not to mention the faithful, pretend to belong to both at the same time. The Pope explicitly admits this, explaining that he has received into his communion bishops consecrated in the Patriotic Church, and “granted them full and legitimate exercise of Episcopal jurisdiction” (8) and yet “in most cases priests and the faithful have not been adequately informed” of this regularization and “some legitimized Bishops have failed to provide any clear signs to prove that they have been legitimized” (Ib.). This means that they still act publicly as bishops and priests of the Patriotic Church, satisfying their “conscience” by a hidden, private arrangement with Rome, but failing to profess the Faith and to all intents and purposes remaining under control of the communist-run church. Given such infiltration of Catholics in China, is it any surprise that the Chinese government has no desire to dialogue? It is entirely in the driving seat.
The Pope’s reaction to this state of affairs was not, as one might have expected, to cease the insincere legitimization of weak, untrained clerics without conviction, who refuse to abandon their comfortable compromise and entirely leave the communist-controlled Patriotic Church. No, it was exactly the contrary, to discourage the clandestine consecration of bishops (8), and to withdraw their faculties from the suffering priests of the underground church: “Considering in the first place some positive developments of the situation of the Church in China, and in the second place the increased opportunities and greater ease in communication, and finally the requests sent to Rome by various Bishops (belonging to which church? Perhaps to both?) *and priests, I hereby revoke all the faculties previously granted in order to address particular pastoral necessities that emerged in truly difficult times” (*18). What a suicide, an abandonment of those priests of the underground Church who refuse all contact with the Patriotic Church, and who are still living in as truly difficult times as ever! It will take a miracle for them to persevere and for the Church to continue. But miracles will and do happen, provided that we pray for them.
COMMUNISM
Furthermore, Benedict XVI in his letter makes no mention at all of Communism, the most frightful and horrifying error of modern times, the cause of nearly 60 years of persecution in China, and still exercising its tyranny over the most populous nation of the world. In this he certainly keeps the bad company of Vatican II, on behalf of which Pope John XXIII had agreed in 1962 not to condemn Communism. Archbishop Lefebvre comments: “The agreement was concluded, the betrayal completed…And Communism was not condemned; or, rather, the Council, which had given itself the responsibility of discerning the ‘signs of the times’ was condemned by Moscow to keeping silence on the most obvious and the most monstrous of the Signs of this time! It is clear that there was, at the Second Vatican Council, an agreement with the enemies of the Church, so as to finish off with the existing enmity towards them. But this is an agreement with the devil!” (They have uncrowned Him, p. 215).
Allow me to briefly compare the encyclical letter written by Pope Pius XI in 1937 in response to the attacks on the Church by Atheistic Communism, especially in Russia, Mexico and Spain. His reason for writing is not a political one, nor is it dialogue, for this is explicitly excluded. It is simply because the Apostolic See is the “Teacher of Truth” (6) and thus “could not and does not remain silent” about this “satanic scourge”(7),“the fatal plague which insinuates itself into the very marrow of human society only to bring about its ruin…that infamous doctrine of so-called communism which is absolutely contrary to the natural law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself” (4). He further points out that it is a religion in itself, and a false one, “a false messianic idea” in which there is no room for God nor for the soul, nor for virtue, merit, goodness nor for any life after death. Yet “concealed under the most seductive trappings…the class struggle with its consequent violet hate and destruction takes on the aspect of a crusade for the progress of humanity” (9).
NO COLLABORATION
Is it any wonder that Pope Pius XI was most adamant in his refusal not only of all compromise, but even of all collaboration with a Communist regime:
“In the beginning communism showed itself for what it was in all its perversity, but very soon it realized that it was thus alienating the people. It has therefore changed its tactics, and strives to entice the multitudes by trickery of various forms, hiding its real designs behind ideas that in themselves are good and attractive…Without receding an inch from their subversive principles, they invite Catholics to collaborate with them in the realm of so-called humanitarianism and charity; and at times even make proposals that are in perfect harmony with the Christian spirit and the doctrine of the Church. Elsewhere they carry their hypocrisy so far as to encourage the belief that communism, in countries where faith and culture are more strongly entrenched, will assume another and much milder form. It will not interfere with the practice of religion…See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived. [Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.]{.underline} Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error.” (Divini Redemptoris 57 & 58).
Would that Pope Benedict XVI had re-read this Papal text and punished with excommunication any association at all with the Patriotic church. Would that he hd not made his own the following statement of his immediate predecessor: “The Church has very much at heart the values and objectives which are of primary importance also to modern China: solidarity, peace, social justice, the wise management of the phenomenon of globalization” (3). To the contrary, it is prayer and penance that the persecuted Catholics of China need, and that the Church has very much at heart, as Our Lady of Fatima requested of three little children on July 13, 1917, to obtain the conversion of Russia and the end of the First World War: “Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say often, especially when you make some sacrifice: ‘O Jesus, this is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary’”. We must admit that we have done so little in the past and redouble our efforts for these martyrs of the 21^st^ century, so unknown to us, and yet so real.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.