Litterae communionis between Rome and Baoding

A letter from Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone makes known the guidelines and suggestions of the Pope in relation to the case of Francis An Shuxin, the coadjutor bishop of Baoding accused of betrayal by some priests of his diocese for having decided to leave the clandestine condition. Benedict XVI invites all to walk the path of reconciliation. And meanwhile confirms Monsignor An as head of the diocese, even though the bishop has accepted a position in the local Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, the instrument of the government’s religious policy

by Gianni Valente

Pope Benedict XVI with some Chinese from Beijing, 25 May 2005

When disputes and issues arise among the children of the Church, it is often the case that all direct their gaze to the Bishop of Rome, although he is physically distant. Maybe they are only seeking the verdict of the impartial judge who knows how to separate right and wrong according to justice, and instead it happens that they also find something better.
It also happened recently to the priests, religious and lay faithful of the Chinese Catholic community of Baoding, in the province of Hebei.
There, for some years, hearts were divided over the case of Francis An Shuxin, the bishop ordained clandestinely (that is without the placet of the religious policy of the Chinese regime) who since 2006, after 10 years of imprisonment and isolation, chose to leave the clandestine condition and exercise his pastoral ministry as coadjutor bishop in fidelity to the Pope and also in accordance with the procedures and requirements imposed by the government. All this while the other “clandestine” bishop James Su Zhimin, first titular of the diocese, is still inaccessible, after being taken away by the police in 1996.
From the beginning, some of the underground priests had considered the decision of Bishop An as an about-face, even questioning the legitimacy of his episcopal authority. The controversy and reproaches reached their most virulent phase in the second half of 2009, when the opponents of Bishop An published as a proof of the alleged “betrayal” his willingness to accept an appointment in the diocesan structures of the Patriotic Association.
In the growing controversy, guidelines and suggestions came several times from the Apostolic See to the Catholic community in Hebei, directives aimed at stemming the poison of division and doubt. The last, most recent and most authoritative invitation to reconciliation came from the Pope: a letter from the Vatican to Monsignor Francis An in which Benedict XVI confirms his episcopal authority and desires that all diocesan priests recognize this, despite the bishop’s post in the Patriotic Association.

“Dear Brother Bishop”
The letter, written on behalf of the Pope by the Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, is dated 10 February 2010 and bears the protocol number 696/10/RS. It is a reply to the letter sent to Benedict XVI by Francis An himself on 12 November 2009, in which the bishop referred his case to the Pope asking him for specific directions on what to do. Bertone refers in the opening lines to the Pope’s appreciation for the “sentiments of faithfulness to Christ and the Church and filial devotion to the Successor of Peter” expressed by Bishop An in his letter. Then, afterwards, the papal guidelines relating to the troubled events in the diocese are set out.
Benedict XVI, through Cardinal Bertone, makes known the “great attention” with which he follows the life of the Church in China, with specific regard to the diocesan communities “living in particularly difficult circumstances”. The Pope declares himself “spiritually close” to Bishop An, and sends a special blessing to Bishop Su Zhimin (mentioned all of four times in the new papal message), mentioning the seclusion that prevents him from exercising his episcopal ministry for the benefit of the people entrusted to his pastoral care.
In the central part, the letter focuses directly on the choices made by Bishop An that most provoked challenge by some of the clergy of the diocese, and in unambiguous terms loosens the knots still untied.
One of the main charges directed against An was his decision to celebrate a Mass along with John Su Changshan, “official” bishop of Baoding, recognized as such by the government but not by the Apostolic See. Regarding that incident, the letter says that “everyone is now in a position to know that this occurred because Your Excellency was aware that Bishop Su Changshan ardently desired and insistently requested full communion with the Holy Father”. It also refers to the letters sent by Su Changshan to the Holy See with which – it explains – the illegitimate bishop gave his assurance that his episcopal ordination without an apostolic mandate had occurred against his will and told of his sorrow for the plight in which he had come to find himself. “This case”, the Secretary of State makes known on behalf of the Pope, “is to be considered closed”.
Afterwards, the papal letter touches the sore point of the role of vice president of the Diocesan Patriotic Association that Bishop An has agreed to assume. With not insignificant subtlety, the text does not mention any ‘enrolment’ of An in the patriotic organization, seeing that the bishop limited himself to verbally accepting the position that had been proposed to him. The missif from Rome makes known that the “delicate and complex” problems and difficulties raised by this matter are known to the Holy See. The guidelines provided by the Vatican text are clear and concrete: “In your specific situation”, Cardinal Bertone writes on behalf of the Pope, “such a decision should have been avoided. Nevertheless, in the present circumstances it seems preferable for Your Excellency not to give up, on your own initiative, the possibility you have at present of acting in an official way and to accompany and lead all your priests, whether official or clandestine”. The Vatican letter states that the Apostolic See will continue to monitor the situation in Baoding, and should there be further significant developments will not leave Bishop An without practical criteria for guidance. “In the meanwhile”, the letter recommends, with a suggestion implicitly addressed to the entire diocese of Hebei, “The Holy See counts on the obedience which the entire clergy of Baoding owes you in the absence of Bishop Su Zhimin”. In the final part of the letter, Cardinal Bertone asks that the directions received from the Pope be made known to the Catholic community of Baoding, “in the manner you consider most opportune”. As a result, since the second week of March the full version of the text has appeared in Chinese and English on the website of the diocese.

Francis An Shuxin, coadjutor bishop
of Baoding [© Ucanews]

Neither winners nor losers
With the suggestions and directions in the Letter of 10 February to the bishop and the diocese of Baoding some of the guiding criteria that Benedict XVI had outlined in his Letter to Chinese Catholics of 27 May 2007 have been applied to a particular case that has become emblematic and significant for all of China.
In that magisterial document it was recognized that the procedures for the approval of local communities by the civil authorities – necessary in order to function publicly – may involve difficult and controversial choices for the consciences of Catholics, en into account that the questionable choices of the individual bishop might not gain the consensus of all the priests and faithful. In this case, it was hoped that these decisions be however upheld, “even if painfully”, to preserve the unity of the diocesan community with its pastor.
Precisely the controversial issue of Bishop An’s relations with the Patriotic Association gave also the Holy See the opportunity to follow guidelines set by the Pope himself in his Letter of May 2007. In the complex pastoral situation of Baoding the direct involvement of the bishop in the patriotic body rekindled the malaise and disputes between those clandestine priests and faithful who had already criticized his decision to leave the clandestine condition, and the letter of 10 February states that such involvement “should have been avoided”. But once the bishop decided to accept the post of vice president of the Diocesan Patriotic Association, the Apostolic See acknowledged his decision and did not ask him to go back on it. The “presence” of Bishop An in the patriotic organisms did not delegitimize his episcopal authority in the eyes of the Holy See. No specious arguments were raised opposing doctrinal principles and the pastoral choices which were stubbornly presented by some as cowardly and reprehensible forms of surrender to the illegitimate claims of the regime. On the contrary, the letter suggests that An not leave the condition in which he has put himself, which now allows him to publicly exercise his role of guide and companion for all the priests of the diocese, “whether official or clandestine”.
With these directions everyone can see the potential effectiveness and pastoral appropriateness of the criteria set out in the Letter to Chinese Catholics of 2007 when they are actually applied to the given conditions. That text entrusted to the bishops the judgment about how to move in local circumstances, taking account of contexts and circumstances. Bishop An acted within the criteria and the possibilities considered in the Papal Letter of 2007. And the Holy See, adhering in the facts to an apostolic collegiality that is also the assuming of shared responsibility, renews its confidence in him, confirms him in his episcopal authority and asks everyone to follow him, even those who still at present disagree with the choices made the bishop.
The same delicate and heartfelt trust is reserved also for them: the critics who have very energetically expressed their disagreement with Bishop An, almost to the point of rejecting him as pastor of the diocese. In the February Letter there is no trace of reproach for them, there is no diktat. The Pope only makes it known that he is counting on their sensus Ecclesiae: even those who have more than once suffered persecutions for their faith, and maybe now find it harder to accept the decisions of the bishop, will be helped by that same faith to eventually accept the new situation.
Thus the directions reproposed in the letter sent by the Apostolic See to Baoding also allow a glimpse of a possible new beginning for the troubled diocese in Hebei. Not from any attempt to draw up a balance sheet of rights and wrongs, determining who won and who lost, as happens in the disputes of the world; not least because there are never any winners but only losers in sectarian quarrels that maybe in the name of the intransigent attachment to a position eventually end by rending communion and complicating the access of the faithful to the means of the life of grace. Whereas it is exactly the sacramental nature of the Church that can reveal itself in relations among its members, including the relation between the bishop and his priests. It can over time, with patience, and without undue outside pressure, sustain the miracle of reconciliation that can only pass through the hearts and minds of individuals, embracing all and forgiving everything. So that thus it may be easier for all the Christians of Baoding “to live peaceful and quiet lives with all devotion and propriety” (1Tim 2, 2), as Saint Paul wrote in his first Epistle to his friend Timothy.