Cardinal Zen: “This agreement is a surrender, a sale, a suicide”

Cardinal Zen: “This agreement is a surrender, a sale, a suicide”


[Google translation]

Cardinal Joseph Zen Zekiun, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, yesterday published on his blog the following speech, here translated entirely by the Chinese.

Sandro Magister – 2/25/18


A priest from mainland China shared his personal opinions with the laity about the polemics caused by the negotiations between China and the Vatican. Some of them have expressed their unease and their perplexity. Since I am older than many faithful, I feel the duty to express my positions; also because I believe I have the right to be able to defend myself, given the many accusations that are made of me.

Don Geng Zhanhe is no longer worthy of me, for the title of which he is the priest of “the Continent”. It is true that I left the Continent before the “liberation” [communist of 1949], but my experiences with the Churches and the governmental authorities of the Continent accumulated between 1989 and 1996 are no less rich than its own. He also has some knowledge of the Western world thanks to many years of study, so we can discuss peer.

1. Don Geng states that it is impossible for the officers of the curia not to agree with the pope, for the simple fact that they were chosen by the pope.

First of all, I would like to respond by quoting the experiences I have personally suffered with the Roman curia in recent years.

After the conclave [of 2005] Pope Benedict nominated Cardinal Ivan Dias as Prefect of Propaganda Fide, who in the past had served diplomatic service for many years at the Secretariat of State, had covered the post of apostolic nuncio several times and had pastoral experience in the archdiocese of Bombay, in short with a wonderful curriculum. The fact that he was Asian had strengthened the internationality of the Roman curia.

Unfortunately he was also a student of Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, obsessed with Ostpolitik, a sort of compromise policy. Even the then undersecretary of the secretary of state Msgr. Pietro Parolin had grown up at the diplomatic school of Casaroli. And both of them, Dias and Parolin, had remained in perfect harmony in applying the Ostpolitik to China, playing a double game against the indications of Pope Benedict. I, a great sinner, once raged in front of Pope Benedict, telling him: “You asked me to help the Church of the Chinese continent, but I only have the power to speak, without any concrete power! Nobody listens to me, why can not you help me? “He replied:” I would not create problems “. In the end, Pope Benedict ordered to end the ongoing negotiations.

With the installation of Pope Francis, Parolin returned to Rome, appointed secretary of state. Parolin behaves in a very polite way, he is endowed with an extraordinary diplomatic art. Everyone was happy with this personality. But he continues to be obsessed with Ostpolitik. Pope Francis is optimistic and full of a sense of love, eager to travel to China. Parolin offers his collaboration willingly, referring to the desired information and saving the worrisome ones, but in the meantime he has excluded the undersigned and the archbishop Savio Hon – that we are both realistic and prudent – from the possibility of making any contribution in this regard. Pope Francis has never had direct knowledge of the Chinese Communist Party and is also ill-informed by the people around him. These people want to compromise without limits, they are already willing to surrender completely. On the basis of what Pope Francis said to the undersigned and to Archbishop Hon, he did not know the details of their project. If he signs the agreement they want, we can only accept it, without protest. But before any signature, it is our duty to make the truth of things known, so that they can change direction and avoid serious dangers for the Church.

Everyone knows that the indications of the Roman curia are not necessarily approved by the pope. The brothers and sisters of the Chinese continent do not complain to the pope because of certain misunderstandings.

2. Don Geng states that we can not criticize the agreement, because we do not know its contents.

Of course, all the contents of the negotiation can not be made public. But as one of the two Chinese cardinals, I would not have the right to know its contents? In fact, to forbid the right to speak, the commission of the Holy See for the Church in China was no longer convened and Archbishop Hon was sent into exile.

Even if we do not know the contents of the negotiation, now we should just be waiting hands in hand and we could only criticize the accomplished fact?

Many contents of the negotiations have been revealed, and therefore we can certainly comment on them by expressing our opinions.

According to Don Geng, only theologians and canonists have the faculty of criticism, forgetting that there would also be historians. But are not the successors of the apostles to lead the Church? Without a doubt, individual bishops and cardinals can make mistakes, even Parolin could make mistakes. In such events, even the Pope could end up in error. In history, a pope needed to hear a holy woman.

The “democratic” election [of each new bishop] and then his appointment by the illegitimate Chinese bishops’ conference mean that the government will choose the bishop. So the last word reserved to the pope can not save his function; the formality of maintaining papal authority will conceal the fact that the real authority to appoint bishops in the hands of an atheistic government will be delivered.

If Pope Francis would accept such an agreement tomorrow, I could not criticize him even if I do not understand his decision. But now, before the possible signature, I have the duty to speak aloud according to my conscience, I have a duty to reiterate that it is a bad agreement.

3. Don Geng states that the agreement must be made without delay (a bad arrangement would be better than nothing?)

For what reason? Because China is getting stronger and there will be more and more conflicts with the Western world, and therefore there will be more and more rigid control measures within China. Since we can not overthrow political power, we can only compromise with it.

It would be advisable to let political commentators analyze whether China is strong or weak. It is true that overthrowing a political power is neither our task nor our program, apart from our human capacity. But it is a fact under the eyes of all that the control measures within China have become increasingly rigid.

The summer camps of many parishes have already been banned. The diocese of Shanghai was rewarded by the government after the popular demonstrations of Tiananmen Square in 1989, because the seminary of Sheshan (Shanghai) had forbidden seminarians to take to the streets, and as a result the children of the faithful could be baptized and make the first communion (government officials are a law to themselves, because they can authorize what the law prohibits and forbid what the law authorizes). Recently there are signs on the doors of the churches with the inscription “Prohibited to minors”.

Would compromise alleviate government controls?

Like the Vatican secretary of state, Fr Geng also expressed his understanding to the clandestine communities by saying that “clandestine communities so far exist, but the space they still have will no longer be legitimate as soon as possible, demanding the recognition of Beijing” .

Even Fr Geng is aware that clandestine communities now have a space that will no longer exist in the near future. Perhaps some Hong Kong faithful do not know that in some areas within China, clandestine communities have churches and even large cathedrals, and government authorities have not demolished them. In some cities, many faithful participate in the masses celebrated in the homes of clandestine priests, even if the neighbors know it but did not want to report it, and no one is arrested. But now situations are changing. Some clandestine priests have warned the faithful not to go to their masses, because from 1 February the government authorities have threatened to apply restrictive regulations against religions, with the risk that the faithful will be arrested.

Because government authorities have tolerated clandestine religious activities for so long, but now they want to apply the law strictly? Because the Holy See itself is helping the government authorities to do so. As if to say that those who do not follow the order of the government to obey the official Churches do not follow even the Pope.

I wonder: with the compromises what could be achieved? What would the legitimacy of the clandestine churches consist of? What does the recognition of Beijing mean? Would it be the liberation of religious activities? All these hypotheses would be products of pure fantasy? Recognizing the title of the illegal bishops and asking them to enter the so-called episcopal conference is not the same as putting them in a cage only a little bigger? Is this the freedom you want? A bad deal could be better than nothing?

Don Geng said that if an agreement could not be reached, the government would appoint more and more illegitimate bishops with the autonomous procedures, and therefore the Church in China would become schismatic.

But is not the Chinese Church controlled by the government independently of the Holy See already schismatic? Will it only be with an increased number of illegitimate bishops? Would it not be even more if the Pope wanted to bless the bishops chosen by the government and the Church controlled by the government?

4. Don Geng’s theory of “sacrifice” is simply terrifying to me (I would not say ridiculous, because I could never laugh at it).

He affirmed that “it is certainly not right to sacrifice two bishops in communion with the pope and ask them to give place to illegitimate and excommunicated bishops,” adding frankly that “in the future the clandestine bishops will be asked to sacrifice”, but “not it was also right that the Father asked the Son to die crucified. The supreme principle of the Church is not justice, but love. Because of love, justice could be sacrificed “.

Ouch! What is theology? If our Salesian seminarians received similar training from their teachers, I do not want to see their own “sacrifice” of this kind, I should ask my provincial superior to let all our children leave that seminary.

Did Don Geng never read Pope Benedict’s encyclical? Justice is the minimum that charity requires. Charity must be practiced in the truth, which is the foundation of charity. Without the truth, charity would be an empty bag, which could be filled with everything: abortion, euthanasia, religious abjuration. It is true that the Father sacrificed the Son, but it was man who crucified him. Jesus said to Pilate: “He who has delivered me to you has a greater sin”. Everyone who made him die sinned. Of course Christ could forgive them, but they did not become apostles.

According to the Old Testament, who killed the seventh sons of that poor woman? Was it the same mother or were others?

Now it is not the atheist government that forces the two bishops to withdraw, but it is the Holy See that does it.

It has been published on Chinese websites that “our enemy did not let us die despite the long time of suffering, but now our pope asks us to die. Well, we are ready to die “.

Don Geng can not distinguish between the abject sale and the suffering oppression, the voluntary suicide and the wound suffered, the shameless surrender and the unhappy failure. What a sadness!

Cardinal Giuseppe Zen
Predecessor of the predecessor of the bishop of Hong Kong

Get AQ Email Updates

13 comments on “Cardinal Zen: “This agreement is a surrender, a sale, a suicide”

  1. The normalization of Communism moves ahead. Beginning with fake saint Roncalli in the Vatican-Moscow agreement, through Cuba, now in China. Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us!

  2. “If Pope Francis would accept such an agreement tomorrow, I could not criticize him even if I do not understand his decision. But now, before the possible signature, I have the duty to speak aloud according to my conscience, I have a duty to reiterate that it is a bad agreement”
    Poor, poor Cardinal Zen.
    Like so many other good men, infected with the heresy of monolithic papal infallibility.
    So, obviously, if the pope DOES sign, the agreement will, *by that fact alone*, suddenly change from a “bad agreement” to a “good” one.
    So, obviously, REALITY ITSELF changes because of the mere “Fiat” of a mere man.
    Right now, the agreement is bad.
    But with a mere wave of the papal magic wand, it will become good tomorrow.
    Well then, obviously, the pope is GOD, who literally creates or uncreates Reality by a mere say-so…
    No, wait…because not even God can make a square circle. Not even God can make a thing good that was evil before — AND WITHOUT EVEN CHANGING THE THING FIRST.
    So then, Cardinal Zen in fact believes that the pope is capable of changing a thing into another thing, yet without changing anything at all.
    That. Is. InSANE.
    God bless you, Cardinal Zen. I am sure it is not your fault that you are insane.

    • He said he would shut up. It’s not good, but it’s not what you say. You put words in his mouth. But I’m sure it’s not your fault that you are a horse’s

      • I agree Cyprian.
        He said he would shut up; would no longer tell the truth that the agreement is bad.
        Actually, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Because it is obvious that in such a grave matter, to NOT continue to speak the truth about the evil of the agreement, even AFTER the pope approves it, would be a mortal sin of omission, and a cowardly act.
        But I don’t believe that Cardinal Zen is a coward. On the contrary, he has rather well proved that he has sufficient cojones. His criticizing the agreement is already courageous, but is not by any means the most courageous thing this man has done in his life.
        Moreover, why would criticizing the pope BEFORE the agreement goes down be any more courageous than criticizing him afterward?
        And therefore, the only thing that makes sense to me is that the reason he will no longer criticize once the agreement is made is that he thinks that somehow, after the agreement is actually officially promulgated, it is suddenly no longer bad but rather good, even if he does not understand how that could be. Why would he think that unless he thinks that official papal acts, even if not falling under the conditions of infallibility dogmatically defined by Vatican I, are nevertheless infallible in some way?
        I must disagree on the second point, however. That I am a horse’s axe is assuredly my fault. One can be brainwashed without bad will on one’s own part, but rash judgment does come from bad will of some sort.
        And your observation below makes me see that I have rashly judged Cardinal Zen.
        Because, as you point out, he may think that the circumstances are such that more harm than good will come from continued insistence that the deal is bad, after the deal is done.
        To borrow some words from the good Cardinal: “If Cardinal Zen would accept [to stop criticizing] such an agreement tomorrow, I could not criticize [his motivations] even if I do not understand his decision.”
        On the other hand, if Cardinal Zen were to tell me that the agreement somehow *does* become good just by virtue of being promulgated, I would resist him to the face.
        And I REALLY don’t see how allowing the sheep to continue in the blindness of monolithic papal infallibility is going to help them. They are just going to be slashed to pieces by this rabid wolf-shepherd, and those into whose power he is delivering them. I mean they, and/or their children, will eventually, for the most part,become converts to the Patriotic Anti-Catholic Church.
        EVERYTHING about it looks like a reprise, as gpm observed: “This is not the first instance of a pope sending his most faithful followers off to doom. A pope ordered the Cristeros to lay down their arms at the moment at which they were on the cusp of victory. The Freemasons slaughtered them.”
        But I could somehow be wrong.
        Nevertheless, at the last, I will add that though I will not criticize his motivations, I may well continue to criticize his actions.
        And for that matter, that is exactly all I have done so far.
        And I agree with this statement: “Chinese martyrs-to-be will be glorified in proportion to the eternal reprobation that awaits anyone who aided in their cruel fate…”
        Adding this: …or who stood by silently when they saw clearly that something could have been done to prevent it.

      • Would Cardinal Zen want me to insult those who insult him? No. My apologies.
        Would he want me to call Phil Lawler a liar? No. Malignant obfuscator will do.
        Pray the Rosary for China.
        A Dios.
        Over and out.

  3. I may have spoken too soon. It might, in fact, be good of the Cardinal to take the publicly silent approach should this deal, this suicide, be approved. C. Zen is now doing everything under his power to prevent the agreement, and to prepare the true Catholics of China for yet more suffering, now from Judas pope. They previously suffered from Ratz/Benedict’s horrible dictum. C. Zen fought Benedict privately — raising his voice, he says — and wrote a “clarifying” document to help the faithful survive.

    C. Zen has to act carefully now because the lives and the faith of his charges in China depend on it. It might be prudent of him to avoid the spectacle of a public fight with Francis as it could further demoralize the faithful. Has Zen been unclear? Is he not already charging the Chinese faithful to yet suffer more, even suffer jail, torture, and death rather than walk into the “cage?” I pray I’m never called to make such heavy choices.

  4. What any Catholic CAN do is increase with deadly serious intent his sacrifices, good works, alms and reception of the Sacraments to secure the protection of Our Lady and the Saints for the poor, now desperate Chinese victims of this treachery.
    This is not the first instance of a pope sending his most faithful followers off to doom. A pope ordered the Cristeros to lay down their arms at the moment at which they were on the cusp of victory. The Freemasons slaughtered them.
    It is tragic that the precise warnings many wise theologians gave out after the First Council of the Vatican are not even known with respect to the limits God and His Church have always placed on the scope and breadth of infallibility. The doctrine is clear but ignored as to its authentic definition. As late as the 1920s one prominent hierach lamented that, now, people would claim the pope could do anything! Ecce Jorge …
    A very ignorant population led by very stupid bishops did nothing to shut down Vatican II, to refuse the NO liturgy, the ransacking of altars and the insurgency of rotten individuals preaching heresy and who now have supreme authority.
    Chinese martyrs-to-be will be glorified in proportion to the eternal reprobation that awaits anyone who aided in their cruel fate.

  5. Gents, an observation. I wouldn’t worry much about “insults” here on AQ. I’ve handed my share out and received in kind for nearing 11 years, now. One of my truly most admired friends here was kind enough to “beat me like a redheaded step child” within weeks of when I registered to join AQ.
    He was right and I had never been part of a forum before. Today we are very good friends and he was especially kind during two of the worst moments in my life, having nothing to do with AQ. His advice was invaluable.
    Right now, normal etiquette can be dispensed with because souls and the very bodies they vivify are being made into pawns by an individual who either is clinically obtuse or has never heard or read anything negative about Mao or the cannibal regime he bequeathed to some of the most vicious subhumans since Vlad the Impaler or Chaka Zulu were running up body counts.
    Emotions SHOULD be peaking over this pending treasonous, blasphemous deal. Anyone not bothered by it is not only dead from the neck up, he has forfeited his entire Catholic patrimony, as well.

  6. LOL! Like I said, I had never been part of a forum before joining AQ 2007. I do recall my first ever post blasted the hinky Medjugoogoo scam and most of my very early posts were largely ignored. Serv PM’d me, also early on, to put up or shut up re. some info I mentioned about one popular hierarch and I explained where the info came from. He okayed it once he knew my source.
    Anyway, as I’ve said before, reading your hilarious material convinced me to stick with it. Them was da days! 😎

Leave a Reply