The American Election and its Influences On the Underground Roman Catholic Church in China
by Joseph Kung
During this month of July when Americans celebrate the birthday of our nation, we need to renew our gratitude for the blessings of freedom, including freedom of speech, of religion, and the freedom to select our own civic leaders. How very different it is in China, whose citizens have no say in the selection of their civic leaders, and who are subjected to mandatory abortion policies, rampant death penalties, and many other intolerable human rights violations. In particular, we are all too familiar with the continued persecution of the underground Roman Catholic Church in China. For recent examples, Bishop WEI Jingyi, the Bishop of Qiqihar, Heilongjiang, was arrested on March 5, 2004 while he was paying at the toll booth on his way back from the Harbin airport. He was at the airport picking up two of his foreign friends. Bishop JIA ZhiGuo, the Bishop of Zheng Ding, Hebei, was arrested on April 5, 2004. A car with four government security policemen suddenly appeared at the bishop’s residence at approximately 1:30 pm local time and took him away. Both bishops were released shortly after the Vatican protested. Bishop JIA was arrested again on June 13, 2004 for unknown reasons and released five days later on June 18. Father LU Genjun, 42 years old, and Father CHENG Xiaoli, 40 years old were arrested on May 14, 2004 in An Guo, Hebei by Chinese government security policemen just before the two priests were to start classes for natural family planning and moral theology courses. Fortunately, they were also released shortly after we issued our press release on them. Bishop ZHAO ZhenDong of Xuanhua, Hebei was arrested on May 27, 2004 and released mid-June. Bishop Hao JinIy, the Bishop of Xiwanzi, Hebei was placed in detention for ten days from June 2 through June 12.
Currently, every one of the underground Roman Catholic Church bishops is either in jail, under house arrest, under strict surveillance, or in hiding. For most Americans, it is very difficult to conceive of being deprived of religious freedom in these ways. Sadly, the press and the leaders of this country pay very little attention to this persecution in China. Imagine the outcry if it were to happen in the United States!
The important point here is that along with freedom comes responsibility. In particular, if we Americans are free to select our own civic leaders, we have a responsibility to select them in accordance with the highest moral standards. These moral standards — often called the natural law — are not arbitrary, but rather rooted in and held in common by all human beings. Indeed, because all human beings are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the United States’ Declaration of Independence first appeals to “nature’s God” and “nature’s laws.” For example, all human beings understand that murder is evil and can never be morally justified. In fact, when a nation no longer lives in accordance with the natural law’s condemnation of murder — when a nation no longer respects the fundamental good of life — then all other goods are threatened. As Pope John Paul II puts it, the right to life is the first right or freedom on which all others are based (Gospel of Life, 18). Moreover, the denial of a person’s right to life sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of other rights. Therefore, the natural law — basically identical with the Ten Commandments — needs to be the governing norm of our consciences when we exercise our civic responsibility of voting, not only for the good of our own nation, but also for the goods that we can promote in other nations such as China. Furthermore, when, in accordance with a properly informed conscience, we vote for and succeed in electing pro-life leaders who will promote goods such as religious freedom and the sanctity of life, it can be logically concluded that the underground Roman Catholic Church in China will likely be benefited.
When we of the Cardinal Kung Foundation aim to secure the blessings of liberty for the underground Roman Catholic Church in China, we are exercising simultaneously our religious and civic responsibilities. As Catholics, we aim to support fellow members of the Body of Christ. As Americans, we aim to promote liberty and justice for all worldwide. Out of the same sense of religious and civic responsibility, in this newsletter the Cardinal Kung Foundation points to the important connection between voting in a morally responsible way when it comes to the fundamental right to life, and seeking to end the persecution of the underground Roman Catholic Church in China. More specifically, and as explained in the second half of the previous paragraph, our failure to vote in defense of the sanctity of life would ultimately threaten any freedoms we aim to secure for the underground Roman Catholic Church, most urgently its right to exist in China.
You can undoubtedly see, therefore, the wide-ranging repercussions of our having properly informed consciences. When grounded in the natural law or Ten Commandments, our consciences become the voice of moral truth. Moreover, quite often that voice of truth can go counter to our customary allegiances to political candidates or parties. Indeed, a properly informed conscience transcends the boundaries of any one political party, especially when it comes to the defense of the fundamental right to life.
This is why it is important for us to understand, both as Americans and as Catholics, that, in accordance with a properly informed conscience, we may not support any political candidate who is pro-abortion. As noted above, in the light of the natural law, all human beings understand that murder is a moral evil that can never be morally justified. Thus, a political candidate who supports the moral evil of abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a single vote. A properly informed conscience warns us that supporting such a candidate would make us accomplices in the moral evil of abortion.
Of course, there are other moral evils besides abortion, such as euthanasia and so called “same-sex marriage.” A political candidate’s embrace of one or more of these also disqualifies him from receiving a single vote; and our voting for such a candidate would also make us accomplices in moral evil. We must be careful to distinguish, however, between these moral evils that can never be morally justified and practices that can be morally legitimate, such as capital punishment and resorting to war. According to the Church’s teaching, both of these practices can be morally legitimate means of society’s self-defense, although they should not be pursued except as a last resort, the determination of which, the Church teaches, is the responsibility of the legitimate civil government. The important point here is that, while it is never morally legitimate to vote for a political candidate that supports the moral evils noted above such as abortion, it can be morally legitimate to vote for a political candidate who supports responsibly resorting to capital punishment or war.
One other rather complicated but important point should be noted. Consider the case in which no political candidate is perfectly pro-life (for example, a candidate who supports abortion only in cases of rape and incest). A properly informed conscience instructs us that it is morally legitimate to vote for that imperfect candidate. This would be true either because we discern that the imperfect candidate would cause the least moral damage, or, in spite of his or her imperfections, presents the best available opportunity to advance respect for the sanctity of life. This does not mean that we condone abortion in cases of rape and incest. Direct abortion, either as an end or a means to an end, is always evil.
Once again, I want to emphasize the important connection between your support for the underground Roman Catholic Church in China and your moral responsibility to vote in defense of the sanctity of life in accordance with a properly informed conscience. It would be a tragic mistake and an abominable contradiction to express support for the underground Roman Catholic Church in China and to fail to vote in defense of the sanctity of life. I urge you, for the sake of our universal Church and our nation, to exercise your religious and civic responsibilities in a morally consistent manner.
We need leaders in our country who themselves recognize and embrace moral truth and who seek also to advance it, not only in the United States, but in other nations as well. Having such leaders would enable the Cardinal Kung Foundation to have its own moral voice heard more successfully and advance its own mission for the sake of the underground Roman Catholic Church in China.
A booklet, A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters, written by Father Stephen F. Torraco, Ph.D. is available at Leaflet Missal Company, 976 W. Minnehaha Ave, St. Paul, MN 55104. Tel: 800-328-9582, Fax: 651-487-0286, Web: www.leafletmissal.org.
Priestly Faculties Granted to Patriotic Association Priests in the United States
Some U. S. dioceses, such as New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., have granted priestly faculties to Patriotic Association priests, allowing them to openly offer Holy Mass and administer other Sacraments, including hearing confessions in Roman Catholic parishes. May Catholics who are the recipients of these sacraments from a Patriotic Association priest are in the dark, because they do not know the identity of these Patriotic Association priests.
According to item 5 of the Holy See’s 1988 China directives, “The Patriotic bishops and priests are not to be invited or even allowed to celebrate religious functions in public, either in the churches or in the oratories of the various religious institutes.”
We do not understand, given the above very clear guideline, how this program of giving faculties to the Patriotic Association priests and allowing them to administer the sacraments in public could be approved by the bishops in the United States.
The most recent case is the appointment of a Patriotic Association priest, Father Ruan Guozhang, to the parish of St. Joseph Church in the China Town of New York City. The written notice sent by the pastor of St. Joseph to his parishioners said simply that Father Ruan will be joining him at St Joseph Church. The pastor did not mention that Father Ruan was from the Diocese of Fuzhou of the Chinese Open (Patriotic Association) Church. He also did not mention that Father Ruan was a Patriotic Association priest who is not a Roman Catholic priest in full communion with the Pope. However, the pastor did unexplainably mention that Father Ruan was from the Diocese of Hong Kong, which he is not unless the Hong Kong diocese has recently incardinated him. By mentioning the Hong Kong diocese, the pastor had given Father Ruan some legitimacy since there is no official Patriotic Association in the Hong Kong diocese. People should have the facts in deciding from which priest they want to receive a sacrament. Without making publicly known in writing that Father Ruan is from the Chinese Open Patriotic Association Church, the faithful are deprived once again of important facts about the priest before receiving a sacrament, because they will take for granted that the priest administering sacraments in a Roman Catholic Church has to be a Roman Catholic priest without knowing that it is actually the contrary at St. Joseph Church of New York’s China Town.
In fact, Father Ruan was ordained by the Patriotic Association Bishop Aloysius Jin, with whom the Vatican has never declared to be in communion. In addition, Father Ruan reports to Bishop Zheng Chang Cheng who is a Chinese Patriotic Association bishop, with whom the Vatican has also never declared to be in communion. Yet, he will be working in the New York diocese as if he were a Roman Catholic priest, which he is not.
We did not understand such situations when they occurred in other dioceses. We understand even less that such a situation could have happened in New York diocese inasmuch as His Eminence Edward Cardinal Egan is understood to be a “conservative” bishop. I, therefore, wrote a letter to Cardinal Egan on May 7, 2004, stating my abovementioned thoughts and requesting his explanations. To this date, I have not received his reply.
Wrong Image of “Our Lady of China” Mosaic in the Basilica in Washington, D.C.
In our Christmas 2002 newsletter, I described that the mosaic entitled, “Our Lady of China,” and displayed in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. is the wrong image. The correct image should have been the one granted and promulgated by Pope Pius XI in 1928 (see above). I wrote two letters to Monsignor Michael Bransfield, the rector of the Basilica, alerting him to the mistake. My first letter was written on December 30, 2002, to which he replied on January 24, 2003. The second letter was written on January 30, 2003, to which he never replied. Consequently, no corrective action on the mosaic was made by Monsignor Bransfield.
There are two recent News Releases from FIDES Service dated May 17 and May 18, 2004 on the same subject. (FIDES Service is the official news service for the Vatican). In both releases, they reported the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the first Council of the Church in China, Primum Concilium Sinense, in 1924, and the opening of a Shrine in honor of Our Lady with the title, “Mary Queen of China,” in the same year. This was the birth of the official “Our Lady of China,” the title of which was eventually granted by Pope Pius XI in 1928. This official “Our Lady of China” is obviously not the image in the Basilica. In fact, the so-called “Our Lady of China” in the Basilica was not even created and drawn until the early 1950s, while the real official “Our Lady of China” was declared in 1924 as reported by FIDES and the Chinese press in Taiwan. There can only be one “Our Lady of China,” and the authentic one (see above) has to be the one declared in Primum Concilium Sinense in 1924 and approved by Pope Pius XI in 1928.
In addition, there are two articles recently published in the diocesan newspapers of Taipei and Hong Kong. One article published a picture of Our Lady of China identical to the one we published in the cover, proving that the one in the Basilica in Washington, D.C. is wrong. The other article described that the Chinese bishops, while attending the first Council of the Church in China in 1924, chose the image of the Blessed Lady originally drawn for a church in Dong Lu Village in Hebei in 1908 as Our Lady of China. This chosen picture is again the same picture as we published on the cover, and again proves that the one in the Basilica in Washington, D.C. is wrong.
In view of the above, I wrote to Monsignor Bransfield again on May 29 and June 22, 2004, asking him twice, in light of the two news releases from FIDES and two articles from Taipei and Hong Kong, how the image of “Our Lady of China” in his Basilica could be the real and official “Our Lady of China.” The one in his Basilica is obviously the wrong image. I believe that his Our Lady of China Committee and the Shrine Iconography Committee have neither the right nor the authority to trump the Pope’s decision by choosing another image as Our Lady of China. Accordingly, I requested that he take immediate action to correct this serious mistake. I have not heard from him.
Underground Religious Trained in Europe Returning to China
In our Easter 2003 newsletter, I reported that there are many priests, seminarians, and nuns from the underground Roman Catholic Church in China studying in various places in Europe. The Cardinal Kung Foundation has been partially assisting these candidates with monthly allowances and daily Mass offerings for many years. Recently, three of them have graduated with various degrees. One deacon has returned to China and was ordained to priesthood by his underground bishop. He is now doing parish work in his native diocese. Another deacon has also returned to China and will be ordained to the priesthood soon by his underground bishop. One priest has also completed his graduate degree and returned to China to assist his underground bishop. Because of security reasons, we cannot disclose their names and locations. Regardless of the continued widespread religious persecutions in China, these young deacons and this priest have chosen to return to serve the underground Church in China. Please pray for them. The Foundation will continue to support their ministry through our various programs. Your generous donations to this Foundation have borne fruits. The underground bishops and these dedicated young priests wish to thank you for your generous donations and prayers to the underground Church.
Finally, I have recently been informed that the Cardinal Kung Foundation website has been blocked from view in China by the Chinese government.
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Joseph Kung,
President
© The Cardinal Kung Foundation
This item 6223 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
