Petition to Initiate Cause for Cardinal Kung’s Canonization

I have sent a letter of petition on August 4, 2004 to Bishop William E. Lori, the Bishop of Bridgeport in Connecticut, to open the cause for Cardinal Kung’s beatification and canonization on March 12, 2005. I wrote: “Inasmuch as Cardinal Kung died in Stamford, which is within the territory of your diocese, I believe that you are the only bishop who can initiate the cause of Cardinal Kung’s canonization unless dictated otherwise by the Sacred Congregation…. Approximately seven months from now, March 12 of 2005 shall mark the fifth anniversary of the death of Ignatius Cardinal Kung in your diocese.  I understand that the cause of canonization can be advanced after the fifth year anniversary of the death of the Servant of God.  This means that the cause of canonization for Cardinal Kung can be officially commenced immediately after March 12, 2005….May I request your permission….that when the fifth anniversary of the death of Cardinal Kung arrives on March 12, 2005, we can start the official cause immediately without further delay?”  As of the printing of this newsletter, my letter has been acknowledged only by the diocese’s Vicar General.  I urge you to send a letter (with a copy to me) directly to Bishop Lori to testify to your praying to Cardinal Kung and to your supporting my petition, stating your reasons for doing so. His address is: His Excellency Bishop William E. Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport, 238 Jewett Avenue, Bridgeport CT, 06606-2892.

There will be a Mass to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the death of Cardinal Kung on March 12, 2005 at 12.10 pm at St. John the Evangelist Church, 279 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut.  Refreshments will be served after the Mass.  Further details are to be announced on our website or please call 203-329-9712.  You are all invited.

Prayers Answered: Recovery of Cancer Believed Through the Intercession of Cardinal Kung

With the permission of the author, a supporter of the Foundation, we publish below her letter describing her experience of being cured of cancer, she believes, through her praying to Cardinal Kung, even though she was receiving experimental medicine.  She wrote: “You sent me a prayer card with your beloved uncle’s picture which included a relic.  I said that prayer every day and touched the relic....I was diagnosed on Sept 8, 2003....the melanoma....has metastasized to the lungs....(the CAT scan showed so many white dots that one would think of a snowstorm), the back, the scalp, the left armpit lymph node and the liver....By December 2003, the scans showed an improvement....My doctors were thrilled....By February or so, the cancer in the liver was gone....By July 2004, the doctors weren’t sure if what they saw on the scans were scars where the tumors had been or very tiny tumors....By Sept 8, 2004....I was told that I no longer had to be on chemo...”  Please read the full story.  If you have a favor answered through Cardinal Kung’s intercession, please acknowledge his help and report this to the Foundation. 

New Vatican Guidelines for China
A seemingly inadvertent and partial response to my March 2000 Open Letter:
  Patriotic Association said to have characteristic of being “in schism

Even though my Open Letter to the Vatican’s hierarchy of more than four years ago (March 28, 2000) was never answered, the China guidelines (henceforth called 2004 guidelines) recently issued to the Roman Catholic bishops in China by a Vatican representative in Hong Kong, Msgr. Eugene Nugent, coincidentally answered some of the issues that I raised, as I shall indicate further on.  These 2004 guidelines, written in Chinese only, have already been widely circulated in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.  Because of the importance of these 2004 guidelines and of our belief that it was not distributed to all the world’s bishops (otherwise, there would be an official English or other language version), we have reprinted the English translation of these 2004 guidelines  together with the related guidelines issued in 1988 (henceforth called 1988 guidelines) in this newsletter.  There are 9 points in the 2004 guidelines explaining in detail how reconciliation should take place if a religious of the Patriotic Association, otherwise known as the open or official Church in China (hereafter CPA), indicates his/her desire to be reconciled with the loyal Roman Catholic Church in China, otherwise known as the underground Church in China.  Most importantly, the new 2004 guidelines confirm the validity of the often ignored and violated previous China guidelines issued by the Vatican to the world’s bishops in September 1988 .

At the beginning of the 2004 guidelines, Msgr. Nugent calls upon Roman Catholics in China to be honest and good citizens of their country, but also exhorts the Roman Catholic bishops in China to join together and firmly demand more religious freedom. The larger portion of his guidelines is concerned with relations between the Roman Catholic Church in China and the CPA. Essentially, Msgr. Nugent reminds the bishops in China that, while Pope John Paul II has called upon them to seek unity and reconciliation with the CPA, this cannot be at the cost of any compromise in Catholic faith and doctrine.

In my Open Letter of March 2000 to the Vatican , I had raised the question, “Is the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association a schismatic Church,” and had argued, on the basis of Catholic doctrine, Canon Law, and Papal pronouncements, that it was indeed in schism. Probably because of the Vatican’s remaining very quiet on this subject, many members of the Catholic hierarchy claimed that there was no schism in China.  Maryknoll Father Superior Leo B. Shea wrote: “Catholics are united. There is no schismatic Church in China.” In fact, I wrote in my Open Letter : “the Holy See has never formally declared the CPA is in schism, albeit the CPA has refused for the last 42 years to submit to the Roman Pontiff and has also refused for the last 42 years to be in communion with the members of the Church subject to him..…Why has the Holy See not declared the CPA to be in schism?”

Alas! In its 2004 China guidelines , without being semantic, the Vatican has now de facto acknowledged that the CPA has been in schism, because, as Msgr. Nugent puts it, “Obviously, the Patriotic Association has the characteristic of being in schism.” For the first time that I can recall, a directive authorized by an official Vatican representative uses the word “schism” to describe the CPA!  This is a milestone!

Inasmuch as the Vatican has now declared through its representative in Hong Kong that the CPA has the characteristic of being in schism, how could Cardinal Tomko make the statement three years ago in the United States that the “two groups in the Church in China (the underground Roman Catholic Church and the Patriotic Association) are not two Churches because we are all one Church?” (CKF newsletter July 2001)  How could the CPA with the “characteristic of being in schism” be the same Church as the Roman Catholic Church? How wrong was Cardinal Law when he wrote to me to express his “disappointment” when I pointed out the mistake Cardinal Tomko made when he declared the above statement? (CKF newsletter Christmas 2001)  How could Mr. Gerald F. Powers, Director of the U. S. Bishops’ Office of International Justice and Peace, have stated that the U. S. Catholic Conference “does not share the view that the bishops, priests, and faithful of the “open” Church are …..in schism?” (CKF newsletter July 2001).  As did the 1988 China guidelines, so do the 2004 guidelines make very clear and prove that these high ranking Vatican officials and religious superiors were very wrong when they proclaimed that the two groups in the Church in China are the same Church and that there is no schism in the “open” Church in China.  I therefore hope that Msgr. Nugent’s guideline that “the Patriotic Association has the characteristic of being in schism” effectively puts the above erroneous statements by Cardinal Tomko, Mr. Powers, Cardinal Law and others to rest and that hopefully they will correct their statements.

Msgr. Nugent lays out nine points in his 2004 guidelines  that should govern relations between the Roman Catholic Church in China and the CPA.  The following, in bold print, is a sample of his nine points in his 2004 guidelines, each of which I follow with a reference to my Open Letter .

1. The first point of the 2004 guidelines  deals with the “8-point” China guidelines issued by the Vatican in September 1988 and approved by the Holy Father. The 2004 guidelines emphasize that the 1988 guidelines are still in effect. I am very happy that finally, sixteen years later, the Vatican confirmed that these very important 1988 guidelines are not outdated, and are still in effect, because, as I pointed in my Open Letter, these 1988 guidelines “have…..practically been ignored by the rank and file of the Church’s (own) officials and have not been enforced.”  In fact, in one of my encounters with a very high Vatican official, I indicated to him my indignation at the widespread ignorance and violation of these 1988 guidelines by the Church hierarchy.  He said that the 1988 guidelines were outdated, because “time has changed.”  The 2004 guidelines have proved how wrong he was.  As you read the following paragraphs, you will also realize how wrong were many Cardinals, archbishops and other Church officials in granting public priestly faculties to the CPA priests in the United States.

2. The second point of the 2004 guidelines deals with liturgical celebrations.  All legitimate priests and deacons should obey the “8-point” directive (1998 guidelines), and will therefore not have “communicatio in sacris” either with illegitimate bishops and religious or with those religious under the Patriotic Association. (Please refer to the 5^th point in the “8-point” 1988 guidelines . The 5^th point of the Vatican’s 8-point 1988 guidelines to which Msgr. Nugent refers stipulates: “Another rather delicate point is the question of the liturgical celebrations.  In fact all ‘communicatio in sacris’ is to be avoided.  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.”

Based on the 1988 guideline above, I asked, in my Open Letter in the year 2000  and again in my last July 2004 newsletter : how could the Ordinaries of many dioceses in the United States such as New York, Boston, San Francisco and others grant priestly faculties to priests of the CPA, allowing them to offer Holy Masses publicly and to administer other sacraments openly in their Roman Catholic churches, when the guideline above specifically said that “all communicatio in sacris is to be avoided…..”, thereby openly violating again and again this vital Vatican guideline as stated in the paragraph above?  In my Open Letter, I wrote: “It gives the appearance and consequently the wrong message to the Chinese communist government that the [CPA] has been accepted by the universal Church in spite of the government’s agenda (independence from the Pope), its policy (continuous persecution of the underground Church) and its programs (“one child, one family” and its forced abortion policy to achieve this program).”  With this wrong message, how could one expect the Chinese government to negotiate seriously with the Vatican?

I have written letters to three bishops about the issue mentioned above.  Archbishop Levada of San Francisco replied: “….I would like to invite the Foundation to be more accurate in its statements concerning the Church in China and in particular concerning the priests from China who have been welcomed by the dioceses of this country.  The program of their formation and of their apostolic ministry is being carried out according to directives received from the Holy See…..”  While the archbishop did not specify to which directives he refers, it is very clear that the 5^th point of the 1988 guidelines (quoted above) issued by His Eminence Tomko explicitly forbids it.  Bishop Sheridan of New York City wrote: “Your letter…has saddened us…..What right you have to offer such advice to the Cardinal Archbishop of New York that he (the late Cardinal O’Connor) step out beyond his own jurisdiction and responsibility of call upon …..Chinese (Patriotic Association) priests in the United States to serve a ministry at Transfiguration in Chinatown which you consider to be flawed?”  Bishop Sheridan never offered us a reason for granting priestly faculties to CPA priests in relation to the guidelines mentioned above. He appeared to be totally ignorant of these guidelines. Cardinal Egan of New York never even replied to my letter to him regarding his recent appointment of a CPA priest to St. Joseph Church in New York Chinatown.

These ordinaries have openly pledged their loyalty, obedience and adherence to Magisterium when they were ordained.  The fulfillment of these pledges has to be proved by deeds, not merely by words.  These deeds undoubtedly consist of adhering to numerous Catholic dogmas, canon laws, Papal pronouncements, and numerous directives and guidelines, including the 1988 China guidelines officially issued by the Vatican.  By openly violating or ignoring the extremely important and explicit 1988 China guidelines mentioned above (“all communication in sacris is to be avoided…..”) these ordinaries’ allowing CPA priests to celebrate at religious functions in public in their churches appears to be flexing the rules of the Magisterium for reasons unknown to us. When changing or disregarding at will the Vatican’s China guidelines, the hierarchy of the Church causes gross confusion among the public and has done a serious disservice to the underground Roman Catholic Church in China.  This is not fair and may have serious consequences. For example, what would prevent the Catholic faithful from concluding that they too can change or disregard at will any other Vatican guidelines without any fear of reprisal because some bishops and other ranking religious are doing it?

I believe that the examples mentioned above amply illustrate that the Vatican has had a China policy which was and is still so confusing that it unnecessarily prolonged the suffering of the underground Roman Catholic Church in China.

3. The fifth, sixth, and seventh points of the 2004 guidelines deal with the reconciliation of the Patriotic Association religious with the underground Church in China. In order to avoid further divisiveness, Patriotic Association priests and deacons can be reconciled only after the entire body of clergy reaches a consensus establishing unequivocal terms and conditions for the acceptance of the Patriotic Association clergy and religious….Priests and deacons requesting to be accepted by the loyal and legitimate bishops and to join their diocese must pass a period  of discernment, and fulfill the terms as stipulated in the paragraph 8, sections A, B, C, G, and H of this document before they can be accepted and supported….Extreme care must be taken to explain the situations as described in paragraphs 5 and 6 above to the faithful in order to avoid potential confusion and divisiveness.

These 2004 guidelines are related to the 4^th item of the Vatican’s 1988 China guidelines: “In the course of various encounters, care must be taken to avoid attitudes which could wound the sensibility of the ‘silent’ majority of those Catholics who have suffered and are suffering for their fidelity to the Holy Father.”  These directives are related to each other because they both point to the different ways in which the failure to obey these directives has wounded the underground Roman Catholic Church in China — either by improper relations with CPA clergy and religious in China or by improper relations with CPA seminarians, clergy, and religious outside of China. The latter impropriety is precisely the wound chronically caused by Maryknoll’s and diocesan ordinaries’ sponsorship and support of approximately fifty CPA seminarians and priests to study for free in Roman Catholic seminaries each year across the United States since the early-1990s. Underground Roman Catholic Church seminarians and priests are deliberately excluded in this Maryknoll/diocese-sponsored program.  This program was carried out in so much secrecy that we were not even aware of its existence until the late 1990s.  We did not understand why this program should be limited to the CPA personnel and why it was carried out so secretly.  We asked the question in our Open Letter and commented: “A policy or practice by any organization or community within the universal Church that aims at educating only CPA seminarians unquestionably wounds the suffering underground Roman Catholic Church in China – spiritually, psychologically, and financially.”  Now, the above mentioned 2004 guidelines clearly establish certain rules in order to avoid such a divisive Maryknoll/diocesan project and “extreme care” must be taken to avoid such confusion and divisiveness created by Maryknoll. I hope that because of these 2004 guidelines, projects such as that of Maryknoll will never occur again, thereby avoiding attitudes that could wound the sensibility of the underground Roman Catholic Church in China.

4. In my Open Letter to the Vatican in 2000, I also questioned the legitimacy of the requirement in the United States for granting priestly faculties to CPA priests. The requirement was that each Patriotic Association priest had only to recite once and in private the Profession of Faith as proof of his allegiance to the Pope.  I asked after I elaborated extensively the fallacy of this requirement: “Should not the Holy See revise the approach to reconciling CPA priests with the Roman Catholic Church?”  I commented that “reciting the Profession of Faith once by the CPA priests in private without their explicitly acknowledging the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and in the meantime still reporting to the schismatic CPA bishops can hardly be construed as the faith demanded by the Pope when he said ‘unity (which) springs from conversion of the heart and from sincere acceptance of the unchanging principles laid down by Christ for His Church.’ ”

Msgr. Nugent’s eighth directive in his 2004 China guidelines has answered my question and observation in the paragraph above. He has corrected a very important requirement.  He lays down very specific instructions for reconciling CPA deacons and priests with the Roman Catholic Church in China. Among them we find: Before the acceptance, he must profess his obedience and respect to the legitimate bishop in front of two or more loyal priests.  He must read the “professio fidei,” and promise never to speak or do anything damaging the reconciliation.  He must also clearly declare that he opposes the Patriotic Association and its “three autonomies” principle. He must publicly reject the principles of the Patriotic Association. He must publicly declare that he no longer belongs to the Patriotic Association. He must declare that he will not have any further relationship with the Patriotic Association in the future, nor he will support it.  He must declare that he obeys the “8-point” directive (1988 guidelines), and that he will not have any “communicatio in sacris” with any illegal bishops or religious belonging to the Patriotic Association.  Finally, he must sign a document to prove his position.  The original statement must be kept in the diocesan files while a duplicate is to be sent to the representative of the Holy Father.

I pray that all those ordinaries who have accepted CPA priests and other religious in their dioceses follow the very clear 1988 and 2004 China guidelines for officially converting those CPA priests and religious to the universal Roman Catholic Church or else deny them “communicatio in sacris” in the event that these CPA priests and religious refuse to follow item 8 of Msgr. Nugent’s China guidelines.

In short, Msgr. Nugent’s 2004 China guidelines are an unambiguous and forthright upholding of the Vatican’s 1988 China guidelines. This is precisely what I was requesting in my Open Letter. In the seventh section of my Open Letter, I wrote: “As noted in many of the questions above, this (1988 China guidelines) has been ignored. Have other directives been issued by the Holy See that render this particular directive obsolete? If so, the faithful, especially those in China, have the right to know. If this particular directive has not been rescinded, why has the Holy See not enforced it among members of the hierarchy?”  Msgr. Nugent has now clarified this issue.

Please be sure to investigate these links for more information and detail regarding the guidelines and the struggle of the persecuted Roman Catholic Church in China: Directives On Some Of The Problems Of The Church In Continental China, by Cardinal Tomlko, the AsiaNews press release, Holy See Calls for Beijing to Free Detained Priests, Bishops and Seminarians, and our own press release, Arrest of Eight Underground Roman Catholic Priests and Two Seminarians.

Please Help Us Financially to Support the Underground Catholic Church in China

We continue to finance the education of underground religious inside and outside China.  We now have approximately 75 underground religious studying in Europe and receiving our financial assistance.  Each priest in Europe receives daily Mass stipends amounting to approximately US$3,000 per year; the seminarians and sisters in Europe each receive an annual subsidy of US$1,200 per year.  In addition, we support a large number of underground seminarians’ education in China at US$600 per year.  God has blessed China with abundant vocations. Unfortunately, during the last fiscal year, we were only able to assist some 20 seminarians in China, a figure that is far below the request of the underground bishops as there is simply insufficient funding.  In addition, we continue to send thousands of Mass stipends directly to underground bishops and priests in China, and to fund the orphanage for handicapped children, convents and many projects in the underground dioceses.  We continue many other projects as we have reported in details in our Easter 2003 newsletter.  When you add all these expenses together, they are far less than what we received from the public. We had to depend on deficit financing in order to maintain these vitally important programs.  In the fiscal year that ended in June 2004, with the exception of a restricted gift of approximately $ 50,000, which we are not allowed to spend on general projects according to the wish of the donor, we received approximately (not yet independently audited) $ 262,000 in general contributions, while our project expenses are $266,000 and administrative & general expenses $38,000, totaling $ 309,000, and thereby incurring a deficit of $ 47,000.  We thank you for your generous support in the past.  Please remember the many urgent needs of the underground Church during this Christmas season

2004 Annual Masses for Underground Church in China

I am happy to report that on October 3, 2004 approximately 200 Masses were offered around the world for the persecuted Roman Catholic Church in China. A church in Alexandria, Virginia offered all its 7 Masses on October 3 for the persecuted Church in China with approximately 5,000 people attending.  Thank you all for offering these Masses.  The annual Mass for 2005 will be on October 2.

Cardinal Kung Foundation Testified at the Congressional-Executive Commission on China

I was invited to testify at a hearing of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China on November 18.  The hearing was called to examine the current situation with respect to the Chinese government repression of religious believers and religious practice.  Among other things, on behalf of an underground Roman Catholic Church bishop in China, I requested that the Commission convey its plea to the administration that, while negotiating with China for religious freedom, the United States government proposes that many prisoners, both living and dead, be officially and posthumously exonerated of so called crimes of which the Chinese government falsely accused them five decades ago.  In doing so, the reputation of these living and dead religious prisoners of conscience can be restored in China.  Those who are still living can at least once again enjoy equal treatment in the society.  For details, please visit our Testimony pages. I also responded to questions from the panel.

The Board of Directors joins me in wishing you and your family blessings during this Holy Season.

Yours sincerely in Christ,
Joseph Kung

Please Remember The Cardinal Kung Foundation In Your Will.
Thank You.